It didn't happen overnight


PDA






JBusch8899
August 18, 2006, 05:41 PM
It Didn't Happen Overnight
by Sen. H. L. Richardson (Ret.)

Because of my many years as a conservative in elected office, I have
been asked by others, "how did we get in this mess we are in?" The
great author Robert Louis Stevenson wisely said, "Sooner or later in
life, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences."

That's what's happening now, we're at the banquet.

Here is a brief synopsis of how it happened.

Many Americans believe that the core religious values, which founded
and sustained this nation, have not only been sadly neglected but
also forgotten. In so doing, the public is finding out what political
ignorance and religious apathy has created. While godly people
snoozed and gun owners were busy hunting, small minorities of
hedonists have inveigled their way into government and have been able
to impose their political will upon the majority.

It didn't happen over night.

To understand, we have to go back one hundred years to the comments
of a very wise man, President Theodore Roosevelt. He stated, "There
are those who believe that a new modernity demands a new morality.
What they fail to consider is the harsh reality that there is no such
thing as a new morality. There is only one morality. There is only
true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of
paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we
must return to the old morality, the sole morality."

Roosevelt saw moral slippage occurring at the beginning of the last
century. He saw radical activists proclaiming a "new morality"
embodying atheism and materialism. They were becoming increasingly
vocal on our college campuses and were becoming more active in
American politics, promoting their "new" morality. They were also
attempting to elect their candidates on the socialist ticket.

In the beginning, the Socialists and their allies were singularly
unsuccessful and remained small in number. The vast majority of
Americans were happy with our liberty, constitutional government,
free enterprise and politics implemented through the two party
system.

At the beginning of the last century, a socialist by the name of
Lenin, put wheels under the world socialist movement. He lead a small
minority of communists in overthrowing the czarist government in
Russia; in so doing, Lenin developed a financial base and a national
platform for the promotion of world socialism. After the First World
War, the hard core left became more politically active in the United
States. Lenin was an excellent organizer, and he and other socialist
leaders realized that it was an impossible task to sell their bad
tasting political medicine to the vast majority of Americans.

Norman Thomas, an early leader in the American socialist movement
promoted the concept that Americans would never knowingly adopt
socialism but, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every
fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a
socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.

The left abandoned their attempts to sell their socialist programs as
a third party and decided that there was more fertile political
ground within the two party system running as "liberals" and
"progressives."

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the democrats had a weak
political party, eager for any new members. The left seized the
opportunity and registered as democrats. They were aware that both
parties are open to any one who registers in either party.

The socialists recognized that to be a candidate, all you have to do
is register, be of age, alive, not a felon and have the money to
legally file for office. There is no political litmus test in either
party in order to be a member or a candidate.

Socialists could easily register as Democrats and campaign on any
issue to get elected rather than campaigning on socialist programs --
say anything to win the office, then legislate as they please once in
office.

The left-wing political leader ship recognized that by themselves,
they were only a tiny percentage of the American population. They
did, however, recognize that only one out of four Americans vote in
primary elections and therefore, a small percentage could nominate a
candidate in primary elections since multiple candidates often seek
the office. The left saw that in local elections for school boards
and city council and supervisors, even smaller numbers could affect
the outcome. If their Socialists candidates won local offices, they
could establish a base of operations in order to move up step by step
to higher office, such as state representatives, state senators and
at a later opportunity, to Congress and the US Senate.

The following is an actual example of how a small minority can win a
major California State Senate office. Registration heavily favored
the Republican Party.

District population approximately 600,000
Those who could register to vote 400,000
Those who bothered to register 235,000
Total who voted in primary election 120,000
Republican primary vote 70,000
Democrat primary vote 50,000
Eight candidates sought the Republican nomination
The Republican winning candidate gained 16,000

And won handily. In the general election, he easily gained the senate
seat and served for 22 years. Is this race an exception? No! It
happens all the time. Realize the significance of only 16,000 votes
out of potentially 400,000 who could have participated. Think about
it. Is it any wonder that a small, dedicated minority of voters could
have a disproportionate impact on our government when three out of
four Americans don't even register or bother to take part in primary
elections, in the important process of selecting who their candidates
might be? It has been said that when one American was informed that
much of the country's population suffered from both political
ignorance and apathy. His yawning response was "I don't know and I
don't care."

The socialists, in democratic garb, had a long-range plan with little
to stand in their way. Since they were atheists and agnostics, they
believed that any method that achieved socialist power was "ethical."
The expression, "the end justifies the means" became their motto and
method of operations. Deception and lying became the tools of their
trade.

During the latter 1800's and early 1900's, the socialist base was
still too small to elect their numbers to many offices; they needed
to attract additional support. Now clothed as liberals in democratic
garb, they increased their numbers by wooing small disgruntled and
politically isolated segments of the population, with future promises
of political advantage. Knowing that by adding small segment by
segment, their combined small numbers could add up enough votes to
win primary elections.

They first successfully impacted and wooed segments of the union
movement. Then over the years, adding little segments one at a time,
they captured support from the homosexual community by sympathizing
with their "gay" activities. They attracted anti-war pacifists,
disgruntled feminists, the extreme environmentalists, gun control
supporters and any other dissident group that could be wooed with
future promises of legislative support. Adopting "class action"
agitation, they pandered to any group they could exploit and bring on
board.

During the growth of their move towards power, the left wing
leadership wisely kept these segments separated, appealing to them
directly, and then, only to each one's special interest. They knew
there would be difficulties if they ever brought them all together,
for they certainly didn't want to have meetings of rank and file
union members with the "gay" community nor the elderly with anti-war
activists.

The socialist knew that, with accurate polling information, they
could campaign on issues that they didn't really believe -- but
appealed to the average voter; they didn't have to broadcast who
their real supporters happened to be. The great depression of the
1930's brought the democrats into national power at all levels of
government, including a segment of the "liberal" Democrats. The
majority of the Democratic legislators elected during the 1930's and
1940's were still traditional Americans in their ethics and values.
However, few old-line Democrats saw trouble brewing and the shift in
leadership taking place within their own party. The old time Democrat
found out soon enough when he found himself gerrymandered out of his
seat and replaced by a young leftist.

At the present time, the good ole hard working jackass, the symbol of
the Democrats, should have been changed to the condor; a bird far
more in keeping with the leftward slant of their party.

A condor is a large ugly vulture, which feeds on carrion. It stays
afloat on hot air and deserts its young when frightened. Its defense
mechanism is to throw up, barf a stream of semi-digested meat on its
enemies. The bird can't survive near civilization and is becoming
extinct in proximity to civilized society. To keep it alive in
California, the government now subsidizes its food. It survives quite
well in backward South American countries. Could anyone think of a
more appropriate symbol for a left-wing socialist movement?

Over many years, the planned "liberal leftist" control over the inner
workings of the Democrat party structure increased dramatically.
Working together as an organized minority during the nineteen fifties
and sixties, the leftists set forth to take control of the Democrat
party leadership. Achieving substantial success, they then moved to
influence the Republican Party as well, running their candidates as
liberals or "moderate" Republicans. RINOs (Republican In Name Only)
became a small dissident element in the Republican Party as well.
Small but mouthy, they are the croaking frogs on republican lily
pads.

While in office, during the 1970's and 1980's, I saw the left grasp
control over the political fortunes of the Democrat party, On a first
hand basis, right before my own eyes, I watched it happen. Today, the
socialists are the dominant voice in its elected leadership. Whenever
the opportunity presented itself, they effectively and systematically
eliminated conservative democrat office holders within their ranks.
Because the Left now controls leadership, they control candidate
funding, thereby controlling who wish to be elected and leveraging
Democrat incumbents who wish to be returned to office.

A very conspicuous case of rooting out non-conforming members of the
Democrat party is the primary election defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman
in Connecticut. In six years this long-time Senator went from
national icon of the Democrat party to pariah. The message is the
same -- tow the line, or else.

Over the past fifty years, controlling the vast wealth created
through taxation, they have built a huge federal, state and local
bureaucracy which not only employs their own kind but implements a
wealth of programs that reflects the wishes of their base, the
unions, the gays, the feminists the anti war pacifists, the gun
controllers, etc. Through laws, they have dramatically increased
their power and have done what Norman Thomas hoped would happen.

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under
the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the
socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation
without ever knowing how it happened.

Fortunately, a number of Americans are aware of how it's happening
and are trying to inform their fellow Americans. Millions of
Americans still hold to the core traditional and religious values
that founded this nation and, properly informed, are working
diligently to see the left in both parties are routed out of our
Constitutional government.

The first glimmer of hope came with the republican nomination of
Barry Goldwater for president in the 1960's. Although he was soundly
defeated in the general election, he defeated in the primary, the
darling of the left leaning republicans, Nelson Rockefeller.
Conservatives rallied to work for Goldwater and didn't quit working
after his defeat. In California, in 1966, they defeated another
"moderate" in the primary by nominating and electing as governor,
something as rare as a right-winger in Hillary Clinton's staff -- a
conservative actor.

The fledgling American core value revolt was under way. A voice was
raised promoting our traditions and our ethics: activist
organizations began to crop all over America -- politically
unsophisticated but eager to learn. Fourteen years later, they
nominated and elected Ronald Reagan to the presidency.

In 1994, the Lower House of Congress went republican and its
leadership shifted toward conservatism. Was liberalism dead? Not by a
long sight. They had managed to control both houses of Congress for
forty years. The Republicans held narrow margins but with a few
"moderate" RINOs in their midst, their control is iffy. The lefties
were deeply imbedded in the Northeastern states and were the
controlling factor in most large cities.

However, they were increasingly having problems within their own
ranks. The splinter groups they'd attracted and wooed began to make
demands. They had contributed to the democrat victories, now they
wanted their reward. They wanted more of their own elected to office
and they wanted their issues enacted into law. Instead of being
splinter groups kept in the closet, they demanded to be heard, and
their wishes subsequently become part of our laws.

They got their wish and, and the dissidents are now running the
"Democratic" party. The tail is now wagging the old "Democrat"
donkey. The anti-war, pro-abort, environmental extremists, soft on
crime, big spending liberals, feminists and deviants of both sexes
are calling the political tune and are marching hand in hand in gay
parades. The large body of old rank and file Democrats are scratching
their heads and wondering, "What's going on?"

Big changes are now occurring. The South, traditionally Democrat but
fundamentally religious, has turned Republican. Not because of any
great love for the Republican structure, but because of their disgust
over the present leftward drift of their own party.

Amongst elected democrats, hoping to seek higher office and
recognizing that the new base of the party has become a collection of
wacko wonks, are trying to cover and obfuscate this fact by
constantly attacking their opposition as "extreme," haters of the
poor or religious bigots. Their rhetoric borders the wild -- trying
to please their base while seeking to appear as moderate to the
average voter. It ain't working.

They are in trouble and they know it. The governmental bureaucracy,
which houses and provides jobs for their supporters, is being
threatened. Their economic base is vulnerable and their future is
suspect. How can they send Junior and Zelda to Harvard if they are
outa' work? Therefore, their attacks are becoming more vicious and
the thin veneer of civility is wearing off their "democratic" facade.

There is a truism in economic circles, "bad money drives out good."
The same thing is true in politics. Bad people drive out good ones.
In the "Democratic" party that rule is holding true. Bad democrats
drive out good ones. In rural America, the trend is decidedly towards
basic American values. Who would have believed forty years ago, that
below the Mason Dixon Line, the South would turn Republican? Or that
rock-ribbed republican New Englanders would tolerate Barney Frank or
Ted Kennedy in office?

The left hasn't gained total control, for if they had, they'd have
made it a "crime" for me to write what I have just written. There is
still time to turn it all around and get the buggers out of
government. I know it's possible and so does the left, which is why,
when challenged, and a conservative leaning judge is appointed to the
Supreme Court, the thin veneer of civility rubs off for all to see.
We are now witnessing how uncivil and uncouth they really are.

They started as a minority and still are a minority. The big
difference is that over the last hundred years, they have embedded
themselves and their unworkable policies in all facets of government
-- including education and segments of the major media.

They can be routed out but they won't go willingly. They have worked
hard to get where they are and are going to see that all their
socialist programs are going to be shoved down our collective
throats. They are nasty people. Rub off that thin veneer of civility
and see for yourselves.

Theodore Roosevelt also said, "All those blatant sham reformers, in
the name of new morality, preach the old, old vice and self
indulgence which rotted out first, the moral fiber and then even the
external greatness of Greece and Rome."

Is America next? Are we to be "rotted out by sham reformers?" Are we
to be apathetic Americans who say, "I don't know and I don't care!"?

I don't think so. I believe we are at the banquet and Americans are
feasting on the political consequences of the last one hundred years.
They don't like the taste of the political concoctions they've been
fed and are demanding and working for change.


****************************

"Live Fire" radio with Larry Pratt is broadcast by the Information
Radio Network on Saturdays at 12:00 Noon Eastern. "Live Fire" is
simulcast on the web at http://inforadionet.com and previous episodes
are archived at http://www.soundwaves2000.com/livefire/ with a number
of listening formats supported.

Podcasts are now available!

Recent guests and topics have included:

* Ken Blackwell: Ohio's next governor discusses his GOA-PVF
endorsement
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=116&d=06-17-06

* Eric Shawn: The United Nations Exposed
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=116&d=07-22-06

* Garry Breitkreuz: The Canadian Member of Parliament on dismantling
that country's hated gun registry
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/rammaker.asp?id=116&d=06-24-06

If you enjoyed reading about "It didn't happen overnight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fosbery
August 18, 2006, 05:52 PM
the core religious values, which founded
and sustained this nation

Funny, I thought the founding fathers wanted religion and government to be completely seperate...

Wastemore
August 18, 2006, 06:16 PM
Funny, I thought the founding fathers wanted religion and government to be completely seperate...


Then you completely misunderstand American history.

jason10mm
August 18, 2006, 06:26 PM
But there is a difference between "religious values" and the religion. Look at the 10 commandments, the bedrock of Judeochristian "values". Six of the ten deal with the basic human values necessary to sustain a civilization. Don't murder folks (different than not killing them), don't steal stuff, don't cheat with your neighbors wife, etc. Those VALUES can be universal regardless of what particular god you choose to worship.

It is just like the bill of rights, they outline essential human decencies and rights, regardless of what government thre is. Obviously some forms of government directly violate the bill of rights, just as some religions violate the 10 commandments. Doesn't make the bill of rights or 10 commandments specific to a government or religion, but it sure does make the violating belief system WRONG if you want to be a free society.

lionking
August 18, 2006, 06:53 PM
Im with wastemore and jason10mm,Here is a site that explains what I believe truth in this discussion.That seperation of church and state is a doctrine,not a law in the Constitution and that in recent times this doctrine has been used to promote freedom from religion instead of freedom of.
A elected official who talks,quotes and believes in God is not having a government run by religion.Neither is using God in a pledge of alliegance.
I believe the doctrine is based on not having a theocracy form of government.The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is important in the fact that it acknowledges the fact that rights come from God,not from men or government.And that has important implications about the 2nd amendment as well.

http://www.xrnet.org/undergod.htm

thumper723
August 18, 2006, 07:12 PM
I did not SNOPES this, but I agree with what is written for the most part.

Apathy is the biggest enemy. A small motivated group of smart whackjobs can upset a bunch of normal, but apathetic people.

Zundfolge
August 18, 2006, 07:23 PM
Funny, I thought the founding fathers wanted religion and government to be completely separate...

They wanted government to be separate from religion in order to protect religion, not government. They didn't want a government devoid of anyone of religious belief (which is what many who demand separation of church and state).

MrTwigg
August 18, 2006, 07:27 PM
Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

Charles S
August 18, 2006, 08:20 PM
Funny, I thought the founding fathers wanted religion and government to be completely seperate...

You obviously don't understand U.S. History and have never been the Washington D.C.

The founding fathers incorporated religious imagery into every building in the Capitol.

Freedom of religion does not mean that I cannot pray in a government building, it means that the government cannot tell me I cannot pray in a government building.

The lack of the understanding of that fact is the basis for most of the ignorant drivel that the media espouses at this time.

Charles

TallPine
August 18, 2006, 08:50 PM
funny ... I consider myself to be both pagan and moral :p

Moondoggie
August 18, 2006, 08:58 PM
Funny that the author should trot out TR as a paragon of virtue.

While TR did have quite a few admirable qualities, he was also very much an "Ends justifies mean" kind of politico. He didn't care what got in the way of getting what he wanted. War with Spain and the Panama Canal are 2 stellar examples.

To expand a little bit on Charles S's definition of freedom of religion...it also means that gov't can't tell that you have to pray in a gov't building, or that you have to pray (or espouse a religious affiliation) at all.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not a freedom from religion acolyte. Although I'm not a Christian, I have no problem with traditional references to God in gov't venues.

