I
have a rather libertarian bent in my views and I make no apologies for
that. This is not to say that I am a member of the Libertarian Party, a
political party. It means that I preach liberty as a way of life.
This has been my guiding philosophy in my views in government,
politics, civil affairs, and even in church life.
When
I was a member of the Planning Board in the Town of Selma, I voted with
liberty in mind. I believe in private property rights as long as they
do not infringe upon the rights of others. With that in mind, there is a
place in society for rules and regulations on property use and
business, but a limited one, in my opinion.
I
realize that my views are about to sound like fingernails on a
chalkboard to legalistic church folks, especially here in The Bible
Belt, but I really don’t care. My views are theologically sound and I
am at perfect peace with what I am about to say.
Back
when Johnston County was debating about whether to allow liquor by the
drink, I heard some preachers hammering against the evils of alcohol.
It is not the alcohol that is the problem, it is the people who abuse
it. Alcohol consumption is not a sin, drunkenness is the sin mentioned
in Holy Writ. I believe in Christian liberty, and since I doubt Jesus
turned water into Welch’s grape juice as his first recorded miracle, I
don’t want to hear some legalistic whining about it.
I
take the same view on gambling. I had no problem with North Carolina
instituting a lottery. I lived in states that had lotteries before.
Our country has a history of colonial and state lotteries. What I had a
big problem with was the way in which North Carolina passed its lottery
bill. It was sneaky, underhanded, and unethical, but that is another
discussion for another day.
When
I was in Florida recently, I took note of how many internet sweepstakes
cafes there were. In the city of Jacksonville, they were all over.
When visiting my cousin, she took us to one and my wife and I both
spent $20 each. After depleting my online credits playing video slot
machines, I recouped all but $3 or so of the cash staked. My lovely
bride actually won $66 or so, for a net profit of $46. My cousin and
her boyfriend did not fare as well.
The
Town of Selma has decided to delay action on a petitioned request to
open an internet gaming cafe. The whole idea was to put off the
decision on allowing the business or not until the state clarifies a ban
on the businesses. This to me is the epitome of hypocrisy, on both the
part of the town and the state.
The
town wants to increase business but has declined to allow a tattoo
parlor and delayed a decision on an internet gaming business within the
past year or so. Personally, I don’t plan on allowing myself to be
stabbed with a needle and ink, nor do I plan on sitting in front of a
computer terminal playing video slot machines or Texas Hold ‘em poker.
However, a town cannot constantly cede their decision taking authority
to the state, nor frown upon every legitimate, legal business that some
may find a tad unsavory. I hate tobacco products, but I defend
wholeheartedly the right of JR’s Outlet to sell all the cigarettes they
can to interstate travelers and locals alike.
Every
once in a great while, I will buy a Powerball ticket. I don’t do it
often, but when I was in Florida for the aforementioned trip and the
jackpot was over $200 million, I did buy five tickets. I won $15 and am
still waiting for the State of Florida to process my claim and send me a
check.
I
don’t drink a lot, but I do like the occasional mudslide or Samuel
Adams draft beer with my dinner. At least we have decent quality
restaurants in Johnston County and not just McDonald’s, country buffets,
or barbecue restaurants because we chose to allow liquor by the drink
and attract better quality restaurants. I am sure that also helps with
sales tax revenues.
I
am not a big gambler, but if I want to put a few dollars in a slot
machine or play a few video games, that is totally my business and my
freedom. I was recently in two casinos, one aboard a cruise ship and
one in the Bahamas. I spent nothing at the casinos. If I wanted to, I
could have. That is my choice, and my freedom either way. There is an
internet gaming establishment across the walkway from the church my
family attends each week. If I want to walk over after Sunday service
and play video poker, that is my choice. I don’t do so, but I would
have no problem with my conscience even if I did.
I
would rather err on the side of liberty than tyranny when it comes to
what some consider vices. That is the freedom we have in this country,
and we should not hesitate to encourage it rather than defer or decline
it.
Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberty. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Column for Jan. 7, 2010
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do these words sound familiar? Of course they do. They are from one of the founding documents here in America, the Declaration of Independence. This premise is the basis for our freedoms and later the Bill of Rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.
