Saturday, July 23, 2005

Pedantic Politics 3 [Too Hot To Handle] --- Prologue

The little Pedantic Politics series exists merely to spell out a general outline of my politics and such. [It also makes good blog fodder.] The goal is to be reasonably clear and give some indication as to why I hold what I hold, nothing more. The brief justifications for my positions are not intended to be full-fledged apologetics, or even semi-fledged apologetics. At the same time, I have to stand by what I say, even in its brief form, or otherwise I'm trying to have the double pleasure of expressing opinions without allowing myself to be criticized!

In Part 3 of this little series, I shall be dealing with alphabetized sub-parts employing lowercase Roman letters on various hot-button topics and giving, in modern parlance, my "take."

Fellow evangelicals may find that I'm too libertine or anarchist for their tastes. I certainly know that I'm too libertarian for the tastes of any stripe of Republican or Democrat in general. In short, I inhabit an in-between zone that is sparsely populated, definitely not being "Left," but certainly not "Right" either by what the term has presently come to mean.

Before beginning the various parts of PedPol 3, I'll try to be as transparent as possible, listing some guiding principles that have shaped my thoughts.

(1) The civic and moral levels overlap, but are not one and the same. There seems to be nothing illogical about thinking something is morally wrong while saying at the same time that it shouldn't be the State's business.

(2) I assume that people are free moral agents who have the capacity of being responsible for themselves. Whether they actually are doesn't concern me. People have, in my book, the right to be irresponsible, provided that their irresponsibility doesn't directly harm other people or property.

(3) The fact that a law in the books says X does not imply that X has any sort of ontological moral standing. It may, or it may not, depending on the individual situation.

(4) We live in a secular state, not a Christian state. Whether I like this is irrelevant --- this is just how things happen to presently be. My goal, were I to play a a social engineer who could tinker with society-at-large, would be to protect my life and way of life. Whether those on the opposite side of the fence --- secular humanists, leftists, etc, prosper at the same time is not my concern.

Oh, one important note --- some of the hot-button issues are universally controversial [abortion, say], while other of the hot-button issues may not be important to the reader as they are to me, for reasons good and/or bad.

Finally, the subtitle of Part 3, Too Hot To Handle, was taken from Steve Hays' title regarding a discussion of ethics on his Triablogue. It is quite possible that the Hays cannon will be turned on the PP pea-shooter [or, equivalently, a gun with a little flag that comes out saying "Bang!"] after my dark libertarian side is exposed to the world!


Post a Comment

<< Home