It has been a privilege to witness a great number of intelligent posts from Mr. Khepera and from Mr. WWJDN.
They both add a lot to the FreeRepublic forum.
As does Mr. ArGee, whom I thank for the ping to this thread.
Posted on 02/01/2002 7:13:38 AM PST by Sir Gawain
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.
It is considered cowardly. (not to mention a bit of an obsession)
To whom does your life belong? All else proceeds from the answer...
Even more, all in the name of Science.
You speak of truth and for truth, yet the people you are speaking against have re-defined truth to mean "a repeatable physical experiment." Anything else, they will argue, is subjective. Keep in mind that most have said that love is simply an electro-chemical reaction in the brain and, therefore, real. If it weren't an electro-chemical reaction in the brain they would not declare it real.
So, the fact that a certain moral standard has withstood the test of time, always working to uphold the rights of society and its memebers without fail will not make that moral standard "true" to the likes of them. In addition, the fact that every other moral standard has failed to uphold the rights of society and its members does not prove that moral standard as "true" to them.
Since they have so narrowly defined "truth", they deny your right to argue that a particular moral standard is true, and therefore worthy of support, encouragement, or enforcement on the part of society.
What we need to do is ignore them and stand on what we know. Most people won't accept this narrow definition of truth. They know which moral values are right and which are wrong. People like you and me just need to give them permission to give voice to what they know - no matter how loudly the adherants of Scientism try to shout us down.
Shalom.
Uhhh, without the electro-chemical reaction, there would be no "love", and thus the reality of something not experienced would be impossible to debate.
I see that the great slobbering hound of obscurantism, Khepera, now has a yappy little sidekick, 'Who Wants Jack Daniels Now'.
Frankly, neither of you is amusing enough to spar with. Go away.
It has been a privilege to witness a great number of intelligent posts from Mr. Khepera and from Mr. WWJDN.
They both add a lot to the FreeRepublic forum.
As does Mr. ArGee, whom I thank for the ping to this thread.
With that, I completely agree!
Where?
A. The state
B. You
C. God
D. Whoever can control it
E. None of the above
If you've detected intelligence from that source, I think aliens are messing with your personal magnetic field; adjust tinfoil helmet.
Shake your compass.
Nope - it's an essay question.
GIANT SUCKING SOUND
In fact, laws are built the old-fashioned way, on a foundation of 'interest'.
That's why it's important to keep politicians and lawyers on a short leash; they'll ALWAYS run with whatever power EXISTS.
No idealists they. ;^)
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.