I read Ender's Game as a child (loved it), as well as Speaker for the Dead, which I didn't much care for. Of course growing up has changed me and now Speaker for the Dead is one of my favorite books. However, I just recently read all the Ender's Shadow Books.
The problem is I only had 3 days before school started again and read them all in those three days. There is an Afterword by OSC in which he says that he has lost faith in the American people to choose a good leader. (I am of course paraphrasing, since I returned all the books to the library and haven't purchased them yet).
However, by reading his latest essays on Ornery, he seems very supportive of President Bush (although not blindly so). I realize that the book I read it out of (I believe it was Shadow of the Hegemon, but I'm not entirely sure) was published back during the Clinton years. Do you think that the recent political turn of events (I speak of Bush's re-election and gay-"marriage" ban constitutional ammendments) has restored some hope?
Or are we in fact going to become like the America of Ender's Shadow books: the businessmen of the world who elect CEOs to lead the country rather than leaders of men and crafters of international policy. This is a someone circular disease to be a part of. As we as a nation lack the willpower to vote great leaders in, the conservative base gets removed, without which a society crumbles. Do you think this is a possibility?
And lastly, for any Mormons out there, in the Book of Mormon this land is promised to be blessed by God as long as we are righteous. What do you think? Obviously we are headed down the slopes of moral decay....which do you think will come first? The fall of this once great nation, or the 2nd coming? I know there's no real evidence, just curious about your opinions.
Thanks in advance from a first time poster here.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think that the recent political turn of events has restored some hope?
I think we are in a very different world now than back when, say, Franklin Roosevelt was president, and the people as a whole, for the most part, were firmly behind him (coming out of the Depression).
Back then, loyalty meant everything. The press was loyal -- they often did NOT write negative things about the President even if they knew it. Media didn't feel the need to rip apart every public figure for every sin. The "unity" of the nation was more important, and patriotism was flying high.
Now in current times, it doesn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat, Christian or not, -- if you are in the limelight, your life is going to be picked apart into little shreds in our instant-communication age. I don't think it will ever be like it once was.
Farmgirl
edit: (Actually, I think I was thinking more of Theodore Roosevelt -- but the exact President really doesn't matter -- I'm just referring to that time frame in American history)
quote: Now in current times, it doesn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat, Christian or not, -- if you are in the limelight, your life is going to be picked apart into little shreds in our instant-communication age. I don't think it will ever be like it once was.
It can be like that, maybe not for all, but for yourself if you don't participate in the gossip and don't seek out the shreds of other people's lives. I think in the last 5 years, reality programs on t.v. and the clearly partisan media have done the most damage in destroying our morals as a society. Don't watch the filth that gets its ratings from doing the most horrible things to others, and always be open-minded to what you hear in media news.
Posts: 36 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Obviously we are headed down the slopes of moral decay...."
I don't feel this is obvious at all. On what grounds do you base this statement?
(As a side note, it's worth pointing out that we ARE the America of the Shadow books, if your only criteria for that status is that we'd elect CEOs -- like Bush -- instead of statesmen.)
posted
I'm not sure that the American people is an appropriate thing to have "faith" in.
I also have heard (I was just a toddler) that Watergate was when the press undertook to give oversight to the presidency. And I think it's a good thing, but
A) they showed their bias by letting Clinton get away with a lot of serious ethical breaches. They just focused on the sex stuff which in the end they could point out was not illegal.
B) they treat everything with the weight of watergate. It's the equivalent of having a hyper immune system. Or at least the boy who cried wolf.
There was an anti-media bit on news hour last night. I need to go read it.
[ January 14, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think the turn of political events restores some hope for a season. I note that our elections remain close, and there is certainly a disposition on the part of many people in the U.S. to attack and bias oneself to a certain point of view, etc.
I do agree with the premise that the press and media are largely responsible for the direction things have gone. Might I suggest that this appears to be because there is a significant group of people who, as a general rule, want to be absolved of all responsibility. The press and media (and many politicians who play the game) suggest this can be done. They do so by claiming that there is no need to feel responsible for ones' own actions, that one's life is uniquely their own and it is OK to do what one wants. They also do so by establishing plans and programs which help guarantee the ability to survive even if supposedly poor moral choices are made.
