Whenever they commit an indecent act, they say, “We found our fathers doing it and God commanded us to do it too.” Say: “God does not command indecency. Do you say things about God you do not know?” (Qur’an, 7:28)

Rather than a fully developed ideology itself, romanticism is rather an influence which permeates various other ideologies, proffering them with an emotional quality that allows them to rob people of their rationality. As it has penetrated such entirely irreligious and perverse ideologies as fascism and communism, it also at times makes its influence felt under the guise of religion.
Before broaching this topic, there is an important point that must first be understood. A movement that claims for itself the name of religion may not necessarily be truly religious. On the contrary, in the past, there have been many individuals, groups and ideas which, while operating in the name of God and religion, have intended to do damage to religion and to its followers. God provides us with examples of such instances in the Qu’ran. For example, a criminal was plotting to kill one of God’s prophets, the prophet Salih. While devising his plan, he and those with him made an oath in the name of God:

They said, “Let us make an oath to one another by God that we will fall on him and his family in the night and then say to his protector, ‘We did not witness the destruction of his family and we are telling the truth.’” (Qur’an: 27:49)

Those pagans who opposed the prophets often accused them of “fabricating lies against God,” pointing to the fact that they thought of themselves as religious and God-fearing. (Qur’an, 42:24) For example, Pharaoh, who was perverse to the point of claiming himself to be a god, said this about Moses:

…Let me kill Moses and let him call upon his Lord! I am afraid that he may change your religion and bring about corruption in the land. (Qur’an, 40:26)

This shows that it is possible to think perversely and to carry out perverse acts under the name and guise of religion, and romanticism is at the top of the list of those perversities that are thought to be religious but, in fact, is not related to religion at all.
To understand how romanticism is confused with religion, it is necessary to fully understand the idea of “sincerity.” Sincerity is doing something in order to gain the approval of God only. If the act is truly done with sincerity, it is counted as worship in the sight of God. For example, praying, fasting, giving alms, working in the cause of God, and all other acts of service, are to be regarded as acts of worship, only if they are undertaken to gain the approval of God. Worship performed without the intention of gaining God’s approval is invalid according to God’s command in the Qu’ran: “So woe to those who pray, and are forgetful of their prayer, those who show off” (Qur’an, 107, 4-6) This is also clear in the words of the Prophet Mohammed, who said, “God accepts those deeds which were performed purely for His sake and which were meant to seek His pleasure.”12
It is in this manner that romanticism distorts religion. It directs religion towards a purpose other than gaining the approval of God; it represents religion as an emotional experience, in which people may satisfy their emotional needs, not to be practised for the pleasure of God.
By obfuscating this subtle but very important distinction, romanticism leads people to a completely false understanding of religion, the end-result being mysticism. When people cease to understand religion as submission to God, and begin to regard it as a means for “psychological exhilaration,” then a number of mystical practices are sought, submerging them even deeper in this false approach.
When we compare romanticised religion with the religion that God has revealed to us in the Qu’ran, we can recognise a number of great difference:

1. In the Qu’ran, God commands human beings to use their minds, to think, to consider what God has created and, in this way, to come to faith. However, the romantic approach to religion excludes reason; it doesn’t lead people to use their minds, on the contrary, it encourages them not to think at all.
2. According to the romantic notions about religion, it is often deemed commendable for a person to abuse themselves and cause themselves pain. For example, there are Christians who think they are drawing closer to Jesus by having themselves crucified. In certain Oriental religions, such as Buddhism, starving oneself, sleeping in an uncomfortable place, and other forms of “self immolation,” are supposed to make one holy. However, in the Qu’ran, there is absolutely no such idea as that a person should cause himself pain. This verse from the Qu’ran expresses this warped romantic understanding succinctly: “God does not wrong people in any way; rather it is people who wrong themselves.” (Qur’an, 10:44)

In short, according to the romantic approach, religion is something that encourages one’s tendencies to idolize individuals, to be unreflective, nostalgic, self-effacing and self-destructive. It is a counterfeit system, comprised of beliefs and practices totally alien to true religion.
Instead of learning what God wants from them, and living their lives accordingly, people prefer to continue the approach to religion, the behaviour and stereotypical ways of thinking inherited from their ancestors. They do not lead their lives according to a rational assessment of the conditions surrounding them, but hold on to the same old traditional patterns of thought and behaviour. This is a perversity against which God warns strongly in many verses of the Qu’ran. Here are a few examples:

