Religion Influences, but Majority Rules

With a simple twist, the will of the majority as influenced by a religion can be sold simply as undue influence by religion -- period -- with nothing being said about how the majority does have the right to its say, nor a thought being given that people do have a right to be influenced by religion as they make government decisions.

Of course, some would say, "No, they do not have the right to be influenced by their religion, as church and state should be separate."

We were discussing the mega million dollar lottery, I and friends, and of course it was noted that Utahns flock to Idaho to participate. My mind flew to a news headline that had referred to the lottery as being the "Utah Lottery," with thought being, so many Utahns buy tickets, it is, in essence, their lottery.

As my friend spoke, all the tax money being lost by not allowing a lottery right here in Utah was mentioned. And, the fact came up that Utah is a rare state to not allow gambling. (Utah and Hawaii are the only states banning it.)

The notion that government should not be dictating what people do with their own lives was touched upon.

Then, the kicker. "Now, go ahead and tell me religion doesn't run this state." Those weren't his exact words, as I cannot remember them, but they are close. He might have said, "You tell me, this isn't a theocracy."

We parted, and I was left to consider it all. It would be much later that I came to think of what would have been the right thing to say. I should have asked, "If it the majority who are against gambling, is it wrong for that majority to be being influenced by their religion?"

Perhaps more thoughts tomorrow, unless I chase off to a different topic.

Going Against Constitution Shouldn't be Only Concern

George Washington, are you saying, then, that instead of just asking if something is against the Constitution, we should also ask if that something is wise, and, if it is, just change Constitution?

I ask this question of George because of the quote I blogged on a few days ago. Washington said the Constitution is not perfect. He suggested the populace  might should alter the document, because, "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."

That's us he is talking about. Well, it is us along with all the others who came after the founding fathers. The founders were no more inspired, had no more wisdom, and possessed no more virtue than us. And, yes, Washington said, change the Constitution if changes are warranted.

Taking such words to heart, we should do more than to ask if something breaks the Constitution. We should not be satisfied just to keep everything in line with the Constitution. If we can see something should be, but isn't allowed under the Constitution the way it is currently written, then we should amend that venerable document.

George Washington was Hardly Apologist for Alcohol

George Washington was hardly an apologist for alcohol.

"Refrain from drink which is the source of all evil -- and the ruin of half the workmen in this Country," he said.

And, he also said, "An aching head and trembling limbs, which are the inevitable effects of drinking, disincline the hands from work."

Should be noticed both quotes speak of how alcohol can take a person out of the workplace. Drugs can do the same. That drugs and alcohol can affect the productiveness of society should be a concern

Too Many of My Facebook Friends Seek Armed Rebellion

I frown and fear when Facebook friends post such comments as,  "My muskets are primed and ready for the 2nd Revolutionary war coming soon to America."

That came across on a FB post just the other day.

Another Facebook friend a couple weeks ago spoke of going to Washington, gun in hand and anxious to have others join him. He spoke of taking hostages until federal authorities returned to Americans rights that are being lost.

This came just days after he posted something that sounded suicidal.

I Facebooked him back, saying I hoped he was speaking in frustration, but was not serious. He replied that he was serious, indeed. I felt like a counselor of some sort, trying to say things to talk him out of what would be a horrible crime.

Fortunately, I suppose, his ambition was too much to actually undertake. At least, we've heard nothing on the news about anyone taking congressmen hostage -- yet.

I also think of another Facebook friend, more than a year ago posting something calling for a revolution -- an armed revolution -- against the government. I was astounded, astonished, aghast.

But, it seems such thoughts are no longer uncommon. No longer do you have to live in Hayden Lake, Idaho, to have such thoughts. They are so common that you run into your own friends posting them.

That was three of my friends -- three, three of my FB friends talking of taking up arms against the government. This is just among my Facebook friends, so imagine how many people might think this way.

They Will Still have Their Agency

How does one respond to those who say marijuana should be legalized, and prostitution should be legalized, and gambling should be allowed, because people should have their agency?

After all, wasn't it Satan who sought to take away agency?

I would say, in answer, to look a little closer, and watch much of the argument be flipped on its head.

Read the story on Satan's plan to take away agency.  Everybody would have been saved. No one would have been lost. That is not so unlike legalizing drugs, is it? If we make them legal, those who use them will all be "saved."

Satan's plan would have taken away accountability for sins. By legalizing drugs, we would, likewise, take away much of the accountability. If you remove the crime, you remove accountability.

Satan's plan did not win. Instead, the plan chosen allowed people to sin (to break laws, if you will), but it provided that there would consequences actions.

Adding consequences does not remove agency.

Case in point: marijuana. Many a person is smoking marijuana though smoking marijuana is illegal. If they lack the agency to smoke pot, however are they doing it anyway?

So, truth be told, laws against drugs and such do not take away agency. They add to the accountability. They provide more punishment. But they do not prevent a person from choosing to do what they will.

Washington Called on Posterity to Change Constitution

What would the forefathers think of us tampering with their Constitution? Take George, for example. What would he think?

"The warmest friends and the best supports the constitution has," Washington wrote in a letter in 1787, "do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable, and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise therefrom, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment it is not to be obtained; and, as there is a constitutional door open for it, I think the people (for it is with them to judge), can, as they will have the advantage of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary, as ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."

Perhaps, then, to some degree, in order to preserve the greatness of the founding fathers, we need to be equal to them, not buried with them.

George Washington Weighs in on Immigration

Here's a quote from George Washington that might fit into the immigration debate:

 "The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and previleges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment."

That's taken from a letter Washington wrote Dec. 2, 1783.