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.
That's probably where I draw the line. |
It would be a vertical line. On one side, the left side, philosophy, on the other side, politics.
As an example, I have some background in both physics and engineering. Physics would be a subset of philosophy, engineering would be practical, worldly application. Physics would be on the left side of the line, engineering on the right side.
And similarly with a philosophy of morality [and ethics.] Ethics on the left of the line; politics, political engineering, on the right.
Clinton X-42, being a journeyman political engineer would exist on the right. Oh, well, it's just a diagram.
This is why we put them in jail.
We must limit their power to do wrong by restricting the purview of governmental authority; there is no other way.
So you want less things to be considered "Wrong".
They will unrelentingly pursue their own interests despite your or my 'moral suasion'.
Let them do so from the privacy of their own cell.
Indeed - a proud species.
Shalom.
I like the way you think. But I must say, an engineer who knows too little of physics is a poor engineer, and will build a defective bridge. Indeed, it seems the engineer would be constantly returning to his laws of physics to understand how to get where he wants. If there is a single flaw in the analogy, I think it is this, however: physics tells you that if you use this material this high, it will feel this much force from gravitation and be able to flex this much and so on...but philosophy would be concerned with why you were building the bridge in the first place.
I was speaking not of the common law 'wrongs' of assault, theft, etc., but of the politically-engineered crimes executed by shaping the varius bodies of administrative and other laws to further 'private interest'.
The so-called 'War on Drugs', for instance, is only explicable by acknowledging the power of criminal syndicates and other profiteers of human misery to warp the law for private benefit.
LOL!!!
I would have thought even someone as monomaniacal as yourself would have perceived that I was speaking of political crimes against the American people and their Constitution.
Name one political criminal,(Clinton is one, there are innumerable others), who now languish in the crowbar hotel.
One.(1)
And you need not call me sir (though I appreciate it!). I'm willing to bet I'm several years your junior, sir.
They will, though. Once you realize what you are looking at, whether it is to the left or right of the line, or even straddling the line, you can begin to link it all together. Then it becomes one. At the same time it becomes neither philosophy nor politics.
It might seem odd for a Republican, which I am, to have an interest in the doings of Mao. And I don't like what he did. But, he did take a philosophy, Marxism, and join it to practical politics in a way nobody else has done. He was wrong to use coercion, but it was effective, unfortunately. He failed completely, of course, as coercion seems to utterly fail in the end.
We are each independent creatures and must each come to our own realization as we become aware of the paradox of life. Probably most people don't get that far and just follow the recipe given them by their leader. Like engineering. Follow the herd, do this and you get that. Sounds like OBL. Sounds like some others I won't mention since I don't particularly want to start a riot.
To an extent we are also dependent creatures who live with and need one another (and not just for division of labor).
Probably most people don't get that far and just follow the recipe given them by their leader. Like engineering. Follow the herd, do this and you get that
Sadly, yes. The easy road is the one well-travelled.
I don't particularly want to start a riot
LOL--wisdom is nine parts prudence and one part good sense, as they say.
When people post in a thoughtful way, I feel bound to observe proprieties. ;^)
I believe the 'social mores' are much more 'enforcable' than you might think on first glance. My impression of my contemporaries, however, is that they are uncomfortable taking a 'judgmental' stand, unless it is fully backed up by the force of law and public unanimity.
This is the fruit of decadence; an intimidated citizenry makes a mockery of popular sovereignty.
To preserve the Constitution and the principles upon which it stands will take a considerable quantity of moral courage; we shall see if we possess it or not in the years to come.
You call the crap you've put on this thread sparring? You're a true leftist. I know, I know, you're proud of that title. Actually, from reading your posts....you're irrelevant.
"OWK" said...Where (post #31).
I thought, from yesterday's thread, you were someone worthy of my time. Sorry, you too are irrelevant.
lexcorp, you've said so many insane things you're beyond help. You indeed, are going to have A LOT TO ANSWER for when you meet your Maker.
nexuslexus, poof, you're gone. You too, will be in big doodoo when you fall on your face before God.
Incredible, the mindset of the left. Actually, it really isn't....for those of us who know Jesus as our Lord and Savior are not at all surprised by this.
You folks are really, really sick, indeed.
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.
BTW, if you're going to slag me, please flag me. It's the 'ethical' thing to do; surely even a 'whited sepulchre' can remember the small courtesies.
My mistake, I thought I had.
This is true. Don't expect many here to believe it though. They have been told this so many times by "moral" people that wish to divide (and the Please Send More Money To Me For Jesus To Protect Us From This Travesty! hucksters) -- they are absolutely convinced it is so.
From schools that have tried to ban Christian Fellowship clubs on school property(while encouraging gay teen clubs) to banning valedictorian speeches with christian content, the incidents are common.
You may fancy yourself a liberal and you don't want to ban prayer -- that doesn't mean that those with whom you are allied share your tolerance and moderation.
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.