subscribe or follow us:                    

Statism, Feminism, Homosexuality, and the Christian Right

4 comments

I am neither “Left” or “Right”.  I stand against statism and for liberty.  The problem we see though is the left and the right both seem to feel we must support their causes at federal levels with legislation.  Now what we have here is a constant tug of war with issues such as homosexuality, the misunderstood concepts of feminism being opposed by the Patriarchal Christian right and they claw each others eyes out.  I support many Feminist ideals.  Feminism is the radical notion that women are people too.  Feminism acknowledges more than just a woman’s right, it encompass many philosophical concepts that pertain to all races and genders.  The “Right” perception of Feminism is often a misunderstanding, leaving much of the right talking ignorantly about the subject.  Now this being said, I want to disagree and agree with both the Christian Right and the left at the same time. 

I am not arguing pro or anti any of these philosophies, what I am arguing to everyone is the federal government’s place in the moral issues we wish to legislate.  I may agree with certain concepts, but I want to handle the problems that arise.  I do not want government to do so for us.  The government has proven capable of getting rich and feeding bureaucrats in the name of “progress” while accomplishing nothing.  Federal government is not the answer.  If we want to truly change the world it will not happen as a Dictator tyrannically tells us how to believe, it will start by us slowly teaching the masses and building a new philosophy from the ground up.

Some become angered if I suggest that something is not the place of government on the left and the right.  This is not to oppose the ideal, but to question how we accomplish the desired result.  Government repeatedly grows rich as the subjects it claims to help grow hungry and the end result is failure to all but the bureaucrats who preached compassion and got their six figure salaries.  Just look at the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  Government takes your land, kills your people, and tells you that  you need it to make decisions about your life.  Why is this still around?  The Department of the Interior is one of the biggest scams ever pulled on the Citizens of the United States.

Government should protect us.  It’s job is not to control our thoughts or morals, it simply protects us.  Most of the protection needs to happen at a local level and not a federal level.  This leaves the federal government completely irrelevant to most issues.

Let’s talk marriage.  Why does government license marriage?  Why should it control marriage?  Was marriage not a function of the church?  Can government really tell us who to marry or how this marriage should look?  In a free country can federal government really regulate this?  When government does so it ends the separation of church and state concept by the state claiming the powers of the church.  Get the government completely out of marriage.  If two men wish to marry and can not find a church to acknowledge their marriage they should start their own institution to grant their marriages.  By our regulating marriage by government we see how government has stepped in and used it as a tool to extract more tax money and have more control of our lives through this control.  It is time we started cutting federal control out of every possible aspect of our lives and finding ways to deal with issues free of the Federal Imposition.

We should be fighting against this bloated Federal Imposition that has grown upon our liberty like a cancer, not fighting against each other.  We can worry about other issues at local levels or just accept that maybe we should re-evaluate our desire to control every other person on the planet.  I support protecting the oppressed, or those facing violations against their person, but most of the time when we legislate all we end up doing is slapping another wrist after the victim has been victimized.  It is the federal governments job to protect, and it seems to be failing at that, so let’s take the other stuff off their plate, take our money back they were going to use to accomplish certain failures, and take care of that while the government figures out why it can’t do the basic functions it was set in place for.

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • Ms. Mary

    Your words, once again, cut to the quick. You might say I am a recovering democrat. Your thought has opened my eyes to the real interests and values of the democrat political party. You have left me jaded with the system and turned my eyes toward the real source of power in this country–the "common" people. Thank you.

    I am a feminist and work toward the ideals inherent to feminism via my skills as a mental health counselor/advocate. I do not claim the stance of libertarian primarily, but feminist, because I believe that freedom is secondary and dependent on the creation of a society of peace, where those that are susceptible to being exploited and oppressed are protected and empowered to live full, creative lives. I can see how libertarian concepts and feminist overlap on some points. For example, feminism strives to equalize power among human/social relationships. Thus, the notion of decreasing the power of a classist, racist, sexist government which has become oppressive and redistributing that power among the people is both libertarian and feminist. However, I am also interested in the fundamental differences between the two bodies of thought, seeing as how libertarianism prioritizes freedom and non-intervention, while feminism's priority is the persistent obliteration of sexism, racism…discrimination and oppression of every kind. where do these differing priorities lead? If you have any thoughts on this, I would be interested in reading.

    "If one is oppressed, all are oppressed."

  • Ms. Mary

    I guess I'm asking: what role ought society to play in promoting equality and peace? Or, does society have no role or obligation in ensuring civility and justice? Does ensuring the freedom/liberty of citizens mean that society has no business intervening to guarantee the freedom/rights of women, children, the disabled etc.? In other words, don't some people's rights have to be limited in order to ensure the rights of others? Is there a difference between a governing body that violates the rights of others and a governing body that acts to protect the rights of its people?

  • http://www.gonzotimes.com PunkJohnnyCash

    youtube.comyoutube.com<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/muHg86Mys7I&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0×402061&color2=0x9461ca&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/muHg86Mys7I&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0×402061&color2=0x9461ca&border=1&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

  • http://www.gonzotimes.com PunkJohnnyCash

    Most groups that make changes in Washington are not- for profit groups like NOW and Right to life groups. If they put their money and resources into making changes instead of buying off politicians and paying lobbyists they could accomplish more for their cause.

    Freedom requires a full confrontation of such issues, only not by the few who will legislate and enforce failed laws which have yet to accomplish the desired result. Freedom will confront individuals with choices of their own. It will require not just a solution without understanding the problem, which often causes a larger gap and divide between people groups, but it will force one to think, and grow. I believe in a philosophical change that is occurring and is necessary to occur. Under this people will have to confront issues as they arise, not necessarily plan it all out. Solutions will not always be the same, and if worse comes to worse we will look to the leaders we have chosen for ourselves to protect us from oppression and force.

    A town without certain issues or instances of these issues may never face those issues, some may face more and may find need for more considerations. In the end we need to be asking how effective has government been in resolving these issues and how can we resolve these issues without intervention of the state.

    If you ask about the homeless and who is to take care of them I say you. Not someone like you, but you. Liberty is not a simple easy ideal. It is something that will require more from everyone. It will require action. It will not allow us to sit home and assume someone else will take care of everything else for us.