Recently Doug Gray presented a concise, detailed explanation of Genetic Engineering to the Roundtable in Ethics. He begins with the scientific research that forms the basis for the current biotechnology, with an explanation of terms and events along the way. He ends by considering the moral and ethical impact of this genetic altering technology. This is not a lengthy article, and if you are not familiar with the topic, this would be a good source of information for you.
Archive for June, 2010
The reason secularists continue to seek removal of public expressions of faith such as “National Day of Prayer” or “In God We Trust” is because they have turned the First amendment on its head to mean no public expressions of faith whereas historically it actually protected that expression.
Historically, the First Amendment limited only the federal government with wording like “Congress shall make no law….” Of course today, secularists seek to label any public expression of faith as a federal endorsement of faith.
So here is a simple way to distinguish a law from a proclamation of accommodation. A law requires one to do something or not to do something and violating such law is punishable by the government. In contrast, a proclamation or recitation does not require anyone to participate, and if they choose not to there is no legal punishment.
Often these terms are used synonymously in order to promote globalism by demonstrating the undeniable and thereby summarily equating all dissenters with flat-earthers.
The argument conflates globalization and globalism and is stated something like “Globalism is undeniable,” and demonstrates that by banding a few supposed indisputable evidences, e.g. the interconnectedness of commerce, communication, travel, etc. Thus, the only reasonable conclusion one can infer is that rejection of globalism is the badge of a “sand-dolt” (one who buries his head in the sand). Therefore, the debate about globalism is over. The earth is round and GLOBALISM IS!
I first heard this conflated argument in 2004, and the same sentiment was expressed by someone I met recently.
Well, let me set the record straight. Globalization means “to extend to other or all parts of the globe; make worldwide: efforts to globalize the auto industry….”1 Whereas, globalism means, “the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.”2 Consequently, one can recognize and even support globalization, our interconnectedness, without embracing globalism, the plan to denationalize the world and replace national constitutions with an ever-burgeoning global constitution.
This illegitimate conflation obfuscates the distinctions between being “interconnected” and being “intimate”. By this logic, the global should consume nations, who in turn should absorb states and cities.
While I am a proponent of interconnectedness, I am an opponent of forced intimacy. Carried out to its logical conclusion, the idea that interconnectedness in some ways necessitates everyone living under the same governance would also require the elimination of neighborhoods since our interconnectedness would demand single neighborhood governance. In contrast, I would argue that if it is okay for me to be connected with my fellow citizens in Norman without having to give up my home, then why can’t the United States interact with the world and remain a sovereign constitutional republic?
I for one do not want intimacy with my neighbors, and I am still glad we have fences and walls. I am glad I have windows through which to see my interconnected fellow citizens, but equally thankful for curtains for when I desire to only relish in the company of my chosen intimates.
Globalists seek to destroy the world’s curtain rods, and make the world one—you know one enlightened, felicitous global family. Ah yes, a little heaven on earth. Well, call me a sand-dolt if you are so inclined, but I’ll keep my curtain rods because while I love neighbors be they next door or a Brit, I don’t love them that much. And while there is much talk of globalism being a little of a heaven on earth, I think we would find, albeit too late, that it would be a lot more like ”HE double hockey sticks.”