Do you have a right to pursue happiness? Sure you do. As long as your rights do not infringe upon mine, I say go for it. I am very libertarian in my philosophy in that regard. Even in things I detest, I believe that you have free will, whether for good, for evil, or for innocuousness.
Apparently, the North Carolina Legislature and Governor Beverly Perdue disagree with me on that point. They also disagree with your right to do with your private property as you wish. This time, this disregard has manifested itself in the form of a ban on smoking in public, specifically in restaurants and bars.
Let me start by saying this. I detest smoking and always have. I have never tried a cigarette, pipe, or cigar simply because I find the purposeful inhalation of products of combustion unfathomable to my good senses. I also find the putrid odor detestable. I have walked out of many restaurants simply because they did not offer a non-smoking section or have sufficient separation between smoking and non-smoking. Several of these establishments are right here in town. I refuse to sit in or near a smoking section.
I will admit that part of me really loves the idea that any restaurant I choose to patronize will be smoke free and not offend my sense of smell. However, I am even more offended at the abridgement of private property rights and the pursuit of happiness. Hey, if smoking tobacco products makes you happy, knock yourself out. Just keep it away from me and my family.
A restaurant (or other business) owner should have the ability to decide if he/she wants to allow smoking in their establishment. Sure there are health concerns over tobacco smoke. I have the same concerns. If you have ever had a family member smoke like a chimney and later die of a heart attack, cancer, or emphysema, you would have the same concerns, too.
The problem is that the right to stupidly inhale cigarette smoke is, I believe an inalienable right. That means that it is given by God, not man. Government tends believe that it is the giver of rights. If a government can give rights, as it is attempting to do with the so-called right to health care or the right to an abortion, then it can also take those rights away.
Property rights are encompassed in the right to the pursuit of happiness and were actually considered to be the object of the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration. That right has been rescinded not by the giver of the right, but by a controlling governmental body who apparently knows more about you and your good health than you do.
I believe that a ban on smoking on airplanes was an excellent idea for the same reason that smoking is not allowed on elevators. An enclosed space with no way of escaping the smoke is an inappropriate place to keep people for any length of time. The right to breathe non-cigarette tainted air is abridged in such cases. One can not step outside of an airplane flying "at altitude" to avoid a toxic tobacco cloud and its stench. One can easily step outside of a dining establishment.
Fresh air as provided by God should be considered part of the words "life" and "liberty" in the Declaration of Independence. Just as I can avoid establishments that serve alcohol (a legal product) if I am morally opposed to the substance, I can also avoid restaurants that allow smoking (of a product that is also legal). I vote with my wallet in the marketplace rather than demand that government take that decision for me by abridging someone else's rights. This was the very problem with the 18th Amendment and Prohibition from 1920 to 1933.
Yes, I believe that someone's right to smoke ends where my nostrils begin. I will enjoy the air at restaurants that will be fresher henceforth than it was up through January 1st of this year. Part of me leaps on the inside with joy in that knowledge. Part of me also weeps with despair as I watch government continuously erode the rights of private citizens.
Do you have a right to pursue happiness? Sure you do. As long as your rights do not infringe upon mine, I say go for it. I am very libertarian in my philosophy in that regard. Even in things I detest, I believe that you have free will, whether for good, for evil, or for innocuousness.
Apparently, the North Carolina Legislature and Governor Beverly Perdue disagree with me on that point. They also disagree with your right to do with your private property as you wish. This time, this disregard has manifested itself in the form of a ban on smoking in public, specifically in restaurants and bars.
Let me start by saying this. I detest smoking and always have. I have never tried a cigarette, pipe, or cigar simply because I find the purposeful inhalation of products of combustion unfathomable to my good senses. I also find the putrid odor detestable. I have walked out of many restaurants simply because they did not offer a non-smoking section or have sufficient separation between smoking and non-smoking. Several of these establishments are right here in town. I refuse to sit in or near a smoking section.
I will admit that part of me really loves the idea that any restaurant I choose to patronize will be smoke free and not offend my sense of smell. However, I am even more offended at the abridgement of private property rights and the pursuit of happiness. Hey, if smoking tobacco products makes you happy, knock yourself out. Just keep it away from me and my family.