As far as when the press decided to give oversight to the presidency... I definitely wasn't around, but my study of history suggests to me that the press was already beginning to take its present-day shape during WWII. At this point, I think that certain individuals in the press realized the power it had in influencing the people as it spread the government-sponsored war propaganda. I think that war was the last time America was almost entirely united in a cause.
There are, of course, plenty of times between then and now when much of the people were united. I don't believe there was much opposition to the Korean War. There was a considerable amount of unity involved in the Space Race. America was largely united in the Cold War.
Some good things came from thinking outside of the established tradition (although at the time many people did not consider these things good): the civil rights movement being most notable in my mind.
Are we headed down the slopes of moral decay? This depends on what your morals are. Do you intend to force them on everyone else? Unfortunately this does go both ways: from my moral perspective, I see some who want to force a conservative perspective on others, but I also see those who want to force a liberal perspective on others. The original poster here suggests membership in the LDS Church. Might I simply point out that the missionaries of that church run into a lot of difficulty while teaching many people because most of the church's doctrine rests on the conservative side. These people share fundamental differences in what is and is not moral. No missionary, to my knowledge, has ever succeeded in forcing a position on somebody, although some definitely try. No, the way to get to the conservative perspective (assuming that's the one you want to have) has to come from a personal decision to choose to be responsible. In other words, to be conservatively responsible, you must of your own will be responsible to decide to do this. (Does this make any sense?)
Finally, in response to the final, last question. Will America fall first, or will the Second Coming come first? You're right, definitely an opinion question. I think the two events are likely to happen at roughly the same time. However, many factors are certainly involved, and it depends on things that are well out of our immediate control and immediate vision.
Anyway, this is one huge reply. Should generate a bit of discussion.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Might I suggest that this appears to be because there is a significant group of people who, as a general rule, want to be absolved of all responsibility."
Yes, you might. But you would be wrong. I'll let you get away with that kind of drooling slander once, bucko, because you're new. But don't let me see that kind of bias on your sleeve the next time you post, or I'm going to have to reply. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Ok, I guess I didn't clarify my train of thought enough in my post to make this a very clear line of discussion.
I guess my line of inquiry could be restated by the following. We can see throughout history that time after time, civilizations, empires, and societies have all failed--South/Central America, Asian, Europe, Middle East. I'm not going to bother naming specific civilizations.
So I thought I'd draw on the group's collective wisdom....are there common threads to all the failures? I mean obviously its usually military defeat...but what steps led to the weaking of an empire enough for a defeat? What were society's trends? Does anyone see what I'm getting at? I'm just wondering if we can identify any of the trends in declining civilizations that our civilization (for those of you in the USA) shares. Thanks
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the greatest trends would be not doing what is right.
Even those who do not believe in th bible or even in a God (by whatever name you choose) must admit that there are certain things/actions that are right or wrong. We all know that stealing is wrong; killing is wrong; violance without provocation is wrong. Some things we argue about. Is it wrong or is it not. If it is wrong are there times when it could be considered right?
The first posting mentioned the Book of Mormon saying that this land (the americas [not just the US]) would be a blessed land if it keeps God's Commandments. Haven't we, as a nation, been blessed by doing what's right?
When we haven't been doing what is right. Haven't we missed some "blessings"? The sixties and Vietnam come to my mind.
The civilizations that have fallen have done so when doing what is not right - by God's laws where knowladge of them existed, and also by the natural laws (witch are also God's) where God did not exist to the people. Namely, being selfish (concerned for one's own monitary growth, comfort and/or power) and NOT doing what is good (or doing what is RIGHT). In leadership, this causes lack of faith in and, sometimes, the fall of a government. In the general populace, this causes the fall of a nation or civilization of that people.
posted
"Even those who do not believe in th bible or even in a God (by whatever name you choose) must admit that there are certain things/actions that are right or wrong."
