Posted on 07/06/2009 11:43:46 PM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla
The following was added to the original post at eternity road:
When the rationale begins with a protest about hate mail and scatology, I know not to expect tight and close reasoning to follow.
Anyhow it’s not about vague “morality.” It’s about what God says to do or not to do.
I know many who agree with you.
It is far more convenient to pass blanket judgment on a man than to substantively fisk the points he makes.
The points made are better than good. I’m not so sure that the “critics” have even bothered to read the article all the way through, let alone actually THINK through the points made therein!
> UPDATE 2: Those who question the morality of this strategy should also read this post on the moral rationale.
A clumsy piece of casuistry that attempts to rationalize wrongdoing. It doesn’t even merit a “nice try” or a “B for Effort”.
Porretto’s first point is a misapplication of Christ’s commandment in Matt 7:12 “therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
Porretto makes a clumsy attempt to rationalize this clear commandment by insisting that Christians are commanded to oppose evil with all appropriate weapons. Perhaps Porretto ought to consult with Christ on His views on the topic:
Matt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Porretto’s second rationalization is “Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.”, which is Old French for “Shame on him who evil thinks.”
Unfortunately for this argument, morality is not relative, it is absolute: right is right and wrong is wrong. “Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense” is the argument of a Liberal: how quaint that Porretto should take refuge in it when trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Porretto’s final argument is “If Your Hands Are Clean And Your Conscience Is Clear, You Have Nothing To Worry About”.
Every liberty-snatching Liberal has used this rationalization to justify every excessive use of power and every intrusion into an individual’s freedoms. Why not register your guns? If your hands are clean and your conscience is clear, you have nothing to worry about. Why not have everybody in the country DNA sampled and fingerprinted? If your hands are clean and your conscience is clear, you have nothing to worry about. Etcetera etcetera and so it goes.
I do not know which I find more disturbing, Porretto’s original idea of character assassination or his Liberal rationalizations as to why doing so is “the right thing to do.”
All I can conclude is this: his rationalizations rely on Liberal concepts that ought to be foreign to the Conservative’s way of doing things. As such they are excellent reasons not to do it.
Kia Kaha (Maori: Stand Strong)
*DieHard the Hunter*
Apparently you’ve thought and reasoned this out. If your conscious is clear then of course you can only go forward with your plans.
But for me, I remember that scripture that says vengence is mine I shall repay says the Lord.
If those who stand for morality is actually working from a moral base the arrows will come but they won’t be able to succeed in their mission. We have forgotten the main thing and that would be to continously teach and reteach what America was built on. We had given America’s soul to those who didn’t protect it. In the name of diversity we gave up the ability to communicate with one voice of English only. In the name of religious diversity we gave up our freedom to worship and pray, to the God that blessed America from sea to shining sea, in public places.
The generation before us believed the lie that people of faith had no place in politics which in turn left those with no morality to make rules for us to live by.
This is a different level of evil that stands guard against anything that would pentrate it’s wickedness. It guards those now in place that do it’s bidding.
The war cry now is that if My people who are called by My name shall humble themselves and pray, then will I hear from Heaven and will heal their land. Does this mean we pray only? No way! We set about keeping our own hands clean and standing with integrity and working with pure motives on what’s best for America and the world.
Maybe Sara was the catalyst or answer to the many prayers that have gone forward, if so I pray for her strength to make the best decisions. Which she has already by putting Alaska’s citizens first and not her power struggles.
Just remember whatever weapon you fashion it can turn and be your downfall. That’s the one element that Sarah’s enemies don’t take into account of.
> I know many who agree with you.
I would be one.
> I’m not so sure that the “critics” have even bothered to read the article all the way through, let alone actually THINK through the points made therein!
I’ve read both articles thru in their entirety and given them the benefit of close reading and careful thought.
Having now read the second article I am convinced all the more that this isn’t something that Conservatives ought to be doing.
That’s more like it. You did not pass judgment from the shallow end of the pool.
That assumption is your error and will be your eventual downfall. If the voting American population was rational and reasonable, obama would not have been elected.
If the majority of the American public is not reasonable as you say, then neither of us will be effective. The only way in, literally, will be by hook or crook...seizing power by force, or becoming corrupt as they are, and without the latter, the former is impotent to retain that power. Either way, you will have abandoned long ago any semblance of the principles that defined who you were.
The one element that hasn't been brought into the discussion is the so called fourth column, the media. They are the executors of the dissemination of information in this country, and like it or not, the general public still relies on them for information. If the general public was as unreasonable as you seem to think they are, there would be no need for the media to deliberately beguile them. That is your key as to how Obama got in.
The people we’re dealing with are neither rational nor reasoning.
That may be true, but we're talking about the majority of the populace, and if it is true that the majority of the populace is neither rational nor reasonable, then you simply don't have a country worth leading. Like it or not, we both have to submit to the same axiom, because again, if that axiom is not true, then America's best days are behind her.
Our situation is not equivalent to Gandhi resisting the British with rational appeals to non-violence.
If you're implying that I'm suggesting pacifism, then you haven't been paying attention. I'm suggesting nothing of the sort.
You mean tactics like character assassination, manufacturing motives, corruption of scripture,just to name a few? In what way would those things not define us in the same way they define our enemies. What do think we're special or something? We're somehow immune to the immorality associated with such things because we have a legitimate reason where the ends justifies the means? Where have I head that before, oh yea, from the left. But we're not like them, are we. You keep telling yourself that.
When David Letterman made his comments about Sarah Palin's daughter, you don't organize a campaign to get the guy fired like some misguided conservatives did, you do exactly what Sarah Palin did and point out how pathetic and perverted it was, and you make no bones about it, and then go on to explain why he should have exercised a little responsibility. If it's reasonable, the general populace will respond to it. If they don't, and it is reasonable, then your problems are profoundly worse that simple politics. You gave a general constituency that is immoral, and simply not worth leading.
As I said to the previous poster, like it or not, we both have to entertain the notion that generally speaking, the American public is reasonable and moral. Everything flows from that, and the founding fathers knew this to be true.
I'm not sure where you, or anyone else gets the idea that I'm advocating pacifism, and quite frankly, it's more than a little annoying....
KEITH OLBERMANN: Mr. Scheuer has issued a call for the the head of al Qaeda to detonate a major weapon in the United States. And yet, for some reason, to my knowledge at least, the Department of Homeland Security has not yet been to see him, nor been to see Mr. Beck nor Fox News for having provided him a platform and passive assent, for approving not just a terrorist attack which could kill Americans, but approving of one that might even kill Fox viewers. If we're going to continue to prevent terrorism in this country, international or domestic, we have to legally stop the people who view terrorism as acceptable means of effecting political change in this country. People like Michael Scheuer. And we have to legally stop the people like Glenn Beck, the enablers, who simply nod gravely as if the idea, and the speaker are not treasonous.
Is this the path you want to go down? If and when the Republicans do secure power again, should we then put out a hit on Olbermann and shut him up? Get a little campaign going, imagine the foulest plausible motives, etc. Hey, it seems to work for them, right?
We're different though, because you see, we can be trusted with these tactics. We're not like them, nor will it make us like them. And even though we don't trust you, the general populace, we would never do to you, what we did to them....trust us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.