A restaurant (or other business) owner should have the ability to decide if he/she wants to allow smoking in their establishment. Sure there are health concerns over tobacco smoke. I have the same concerns. If you have ever had a family member smoke like a chimney and later die of a heart attack, cancer, or emphysema, you would have the same concerns, too.
The problem is that the right to stupidly inhale cigarette smoke is, I believe an inalienable right. That means that it is given by God, not man. Government tends believe that it is the giver of rights. If a government can give rights, as it is attempting to do with the so-called right to health care or the right to an abortion, then it can also take those rights away.
Property rights are encompassed in the right to the pursuit of happiness and were actually considered to be the object of the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration. That right has been rescinded not by the giver of the right, but by a controlling governmental body who apparently knows more about you and your good health than you do.
I believe that a ban on smoking on airplanes was an excellent idea for the same reason that smoking is not allowed on elevators. An enclosed space with no way of escaping the smoke is an inappropriate place to keep people for any length of time. The right to breathe non-cigarette tainted air is abridged in such cases. One can not step outside of an airplane flying "at altitude" to avoid a toxic tobacco cloud and its stench. One can easily step outside of a dining establishment.
Fresh air as provided by God should be considered part of the words "life" and "liberty" in the Declaration of Independence. Just as I can avoid establishments that serve alcohol (a legal product) if I am morally opposed to the substance, I can also avoid restaurants that allow smoking (of a product that is also legal). I vote with my wallet in the marketplace rather than demand that government take that decision for me by abridging someone else's rights. This was the very problem with the 18th Amendment and Prohibition from 1920 to 1933.
Yes, I believe that someone's right to smoke ends where my nostrils begin. I will enjoy the air at restaurants that will be fresher henceforth than it was up through January 1st of this year. Part of me leaps on the inside with joy in that knowledge. Part of me also weeps with despair as I watch government continuously erode the rights of private citizens.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Column for Jan. 15, 2009
Beware that planning and zoning ordinances can lead to regulatory tyranny
There are many tools at the disposal of legislators for the control of the masses. Control can take many shapes. Speed limits are a form of behavioral control. A speed limit curbs one's freedom to operate a motor vehicle at any speed one so desires in consideration for the safety of the whole of society. To that end, we in this nation do indeed legislate morality.
In the effort to legislate moral issues, there are always standards employed. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to stamp out private property rights. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to deny two people, allegedly in love with each other, the right to marry. We regulate marriage all the time. Law dictates that I have but one wife at a time. That is a moral stance on the issue, as articulated in statute.
I am free to own property. To deny the right to own property would be antithetical to our nation's founding principles. To allow me to own property and yet deny me the freedom to use it for reasonable purposes can be just as tyrannical as to deny me the right to own it in the first place.
When I speak of legislation I do not refer only to the national level of government. Cities often use planning and zoning laws to restrict behavior and freedom. For instance, it is required to have a certain amount of square footage of land upon which to build a dwelling. That is not an unreasonable requirement, considering that with a lot the size of a postage stamp, one dwelling would infringe upon the neighboring property and the property rights of others.
By the time this column is published, the Selma Town Council will have held a public hearing on whether or not to disallow future duplex (two family) homes in the MDR, or Medium Density Residential district. Since I serve on the town's planning board, I have seen this issue come up twice in the past two months.
Selma has a problem with 60% or more of its citizens being renters rather than single family dwelling owners. Renters typically do not have as much vested interest in the town, in property taxes, in the aesthetics of the property, and rental homes often attract a lower quality resident than would purchase property. This is a fact that the town wrestles with, as it has pointed out in its Strategic Plan. I have previously commented upon the plan extensively, yet not exhaustively in this column.
In the planning board meeting, I made the following observations and declarations.
1. The town does indeed have a problem of a disproportionate number of its residents being renters as opposed to home buyers.
2. Regardless of the need to change the proportion of home owners versus renters, private property rights need to be respected.