*grin* Oh, man. Do you want me to point out where you're being offensively naive, or can you see it already?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is "right"? What I call "right" may be different from what each of the others who have posted here call "right". TLinus refers to commandments. Great, but there are even varying opinions on how literally those should be interpreted.
I attempted to get around this in my last post by discussing responsibility, but even there, there are varying degrees of responsibility.
So what kills a government? Here's another idea to throw onto the stack: lack of trust in the government, resulting in the lack of the ability of the government to govern. The government can lose its trust by misusing its power.
Some examples... On the one side, a government's power is misused when taxes do not get much bang for the buck. It also can result from overregulation. Misuse of power also happens if a military is used to enforce policy to an extreme. On the other side, misuse of power happens when a government fails to use it to provide safety, security, and other desirable services (in other words, insufficient taxes to fund services, insufficient regulations, insufficient military).
Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that if the government loses its trust with its citizens, then there will be a popular revolt. This then results in a regime change, or, if another country wishes to take advantage, a military takeover by another country.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Naive? Yeah, probably. If I did offend anyone, I didn't mean to.
In the end, I agree with STATWIZARD. It's the miss use of the power they are given. The lack of trust and/or confidence in the leaders.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hope is in no way a term one should use in reference to the election. Bush is no more religious than Kerry is. At least Kerry was remorseful when he killed people in a war. And he didn't even start the war.
Since when is a man more religious because he is a Republican? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. When does the fact that a man thinks poor people should have to pay less taxes than rich people make him an atheist?
And when did people start ignoring that little part in the first ammendment that says religion is not something that should be put into law?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the United States, at least, preceipts taught by christianity MUST be considered because the founding fathers based much of their work on the idea that certain christian behaviors were necessary to maintain a stable society and a stable government.
The whole church/state issue is misused on a regular basis––the idea is that the government will not advocate a single religion (and thereby allowing for freedom of religious expression) but the founding fathers often used religious principles to justify their rebellion from England and used them to establish the Constitution.
Political parties made no difference; but most of the founding fathers had some degree of religious background and were not ashamed to use their beliefs as evidence of the veracity of their work.
As for common threads that bring civilizations down? I have my own opinions, but I'm more interested in hearing from others on this thread...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hope is in no way a term one should use in reference to the election. Bush is no more religious than Kerry is. At least Kerry was remorseful when he killed people in a war. And he didn't even start the war.
This is entirely a product of your subjective interpretations of the two men's actions.
quote:Since when is a man more religious because he is a Republican? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. When does the fact that a man thinks poor people should have to pay less taxes than rich people make him an atheist?
Obviously, that isn't the reasoning people are using Being a Republican doesn't make someone religious. But many religious people feel alienated by the Democrats because at least some factions within that party treat religious opinions with contempt and treat organized religion as an enemy. Personally, I feel alienated by both sides because the Republicans are dominated by a particular brand of religious people who ALSO treat my religion with contempt
quote:And when did people start ignoring that little part in the first ammendment that says religion is not something that should be put into law?
The government should not enforce one religion over another, but it would also be insane not to at least take into account one of the major driving forces in many of its citizens' lives. When you marginalize and dismiss religion, you also marginalize and dismiss people whose lives center on their faith — which includes a rather large segment of the American populace.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the reference Tom, I appreciate it.
quote: Hope is in no way a term one should use in reference to the election.
I use it in reference to Mr. Card. By reading his afterword, there was an obvious distress about the character and decision making of our current president, Clinton at the time.
I'm not here to debate Clinton, or Bush, or Kerry, or the qualities of a leader. Also, lets not get into a fight over who is more religious....thats just silly.
I just was curious about what everyone else thought OSC thought (since he's pretty busy) by reading his recent literature, which prompted a question on civilizations since he studies them and writes with them in mind. Thanks for all the responses....keep em coming
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've gone looking for the statement on hope in the Afterword of Shadow of the Hegemon (of the Shadow series, this is the only one that has a full-fledged Afterword) and can't find it. I do see some of the points he makes from which I think you infer this stance. I was hoping to find it to get the full context of his statement.