When they are told, “Come to what God has sent down and to the Messenger,” they say, “What we found our fathers doing is enough for us.” What! Even if their fathers did not know anything and were not guided! (Qur’an, 5:104)

Whenever they commit an indecent act, they say, “We found our fathers doing it and God commanded us to do it too.” Say: “God does not command indecency. Do you say things about God you do not know?” (Qur’an, 7:28)

When they are told: “Follow what God has sent down,” they say, “No, we will follow what we found our fathers doing.” What! Even if Satan is calling them to the punishment of the Blazing Fire? (Qur’an, 31:21)

Conclusion

If a person wants to be able to practise the kind of religion that God wants him to practice, he must first escape the mire of romanticism. As He has commanded in the following verse: “That is because God is the Real…” (Qur’an, 22:62), God is the Real, and to understand this it is necessary to be a “realist.” Those who are captivated by romantic ideals, on the other hand, are influenced either by perverse ideologies, such as romantic nationalism or communism, or lose touch with the notions of wisdom and sincerity through a romantic interpretation of religion, or are affected by the kind of romantic idea of love that we shall examine in the next chapters of this book.
Even if those individuals affected by this way of thinking were to start practicing religion, they lack the mental stability to persevere, because of the faltering spiritual condition that romanticism leads them to have. There are numerous individuals who begin to practice religion inspired by a few romantic notions, but who quickly give it up and return to a life without religion.
However, God gives this command to human beings:

He is Lord of the heavens and the earth and everything in between them, so worship Him and persevere in His worship. Do you know of any other with His Name? (Qur’an, 19:65)

(ROMANTICISM: A WEAPON OF SATAN, Harun Yahya)

This is prevalent in all religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhist, every “religion” has people within it that are extremist and take what they want good or evil, and use it without using reason and common sense. There are verses in the Qur’an about evil yes, and in the Bible, and in the Talmud, these are facts of life. There is evil in this world that is undeniable. However, Semantics, when used in arguments against a religion or belief does nothing to quell or stop fighting, it does nothing to promote peace or unity. The only thing propaganda and bias add is more hate and more bias and more propaganda. We cannot convict an entire religion for evil men, if we did, then ALL religion is bad and there is nothing left. We cannot base our actions on bigots, hypocrites and those who would use religion for their own personal gain or that of a group that wants to do harm in the name of Allah.

This is NOT Islam, just as the Crusades of the Orthodox Christianity, burning “witches” at the stake and murdering MILLIONS because they would not bow to anothers belief. Common sense, education and morality guide those in Islam that are on the right path, it also says in the Qur’an to harm one of any other belief or race or religion is as to kill the entire people of the earth. But we do not hear these verses in the media or debates. I too, can bring out some of the most violent and murderous quotes from all three books of the Abrahamic faith, however, I am blessed with a consciousness that tells me and lets me feel what is right from wrong. This is not from any religion, this is from MY creator, it is my soul and my heart, and m mind that guide me on a straight path, sometimes that is altered but then again we are all human.

Violence of any kind in the “name of religion” acts of aggression are a sin against our fellow brothers and sisters of this world. ANY one acting in this manor and claiming to be of ANY faith is a Bigot and a Hypocrite to themselves, to God and to mankind. I am Muslim, I hate no one. I read the Qur’an, I read the bible, I am also an Ordained Reverend. Even in the absence of a faith in the creator, what we learn as we grow to adulthood, the surroundings we live in and the traditions that are past on from generation to generation are what mold and shape our consciousness. Preaching of hate and fear against an entire race, culture or existence of anyone will only keep the fires of hate and ambiguity growing and living. Where will we start to make peace. within ourselves and by teaching the truth, NOT tradition.

Follow @considerReconsider

Excerpt:

The First Lady of the United States recently addressed concerns about Internet during a Cyberspatial Millennium Project press conference just weeks after Lewinsky broke. She said,

“We’re all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function.”

I wonder who she was referring to.

Mrs. Clinton continued,

“Any time an individual leaps so far ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be — political, economic, technological — out of balance, you’ve got a problem. It can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically.”

