Ignoring Opposing Views

I am going to weed out those that ought to read this the most.

For anyone that does not know by now, I consider myself a Christian.  I also consider myself a firm supporter of the US Constitution as written by the original signers.

I also believe the idea that The Bill of Right (first ten amendments) were the keeping of a promise by the signers.  The promise was that the first Congress under the new US Constitution would pursue in diligence the enacting of those principle articulated in the Bill of Right.  The first congress kept their word.

There, the apologies have been stated.  With them securely behind me I proceed with my assessment of how ignorance chooses to follow ignorantly.

Last evening my wife encourage me to watch a show on Netflix.  It was Patterns of Evidence-Exodus.  The gist of the show was to set forth a theory by a film maker that the Exodus recorded in the Bible happened earlier than historians presume.

According the film maker he was raise Christian, but had many questions about the veracity (my word) of some biblical stories.  So he pursued an extensive study of the Exodus through non-biblical sources.

Following his research he ultimately advocated the idea that the Exodus happened several hundred years prior to the historically established timeline.  Here is the kicker.  The prevailing timeline leads historians to dismiss the biblical account of the Exodus because there is no evidence of it.  He and others have a premise that there is ample evidence available, IF THE TRADITIONAL TIMELINE IS SHIFTED.

As one anthropological scholar put it, “There is absolute no evidence of the Exodus. None!”

Being of the disposition which I stated at the outset my mind began shouting “What?  Are you nuts?”  Then as my mind cleared of reacting I understood what was happening.  That scholar and others were ignoring, out of hand, a critical piece of evidence; The Bible, itself.

There are people that reject anything biblical as an absurd fantasy.  Therefore they simply reject it.  I disagree with them on both points.  It is neither absurd nor fantasy simply because someone declares it to be so.  The bible is a historical source, just as several of Shakespeare’s plays are historical.  Maybe for prosetic purposes they meet entertainment goals, but the foundation of them and Shakespeare’s understand ought not to be dismissed.

Now, I move on to another matter.  Politics of our day.  Specifically, I opine on the ever intriguing adventures of the Cliven Bundy family.  They tend to find, or place themselves, at the center of controversy with the national bureaucracy (sorry folks but I can’t bring myself to reference the bureaucracy as “federal”).

As we all know the latest squabble is about a wildlife refuge in Oregon.  A year ago the dust-up was about cattle grazing.

Wait!  That last paragraph was wrong.  According to the nationalists the issues are wildlife refuges and cattle grazing.  According to the Bundy militia the issue is about property rights and national dominion of local ranchers (property owners).

There is a significant difference between rights and “refuges.”

Some folks cheer on the property rights protectors.  Others classify them and being  criminals, equating the Bundy Bunch with “Butch Cassidy and the Wild Bunch.”  But this crowd, just like Marky Mark and Funky Bunch, have lost sight of critical information.  The best way to avoid looking like as ass with pants (and thought patterns) down around ones ankles is to not ignore significant information.

Those that reject the Bundy Bunch as “Bundy Bandits” tend to fall back on one exclusive arguments.  That argument is that when western states became members of the Union the states disposed of major portions of property to the national government.  Therefore, because it is national public lands everyone (including ranchers) are subject to the subsequent laws relative to the use of those lands.

Now is when I come back to the story about the Patterns of Evidence-Exodus. What the naysayers ignore as critical evidence is the Constitution itself.  The Constitution makes clear that the Federal government may own and control lands only under specific circumstances.  Those circumstances do not exist now.  They did not exist when the state were brought into the Union.

Further, the Constitution provides for equal protections to every state, whether they come into the union a hundred years ago, or come in today.  By circumventing the Constitution to “claim” public lands the national government, and its volume of uninformed media apologists, uses the bureaucracy to trample rights.

While ranchers seek to protect traditional grazing ranges bureaucrats create a stampede of abuses.  It has been proven with The House of Representatives function as the voice of the states and the people therein.  Rather than equivocating about the nobility of Militia it is time for them to serious engage in changing the laws governing national public lands, and bring them back to being Constitutionally consistent.

That Is The Way I See It.



One thought on “Ignoring Opposing Views

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s