Even if OSC did state that he has lost faith in the ability of the American people to choose a good leader, I don't think you can take the outcome of two Presidential elections (and even a the net result of the past three or four Congressional elections, should you be of the opinion that the country should be leaning toward a certain party) as sufficient evidence to feel that the American people have "suddenly" learned to choose a good leader.
Rather, I think the recent Ornery essays provide OSC's viewpoint on the world situation and America's role in it. That is not the same as what the American people choose.
In other words, I'm not sure that his opinion has changed since SotH.
On the other hand, perhaps his comment was only referring to the events immediately surrounding some of the events of the Clinton administration. In that case, though, I find such a remark as "losing hope in the American people" to be somewhat hasty. I would think that a statement like that should be backed up by more than a few years worth of data. (Likewise, its retraction should not come based on just a few events.)
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For the United States, at least, preceipts taught by christianity MUST be considered because the founding fathers based much of their work on the idea that certain christian behaviors were necessary to maintain a stable society and a stable government.
Nonononono. That's the most common misinterpretation. The idea was that religion and government are supposed to be two seperate things. Government's job is to protect and serve the people, whereas religion is one's own choice for personal guidance. You can't say that the founding fathers based the government on Christian values. Franklin was a freaking deist! Christian values are just plain good values, for the most part.
Murder is bad, so is stealing, and lying (at least in legal cases). The fact that the Bible condemns these things has nothing to do with the fact that there are laws against them. Russia is mostly atheist. Does that mean they stopped outlawing murder because the laws of nature permit it?
Another big misconception is that it's the judicial system's job to interperet what the founding fathers wanted. That is not their job. Their job is to determine what the laws mean. A lot of those laws were written by the founding fathers, and that's why their intent is so often questioned. But they still also have to interperet what Joe the Senator meant by the law he introduced and was passed.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Now what did they mean by "respecting?" Did they mean there shouldn't be a law that shows respect for an establishment of religion? No, of course not. Otherwise the ammendment would outlaw itself. What it means is that congress shall pass no law in respect to an establishment of religion. In other words, there shouldn't be a law that specifically supports a certain establishment of religion, or its ideals because they are the ideals of that religion.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another big misconception is that it's the judicial system's job to interperet what the founding fathers wanted. That is not their job. Their job is to determine what the laws mean. A lot of those laws were written by the founding fathers, and that's why their intent is so often questioned.
Particularly in cases tried in the Supreme Court, it is frequently necessary to determine the intent of the Founding Fathers because such cases (if I recall correctly) must claim that the Constitution is being violated. (Either the Constitution is being overriden by law or is not being enforced properly due to lack of law.) This is why the Founding Fathers' intent is relevant.
If Congress wishes to establish a law that is contrary to the Constitution, the Constitution is supposed to win, not the law.
quote:there shouldn't be a law that specifically supports a certain establishment of religion, or its ideals because they are the ideals of that religion.
The concern is in what it means to establish a religion. Can a university professor in a public school get in trouble for telling his students that he won't respond to e-mails on Sunday because he wants to worship God? There are precedents in the court system that would say that this is establishing a religion. Same for the "under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance, or for prayers before high school sporting events or graduations.
Now if the law coerces someone to worship in a way they don't like, that is in my mind an establishment of religion.
However, if the law encourages people to follow a certain course of action, is that an establishment of religion? Many would say that a "moment of silence" for prayer establishes some religion. Many would say that reading a scripture from the Bible (or the Quran or any other Scripture) establishes some religion.
But, for example, encouraging students to abstain from or have sex also addresses issues pertaining to religion. Does abstinence (or lack of teaching abstinence) establish a religion? There are people who believe in abstinence, and those who believe that abstinence is not necessary. Thus teaching abstinence (or not teaching it) is going to offend some people's beliefs.
There's a saying that says you can't please everybody. But our government is founded on principles of equality, so we can't give different styles of education to different groups -- that would be segregation. And, besides, there are so many issues in which people simply disagree. So what is to be done?
