I read with amused consternation that the California state legislature, that bastion of political correctness, passed a law which mandates that high school cheer leading squads in that state must "cheer " in equal squad numbers at the girl's basketball games as they do for the boy's games. Hum-m-m... Looks like Title IX has reared its mandated "fairness" head once again. Never mind that the majority of girl's basketball teams in California could "care less" that their H.S. cheerleaders cheered for them or not. But one must suppose that someone or some group of someones felt slighted. Otherwise, why go to all this trouble? One might gloss over this legislative dictate were it not for the fact that the "bent-out-of-shape" physical education teachers behind this corrective push also want the cheerleaders to "cheer with equal enthusiasm" at the girl's games. This added impetus would be amusing if it were not so inane.
Let's take this woefully lack of logic a step further. You and I required are by law to pay taxes. Were the above described attitude adjustment also a requirement, not only would we have to pay our taxes, we would be required to do so with "enthusiasm." I'm all in favor of rendering unto Cesar that which is duly and fairly his, but I draw a firm line in my ledger when it comes to doing so with anything remotely approaching having an enthusiastic smile on my face!
Indisputably our nation is regarded as the most over-regulated society in the world. The question must be, "How did we get this way?" In the simplest terms, we have sacrificed personal liberty for the equality of the masses. A handshake to consummate a verbal agreement between one or more parties has long ago been regulated to the dustbin and replaced with a myriad of confusing, but allegedly required, legal documentation produced in triplicate and regulated by a veritable army of legal "experts" whose self-justified purpose is to interpret and enforce each nuance of these binding agreements. Individual trust in personal transactions have been smothered by innumerable laws and regulations propagated by the governments and their subordinate institutions that we citizens have allowed, if not encouraged, to proliferate. The more latitude government is given authority to regulate our lives the less personal liberty we as individuals have to control and live our own lives as we deem appropriate. This is not to suggest that a well-ordered and civil society could productively flourish without a codified set of laws to establish domestic tranquility for its citizens. Rational laws, like fair taxes, are a recognized necessity. However, there comes a point when the proliferation of laws and regulations, like unchecked taxation, becomes an undue burden on the citizenry and, thus, stifles even more drastically individual liberty.
Take for instance the oft-debated seat belt and the motorcycle helmet laws. Common sense would dictate that if for no other reason than personal safety one would readily fasten their seat belt or don a helmet. Yet society deems it necessary to fortify "common sense" and make both practices mandated by law. Are both good and necessary laws? Yes and no. Depends on one's view point. In the grand scheme of things individuals should have the liberty to determine for themselves whether wearing a seat belt or a helmet is in their best interest and not have a governing authority make that decision for them. On the opposite side of the issue, to make it fair and equal of all, a law is enacted that says in effect that individuals cannot be trusted to make wise decisions and, therefore, the law takes that decision out of their hands. For our own good we are mandated to wear our seat belts and motorcycle helmets, and thus personal liberty is sacrificed in the cause of the "common good."
On the larger stage of national issues, the "Secular Progressives," as commentator Bill O'Reilly has recently labeled persuasions of that ilk, and "conservative traditionalist" are at hotly debated odds over same-sex marriage and affirmative action, to name two. Without elaborating on the pros and cons of either view point, suffice it to say that "common sense for the common good" is being pitted against "equality for all." Both sides are clamoring for laws to justify and solidify their affirmed positions. Invariably when persuasion fails, laws are enviably enacted. The more pluralistic a society becomes the more secular that society is. Therefore, more laws are legislated to keep that society in check. Personal liberty wanes with each law enacted in the name of equality for all.
Bottom line...when people align themselves with God they are accountable to God and a moral code to be accountable to each other...fewer laws are required and greater freedom and liberty prevails. When religion is absent a vacuum occurs into which laws compelling good behavior fills the void. Equality in man's eye must be legislated. Liberty and freedom never are.
"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon the constitution, upon laws and upon courts. Theres are false hopes, believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lives in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."
- Judge Learned Hand, 1941