Would she have said the same thing about Ben Franklin or Thomas Edison or Henry Ford or Einstein? They all leapt so far ahead out that they shook the balance. No, I say to these people, faster, not slower. Create. Let your mind flow. Let the imagination take over. And if technology has finally caught up with individual liberty, why would anyone who loves freedom want to rethink that?

The whole speech can be found here: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mattdrugdenationalpressclub.htm

Follow @considerReconsider

Is Pat Robertson insane, or simply mean and deluded?

It’s a question people should no longer be afraid to ask. On a recent episode of the 700 Club, Robertson implied that the reason an earthquake struck Haiti and hundreds of thousands of people died was because the entire nation was cursed. A couple of centuries ago, a Haitian rebel leader supposedly performed a Voodoo ritual in which he pleaded for support from the Devil in his people’s battle against the colonial French Empire. Since that time, so the story goes, the entire country has been cursed.

Christians around the country have deplored Robertson’s remarks.

Catholic Relief Services, based in Baltimore, is coordinating massive relief efforts. While presumably they read the same Bible as Robertson, they speak only of the desperate need of the people of Haiti for help. My rabbi has called on our congregation for aid, and I have every confidence that plenty of non-religious people of goodwill are also pitching in. None of them are talking about supernatural forces being at work. Why is Robertson so hung up about them?

Everyone, including Robertson’s followers, must be thinking about the enormous amount of suffering in Haiti and the tragic senselessness of it all. One biblical answer to the problem of suffering is apocalyptic in nature. People suffer because the world is temporarily under the sway of evil forces, but soon God will return in triumph (Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30). The book of Daniel describes an apocalyptic vision at great length, and of course the Book of Revelation describes the Last Battle in great detail.

This seems to me what informs Robertson’s thinking, if you can call it that. Tectonic plate movement, natural forces, the crushing poverty that prevents its people from building houses that can better withstand earthquakes, that’s all the Devil’s work. The more horrible the disaster, the greater the evidence that soon Jesus will return and vanquish evil. This has a lot of appeal, because it means 700 Club donors get to convince themselves they are living in historic times.

But Robertson and his followers are simply choosing one biblical answer to the problem of suffering.

In fact, there are quite a few, each widely different from the other.

Some parts of the Bible say that suffering leads to a greater good (the story of Joseph, the 10 plagues that fell upon Egypt). Others say that suffering makes you better equipped to help others (2nd Corinthians, chapter 1). Suffering teaches humility (2nd Corinthians, chapter 12). Suffering is a test of faith (Book of Job, first half). Don’t question God (Book of Job, second half). Suffering is a consequence of sin (just about any Old Testament prophet). And there are plenty more.

Nor do we need to look solely at the Bible. Theologians have advanced the free will argument as an explanation for suffering (although how it explains suffering from natural disasters is never really spelled out).

Rabbi Harold Kushner’s bestselling book “When Bad Things Happen to Good People” makes the surprising claim that suffering occurs because God is powerless to prevent it. This book is a national bestseller, so clearly it resonates with many.

My point is that Robertson is cherry picking the Bible. Plenty of scholars and clergy, I dare say most, disagree with him. And well they should.

If you’re reading this column, I beg you, don’t let Robertson’s views win the day. He’s asking his followers to send aid, but that aid comes with the implied threat that if the people of Haiti don’t embrace the Pat Robertson view of the world, their loved ones and their descendants will continue to suffer and die by the thousands. If you disagree, donate funds to a Haitian relief charity. Every dollar you give says that you find Robertson’s views repugnant.

However you choose to personally grapple with the problem of senseless death on an unimaginable scale, the fact of the matter is that suffering exists, and it will not alleviate itself.

Send money to a Haitian relief charity of your choice. Then tell yourself “never again,” and work for a wealthier, more prosperous world. No nation should face that much loss of life from an earthquake. If we do our job right, no country will ever have to.

Follow @considerReconsider

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, “in scrawled notes made from his hospital bed” he said his brother “was motivated by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and his belief that they represented an assault on his faith”.  Although used as a pretense by sultans and militant groups over the ages to gain power and land, traditional Islam does NOT allow for aggressive wars, but also gives no quarter to those who would attack believers. “They” may outright loathe “us” because we’re decadent or different, but they FIGHT us because the West is seen as a threat to their sovereignty,  their culture, their survival. It doesn’t take a degree in geopolitics to understand this, only open ears.

