The Orlando Massacre is Primarily a Political Problem, Not a Moral One
Play it again Sam. After the recent terrorist attack at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, the Europeanesque ensemble begins. “We are Orlando,” and even one I saw on Facebook: “Today, we are all gay.” Arighty then. This is typical, as the fact that it was a gay bar is all but completely irrelevant. Collective ignorance once again strips all identity meat off the bone to fuel therapeutic escapades worldwide; circumstances merely dictate the theme echoed by those holding the candles. So, it begs the question: how can holding candles prevent the future slaughter of people trying to perform life? It can’t, regardless of how many attend the ritual.
Play it again Sam. President Obama, like so many leaders pontificating what has become a cliché, commended Americans as a resilient people who can “absorb” this unfortunate tragedy. Our FBI director echoed more of the same by exhorting us to not “give in to fear”; golly gee, if we do that, “the terrorists win.” This, apparently, is the remedy: get as many people as you can together and hold candles as a way to show the terrorists that we refuse to be afraid to perform life. Oh, and don’t forget; be gay for one day. Be French for one day, etc., etc. Since the supposed primary goal of terrorism is fear, if we refuse to be afraid, the terrorists will quit and go home. How’s it workin’ for us?
As a political Libertarian and biblical religionist, I leave judgement to God on personal issues and strongly endorse political action that frees humanity to pursue life, happiness, and choice. Since God has always given people freedom to either fear Him or not fear Him, far be it from me to demand that they fear Him though I think it’s a really good idea to do so. Therefore, this massacre once again reminds us, or should remind us, that the bigger issue is political and not as much moral though the moral is never far away.
Perhaps the most ignorant truism pontificated by mankind is, “Two things you never talk about in public are politics and religion.” Politics pertain to the present execution of life; religion pertains to eternal life, so ya, let’s not talk about those things. Brilliant. Take for example our indifference towards educating our children about economics; um, economics have been used to massacre more people than guns or spears would ever venture to. For one example among myriads, take a gander at China’s “Great leap Forward” economic stimulus plan that killed about 45 million people in four years. AR 15’s are the problem? Really?
Ok, so shooting people for giggles is naughty, and being gay is naughty, but one’s politics is personal preference? We have that all backwards, and the core problem is very simple: individualism versus collectivism; this is the political element. This is a discussion about man’s state of being, and the politics that determine applied ethics resulting from our presuppositions concerning mankind.
Is the individual capable? Or does the individual need to be ruled over by elitists for the collective good? Does politics cause you to constantly scratch your head? This metaphysical question regarding presuppositions about mankind explains everything. Everything political flows from this question. Politics, whether you want to come to grips with it or not, will determine whether or not your morals are dressed up with no place to go.
Let’s apply this principle to terrorism which usually relies on soft targets. Not knowing who is packing heat in any given public gathering presents a huge problem for terrorists of all stripes. Apparently, at Pulse, not one of the approximately 300 patrons were packing. Wow. In school shootings, armed teachers would obviously present a huge problem for an active shooter. So, what seems to be the problem? Answer: if you are a collectivist, everyday folks carrying guns around is far more terrifying than terrorism. It is far better for 49 gay people to take a hit for the team; for the “collective good.” You see, if everyday people are allowed to carry guns around, wholesale chaos will supposedly ensue even though it never has. We don’t want any solutions that would lead to more death than what terrorists are doling out. That is obviously the reasoning.
In politics, it is a simple question: is stateism the answer to every problem? Who owns man? Does man own man, or does the state own man for the sake of the “collective good.” And who owns truth? If the state owns truth—you have no right to believe anything without the state’s permission. Where does the ownership end?
But the picture gets bigger. An armed populous makes it very difficult for any government to have their way with the people. In case you haven’t noticed, the people always outnumber the ruling class. So, a government that does not have an individual-focus needs to control the great unwashed masses through first, thought control, then…well, fear, what they accuse terrorists of. Be sure of this: the government’s aversion towards an armed public also extends to every area of life including what you use for toothpaste and who you have sex with because as an individual you are completely unable.
This simple fact is why the United States of America is the greatest force for good that the world has ever known. For the first time in world history, a group of men said “no” to stateism, and “yes” to a government formed BY the people and FOR the people; in essence, a government for the individual. This is predicated on the belief that the individual is capable.
No, I am not gay, not even for a day. But many gays are certainly capable. In fact, most of them. We all win or lose by the way we choose, but we all have this in common: stateists want to take our choice—they want to take our freedom. For certain, as one example among many, they will give gay people legal rights, but what about the right to live? When you embrace someone who claims to be your advocate, be sure to ask yourself this: on what basis are they claiming to help you? Is it because you are pathetic and cannot survive without their help? Or is it based solely on respect for individual freedom and reverence for the individual? To know one’s worldview is to know one’s motives. Before you side with any politician, know what their view of mankind is…know their philosophy regarding state of being.
Symbolism over substance; ie., candle holding and being someone else for a day as opposed to protecting one’s right to do life is the issue, and a political one at that. As a Biblicist, I want the freedom to persuade someone and I want them to have the freedom to respond; stateism will eventually prevent both. Watch out for any worldview that deems a person’s right to live in accordance with their contribution to the group and its supposed collective good as determined by ruling elitists.
That’s politics, and it decides who will judge what moralism is. It will decide who defines morals: you or the state.