Mr T’s rants and ravings

So I keep seeing pro-abortion people complain about clergy, especially but not exclusively Catholic priests, trying to influence laws and lawmakers in the battle against abortion. But here is the thing. These same people seem to always support clergy involved in civil rights changes to the laws. These same people support Martin Luther King day for example. There was a prime example of a cleric moving beyond his church and trying to influence lawmakers, change the law, and be a political activist. And yet the same people who say that clerics should be punished for political activism against abortion support all the honors and accolades that MLK gets.

Does that constitute hypocrisy? Of course it does. No reasonable person could disagree. But the way these people seem to see it clergy should fight with them and that’s ok and their obligation. On the other hand clergy taking opposing views (to these people) is wrong and a violation of some kind of  the separation of church and state. Complete hypocrisy.

If you want to complain about clergy trying to influence abortion laws go ahead. It’s free speech. But unless you also complain about the “medaling” of MLF, Jesse Jackson and all the clergy who fought slavery before the Civil War you are a hypocrite and I reserve the right to think far less of your integrity and honesty.

The sad truth is that generally wars are not won  by people dying for their country or their beliefs. Wars are won by people willing and able to make other people die for their country or beliefs. This is of course why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. The “other side” is more than willing to kill other people while the people we are supposedly fighting with (as opposed to against) are either unwilling or unable to do the same.

I was listening to a news report on Afghanistan this morning. People are talking about Taliban setting up road blocks. Well why doesn’t the first person through a Taliban roadblock go to the nearest village and come back with 50 armed men and blow the roadblock away? Well obviously because there are not 50 men armed, ready, willing and able to make that sort of thing happen. Why not? It’s not like the Afghan people are known for being cowards and unarmed. To the contrary the Afghans have a long reputation for being fierce and fearless fighters. Is that a myth? Listening to the news you would have to conclude so.

And the government? Bah, in both Iraq and Afghanistan it appears that government officials are more interested in retaining power and feathering their own nests than providing good honest government and taking care of their people. No wonder the people are not that interested in protecting the government. And yet they show little interest in raising up and voting in honest people either.

Corrupt governments are a problem everywhere of course. But if you notice they are more common in less developed areas. Coincidence? I think not. I think these areas remain under developed precisely because the people there are unwilling to get rid of their corrupt governments. 

Oh I hear the lines about the government has all the power, all the guns, and blah blah blah. This of course explains why communism is still rampant in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and East Germany. And also why the north American colonies are still firmly under the control and the incredibly powerful empire of Great Britain. What was I thinking?

Oh wait, there is no more USSR and East Germany has been part of a united and Democratic Germany for years now. I’m pretty use the north American British colonies have been independent for a couple of years as well. Weird. None of that should be possible.

I have long ago lost patience with Iraq and Afghanistan. The people there seem all too willing to let the Islamic militants kill them and to let the US and others die trying to protect them. I say we let them decide on their own what they want. If they want to have an Islamic militant dictatorship let them have it. Of course they should also know that if their government attacks the US we’ll not feel too sorry for them when we have to bomb the heck out of their country to stop it all. It is after all what they, if not actually want, are willing to put up with.

I really start to worry these days when someone uses the terms reasonable and common sense to describe laws. It reminds me of the story of the Emperors’ new clothes. In that story people were told that only smart people with good taste could see the clothing and no one wanted to “admit” that they were stupid or had bad taste. The same is true with the terms reasonable and common sense.

So today when someone says that a law is a reasonable and common sense answer to some problem I immediately assume that the law is neither reasonable or common sense. Instead I assume someone is trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes and to distract them from the parts of the law that must certainly be either unreasonable or lacking in common sense.

Now in many cases the law may seem reasonable or a part of common sense to the people proposing it. After all few people propose things they believe are unreasonable or illogical. But if they have to announce those attributes than they must clearly understand that others will not share those opinions. So I see their claims as an attempt to short circuit arguments and a de facto admission that they have a weak case. It’s like waving a red flag announcing “this law has huge problems!”

But people keep doing it. Why? Maybe they think most people are stupid and will fall for it. Maybe they’re right. But its pretty scary.