Oddly, we Americans are eager to interpret Dzhokhar’s words “When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims” as fanaticism, but who wouldn’t applaud the slogan “When you attack one American, you attack all Americans”? And he was likely familiar with this passage of the Quran: “If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” Not so evil in that context, is it?

Michael Adebolajo, one of the murderers of a man in London, spoke to the camera of a bystander:

“Remove your governments – they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start bursting our guns? You think politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you, and your children. So get rid of them – tell them to bring our troops back so we can … so you can all live in peace.”

This is an answer we don’t want to hear, or can’t allow ourselves an interpretation that is not clear-cut evil. So why does terrorism exist, then? Does it perhaps offer hope to effect change, given it gets more press than any Palestinian-Israeli peace movements you’ve never heard of? Or is it the only thing left by the un-empowered?  Is it an act of defiance to give an eye for an eye, innocents sacrificed in vengeance of other innocents? What of a life where insurance of a family’s protection and compensation by militants is worth strapping oneself to explosives? Did the race riots in the 60s speed up the necessity for change? Did the IRA really feel what they were doing was pointless, let alone wrong? If the French Resistance could have bombed a music hall in Berlin, would they have felt justified while their own countrymen were put on trains with one-way tickets?

But let’s forget the whole greyscale spectrum of human motivations and focus on the worst — hate. So what has driven so many to such hate to justify in their minds such violence? The answer is the same thing that drives ANY OF US to hate.

Some of us feed on a steady diet of outrage thanks to such methodical hate sites as “yourdailymuslim.com” and “thereligionofpeace.com”. On the other side of the globe, news outlets enumerate the countless men, women, and children that are slaughtered in the crossfire of American-led military operations and Israeli occupation. In Western minds, we hold dear images of the twin towers and can picture remains of suicide bombings; emblazoned in Middle Eastern minds are Palestinians losing their homes or pieces of children marking the trail of Predator drones, day after day.

Some argue drones are military operations and terrorist attacks are specifically targeting civilians. So which category do Hiroshima or Nagasaki or even Dresden fall into? Does it matter if the trigger-pullers wear a uniform? Remember, whether we agree or not, consider the “terrorist” point of view, be it French, Irish, or Arabic. They consider such deaths as necessary collateral damage because they cannot be as successful directly against military targets, or can only hope to influence the will of the people against the actions of their respective governments.  In the case of 9-11, Al Qaeda made it clear in their statements they did not see those in the World Trade Center as “innocent”. And in a country where We The People supposedly call the shots by popular will or complicit complacency with regards to foreign policy, that isn’t so crazy.

We can split hairs all day long, but senseless deaths are senseless deaths, and certain Muslims condoning things like a marathon bombing is no worse than certain Americans suggesting we turn the Middle East into a parking lot. We criticize “their” morality, but equally immerse ourselves in the blind insistence that “someone has to pay”.

But of course this is their way of life, not ours. Never mind the scalping by Native Americans (who learned it from the French) escalating into constant retaliations back and forth between massacred Frontier settlements and massacred Indian villages to the very precipice of genocide. Women and children were killed, so it was natural in minds and masses ungoverned by compassion or sense that the women and children of others were considered fair game. Back then it was several days or weeks and a newspaper away. Now it’s a rare glimpse of greyscale camera footage from a drone that may as well be stepping on ants.

We may argue we are more civilized these days, but I suggest we are only more insulated from the dirty work.  It’s all too easy to call for genocide.  Yes, genocide.  I once came across pages and pages and pages of hate speech comments filled with dehumanizing Muslims as bloodthirsty animals out to kill us all, interspersed with all sorts of calls for a Final Solution again that particular quarter of the human population.  And this was in response to an article about building a mosque with a 9-11 memorial!

But then these bigots wouldn’t actually do it, would they?  They openly support such “policy” in a nation with plenty of nukes and a record of detaining vast numbers of citizens by ethnicity via reservations and internment camps.  So why not go on a rampage against the local mosque, or travel to Saudi Arabia to blow up a marketplace?  Because we’re not terrorists.  We have nothing to gain and everything to lose.  Terrorists have at least some hope of gain and nothing left to lose.  Put those shoes on an American “patriot” and see what horrific things they do.

The sad fact is that we cannot accept that we are all capable of atrocity, and therefore are bound to repeat it.  We are doing it right now.  No one’s hands are bloodless, Muslim, American, or otherwise.  After each tragedy, each “side” vows to bring others to “justice”, strengthening their “resolve”, and never “giving in”.  And in doing so the “terrorists” dictate our policy down to the letter with a growing police state and endless martyred soldiers. We cannot accept such inhumane methods and therefore will not even consider  legitimate outcries, the ignoring of which has fostered such a desperate, extremist culture.   We make them less human the more we don’t allow them to be — and we are quickly becoming the very thing we have resolved to defeat.

Follow @considerReconsider

People sell household possessions due to the austerity measures.

Economic crisis and austerity measures cause a crash in the market. However some sectors are more likely than others to survive the crash. Research study shows that the house clearance sector has not been negatively impacted by the unstable economic situation.

From an accurate analysis of the results, we can see a direct relation between austerity measures and the requests for house clearance services. The research study, commissioned by EasyClear, shows how online searches on Google.co.uk for the term “house clearance” increased in the period between January 2008 and May 2013.

Image 1, Number of searches on Google.co.uk for the term “house clearance” between January 2008 and May 2013.

Moreover, analysing the comparison of the searches number of the terms “house clearance” and “austerity”, it shows that each time an austerity measure was approved, the number of searches on Google.co.uk for the term “house clearance” increased.

The research also highlights several examples. In fact, it shows that the total number of UK searches for the term “house clearance” increased when Greece approved an austerity bill to avoid national bankruptcy in February 2012 (letter B in the image 2 above). On the other hand, it shows a decreasing trend of “house clearance” searches in March 2011, when Portugal rejected austerity measures. (letter A in the image 2 above).

Image 2, Comparison between the number of searches on Google.co.uk for the term “house clearance” and the term “austerity”, January 2008-May 2013. The letter A indicates March 2011 while the letter B indicates February 2012.

The research shows a direct impact of austerity measures on the average person’s lifestyle, prompting them to search for different ways to generate money. David Hudson, Managing Director at EasyClear, said “As times get tougher, ordinary citizens fell the squeeze and are forced to raise money to support their families. We have found more people wanting to sell off household possessions, family heirlooms and antiques to earn a bit of money”

In conclusion, the research study shows that local austerity measures impact upon our lives and that the average UK household is also susceptible to wider economic measures in the European Union.

Follow @considerReconsider

Entropy.

It’s the tendency of systems to run down. It holds rule over all systems, from galaxies to the family budget. It certainly has become evident in National survival. It’s the great struggle to have more coming in than is going out.

While we realize that perpetual motion is not possible in physical mechanics, we foolishly think that we CAN have perpetual motion in a national economy. We dream that there’s switch that can be flipped, and everything will run on automatic pilot…forever. For most, that ‘switch’ is big government. Looking historically, all national economies have been subject to entropy — they have ‘run down’, costing more than is available in resources.

Look at your life — you constantly work to bring in more money than you spend. You struggle to have enough to survive when you’re older. National economies have to do the same thing. Only once in human history has an economic system actually managed to produce more than enough to take care of itself. That system is (was) Free Market Capitalism, operating under the reasonable regulation of a representative Republic. That system created the most prosperous country and economy in human history.

But, like an engine, there is a cost. That cost is individual drive and individual responsibility. It is risk. You have to work hard. You may fail. But, the upside is the possibility that many individuals, working for themselves, together, can produce a national economy that is as beautiful as it is miraculous.

Today’s politics have divided people into two groups: One that expects to craft a National government capable of taking care of everyone; and the other that knows that everyone must take the risk of creating their own secure universe, and then, standing on that base, gather together with others to insure that entropy does not bring down their system.

None of this is new. The founders of the United States knew all of this … and more. They tried to institute that economy based on “Free Market Capitalism, operating under the reasonable regulation of a representative Republic.” We are now seeing Socialists (yes) attempting to undo what has been the only successful management of entropy in history. They are trying to ‘totally transform the United States of America.”

I don’t want it transformed. I want it restored.

Follow @considerReconsider

The conservative movement, to the extent there is such a thing, moved two steps forward and one step back this week. Two steps forward because the Conservative Political Action Committee accepted a conference sponsorship from a group of gay conservatives. One step back because the usual suspects are showing their usual displeasure in the usual fashion.

