A Philosophy Of Morality

The key to America’s ability to return to a state of political stability is dependent on her citizens being willing to accept the responsibility of judging good from bad, just from unjust, and right from wrong. America’s founders were grounded in morality. Not only did they define unalienable rights, they also recognized unalienable duties. All of these have to do with preservation of common decency and a commitment to preserve justice. Moral judgment stood at the helm of the Good Ship America as it set out on the uncharted waters of freedom, the likes of which has never been equaled. Somewhere along the way, we have gotten off that moral course politically. For that reason, the ship is being tossed about and is in real danger of sinking or breaking apart. All for the want of commitment to judging right from wrong – that is why this great ship is in peril today.

Socialism has so advanced in today’s society that moral judgment is not allowed any more. The irrational judgment of inconvenience and irritation has taken its place. If a large enough body of citizens feels irritated or inconvenienced, they will successfully put forth a demand for judgment against the abuses of their sensitivities. We now have a labyrinth of stifling laws based not on morality, but other petty grievances. How can there be justice in such a system? Our politicians continue to supply the demand for an inequitable “equality” while ignoring morality and the edicts of limited government. Political correctness bends over backwards to condone immoral behavior, while limiting individual freedoms. In other words, society would accept my choice to abort an unwanted child and become an outspoken advocate for homosexual “rights,” but I would be deemed irresponsible to drive without a seatbelt or smoke a cigarette in a public, (what does that mean anyway?) building. In fact, I would be breaking the law to do these things. It’s okay to teach school children tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle and acceptance for abortion, but they must also be taught that guns are bad, premarital sex is okay, and prayers are not allowed in school. With the vast majority of our educators, especially those on college campuses, holding a socialist philosophy, how do we expect these things to change? There is no morality in socialism – only a demand for conformity.

There is no true religious freedom in a government that has taken the reins away from the people. This has been illustrated many times over in recent history. Any religious group in America today that thinks it is “protected” is sorely mistaken. Those who would attack the foundations of this country and expect to preserve any semblance of the right to worship as he sees fit does not truly understand what made America work in the first place. It was not founded on the concept of freedom from religion, as many would have us believe, but rather freedom from fear of persecution because of religion. As the Judeo Christian values used to found this country are continually attacked and deemed unnecessary, we can fully expect that eventually the words “freedom” and “religion” will not be uttered in the same sentence nor even tolerated within this non-distinct culture we are becoming. If one doesn’t see that, one knows little of the nature of man and government.

Our Founders realized that it was important for hard work and strong moral character to reap rewards. In a system that punishes hard work and success, by taking more from such individuals to distribute to the economically and morally poor we find less freedom for all – not even more for some. The elites above it all are few in number and cannot safely man the Ship Of State in rough waters. America was never meant to be a status quo nation of poor, weak moral character – it was designed to be a shining example of just the opposite.

Finally, the Founders understood that the preservation of our liberty would depend on the virtue of our leaders. They never intended for people in the public service of government to demand high payment for their labors. In the beginning of this country, it was the leaders who led by example, some even refusing compensation for their service, who inspired and modeled the American Spirit. They loved the land of freedom they had founded and knew the only thing that would preserve it was a moral society and virtuous leaders. How do current politicians with their expectations of large expense accounts and even larger hordes of power compare? Is morality and virtue their mainstay?

Recent events that have threatened our security have opened up a whole new debate on morality as it applies to our basic laws and freedoms. The need for clarity of judgment has never been greater, the challenge of facing our unalienable duties never more important. We must set the example that we wish our representatives to follow. They must know that we expect them to represent America’s citizens as a society that can recognize moral good and reward it as surely as it punishes inexcusable bad. America is not a Democracy – it is a Constitutional Representative Republic. The people who must ultimately prescribe the course for their representatives to follow retain the power of direction the country will take, but we must be willing to model the character we want represented. Too few are willing to make the hard moral judgments while defending individual sovereignty. It is a difficult philosophy to maintain and has lost its way in both major political parties.

Our current president enjoys a popularity that leaves many scratching their heads. Perhaps it is easier to understand if we compare the man himself to his predecessor. Undoubtedly George W. Bush is more the embodiment of accepted morality than was Bill Clinton. Even his enemies would be hard pressed to argue that point, though they continually look for moral corruption. His greatest sin may actually be one of excess in moderation. In an attempt to “bring the country together” the Bush philosophy is soft on judgment in some key areas. Those areas may prove to be the foundations that need moral fortitude instead of temperate acceptance. Perhaps this leader and others like him are simply mirroring the people they represent after all.

The one thing that we must not lose sight of is that years of immorality have resulted in a society that has given over too much power and demanded only too much conformity and acceptance of its “sensibilities.” The model of the America that worked exists only in our true history. Socialism has rewritten even that. If the philosophy of morality cannot be re-instituted and our own culture rediscovered, America may never work again. The ship is in very rough waters and most on board have probably even forgotten how to swim.

Indeed. Moreover, they would not have been human.

I'm sorry that your vision of humanity is so poor. Stupidity is not a defining trait of humanity.

Although they could fool you on that point.

Shalom.

LOL!! I sincerely hope young Brad has more sense than his 'gramma', a woman who is apparently incapable of complex thought.

