Some Thoughts on the Election Results

November 9, 2012

Odd thought:  Part of me is glad that we lost, because we’re taking it a lot better than liberals would have.

If this turns out to have been the point of no return for America, I will miss her, but she was never going to last forever; it was always only a matter of time, if you think about it.

But how am I supposed to interact with certain of my friends from now on, knowing that they voted for even more forced redistribution?  Imagine if your friends were in with the mob.  “No, you don’t understand,” your friend says; “they’re really nice people when you get to know them, and they came through with money for my grandmother when she needed it most.”  But the fact remains that they got that money by coming to your store and extorting it from you with veiled threats.  How would you feel about it?  Would those friendships survive?

That’s without even mentioning how this administration has started outlawing Christianity.  Under the HHS mandate, Christians are still free to worship for an hour on Sundays (if they must), but if they go out into the world to care for the sick and feed the hungry (or try to start a business), the state will force them to pay for abortifacient drugs.  This is the law, now, in the United States of America.  It hasn’t fully taken effect yet, but my friends voted to make sure it does.  They voted to start making my religion against the law.

Even nineteenth-century Democrats never forced abolitionists to help slave owners buy more slaves.

This election was also a triumph of hatred over love.  Liberals convinced themselves to hate Mitt Romney, and also convinced themselves that conservatives are the ones who hate—that we hate women, that we hate black people, etc.  It’s difficult to have a conversation with that.

3 Responses to “Some Thoughts on the Election Results”

  1. Snoodickle Says:

    All that, and no congratulations to President Obama on winning reelection?

  2. Y.D.A. Says:

    So, what about Quakers? They’ve been forced to pay for wars since the very beginning of this country, and many consider that against their religion. Has their faith been outlawed?

    Or Christian Scientists, who are required to send their children to doctors even though it’s against their religion.

    Or Rastafarians. A major part of their religion is smoking marijuana, which is still illegal in most of the country. Is that banned? What about Muslims who can’t practice polygamy or child marriage? Aztecs that want to practice human sacrifice?

    Freedom of religion has never been an absolute guarantee of liberty for specific practices; not in 1776 and not today. Generally religious practice is subordinated to law and policy, with exceptions only made where reasonable.

    • Your example of Quakers is different in not one but two important ways.

      First, they’re not being forced to pay for or participate in war directly (in fact, our country is very careful to permit conscientious objectors to opt out of an otherwise general draft); they’re being forced to pay taxes, same as the rest of us. By this standard, Christians have been forced to pay for abortions long before now, since the government subsidizes abortions.

      Second, the national defense is one of the core functions of government—it’s one of the main reasons for having a government in the first place. Subsidizing abortions, I hope it goes without saying, is not. For Quakers to be in a country that doesn’t pay for war with tax money, they would almost have to be in a country that doesn’t have a government. Taking money from some to give to others, by contrast, is not a core function of government (though it is now, remarkably, the main thing our federal government does); it’s organized robbery, even when it doesn’t also involve killing (which, in this case, it does).

      Your example of Christian Scientists is unfamiliar to me. Can you show me where Christian Scientists, in America, are forced to send their children to doctors?

      Your remaining examples are, first of all, distinguishable in that they are negative rather than positive—at worst, the government is preventing them from doing something their religion compels them to do, while in this case the government is compelling people to do something their religion tells them is gravely immoral (killing innocent children). Second, you’re putting being forced to help kill innocent children on the same level as being required not to smoke pot. In the extreme case, you’re equating the hypothetical Aztec’s being required to refrain from sacrificing children to the Christian’s being forced to participate in sacrificing children.

      “Freedom of religion has never been an absolute guarantee of liberty for specific practices; not in 1776 and not today. Generally religious practice is subordinated to law and policy, with exceptions only made where reasonable.”

      Your perspective fails to notice that in 1776, the government was a fraction of the intrusive leviathan we have today. If our forefathers came to America for religious freedom and eventually fought a Revolution over things like stamp taxes, do you think they would have stood for Christians’ being forced to participate in the killing of innocent children?

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: