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.
Just like OWK et. al.
Ahh, now I see your problem. You can not seperate the political philosophy of governance with personal, individual spirituality or religious beliefs. Your continual references to OWK, who wishes not to push any religious or spiritual views on anyone, shows this. He proclaims to be an atheist - I proclaim to believe in God. However, other than our personal religious beliefs, we agree on a great deal of things, one of which is that the government has no legitimate business making laws to advance any religious beliefs or to persecute any religious beliefs. This includes allowing adults to make whatever choices and decisions they want, as long as they do not initiate force or fraud against another.
We speak of what the government's business is in all of this, not what you or I should believe in our personal lives, or be forced to accept at the barrel of a gun.
One.
Well, we know what happened to Greek civilization. Also, the French Revolution was based on Greek philosophies as much as anything, and we know what happened to the French.
The U.S.A., on the other hand, was founded on concrete moral truths that were given by G-d.
But don't consider any of that proof for a spiritual reality. It's just coincidence.
Shalom.
As long as that's the best you can see -
Shalom.
Of course not, you have convinced yourself of this love, and thus given proven scientific and psychological factors, people can be come more emotionally attached to another over time.
Additional FACT: People knew what love was long before any squiggles ever appeared on a scope that monitored brainwaves. The brainwave monitor doesn't create the love, nor do the waves.
Man attributed the term "love" to which he could not explain, just as ancients worshipped the sun and the moon because they did not know what they were. No one ever said that a monitor created love, it only explains it.
But you need to open the eyes of your spirit to know this. If you trap yourself in your materialist box you will never know it.
Im not sure if anyone here understands this "materialistic box" term that you are using.
The U.S.A., on the other hand, was founded on concrete moral truths that were given by G-d.
It does seem to be a startling coincidence that the most prosperous nation on earth is the one founded on Christian principles, doesn't it?
Really? Where did I go wrong? I thought philosophy had everything to do with ethics and certainty, not anything to do with politics.
What? "My form of government" forces you to nothing except respect the natural rights of everyone. Its is you who wishes to force individuals to accept whatever your government decrees.
You are no different than Dane and the other authoritarian ilk, and not worthy of my time. In your warped world, respecting individual rights is "forcing" something on you. Yeh, whatever.
There are many many folks who are totally undeterred by the prospect of doing something 'wrong'.
We must limit their power to do wrong by restricting the purview of governmental authority; there is no other way.
They will unrelentingly pursue their own interests despite your or my 'moral suasion'.
Limiting the size and scope of government is our only protection against these 'malefactors'.
That's not the only thing you apparently don't understand.
Shalom.
Socratic philosophy is all about the former; the latter is Descartes' demand.
not anything to do with politics
One must certainly be moderate about what can and should be accomplished with the knowledge seeking wisdom brings, and philosophy does seem to be primarily a private good rather than one easily or unambiguously made into a public good, but gentle admonishment and persuasion seem legitimate ways to give a smidgen of wisdom to power. Seeking knowledge of the good is the purpose of philosophy. Applying that knowledge in whatever amount it's possessed and learning how it can and ought to be used is the job of political philosophers.
Hmmm - you might be correct in the specific, but I posit that I am correct in the general.
It was a love of their own reasoning power that "done them in" as Eliza Doolittle might have said.
Shalom.
Yep, saying that you are not worthy of my time is in deed the nicest its going to get if you insist on continuing to post drivel Mcnuggets to me.
I'm not usually amazed when the spiritually dead don't understand the spiritual, but the political is still right in front of their face.
Which is more likely to force me to pay benefits to someone who is not married to my employee: Christians or Libertarians? Which is more likely to force me to bear my share of the spiraling health care costs that come with HIV infection: Christians or Libertarians? Which is more likely to force me to bear the spiraling costs of other STDs and unwed motherhood: Christians or Libertarians? Which is more likely to force me to bear a larger share of the productivity of our economy due to people being stoned: Christians or Libertarians?
There are people out there trying to limit freedoms. That's what governments do. But the basis for limiting those freedoms can either be the lamp at the top of the mast or the north star.
Some choice, eh?
Shalom.
Agreed, though your use of quotation marks in the whole of the post puzzles me...what is wrong with saying that something is 'wrong?'
Back to the topic at hand: true, evil men will break laws, and clever evil men will make laws they can use and break at will with "the majesty of the state to defend them." Might that be a matter of prudence--that men can't be trusted not to abuse power reliably enough to found a polis on it, and that "moral suasion" is futile? If the basis of the laws themselves is "interest"--by which I take it you mean, "it is to my advantage to be free from living in fear of my fellows trying to steal from and kill me, and thus to my advantage to obey the law"--and not that stealing and killing is simply wrong and shouldn't be done save in the most unusual circumstances, then what reason would there be at the individual level to obey the law, or at the level of potential governor to uphold it? Why shouldn't we screw everybody else whenever we can get away with it?
And if the answer to that is, "We should!" then I propose that such a nation is in dire straits indeed, limited government or no.
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.
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.