Soybomb
August 18, 2006, 09:28 PM
You have no freedom from religion, you do however have the freedom of not paying for the religion of others. Thats the whole rub of the establishment clause. You can practice whatever religion you want, just don't use my tax dollars to do it. This includes teaching it in public schools.

I saw this on GT last night where it had the GOA contact information embedded in it making it look like something they put out in a bulletin. I'm aware the author of the article is the founder of GOA. Honestly to me it reads like a church bulletin and seems like it has no respect for the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. I've emailed GOA and asked if this was ever an official publication of theirs and if they took positions in matters outside of the 2nd amendment. If so it looks like they won't be getting any of my money.

Charles S
August 18, 2006, 09:48 PM
To expand a little bit on Charles S's definition of freedom of religion...it also means that gov't can't tell that you have to pray in a gov't building, or that you have to pray (or espouse a religious affiliation) at all.


That is true. I believe that is what was intended by our founding fathers.

Charles

xd9fan
August 19, 2006, 02:59 AM
Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

Thank You...wow do people miss that one

Phetro
August 19, 2006, 11:25 AM
funny ... I consider myself to be both pagan and moral

"Consider" yourself? Lots of people "consider" themselves moral...many of whom would gladly strip us of our liberties and bend us to their will. Many commit crimes...some are never caught. Many commit worse atrocities.

This is why morality is absolute, not relative. It was defined thousands of years ago (or more), and attempting to redefine it to fit one's own lifestyle doesn't change its definition in reality.

I don't care what religion anyone follows, and everyone should be able to express any beliefs they choose. However, morality is set in stone, and cannot be altered. One either is or is not moral. The mere act of beginning to "consider" morality as a flexible concept reduces it to a subjective quality, which by its very nature cannot exist in a real sense.

TX1911fan
August 19, 2006, 12:30 PM
To understand the First Amendment, you have to understand not only US history, but European history as well. The struggle in England and on the Continent over religion and state sponsored churches is very enlightening. Most of the Pilgrims were Puritans from England who left because at the time, King Henry's Church of England was the state religion, and if you didn't belong (people actually had to swear a loyalty oath to the church) then you could not hold political office, could not be a member of the Guilds (and therefore could not practice a trade or craft), were subject to additional taxation and could be deprived of your lands. Every once in a while, a Catholic king would ascend to the throne, and then all the same problems would emerge, only to a whole different set of people.

The Pilgrims left in order to be able to freely practice their chosen religion, and to not have interference from the government. However, they were not any more tolerant of other religions than was the king of England. The Founding Fathers saw the tremendous problems created from state sponsored religion, and determined that everyone would have the right to practice whatever religion they wanted, free from government interference. They NEVER intended that the government be completely a-religious. If so, they would not have had so many reference to God, would not have opened every session of Congress with prayers, and would not have included God in so many of their writings. Even Thomas Jefferson, author of the infmous "Wall of Separation" language, noted the greatness of God in his official writings. He was not a-religious at all. In fact, his letter to the Anabaptists was assuring them that the wall of separation between religion and government would ensure that the government would not require the anabaptists to forsake their religion for another.

trueblue1776
August 19, 2006, 12:44 PM
I think I heard most of that bellowing out of the Southern Baptist Megachurch 3 miles away last sunday.

ORAG
August 19, 2006, 05:49 PM
I am convinced that the great unwashed majority of middle Americ just flat doesn't give a damn. It isn't political Ignorance or religious apathy but rampant uncaring and lack of involvement that draws us to a poor place. It is that apathy that has caused our two political parties to slide to the extreme. They are both moving to positions that may cause people not only to notice but perhaps vote.
When 51% of the people that vote can elect people that majority does't know or care about we are truly in trouble.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Half of the people you know are below average - Steven Wright

TallPine
August 19, 2006, 05:55 PM
"Consider" yourself? Lots of people "consider" themselves moral...many of whom would gladly strip us of our liberties and bend us to their will. Many commit crimes...some are never caught. Many commit worse atrocities.

My rules to live by go somethin' like this...

