A Challenge to the American Ideal of Liberty

In Thomas Jefferson's "Notes on Virginia" in 1781, an excerpt regarding the freedom of religion reads, "The legitimate power of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -Fortunately for him, he didn't have a member of the taliban living next door. What Mr. Jefferson said is accurate in so far as only a single neighbor with limited capacities lives next door to him and the threat posed to society as a whole is relatively small. The weakness in this view of tolerance finally comes to light 200 years down the road when whole segments of immigrant societies move in and remain unassimilated over multiple generations.

The ultimate challenge is not really one of physical violence, while that could be a manifestation of the danger posed by the above scenario, but rather the violence done to the American understanding of liberty and justice. The reason why America rebelled against England, was to establish a new, separate political entity, whose aim was to protect the "inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The constitution is the outline for the means by which a government can function and achieve those ends. Note that the Declaration of Independence identifies the source of these rights as a benevolent Creator, i.e. God.

This gives us a new take on the question at hand, as to what happens when blocks of people move in and remain unassimilated with a completely different view of who or what God is, and what he does or does not grant to his creation. There is no human tradition, religious heritage or philosophy, aside from a Christian understanding of God, that provides the requisite frame work for man to consider God as a benevolent Creator granting His creatures inalienable and irrevocable rights as outlined in the declaration. In short, the liberty extended to man as asserted in the Declaration, is totally undone if the tenets of islam, particularly the more radical elements, are widely adopted across vast swaths of society.

More succinctly, we run the risk of tolerating philosophies that do not believe in liberty, nor see the justice of a live and let live ideal that gives tolerance such an attractive quality. If they do not believe that we have a God who grants us liberty to adopt whatever religion we please, then they have a moral imperative to coerce others to adopt their beliefs or eliminate dissenting voices through whatever means their religion deems appropriate.

Unfortunately, the alternative to government's tolerance of religion is not superior, namely either the creation of a state religion, or regulation of thought. However, I think we can and do have a vested security interest in ensuring that we do not allow institutions to become established that are innately hostile to our concept of liberty. To what degree the government can or should exercise its jurisdiction in regulating extreme religious schools, libraries, etc.. that promote violence to Americans and their ideals, is beyond my capacity

Thomas Jefferson continued in his piece writing, "Religion is well supported to preserve peace and order; or if a sect arises, whose tenets should subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it." He had a firm belief that truth needs not a defender and reason will eventually vanquish error. We are no longer able to exercise the good sense he describes to see and respond to danger signs, as a society. Nor can we dismiss the false teachings of shariah law that would suppress women and minority religions with laughter.

I believe it takes more than reason to keep things in their proper order and proportions. It requires more than reason to rid ourselves of dangerous error. It requires an act of God in converting individuals to faith in Jesus Christ. Only then can we rightly discern truth, and establish by His divine providence, relatively more justice between men. Without God's help, we are all lost.

Blogging is for people too lazy to write books

This is more or less a test for my first endeavor at blogging. Hence, I'll lay a few lines describing my decision to blog, which may or may not be applicable to all bloggers universally, but defenitely applies to me.

Blogging is for people too lazy to write books. I don't really want to take the time to organize my thoughts and create an orderly account that may serve some use or generate a pecuniary interest. Writing books requires devising a plan, creating things like outlines and plot lines. One's work must have grammar that is acceptable to a professional editor. Mental work is hard, I spend enough time doing it during normal business hours. Yet, the idea of conveying something to someone, albeit someone to whom I have no obligation too, or perhaps an anonymous reader, is tempting. This is ultimately a temptation to one's ego.

Blogging, then, belongs is an exercise for people who think they have something worthwhile to say. Implicit in every single blog, is at least at the moment of its creation, the belief on the part of the writer that what they are writing has some validity, and value, even if only for the blogger himself. Some may argue that they blog for only altruistic purposes, that they aim only to help their fellow man with advice. The problem is, however, how does one know they are helping someone else. I could write some advise on how to change oil in one's car. A reader then attempts to take my advice, but being a poor mechanic, manages to break something. Or perhaps the reader fixes his car, starts driving and immediately gets into a car wreck and becomes seriously injured. My blog is only 'helpful' in so far as we claim that we know what is truely helpful. Again, we can say that blogging is an exercise for those who think they have something valid to say.

It is also interesting to note, that human nature is such that even man's greatest benevolence is lower than God's most menial act of mercy. Man is corrupt and fallen by nature, what he creates will always be tinged to some degree by his fallen state. The only exception possible, being the blog which is directly inspired by God Himself. All else is only an expression of the author solely.

Incidentally, as a Christian, (yes I am a Christian), we can see why it is generally better to spend time reading the Bible, and consequently listening to God, as opposed to worrying about what one is going to say and write. We can trust God's written word to be without corrupted human motives and to be something for our own benefit. Nonetheless, I hope to blog something that may, at least in part, be profitable in the future and perhaps make a few friends along the way.

I named the blog the honest inquirer, as I put a high value on intellectual honesty and appreciate well reasoned debate with good will on all sides, with the aim of arriving closer to the truth. I hope to find others who value these things as well.