It's funny I was just writing about how Idaho is technically advanced and this morning an article comes out in the paper to that effect.
Here are some interesting facts from the article.
From 1993-1998 Boise had a 53% increase in high tech jobs making it the second fasted growing moderate high tech city in the nation.
One out of ten people in Boise work in some high tech industry. Only eight other cities in the country exceed this.
Boise has the fifth lowest violent crime rate of all the cities in this national survey.
I have been contemplating this issue of gun control and the fact that many on this list who rarely disagree may wind up taking opposite sides on this issue. How then do we unite?
Ideally we can unite through soul contact, but this may be too emotional of an issue for the group to approach the soul without prejudice. The next best thing to unite two or more people is the understanding of principles. When two or more see the principle behind a concept then group soul contact becomes possible.
Let me word the principle of freedom in another way.
"The life of freedom should be allowed to flow in all directions and should only be restricted for the purpose of protecting or manifesting a greater freedom, or for freedom affecting a greater number of people."
Earlier we gave examples of justly limiting the freedom to steal, rape, etc.
Notice that I use the word "life" within this definition. Why? Because without freedom there is no life. Where freedom is restricted there is a reduction in the force and quality of life. Where freedom is enhanced life is magnified and grows in power and purpose.
Freedom is an essence at the core of our very being and evolution, and terrible karma awaits he who supports a reduction thereof which results in an overall diminishing of this greatest of the gifts of God. If one is deceived into supporting a belief system which will limit overall freedom he will come back in a situation where that which is important in his life is kept from him because he has diminished freedom to pursue.
Many of those who have been born under a tyranny were free in their last life but did not understand their freedom and supported the restriction of others in a way that enhanced their own vision of the good.
Some supported "witch control" and inwardly were happy to see them eliminated by burning them at the stake.
Some supported "heretic control" and did not question the authorities who tortured those who dared question the religious leaders.
Some supported "scientist control" and inwardly rejoiced at seeing men like Galileo put in prison.
Some supported "Indian control" because those dangerous Indians wanted to keep their land and way of life for themselves.
Why did people support these various restrictions of freedom???
Answer: Because they were all viewed as dangerous and that which is dangerous needs to be controlled.
Has anything changed?
Not much. People still want to over-control because they see illusionary danger in guns, gays, free speech, free trade, freedom to buy or market herbs and vitamins, freedom of medical marijuana, freedom to state your belief that a disease can be cured, a free internet and many others.
Yes it is true that freedom in all these areas can be abused. A person can take too much of the wrong herb and have a heart attack, but so what? The good that comes from freedom far outweighs the bad.
Are we so terrified of danger that we want to make speed limits on our freeways 20 miles per hour so no one can kill themselves???
Neither should we seek to control guns or vitamins because of a small number who abuse - especially if studies show that the enhancement of freedom results in more good than bad.
Those of you who attended the gathering met at least five people who are big believers in guns and enjoy shooting. They were Larry, Travis, Susan, Ren and Gloria. Now, I ask those of you who attended and met these gentle souls. Do you really think that we need to be protected from them by restricting their freedoms from something they consider sacred?
I would suggest that that when we take a stand on one side or the other on the principle of freedom that we take a look at people who have been a force for good or evil and see who we align ourselves with.
As far as gun control goes I cannot think of even one great person who supported it. I can think of a lot of bad guys such as Hitler, Stalin, slave holders in the Old South, Castro, and every tyrant in modern times.
The name of Ghandi was brought up around the gun issue, but Ghandi supported non violence as do I yet supported the principle of freedom as do I. He made this statement:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving the whole nation of arms the blackest."
An essential part of practicing the Principle of Freedom - a dividing sword between the philosophies of light and dark brothers - is a tolerance for the freedom of others to pursue their dreams in areas where we ourselves have no interest - or perhaps even distaste for.
They keynote for this is the old adage:
"I may not agree with what you say, but will fight to the death your right to say (or do) it."
I see the seat belt laws caused some discussing so let me end with this question:
Why is it contrary to the principle of freedom to make laws enforcing seat belts, but supportive of the Principle to have laws requiring us to stop at stop signs?
Copyright 2000 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved