inkbluesky

It is one of those nonsensical arguments that seems to crop up from time to time: Organized religion of all types has a bloody history, but atheism is no better because Stalin and Mao were atheists. As this blogger and an astute commenter points out that is like saying that since both drunk and sober drivers cause accidents we might well all drink and drive.

electrical storm 2

Does the Future Need a Legal Guardian? 

There’s a broader movement afoot, outside the realm of government and law, to build support for protection of the global commons for all to enjoy, across time. A new Web site, guardiansofthefuture.org, explains the roots of the idea and summarizes it this way: “People who live today have the sacred right and obligation to protect the commonwealth of the Earth and the common health of people and all our relations for many generations to come.”

These are not particularly new thoughts on the future. Some native American tribes have passed on the philosophy or wisdom if you like, that each generation is simply the temporary guardians for the next. While we might need new legislation and fine tuning of the old, guardians or legislation doesn’t mean much without the political will to enforce it.  The current Decider-in-chief is supposed to be a guardian yet has for example has interpreted Environmental Protection Agency rules in a way that benefits special interests that have helped him politically. The guardian concept sounds nice, but it still keeps us in the arena of the rule of men having precedent over the rule of law. We’re supposed to be a nation that adheres to th rule of law, not a cult of personalities that interprets, twists, bends or just plain ignores according to their whim.