3. There are many people who own duplex and rental homes for a living.
4. The MDR district is fairly full as it is. There are not a large number of empty lots on which to build, anyway. I doubted that the move would have much impact, if any.
5. The MDR district was designed precisely for single family homes and duplexes.
6. To eliminate duplexes from future additions to an MDR zoned area is contrary to the very essence of what makes the MDR district MDR.
7. To tell a person what he can or can not do with his private property when it fits the intent of the zoning ordinance is not ethical and is denying private property rights.
It is for these reasons that a month ago, the motion was made in the planning board meeting to change the zoning ordinance to eliminate the future building of duplexes in the MDR district but it failed for lack of a second. The second time this discussion and vote came up on January 5th, the majority of the board members felt as I did and voted to recommend that the town council not change the zoning ordinance. Of course the planning board is only an advisory body with no binding authority, and the town council will do what it wants.
I grow tired of the quality of tenants in the duplexes in my own neighborhood. I despise Mariachi music at 1 AM as much as anyone. I have seen drug deals go down with other tenants in the neighborhood. I hate it. But I hate the deprivation of private property rights even more. I agree that Selma needs to have a better quality of residents moving here and a higher percentage of single family homes. I just do not believe that oppressing land owners with zoning requirements that can lead to local regulatory tyranny is the correct methodology. By the time this column is published, we will know where the town council stands on the matter.
There are many tools at the disposal of legislators for the control of the masses. Control can take many shapes. Speed limits are a form of behavioral control. A speed limit curbs one's freedom to operate a motor vehicle at any speed one so desires in consideration for the safety of the whole of society. To that end, we in this nation do indeed legislate morality.
In the effort to legislate moral issues, there are always standards employed. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to stamp out private property rights. Some may say that it is not a high moral standard to deny two people, allegedly in love with each other, the right to marry. We regulate marriage all the time. Law dictates that I have but one wife at a time. That is a moral stance on the issue, as articulated in statute.
I am free to own property. To deny the right to own property would be antithetical to our nation's founding principles. To allow me to own property and yet deny me the freedom to use it for reasonable purposes can be just as tyrannical as to deny me the right to own it in the first place.
When I speak of legislation I do not refer only to the national level of government. Cities often use planning and zoning laws to restrict behavior and freedom. For instance, it is required to have a certain amount of square footage of land upon which to build a dwelling. That is not an unreasonable requirement, considering that with a lot the size of a postage stamp, one dwelling would infringe upon the neighboring property and the property rights of others.
By the time this column is published, the Selma Town Council will have held a public hearing on whether or not to disallow future duplex (two family) homes in the MDR, or Medium Density Residential district. Since I serve on the town's planning board, I have seen this issue come up twice in the past two months.
Selma has a problem with 60% or more of its citizens being renters rather than single family dwelling owners. Renters typically do not have as much vested interest in the town, in property taxes, in the aesthetics of the property, and rental homes often attract a lower quality resident than would purchase property. This is a fact that the town wrestles with, as it has pointed out in its Strategic Plan. I have previously commented upon the plan extensively, yet not exhaustively in this column.
In the planning board meeting, I made the following observations and declarations.
1. The town does indeed have a problem of a disproportionate number of its residents being renters as opposed to home buyers.
2. Regardless of the need to change the proportion of home owners versus renters, private property rights need to be respected.
3. There are many people who own duplex and rental homes for a living.
4. The MDR district is fairly full as it is. There are not a large number of empty lots on which to build, anyway. I doubted that the move would have much impact, if any.
5. The MDR district was designed precisely for single family homes and duplexes.
6. To eliminate duplexes from future additions to an MDR zoned area is contrary to the very essence of what makes the MDR district MDR.
7. To tell a person what he can or can not do with his private property when it fits the intent of the zoning ordinance is not ethical and is denying private property rights.
It is for these reasons that a month ago, the motion was made in the planning board meeting to change the zoning ordinance to eliminate the future building of duplexes in the MDR district but it failed for lack of a second. The second time this discussion and vote came up on January 5th, the majority of the board members felt as I did and voted to recommend that the town council not change the zoning ordinance. Of course the planning board is only an advisory body with no binding authority, and the town council will do what it wants.
I grow tired of the quality of tenants in the duplexes in my own neighborhood. I despise Mariachi music at 1 AM as much as anyone. I have seen drug deals go down with other tenants in the neighborhood. I hate it. But I hate the deprivation of private property rights even more. I agree that Selma needs to have a better quality of residents moving here and a higher percentage of single family homes. I just do not believe that oppressing land owners with zoning requirements that can lead to local regulatory tyranny is the correct methodology. By the time this column is published, we will know where the town council stands on the matter.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Column for April 10, 2008
Martin Luther King and Moses
This past weekend was bittersweet for many Americans. Saturday and Sunday marked the anniversary of the loss of one leader and the recent loss of another. Though very different in many respects, they had the same end desire, freedom and equality. Even so, their respective views of equality may have been different.
April 4th marked the anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. King is revered by millions, vilified by others, and is held with indifference of estimation by still others. King's life was indeed ended prematurely and tragically, which unfortunately, made him a martyr in the minds of many. He has been deified by many, which I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. For some reason, he has become an object of worship among some of his race. Personally, I believe that King would have found this abhorrent. Unlike many White folks, I have actually read behind King. The internet is full of documentation and audio of his speeches. I personally spent three days with one of King's disciples at a conference discussing racism.
King said in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech, "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." It is unfortunate that so many of those who claim to follow King's vision do just that. All one has to do is listen to one of his disciples, Jesse Jackson. Even worse has been the rhetoric of Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, which has been full of pure venom. Oddly enough, many of these people carry the title of "reverend", and yet I never hear them preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather, I hear a social gospel, which tickles the ears of those who feel wronged by their status and position in life and blame society as a result.
One thing of which I am sure is that racism is not exclusive to Caucasians. It is certainly more prevalent, yet less overtly so, in the minds and actions of so called liberals. Liberals tend to tell people of color, whether of African or Hispanic heritage, that they can not advance in society without the assistance of the government. Over forty years ago, the great hope was for equal treatment under the law. Today, it seems that it is a hope that the government will supply their needs rather than having the opportunity for pursuing the dreams that equality can offer.
King said in the same aforementioned speech, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" These words are the foundation of this nation, and many were excluded by law from this creed. Today, the work of those like King resonates with the result. There is indeed equality under the law for all, regardless of skin color. The rest is up to the individual to rise above circumstances and thrive rather than flounder in pity and doubt.
One of my favorite lines from King's speech is "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." A big amen to that line. If it would be so, however, then we would no longer have the enslaving paradigm that so called affirmative action brings. We would no longer allow welfare, regardless of skin color, to be propagated generation after generation.
One man who actually marched with King and the civil rights movement, was Charlton Heston. Heston was a staunch conservative and later, president of the National Rifle Association. He was very politically incorrect in a very politically correct society such as Hollywood. Yet, Heston knew that the opportunity for equality was an essential tenant of what I refer to as "classic liberalism". Classic liberalism bears no resemblance to modern day liberalism as we know it. Actually, classic liberalism is what is true conservatism today. Few actually practice it, however. Liberalism refers to the practice and promotion of liberty with accompanying exercise of responsibility.
Heston knew that gun rights were essential to the exercise of freedom. That is just one aspect of individual liberty, as he obviously understood, hence, his participation in the civil rights movement of the 1960's. His dream, however, was a bit different than those liberals of today. He believed in the principle of being free to succeed, yet free to fail; of being free to participate in the American dream and take advantage of the freedoms available, yet taking responsibility for one's own actions and success or lack thereof.
Heston, who portrayed Ben Hur, Moses, El Cid, and John the Baptist, died this past weekend. I was saddened to see this, though it was not unexpected. Charlton Heston was 84 years of age and suffered from Alzheimer's Syndrome.
I am amazed at the difference between civil rights activists like some of Martin Luther King's disciples, who have perverted the message of King to be a self serving and ironically enslaving paradigm and someone like Charlton Heston, who preached freedom and equality for all until the day he died. Heston's message actually embodied the concept of "…a nation where [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". I wish that there were more that preached that message in this nation.