There are Christians who feel that the government is making it harder to encourage worship of Christ. There are also atheists who feel the government encourages religion far too much already.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, there is a difference between christianity as a belief system and christianity as an organized force; Jefferson, for example, was very critical of the culture of Christianity in general, even though he kept his foot in the Anglican faith most of his life.
IMHO, then, one way to study the health and success of the United States is if it continues in the tradition of moral law first imagined by the founding fathers. The success of this country was predicated on moral law, and a society that does not keep this law, again IMHO, will only weaken the country over time.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh oh oh! I Have an answer I want you to read and think on!
I like reading up on history and it seems like throughout history there have been lows and highs for every nation. Nations like Rome fell because they were caught off guard at a rediculously low point when they were defeated by the huns(is that the right group?). Right now, depending on your point of view, the US is either at a high point or low point. This probably reflects your views on who you thought should have won the election. Although you may be depressed with the election results you have to seriously take in to account that as a nation or any nation we are as 'great' as we have ever been.
I mean look back in history. People were probably depressed and fretting over what society was becoming during the revolutionary war with the Loyalists wanting to stay loyal to the crown. I can bet that the Loyalists had a very bleak outlook! Also, if you go back and read up on the political atmosphere in the country back in the late 18th early 19th century, you would be amazed at the cruelty at which politicians slandered, criticized, shot (lol) each other.
Also, the you have to think about the Civil War! How bleak would things have looked to you back in that day and age! People were killing each other willy nilly and whole families were almost wiped out.
Things just aren't as bad as you think. Just recently in the US we had an election where noone was killed or tried to seize control of the government. The economy is strong and coming up (oh and by the way the US has 1/8 of all the worlds wealth). We're fighting a war where sadly we are taking casaulties, but compared to other wars we are doing very well.
All the issues that people are really upset nowadays are small potatoes compared to the issues people had to deal about in the past! Anyways, some people will always have a bleak outlook on things and have doom and gloom predictions... and that's ok, it keeps everyone else in check.
Anyways sorry for any spelling or grammar errors, I'm at work right now and I'm trying to type this out pretty quick before the boss comes by.
Thanks and bring the flames.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Roman Empire fell Commodous was born, and Emperors weren't chosen for their virtues anymore, combined with the fact that any large nation is vulnerable to attack when it doesn't have the army to defend it.
Another contributing factor would be something pointed out in the Foundation alagory: Generals are needed to defend an Empire (that's EMPIRE, not nation, as an Empire is a group of nations under the control of another nation led by an Emperor), and when the first emperor was a general who became an emperor through civil war, it opens up the possibility that any general can start a civil war if he is a good general (and this happened many times).
The Roman Empire wasn't caught off gaurd. They knew the Huns were coming, and they knew the Goths were coming (the Goths being the ones that actually took Rome). The fact is that they just didn't have military might to defend an empire, and the fact that they were Rome brought on invasion. They were a victim of their own success.
quote:Things just aren't as bad as you think.
By comparison, no. Of course not. But we're supposed to PROGRESS. We're supposed to get better. We're supposed to learn from Vietnam. We're supposed to learn from Reganomics. We're supposed to learn from the theocratical failures of the past where progress was sacrificed for religious ideals that had no real foundation in the Bible.
We're supposed to look and see the bloodshed in the Punic wars, the bloodshed in the 100 Years War, the bloodshed in the Civil War, and the bloodshed in Vietnam and realize that this thing that is war is barbaric and uncivilized and should be avoided as much as possible.
But my original point was to clarify that Democrats aren't atheists, and that Republicans aren't the chosen vessel for the words of God. It is quite the opposite. Let's look at the facts:
Democrats: The rich should give to the poor. The Bible: The rich should give to the poor. Republicans: The rich earned their money and should keep it.
Democrats: Violence is generally wrong and should only be a last resort. The Bible OT: Violence is gennerally wrong and should be a last resort. The Bible NT: Violence is always wrong, and when it is exacted on you, you should never return the violence. Republicans: Violence is a tool that should be used when it is the most effective tool.
