A Brave New World

When it comes to pol­i­tics, I usu­al­ly find myself stress­ing ((I don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly mean dis­tress­ing, but just stress­ing in gen­er­al.)) over Amer­i­can issues.

Today I hang my head and grieve for our friends to the North, where in Que­bec a 12 year old girl is able to have a judge over­turn her father’s dis­ci­pli­nary ground­ing.

I’m halfway through the book Brave New World ((Dis­clo­sure: This is an affil­i­ate link.)) by Aldous Hux­ley; in it, the con­cept of parent­age is one for the his­to­ry books. The state rais­es chil­dren, and the state con­trols them through plea­sure. Ram­pant and expe­ri­en­tial sex­u­al­i­ty is encour­aged as young as possible.

Today, sev­en­ty-six years lat­er, a Cana­di­an father is unable to dis­ci­pline his pre­teen daugh­ter for post­ing inap­pro­pri­ate pic­tures of her­self on the Internet.

I hear a lot of peo­ple com­par­ing cer­tain things with 1984, but folks, I sub­mit we’re head­ing full­speed into a col­li­sion with a tru­ly brave new world.

Hat tip: Dan Phillips

5 thoughts on “A Brave New World”

  1. Walt Dickinson

    Hey Rick, I thought you’d be inter­est­ed in this…

    http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=54

    The House of Reps. is soon to be vot­ing on House Con­cur­rent Res­o­lu­tion 362, which is a piece of leg­is­la­tion prac­ti­cal­ly aimed to start a war with Iran. The link I pro­vid­ed will take you to a page where you can write an e‑mail to your elect­ed offi­cials in Con­gress and tell them to vote against this Resolution.

    Enjoy.

  2. Mean­while our sen­ate is pass­ing a bill mak­ing spank­ing chil­dren illegal.

    One more way they con­tin­ue to exalt their own wis­dom against the wis­dom of God. Think­ing them­selves wise they have become foolish.

  3. Bran­don: I’m read­ing the very enlight­en­ing A Chris­t­ian Man­i­festo by Fran­cis Scha­ef­fer, and it is mak­ing just what is hap­pen­ing to Cana­da and the Unit­ed States very clear. He points out that, despite increas­ing­ly pop­u­lar opin­ion, the cul­ture of the West is very much based upon the idea that the Law of God is final, and a great deal of gov­ern­men­tal tra­di­tion can be traced back to the ideals of (if I remem­ber cor­rect­ly) Ruther­ford’s Lex Rex or the Law and the Prince, which was banned in Eng­land as trea­so­nous because it vio­lat­ed the divine right of kings by empha­siz­ing that even they were sub­ject to God’s Law and that any gov­ern­men­tal action con­trary to the Law of God was tyran­ny and ought to be resisted.

    Amer­i­ca & Cana­da are for­sak­ing any sem­blance of bib­li­cal her­itage; sec­u­lar human­ism has tak­en over, and the nat­ur­al result is going to be tyran­ny. For the Chris­tians, that also means per­se­cu­tion is around the cor­ner. Even­tu­al­ly — per­haps soon­er rather than lat­er — it will become trea­so­nous for us also to stand for our faith.

  4. “Amer­i­ca & Cana­da are for­sak­ing any sem­blance of bib­li­cal her­itage; sec­u­lar human­ism has tak­en over, and the nat­ur­al result is going to be tyranny.”

    Rick,

    Maybe you should read the Con­sti­tu­tion (again?). How many ref­er­ences to God or reli­gion do you find in it??

    You’ll notice that in each such instance, the ref­er­ence is neg­a­tive. What­ev­er one’s opin­ion of the faith of the found­ing fathers, when it came to writ­ing down the supreme law of the new coun­try, they very much went secular.

    If you want to com­plain that Amer­i­ca is for­sak­ing any sem­blance of bib­li­cal her­itage, you are cer­tain­ly free to. But you should be aware that such for­sak­ing dates back to 1787 and the writ­ing of the constitution.

    Of course, some com­plain we live under tyran­ny today. Freedom/tryanny, it all depends on ones perspective.

  5. After hav­ing read Scha­ef­fer and learn­ing what affects the Ref­or­ma­tion had on soci­ety and gov­ern­ment, I disagree.

    If Amer­i­ca was found­ed upon sec­u­lar­ist prin­ci­ples, then I can’t help but won­der why a major­i­ty of the orig­i­nal states were able to give cer­tain ben­e­fits to spe­cif­ic church­es or how they were able to tax cit­i­zens to raise mon­ey to sup­port Gospel preach­ing. Today there’s no way that would pass — true sec­u­lar­ist think­ing has tak­en over — but when the framers of the Con­sti­tu­tion were still alive and kick­ing, well, it seemed to work.

    The view of gov­ern­ment and the role there­of and the view of peo­ple in gen­er­al that the founders of our nation held were very much in agree­ment with bib­li­cal pre­cepts. This is why cer­tain rights are “inalien­able”; in a sec­u­lar nation, noth­ing is inalien­able for the only rule is major­i­ty rules, and the major­i­ty is by no means immutable nor its judg­ments indelible.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Rick Beckman