1) Don't get to hankerin' for your neighbor's horse

2) Don't shoot nobody unless they really need shootin'

3) Don't pay no mind if it ain't none of your business

:p :D

proud2deviate
August 19, 2006, 06:32 PM
"Consider" yourself? Lots of people "consider" themselves moral...many of whom would gladly strip us of our liberties and bend us to their will. Many commit crimes...some are never caught. Many commit worse atrocities.

This is why morality is absolute, not relative. It was defined thousands of years ago (or more), and attempting to redefine it to fit one's own lifestyle doesn't change its definition in reality.

I don't care what religion anyone follows, and everyone should be able to express any beliefs they choose. However, morality is set in stone, and cannot be altered. One either is or is not moral. The mere act of beginning to "consider" morality as a flexible concept reduces it to a subjective quality, which by its very nature cannot exist in a real sense.

Umm, could you state a source for this One True Absolute & Eternal Morality? Is there a website for it? Maybe with a neat little Sparks-type quiz that'll tell me if I'm moral or not?

(Personally, I think that a prerequisite for morality is the recognition that one is not moral. A moral person wouldn't be so conceited as to wander to and fro spouting off about how moral they are, and would also recognise that there is always room for improvment.)

Grey54956
August 19, 2006, 07:15 PM
Religious hijinx on The High Road, again.

The Founding Fathers were largely from a Judeo-Christian background, or were at the very least Deists, but they also didn't want the government in the business of religion. Please try to recall that they had already seen all that in Europe at the time and knew what kind of mess that creates.

And regarding some grand, Christian morality, it should be interesting to note that most monotheistic religions that we are typically familiar with seem to be based largely on Zoroastrianism. So, perhaps we should all be looking towards some grand, Zoroastrianistic morality instead.

lionking
August 19, 2006, 07:40 PM
I dont consider this discussion hijinx and it does have something to do with firearm ownership in the end because if rights are not from a higher power then where do they come from?If life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness are to be considered laws or rights established by men or government then they are bound to be taken away or downgraded to privliages.Even if someone does'nt believe in god,to lessen the affirmation of these rights is to submit to the will and whims of government.

Morality,I was'nt trying to pass judgement on that though a certain morality goes hand in hand with freedom and responsibility,but there is a movement where in recent times people claim to be offended by god on public buildings such as courtrooms or congress,or even the pledge.I see Jewish symbols on city streets during holiday season,I dont get offended,why are people wanting to rid Christmas symbols or religion in general from schools,department stores and anything public?Just to be exposed to religion is not forcing it on someone.
I recently went off on a rant about PC and God in another thread and it was pointed out to me that maybe I was seeing it wrongly but....

My biggest worry about the abuse of the doctrine of seperation of church and state to hush religion out of the public is that it will slowly increase the view that rights are mere laws made by a government.

Superpsy
August 19, 2006, 07:42 PM
(Personally, I think that a prerequisite for morality is the recognition that one is not moral. A moral person wouldn't be so conceited as to wander to and fro spouting off about how moral they are, and would also recognise that there is always room for improvment.)


sounds like a definition of humble.

Nitrogen
August 19, 2006, 08:21 PM
"Consider" yourself? Lots of people "consider" themselves moral...many of whom would gladly strip us of our liberties and bend us to their will. Many commit crimes...some are never caught. Many commit worse atrocities.

This is why morality is absolute, not relative. It was defined thousands of years ago (or more), and attempting to redefine it to fit one's own lifestyle doesn't change its definition in reality.

I don't care what religion anyone follows, and everyone should be able to express any beliefs they choose. However, morality is set in stone, and cannot be altered. One either is or is not moral. The mere act of beginning to "consider" morality as a flexible concept reduces it to a subjective quality, which by its very nature cannot exist in a real sense.

People's morality changes all the time. Have you ever thrown away a piece of paper, or a book that had His name in it? That's a sin in my religion. Most people as far as I know don't think twice about it.
Did you post this on a Saturday? That's a sin, too. (It's a sin I commit weekly, unfortunately)

Ever eat Pork? Ever mix meat and dairy? At one time that was a sin, too.

Who cares if someone considers themselves moral?
Matthew 7:1 (Judge not lest ye be judged) makes it clear that you should't judge others morality. Only G-d does that.

One of my favorite passages from the new testamant is in Matthew 7 as well, Matthew 7:12: "Always treat others as you would like them to treat you"

I know that I would get quite angry if someone came up to me and told me that I was not right in the eyes of G-d. I'm sure you would, too.