He could hardly have less, I suppose.

This was an unreasonable, "swinish" thing to say to a fellow Freeper. How dare you bring her young grandson into your disagreements. An extremely low and personal blow which is uncalled for. Debate her opinion and leave her children or grandchildren out of it.

Hey, back off that remark!I can get your coords. :)

My child prays,whenever she wants to do so, silently.I have raised her to know God as omnipotent.To her, and for myself, God is God.

Based on my own experience, my child has a closer relation with the creator than many of the people who wish to force her to subscribe to one particular crede or another.I really dont want the public school system to do anything except stay far, far away from my family, or any family's,spiritual beliefs.

My vision of humanity is so poor? On the contrary.

I think you would have thought it best if Adam and Eve never summoned the courage and curiosity to eat of that tree, and thereafter have the freedom to define for themselves what is best for them.

My vision of humanity ranks the acts of Adamn and Eve as great acts of human courage and freedom. They are human heros...to be honored and respected for setting us on a course of freedom and self-determination. They were the first to create the value of self-determination, that humans can decide for ourselves how to organize and structure our lives, for good or evil. We might take actions that we later will call mistakes, but they will be our mistakes, to be learned from, yet appreciated as the result of freedom.

Your vision of humanity smells of dead-end lives. People unable to think for themselves or act with the inspiration of freedom. We are to be spoon-fed our thoughts and told how to act. If that's how you think humans should be, there's not much to discuss.

Sheesh the Libertarians are really going to build up my ego, when using my name becomes an automatic "slur". The "slur" in Libertarian circles, is regarded by me as a badge of honor.

Don't kid yourself. There are more conservatives than Libertarians that have nailed your modus operandi.

This makes no sense. I want to know more. Yet you say I need no proof. Bwah?

I challenge that. The evidence of your posts is that you only want to prove that G-d does not exist.

I notice that you said you prove color to the blind rather easily, but did not offer the proof.

Until your spirit awakens, you will never see G-d. I continue to pray (yes, I remember that other thread) that you will wake up.

Shalom.

Your vision of humanity smells of dead-end lives.

If you could only see what I see. If G-d had wanted to create robots he would have.

The only freedom that Adam and Eve grabbed for themselves that they didn't already have was the freedom to run into the street in front of a moving dump-truck. G-d wants us to grow, to explore, to live the full human life. All of the rules He established were to ensure that we could do that. He knew that if we ran into the street in front of a moving dump-truck we would be killed. Your version of life says that it can't be full unless you find that out for yourself.

Would you be terribly offended if I called that a stupid idea?

Shalom.

The only freedom that Adam and Eve grabbed for themselves that they didn't already have was the freedom to run into the street in front of a moving dump-truck.

Hardly. It was the freedom to decide for themselves what is right and wrong and how to live their lives and the freedom to decide those things amongst a community of fellow human beings. It was a statement to their creator that they would not be shackled by any bonds of servitude, be they physical, emotional, intellectual or moral; that if we are created free, we would be truly free. It's a very American story actually.

I think it was Ghandi who said, "A bad government of our own choosing is better than a good government of an alien power." Adam and Eve cemented that for us and I salute them for doing it.

Hardly. It was the freedom to decide for themselves what is right and wrong and how to live their lives and the freedom to decide those things amongst a community of fellow human beings.

You are saying this against a backdrop of a G-d who is a tinpot dictator who only wants to rule mankind because He gets off on power.

We have the freedom to decide what is right and what is wrong. Always have. But we can decide that an all knowing, all loving G-d already knows the answer and just ask him, or we can hurt ourselves figuring it out for ourselves.

Another way to look at it. If you've taken a calculus course, you have the freedom to integrate equations if you want to. Or you can buy a book with thousands of solutions and just look it up.

The analogy breaks down because the publishers of the book may err, and you may know as much about integrating equations as they do. On the other hand, G-d never errs, and you don't know Jack in comparison.

We gained nothing but pain by refusing to humble ourselves and learn from G-d. We would have had the ultimate freedom if Adam and Eve had simply listened.

Shalom.

That's because the proof is simple. Ever heard of crayons or markers? A mind-bogglingly simple experiment can be set up using a blind person, a box of crayons, several sheets of paper and a room full of volunteers to prove to the blind person that color exists.

But then you are depending on the blind person to accept the subjective position of the room full of people. And what if a large number of those people (or even a small number) are color blind and insist to the blind person that the rest are lying.

Don't you know that you can talk to millions of people just like me who will tell you for certain that G-d exists? And you will accept our statement - just like you expect the blind man to accept the statement of the so-called seeing?

If you really wanted to know if G-d existed, you would be asking, "How can I know?" rather than, "Proove that your so-called G-d exists." The former is the voice of a person who is really looking for an answer. The latter is a person who may be willing to accept a position that he currently rejects if you can make your argument to his liking.

Shalom.

Yes... but then, they will describe God extremely differently

One group will describe G-d extremely similarly across all cultures.

And if someone came to me and said that Nessie really exists, I wouldn't even bother to say "prove it" because I don't really care. But if I answered, I would say "prove it."

On the other hand, if I cared, I would say, "How do you know?"

Shalom.

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.