There are several reasons why the “family values” crowd should let this one go quietly. For one, politics isn’t about ideological purity, or about taking a stand, or about the meaning of life. It’s about winning and holding political power. You do that by finding the unifying issues between groups.

Consider, for example, an African-American Southern Baptist minister and a gay rights activist. Both can comfortably nestle within the bosom of the Democratic Party, despite their being completely at odds on a very important issue. They set aside their differences in favor of actually getting something done, and they do this without compromising their integrity.

Does anybody think that a black southern preacher supports gay rights just because he’s a Democrat? Of course not. Does anyone think gay activists embrace Christian fundamentalism because they share a party affiliation with southern conservatives? Hardly. Both simply realize they are better off working together, as part of a winning coalition, than by trying to one-up each other in demonstrating the courage of their convictions.

It’d be one thing if social conservatism and fiscal conservatism could play nicely together. The evidence, however, says they can’t. As public policies, they are incompatible.

Consider what happened between 2000 and 2006. During that time, Republicans controlled the government, and social conservatives controlled the Republicans. We had a Supreme Court justice anoint the U.S. Attorney General with holy oil. The Bush administration performed an unprecedented federal intervention in the state matter of Terry Schiavo due to pressure from social conservatives. Congress somehow found the time to deal with the vital national question of offshore Internet gambling, due to pressure from groups like Focus on the Family. Back then, Ted Haggard was president of the National Association of Evangelicals. He spoke to the President every week.

During these halcyon days of social conservative influence, federal spending skyrocketed, from $1.863 trillion to $3.414 trillion. By any measure you care to name (non-defense related expenses, entitlements, budget outlays as percentage of GDP), Bush and the Republican Congress taxed and spent like drunken sailors on leave, more than any administration since Lyndon Johnson’s. Complaints by Republicans today about Democrats bankrupting the treasury are the height of hypocrisy. All Democrats are doing is surfing the tidal wave from the hurricane of Republican profligacy.

The enthusiastic acceptance by social conservatives of tax-and-spend policies shouldn’t be a surprise to any student of political theory. Government large enough to shape the personal behavior of American citizens in the way social conservatives want must also be large enough to shape their economic behavior. Ultimately, there really isn’t much difference between the two. Economics is personal, and personal behaviors have economic consequences.

Social conservatives should realize that the world they want is only achievable through the power of personal persuasion, not the power of law. They will be in a better position to articulate their values and do the work they believe is important when they live in a world that is freer and more prosperous than the one we have now.

That will only happen if they willingly join a Republican party committed to cutting regulations, cutting taxes, cutting spending, fighting the forced redistribution of wealth, and healing our crippled market economy. In order to do that, Republicans must win elections. How can Republicans win elections? 2009 polls by CBS, Bloomberg, and CNN all say the same thing: They must pursue a program in which social issues take a back seat to economic ones. Saying “It’s the economy, stupid” is a bit harsh, but it’s true.

This week’s events around CPAC are a reminder that the tension between social conservatism and limited government is building up along the San Andreas Fault of the Republican Party. One way or another, the earthquake will come. Let us hope that America’s precious heritage of individual freedom and economic prosperity does not fall into the fissure.

Follow @considerReconsider

So who are the real racists here?  Who are stereotyping “rednecks” — a derogatory term that is transforming into a self-described label of pride in backwoods, earthy, usually Southern culture — as “White”, gun-obsessed, NASCAR-watching, “unedumacated”, and in particular, racist “South Shall Rise Again” types?

Of particular ignorance regards the criticism of the Confederate Battle Flag, the “Stars and Bars”.  Some shirts and bumper stickers display it along with the caveat, “If you’re offended you need a history lesson” — and they would be right.  It is OTHERS who have pinned slavery on the symbol, insisting the Confederacy’s only characteristic and purpose was slavery — not States Rights or regional heritage among the descendants of the vast majority of Southerners who never owned slaves.

But even if the meaning of “redneck” and the “Rebel” flag IS used and defined in part by “white” racists, revisionists, and the conveniently offended race card players, is having people dress up with camouflage and long beards carrying banjos really making African-Americans uncomfortable?  Is it REALLY triggering historical traumas of events and conditions that no one living today could possibly remember?  This is clearly a case of people choosing to be offended, and by doing so are as guilty as what they think they are offended by.

