In the preamble to the Declaration of independence, our forefathers outlined their specific reasons very carefully for breaking from their mother country, England. Men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And when those rights are taken or diminished they have a right to stand up and defend them.
The steps that our country has taken since 9/11 have diminished the rights of it's citizen's. Judges no longer fully check the spying of our government. I realize that those that are being spied upon are not likely to be your typical citizen; however, it is the violation of the human right to liberty that should shake American's to the core and yet only musters muffled opposition. Perhaps it is because non-citizen's are the primary target of these violations that most American's feel safe. I fear that if the American Right doesn't correct this mistake, it will forever return the 'inalienable right' won by tens of thousands of American's fighting an oppressive government in exchange for fear caused by the death of thousands of brave Americans and foreigners in the Twin Towers.
It should be the goal of every conscientious American to restore those check's and balances. I heard on the radio yesterday an assumably patriotic American saying that those that would restore those rights would 'grant freedom to terrorists.' We must also remember that another American concept that all men are innocent until proven guilty. A man is not a terrorist until after you have proven it. You shouldn't be able to spy on that man until you have proven to a judge that you have reasonable cause to believe he is a terrorist.
I believe so firmly in this that I argue that we should not surrender our rights to seek an uncertain security; but, like those brave revolutionaries we should be willing to stand up for our ideals and be willing to risk another 9/11 if it means that we all maintain our rights.
Now, for the three people that read my blog...feel free to call me a fanatic. Just don't forget that big brother may be watching. Yeah right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As one of your self proclaimed 3 readers, I think you would be disappointed if I did not comment. Ultimately I think the greater insight might come from your discussion of how you came to these conclusions. From an altruistic perspective I could argue that your idea has merit but I cannot bring myself to shout out the "here here!" Ultimately I find myself more pragmatic.
There are countless examples in scripture where Heavenly Father ordained that individual rights should be sacrificed for the greater good. The law of Moses was far more restrictive than the patriot act. The law of consecration asks for more sacrifice than your government has ever asked of you. The fine balance and your strongest argument is the slipery slope but I would argue we are currently not in danger of crossing the inflection point.
For the lack of a better analogy I am going to reference an activist slogan. "Think globaly, act locally" In the global conflict with Islamic Facisim my local willingness to sacrifice some freedoms is chump change. I think your approach thinks locally and hence sacrifices global freedoms. If this Facisim is not defeted I guarantee your freedoms will be impacted (and there recent threats against your beloved Italy based on the Popes comments support this interpretation). Name for me a right the Patriot act has taken from you that you are not willing to sacrifice in the name of defeting facism.
This is a comment field, not a blog in and of itself so I will hold my tongue but I am willing to let the government tap my calls home to my wife, I am willing to let them know how much money I have in my checking account, and they can know that I spend far too much time on espn.com IF that translates into casting a wide enough net to halt the facism that would kill my wife, topple our economy, and nuke the next sporting event I choose to attend. If I have to take one step towards Orwell to avoid Dante... so be it.
"Anyone who would trade their freedom for safety deserves neither freedom nor safety."
-Ben Franklin
I am far more inclined to agree with Pat. Once those in power have removed the rights of the governed, it often take a revolution to win those freedoms back again. One of the main reasons our country has remained free for over two hundred years has been the counterweight of ambitious men in all three branches of government.
While Perry cites "countless examples in scripture", they are instances where Heavenly Father (who can and will perfectly balance freedoms and rights) dictates the rules. The law of consecration does indeed ask far more - part of what is being asked is for those in charge of the program to act in the best interest of the greater good. With Church government in place, and a huge peer pressure/cultural influence to help guide that power, the law of consecration might - and I stress might - work in our present world.
However, in the world at large, those counterweights have been reduced to featherweights.
It is far more likely that your life, your freedom, and your future will be impacted by the amassing of power by those "patriots" in power here in our country than by foreign terrorists. Don't get me wrong, I believe the battle against terrorists is real; however, I also believe that we must not trade away our freedoms to someone else so that they can make us safe.
We must all be vigilant without becoming vigilanties.
Post a Comment