Selma, Alabama may have been where MLK and his disciples chose to bring the message of freedom, but I have chosen Selma, North Carolina to do the very same thing, regardless of skin color. The civil rights movement was a necessary thing, and has made great changes in our nation. What we need today is a civil responsibility movement to follow up and free minds now that the bodies have been freed.
This past weekend was bittersweet for many Americans. Saturday and Sunday marked the anniversary of the loss of one leader and the recent loss of another. Though very different in many respects, they had the same end desire, freedom and equality. Even so, their respective views of equality may have been different.
April 4th marked the anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. King is revered by millions, vilified by others, and is held with indifference of estimation by still others. King's life was indeed ended prematurely and tragically, which unfortunately, made him a martyr in the minds of many. He has been deified by many, which I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. For some reason, he has become an object of worship among some of his race. Personally, I believe that King would have found this abhorrent. Unlike many White folks, I have actually read behind King. The internet is full of documentation and audio of his speeches. I personally spent three days with one of King's disciples at a conference discussing racism.
King said in his famous "I Have A Dream" speech, "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred." It is unfortunate that so many of those who claim to follow King's vision do just that. All one has to do is listen to one of his disciples, Jesse Jackson. Even worse has been the rhetoric of Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, which has been full of pure venom. Oddly enough, many of these people carry the title of "reverend", and yet I never hear them preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rather, I hear a social gospel, which tickles the ears of those who feel wronged by their status and position in life and blame society as a result.
One thing of which I am sure is that racism is not exclusive to Caucasians. It is certainly more prevalent, yet less overtly so, in the minds and actions of so called liberals. Liberals tend to tell people of color, whether of African or Hispanic heritage, that they can not advance in society without the assistance of the government. Over forty years ago, the great hope was for equal treatment under the law. Today, it seems that it is a hope that the government will supply their needs rather than having the opportunity for pursuing the dreams that equality can offer.
King said in the same aforementioned speech, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" These words are the foundation of this nation, and many were excluded by law from this creed. Today, the work of those like King resonates with the result. There is indeed equality under the law for all, regardless of skin color. The rest is up to the individual to rise above circumstances and thrive rather than flounder in pity and doubt.
One of my favorite lines from King's speech is "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." A big amen to that line. If it would be so, however, then we would no longer have the enslaving paradigm that so called affirmative action brings. We would no longer allow welfare, regardless of skin color, to be propagated generation after generation.
One man who actually marched with King and the civil rights movement, was Charlton Heston. Heston was a staunch conservative and later, president of the National Rifle Association. He was very politically incorrect in a very politically correct society such as Hollywood. Yet, Heston knew that the opportunity for equality was an essential tenant of what I refer to as "classic liberalism". Classic liberalism bears no resemblance to modern day liberalism as we know it. Actually, classic liberalism is what is true conservatism today. Few actually practice it, however. Liberalism refers to the practice and promotion of liberty with accompanying exercise of responsibility.
Heston knew that gun rights were essential to the exercise of freedom. That is just one aspect of individual liberty, as he obviously understood, hence, his participation in the civil rights movement of the 1960's. His dream, however, was a bit different than those liberals of today. He believed in the principle of being free to succeed, yet free to fail; of being free to participate in the American dream and take advantage of the freedoms available, yet taking responsibility for one's own actions and success or lack thereof.
Heston, who portrayed Ben Hur, Moses, El Cid, and John the Baptist, died this past weekend. I was saddened to see this, though it was not unexpected. Charlton Heston was 84 years of age and suffered from Alzheimer's Syndrome.
I am amazed at the difference between civil rights activists like some of Martin Luther King's disciples, who have perverted the message of King to be a self serving and ironically enslaving paradigm and someone like Charlton Heston, who preached freedom and equality for all until the day he died. Heston's message actually embodied the concept of "…a nation where [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". I wish that there were more that preached that message in this nation.
Selma, Alabama may have been where MLK and his disciples chose to bring the message of freedom, but I have chosen Selma, North Carolina to do the very same thing, regardless of skin color. The civil rights movement was a necessary thing, and has made great changes in our nation. What we need today is a civil responsibility movement to follow up and free minds now that the bodies have been freed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