The few times i've been a guest in a christian church, the sermon always took a turn to say that one of Jesus's big things was basically saying, "Just following the rules doesn't make you a good person. You have to be the person G-d wants you to be."

I always took that to mean that I need to follow the basic tennants of the 2 new testamant bible verses I quoted above.
And i'm not even a follower of Jesus, but I see quite a value in these two passages

Now granted, I'm not a Christian, but that was my understanding on the whole deal. And I'm not being snarky when i ask, can someone explain how seeming to violate these laws can keep one moral?

MechAg94
August 19, 2006, 10:08 PM
Prosperity Breeds Stupidity.

At least that is the way I see it. When people live in an organized and prosperous community and no longer have to worry about feeding themselves through the winter or the next week, they forget the hard lessons that life teaches. This leads to all sorts of foolishness which is magnified by the fact that the politically powerful class are the most insulated from those hard lessons. I think that is why most strong civilizations eventually decline. I think faith in God is one of those lessons as well, but everyone can read into it their own version.

Dr. Dickie
August 20, 2006, 06:50 AM
MechAg94,
I see it slightly different, but along the same lines.
First, most people I run into (not run with) are almost totaly ignorant of what the government of the U.S. was, is, or any of the founding principles that went into the basis for it. They have a superficial knowledge of the founding of this country. I would bet most people you ask will not know why the 4th of July was chosen to celebrate our independence. And if they can, I bet they think this started the war for independence (not technically "for indpendence" but the war period) and believe the ending of the war was the start of our current government. If they know why the date was used, it is likely to sole "fact" they ever memorized about the founding of this country.
They have never read the Constitution, and they have never learned anything about our government except what the media tells them. They believe the governement is there to take care of them, protect them, and correct wrongs. If forced to read "The Federalist Papers," they would would not recognize it as our government. This is mostly the fault of a an education program more interested in building self-esteeme over knowledge and critical thinking (and parents of course).
Now add on to that the fact that the world has gotten faster and more complicated. The world comes at you at a hundred miles an hour. The information pouring into our lives everyday is astonomical compared to what it was in the past. People get burned out. They begin to focus in on they own little portion of the world. They don't want to have know more! They just want someone else to take over for them. Can't the government handle that!
They don't have time to learn who represents them in Congress, what the issues are, what the ramifications of this or that.
I mean look at us. Generally gun folks are more plugged into the U.S. government and U.S. history than most. But come on, it would be a full time job trying to keep up on every vote all or your representatives made (in local, county, state, federal), the school board, the planning commmision,etc.
People have become self-absorbed and soft.
For quite some time I though that people were becoming more rude (and they are); but I finally realized that more than just being more rude, they were simply self-absorbed. It wasn't that they didn't know any better, it was that they simply didn't give a danm about you. All that mattered was how it impacted their live right then, right now.
I don't know if this country will get back on track, perhaps Al Quedea is the best bet we have to wake people up.

As far as separation of church and state, I believe if you look into the writings of the founding fathers they wanted a separation of church and state because they knew what tyrannical governments there had been back in the dark ages when religion ruled the government (the Inquisition!). Theoracies were HORRIBLE. A foundation based not on any religion, but on a strong belief in god ensured good moral character and no repression of others.
Do not confuse religion and god, the two have almost nothing in common.

tcgeol
August 20, 2006, 04:37 PM
For the most part, the article seems right on. I'm not the biggest fan of TR, but at least he was a man, unlike most of the presidents we have had since him.

Nitrogen, in response to the question you asked, I would say that it is a matter of context. Jesus did say those things, but for Matthew 7:1, you are taking it out of context. I would be glad to discuss it with you by private message, as I don't want to throw this thread off track.

Hayward Juhbuzzoff
August 20, 2006, 06:01 PM
I took the article as a partisan rant, with little basis in fact.

...socialists blah blah communists blah blah democrats blah blah liberals blah blah...

Here's an essay that deals with the some of the same periods of Amercan history, with a different take on TR... (oh, and I don't agree with all of this guys writing either)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory40.html

Art Eatman
August 20, 2006, 06:15 PM
A link from here to APS for this would have been a Good Thing, but discussions of morality, no matter how apropos, aren't THR material.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "It didn't happen overnight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!