Promises and Secrets
A website for those not afraid to examine their beliefs, compare them to the real world, and make sure they fit.
That's silly. The definition of politics includes the concept of group dynamics. The political process in this country was originally designed to conform to the will of the people. If you are not willing to express your opinion, how can anyone know your will? If a debate elicits an emotional response, it is because the issue is important to the person responding.
You hear it said everywhere, "Never discuss religion or politics."
What do you think?
Speak up or forever hold your peace.
If you don't speak up because you don't like to discuss politics, how do you get your opinion known? If you want higher taxes, how do your neighbors feel about that? Why do you want to pay higher taxes? Are you interested in how that would affect your neighbors? If you knew that higher taxes would cause your neighbors to lose their house, would you still want them higher? If you knew that your taxes were going to the welfare neighbors that are working under the table selling drugs, but still collecting food stamps and stealing your firewood at night, would you try to find a way to prevent them from getting your welfare taxes, but still help others in need?
If you don't discuss this issue with others, how would you discover other approaches or solutions?
Who's deciding for me?
There are many political, religious, and lifestyle debates raging in this country. Most of the vocal participants are a few dedicated individuals in the minority that have some bone to pick with society. Some are in the majority, but think there is just nothing that can be done. For the most part, the majority of people want to be left alone to lead their lives, raise their children, and participate in the community. These busy people do not care whether the city has a new rule about dog leashes, the increase in the number of city council members, or the color of street signs, so they stay home and mind their own business not realizing that some of the ongoing debates are very much their business.
Few care enough to act, but are affected by those who do
Suppose there is a homosexual that feels that society is insulting them or preventing them from exercising some right they feel they should have. If this individual feels strongly enough, they will seek out others that feel the same way and try to get something done about their issue. The group may contact a sympathetic organization, like the ACLU, and push for some action. If the ACLU feels there is enough support, or at least a minumum of resistance, they will push for legislative changes to solve the issue.
Who decides what should go before the people?
Now, suppose there is a Christian that believes in the Bible and is busy minding their own business at home living their lives. One day their Christian child comes home from public school and tells the parents about the movie they watched in class expressing how homosexuals live and that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle. What's more, the film is rather explicit about the method in which they participate in sexual activities. The parent, knowing what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, decides to go down to the school to speak to the teacher. The teacher indicates to the parent that the program is an "opt out" program and that the child was "informed" of this option. By the time this conversation takes place, it is too late.
Harder to back up than sneak in
This discussion should have taken place before the school allowed the policy change without giving the parents a chance to respond, before the politician decided to change a school policy that clearly affected every student and family, before the ACLU ever got close to a politician to push for a policy that affects so many people. So who is at fault?
The founders had it right
The culture in this country depends on the adherence to policies and standards set by the framers of the Constitution. These standards allow the majority to decide on any changes or new policies. We elect representatives to govern us and make decisions that are in line with the majority will of the people. If an issue is such that the opinion of the majority is not clear, then the issue should be brought before the people. This is not happening today. What happened in our scenario?
A few people pushed hard enough for a clearly significant issue to bypass the review of the people and go straight to the education process. Somewhere between the concerns of the original homosexual and the movie at the school, a decision was made that bypassed the determination of the will of the people. This is only an example of what can happen, but this is exactly what happened when the schools began to teach evolution and when the Obama administration passed the latest Health Care package. The average citizen was not asked if he wanted to pay for a package whether he wanted it or not, was not asked if he wanted to be fined if he did not want to purchase it, or even if he thought the package would be better than anything he could provide for himself.
Remember the terms "fair" and "honest"?
Is there an appeal process? Yes. Can it be successful? Perhaps. But the burdens of cost and effort to repeal sneaky legislation should not be placed on the majority who never wanted it, but on those who bypassed the clear intent of the Constitution that the federal government is limited in power and any power not specifically given remains with the state. The state government is responsible to the people, and if the people resist, the state should correct the problem by disciplining the offending official and charging the "sneaky" organization (ACLU) for the correction, especially if a misinterpretation of the law is involved.
Disagree? Find an error? Contact us at email@example.com and give us your view.
Tell us your side.