Any use for government?
If the religious right wing of the Republican Party is correct that we should trust in God and him alone we should carry their message forward and use it.
Littauer makes no attempt to define the religious right wing. Does Littauer believe this is all those who are religious? What does he think these people mean by "trust in God and him alone" and then how does that align with their actions. In fact, most of those he would identify as the "religious right" believe that their are rights and wrongs and that those rights and wrongs are grounded in something outside of what human beings may define as right and wrong. (By the way, this doesn't mean the non-religious cannot be moral. It does mean that they are acting inconsistent with their worldview).
First, we could save ourselves trillions of dollars by firing the United States government.
Most religious people believe that government is instituted by God and that one of its mandates is the protection of its citizens. Secondly, most of these religious people hold to a high view of the constitution which instilled a secular government based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. Remember, it is the Declaration of Independence which founded this country. The Constitution established (after the Articles of Confederation proved ineffective) the government based upon the principles in the Declaration. Principles like "we are endowed by our Creator . . .".
If God will save us from our enemies, why do we need a Defense Department? Get rid of it.
Again, one of the principles of government according to God is the protection of its citizens which is why it is it is in the Constitution.
If only knowledge of God is necessary, why do we need an Education Department? Get rid of it.
Where, exactly, in the Constitution does it say the federal government is to control education?
If faith makes medical research irrelevant, why do we need a Health Department? Get rid of it.
Who, among those Littauer describes as the "religious right", are saying that faith makes medical research irrelevant. It is irrational to accuse those who believe there are true and false views of the world would hold those views as irrelevant while commending those holding to moral relativism (i.e. all views are equally valid) as clinging to the relevancy of medical research. In the area of abortion, for example, who holds medical research as irrelevant? Is it those who say that human life occurs when the human sperm and the human egg unite (conception) or those who say that it is just a mass of cells (of course, all living things are actually masses of cells) or manipulate language calling it a "fetus" to disguise the beings true nature. Fetus is a scientific description of a stage of development. That is why we can have a human fetus or a dog fetus. "Human" and "dog" refer to the type of being the creature is. Fetus refers to the stage of development from three months up to birth. Pro-aborts try to blur the lines of medical research by creating a "right to choose" to terminate the fetus which is like saying there is a right to choose to terminate the from three months up to birth. Littauer doesn't have a problem with the religious making medical research irrelevant. He has a problem that there are absolute truths that moral relativists will not be able to make medical research malleable to use as they want such as ignoring that human life begins at conception and therefore we can't just kill it when it becomes inconvenient to us. It is not the religious who advocate the Nazi doctrine that some life is unworthy of life.
If the Constitution is quaint and outmoded, and the Bible is the only standard to be respected, why do we need a Justice Department? Get rid of it.
Again, most religious people do not believe the Constitution is quaint and outmoded. They believe that it is not a "living document" which is code that each generation can change its meaning based on how they define the words (see aforementioned "right to privacy", etc) rather than the amendment process defined within its . If the Constitution means that then no one is safe. Each generation is at the mercy of those in power.
And why go on paying the costs of the Bush presidency when all we really need is a religious leader? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? No. Too expensive. We can outsource the work. I'm sure an African tribal witch doctor will do it for much less and with a straighter face.
Oh yes, build a good strawman (depend on God alone means no need for government), knock it down and then just for good measure (and to satisfy his obsessive bigotry toward the religious) ridicule those he's attacking. Good show!
No comments:
Post a Comment