The inability to go through life with the option of having some of our assumptions challenged could be defined as obstinacy, bull headed, and intellectually dishonest. If you have a valid belief in something you should probably be ready to defend those convictions. Our country is so incredibly divided right now that it seems that some of us should be ready to give an explanation for our beliefs. The defense of certain aspects of civilization is the determining factor in whether many of these human experiments have lived or died. Examples of civilizations that lived and eventually died on the pedestal of what they embraced are many. The ones that come to mind are Rome, the Third Reich (Hitler's government) and in our modern day we see Britain last week struggling to maintain order and civility. What is it that each of these varying societies saw happening right before the landlord came to collect? What rising of human impetuosity and whim allows once civil people to give over to barbarian impulse? Hitler's brown shirts and gestapo were, as far as is known, not raised on a diet of atrocity. Rome had so many things going for it but eventually, like pants that don't fit, the seams of their collective well being burst open and they lost everything. Britain today is grappling with chaos because as society and its civilized safety nets are eroded or invaded by alien belief systems, the proverbial house of cards will eventually fall. I love God's Word because it illustrates with perfect clarity, in metaphors and parables, the truths that are timeless enough to sustain any group, in any era.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free." --Abrahan Lincoln.
"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." --Mark 3:25 KJ
The Bible said it clearly and judging by Abraham Lincoln's choice of words, he saw the wisdom of the point. Rome successfully conquered many other peoples but their inability to maintain the fabric or ideas that allow the state or it's people to live in harmony definitely contributed to it's eventual dissolution. In Britain, two warring ideas are colliding: The work for a living crowd vs. the ever entitled profligates that believe the state exists to provide all with comfort and ipods. What can our country expect if we do not begin once again to build into our kids a knowledge based on self respect, respect for others, and frankly, a sense of shame if we ask for things that we do not want to work for? The role of the state should be to protect it's citizens from the marauding vikings. We all want safety, security, and a belief that our property is indeed, our property! Mankind has these elements that, if not restrained by threat of force, would be happy to go from farm to farm, grabbing up beautiful women and any livestock that hasn't been chained to the barn. Okay, I'm putting it humorously, but place that same kind of people in business or government and imagine the damage we all suffer and are suffering at present. I am frankly sick of how government officials can commit tax fraud or be found to be accepting bribes and yet they are free. Like Charlie Rangel being found guilty of multiple indiscretions, tax evasion tricks and all he received was a censure. Now if he had worked for Enron, he would have had the book thrown at him and rightly so. I am not blindly tied to any political party. I have to, like most people, pick the less of two obviously flawed ideas. The democratic party of my grandfather is not the same now as it was when he believed they fought for the "little guy." High taxation, overstepping government nannyism, and flat out deception is how I characterize the modern Democratic crowd. I do not absolve Republican's of their own dirty tricks. Nothing like.
In respect to our divided house I believe that it's critical that we each evaluate just how much is government really able to provide when it comes to questions of security, happiness, and life expectancy. Giving government the right to other people's bank accounts in the name of fairness is the antithesis to actual fairness and it's not working out that well anyway. For evidence of what I 'm saying look at the states of California and Michigan. Redistribution fails because as Margaret Thatcher said, "Socialism does not work because you eventually run out of other people's money." That is true in two ways: Hard workers will lose the motivation to bust the butt, and no amount of confiscation can collect what's needed to support a society of takers. This socialism idea leads to poverty for all.