Whether being a “redneck” is an ethnic designation or a lifestyle choice, why is it acceptable to generalize these others in such a way as to justify some play of outrage?  If anything, REDNECKS should be offended — or honored or amused — accordingly.  But assuming racism in “rednecks” is like assuming gang activity in “Blacks”.

Whatever is good for the goose we ought to take a gander at.  We are left with an obvious double-standard, something that can only backfire and perpetuate prejudices in all directions.  It needs to end.

People “offended” by non-racist expressions of classic, usually Southern, rural culture, be it a “Country accent” or the hood of the General Lee, are the ones who should be ashamed and owe a whole lot of people in America an apology.

Follow @considerReconsider

I must be the only writer in town who gets accused of both “liberal media bias” and “right wing dogma.” That’s fine by me, I get more readers that way. But I’d like to take today’s column to suggest a heretical idea. Right and left, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, don’t really cover all the possibilities.

For example, I’ve used these pages to call for the repeal of drug prohibition. I’ve said that evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the reality of life on this planet, that creationism is not only factually incorrect but personally embarrassing, that corporate welfare should be abolished, and that bikini-clad young women at coffee stands ought to be a celebrated and welcome part of American culture. Despite that, I routinely get emails calling me a right-wing ideologue. What do I have to do, get an award from the ACLU?

Actually, that wouldn’t do it, because I already have one. At the risk of sounding immodest, I won a 1997 National Civil Liberties Award from the ACLU for some work my family did opposing internet censorship, work that led to a 9-0 Supreme Court decision in our favor. Sorry to toot my own horn, but I’m trying to make a point here. How could anyone possibly think I was right wing? To say the least, I don’t advocate traditionally conservative positions.

In fact, I think I know the answer. People who take me to task for right wing ideology didn’t read any of those op-eds, and there’s no reason they would know anything about the case of Reno v. ACLU et. al. Instead, they read a column opposing national health care, trashing “intelligent design”, supporting the right to bear arms, arguing for vouchers, or something similar. By contrast, people who read about my support for real science in the public schools or criticisms of corporate welfare, will not hesitate to criticize me as a member of the liberal media. Sigh.

The right term for the perspective I espouse is “libertarian.” I actually prefer “classical liberal,” someone who thinks “the government that governs best governs least” and is strongly influenced by the Jeffersonian ideals of individual rights best articulated in the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, liberals pretty much stole the l-word in the 60’s and got it to mean something very different. So be it.

I’ve watched libertarian ideas make a lot of progress over the past 20 years, to the point where being a libertarian just isn’t that big a deal any more. When William Safire retired as the New York Times’ token conservative columnist, he was replaced with John Tierney, a libertarian. South Carolina Republican governor Mark Sanford said he thought the term libertarian was a “badge of honor.” Even Senator Olympia Snow admits to having a libertarian streak.

It’s a label people should be proud to wear. After all, we are the ones who came up with school vouchers, and we remain the only source of new ideas within the Republican party.

We’re the only people seriously trying to deal with the alarming growth of entitlements and the terrible legacy of debt we are leaving to our children. We understand how wealth is created, we are disproportionately represented among America’s entrepreneurs, and yes it’s true, most of us couldn’t care less about fairness. We think justice, prosperity, and freedom are more important.

I like to think that most people are libertarian on most issues, but everybody’s got one special thing they’ve just got to have government for. Health care for their sick mother. Protectionism for their union job. Welfare for their down-and-out cousin. Banning gay marriage to “send a message.” Most people want something from government, and as a result we get something nobody wants. Huge taxes, huge spending, huge debt, a decline in personal responsibility, and an increasing willingness to let elected and appointed officials run our lives because we have no confidence we can run them ourselves.

I don’t expect to convince anyone of the merits of libertarian ideas in the space of an opinion column. But I would like to suggest some things just slightly less radical. Right and left just don’t cut it any more. Ideas matter. Facts matter. History matters. And maybe, just maybe, libertarian/classical liberal ideas matter. At the banquet of modern politics, they deserve a place at the table.

Related articles

• Libertarianism goes mainstream
• You can please some of the people….Libertarian Platform Issues

Follow @considerReconsider