1.) Things get a little squiffy when religion is involved.
2.) Not everyone is going to get what they want all the time.
2.) Not everyone is going to get what they want all the time.
When it comes to politics, I really don't know what I am talking about by way of studious learnings and reading activities, I really just apply what I have learned in life to come to a conclusion about it. Much like I would any other matter. Of course there are plenty of details and things to consider when it comes to such an immense topic. The things that have been on my mind lately are mostly related to human rights and freedoms.
It is already a known difficult topic and only becomes dicier when you are considering a thing like "Freedom" in a place like "America". Land of the free. We've got that whole lot of rights and so on to keep us strong and independent. It is what our systems are based on. The trouble is: sometimes things that can be considered "traditional" desperately need an update to truly perpetuate freedoms/independence/rights. We have grown as a people; we have learned that women are people. Okay, so let's update that whole "she can't vote" business. Easy fix, right? Wrong. Plenty of people fought this for plenty of reasons, one of which was that we shouldn't mess with our tradition; our rules and standards that this country was built upon. If we change that, what else will we change? Something about segregation, perhaps?? The very idea.
I am not saying all original ideas/standards put forth by our forefathers were shit; I quite like a lot of them. Same could be said about tradition as a whole. Tradition can be quite useful. Like that whole tradition of murder being frowned upon. That's a fantastic one, in my opinion. But it is only just that: my opinion. And it can be quite difficult to know who's opinion to heed. Who's voice to listen to. These matters we vote on often becoming so black and white when in reality? We could use a little balance. A ...Gray Scale, if you will.
It is also particularly trying when you consider the fact that Church was so much more prevalent when we were creating these laws for ourselves! Plenty of our laws (like the no-murder ones) were actually sprung from what some berk read in a bible somewhere. These things only become more and more confusing when you throw a thing like religion into the mix.
Let's say Joanie is of a religion that says she has to eat lunch every day at precisely noon. Does that mean her government job should allow her to do so every single day? Doing so would be unfair to others who work there (who also really would love to take their lunch at noon). And if the boss didn't hire her due to this, Joanie would only sue and win and get the job anyway. WHICH would be Joanie's right to do, thanks to plenty of American laws. Or would it be the boss' law-protecting right to not hire this Joanie? Becomes quite arduous.
On serious matter: there are plenty of people who believe abortion should be illegal because of religious reasons. On the other hand, there are people who believe it is the individual's (woman with child's) right to do what she wants with her body (in accordance to laws that protect freedom), and as such, should have the ability to choose. (As far as I am concerned, this one is a pretty simple one.) Or how about the fact that our Canadian brethren (I know; that's not America. Just hang in there, baby) have, as I understand, made it illegal to call an individual by the incorrect pronoun? Now, as far as I am concerned, everybody can prefer to be called/known as whatever they want. It really seems like none of my business. HOWever; to go so far as to make it illegal? This one isn't even religion-related, but it's got me baffled in a similar manner. Without even bringing things like sadistic people (who would assume a pronoun just to get someone else in trouble/jailed) and loopholes into this, I really believe that this is more of a "manners" issue than it is "judicial". Of course it could be argued that it is entirely not the thing to kill someone, and doing so would be considered quite rude. But this Canadian law, I think, might be closer to "bullying" than even "slander".
We create our laws to protect. But it is impossible to protect every single person's "rights" because at some point there will be a disagreement. An argument of what the definition of "rights" is. I have the right to say something online and not be berated. But, wait, everyone else who sees it online has the right to say what they want about the original article. And then, naturally, there are some things that the government should simply keep its nose out of.
We create our laws to protect. But it is impossible to protect every single person's "rights" because at some point there will be a disagreement. An argument of what the definition of "rights" is. I have the right to say something online and not be berated. But, wait, everyone else who sees it online has the right to say what they want about the original article. And then, naturally, there are some things that the government should simply keep its nose out of.
No comments:
Post a Comment