Democrats: Capitol punishment is wrong and no deterent to crime. The Bible OT: If you do these things, you should be killed. The Bible NT: Capitol punishment can only be enforced by the perfect... No man is perfect except Jesus. We aren't under the laws of the old testiment anymore. Republicans: People who kill should be killed in return.
Democrats: Bad behavior should be prevented by education. Republicans: Bad behavior should be punished. The Bible NT: Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Of course, these are vague generalizations, but it's clear to me that Republicans aren't Christians and Democrats are atheists. It's more like Republicans follow the old testiment, while Democrats follow the teachings of Christ. Funny, huh?
What I'm really getting sick of is something that Jesus got sick of too: Hypocrits. Of course he was talking more about Jewish priests, and I'm talking about the Religious right.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's add some middle ground here to avoid some of your generalizations.
Some Democrats AND Republicans: The rich should give to the poor, not to the government.
Some Democrats AND Republicans: Violence is generally wrong and foreign governments that exercise violence towards their own citizens must be overthrown, even if that requires violence. (Nice moral dilemma, huh?)
Some Republicans: Bad behavior should be prevented by education. (Same position as the Democrats, just that people in different areas of the politcal spectrum have a different idea of how that education should be done.)
By the way, I emphatically agree with your final conclusion: it is obvious that not all Democrats are atheists, and equally obvious that not all Republicans are religious.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a Republican.. I'll admit it. I voted for Bush over Kerry. I'm a conservative, but I'm telling you not to gain attention (well maybe a little) but because I want to make a point.
I agree that we need a death penalty, but I think in some cases we use it too much/easily.
I agree in the ideas of re-distrubution of wealth, but I don't think that massive governmental controlled programs are the answer. I knew a fellow that worked in a welfare office in Dallas and some of the stories he told would make you cringe. The whole situation is a big catch 22 and a headache since small privatized orginizations can never do as much as the large governmental orginizations while large governmental orginizations are way too ineficient compared to smaller private orginizations (I have no numbers or data to back this up, I'm just re-gurgitating what I see on the news, meet the press, experiences, etc. and things like that).
I could go on but the boss is coming by... Posts: 3 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, Democrat presidents were in power when we entered both World War I and World War II; Republicans especially were against entering World War I and it happened anyway––the reasons may or may not be considered reasonable, depending on your point of view.
Bottom-line, such broad generalizations are wrong on all sides at best, laughable at worst. I figure let's make all Republicans wear red longjohns, fake horns and carry pitchforks to Senate meetings, right? Just to make sure we're clear?
Making connections to party lines and righteousness will never yield accurate results; it all comes down to groupthink, influence and the tide of public and political opinion. The ultimate success or destruction of a nation, IMHO, ultimately starts on a much smaller scale, regardless. Like an African proverb says:
"The destruction of a nation begins in the walls of a man's home."
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, Democrat presidents were in power when we entered both World War I and World War II
Right. So how are Republicans better at defending our nation? Oh, right. Lincoln, the liberal of his time, won the Civil War. Because we all know that the people who were rooting for the south vote for Democrats today...
And that's right! Nixon pulled us out of Vietnam! And Regan won the Cold War! It's wasn't because of the massive riots and the Pentagon papers, and the fact that the Russians couldn't keep up their economy! It was because those presidents knew how to protect our country.
If you look at history, you'll see that conservatives wage wars to gain something, and liberals wage wars because they think it will save more lives than those lost in the actual war.
And I'll use broad generalizations to point out the flaws in the broad generalizations the Republican spin machine puts out.
quote:Making connections to party lines and righteousness will never yield accurate results
Which is why Kerry should have won the elections. People need to wake up and stop listening to the crap that political machines put out, and look at the actual facts.
You see, the majority of Americans think that Bush is wrong on the economy. The Majority also thinks he is wrong on the war. But the majority THINKS Bush is right on moral issues, when the fact is that Kerry wanted to preserve the sate's right to regulate marriage, and Bush wanted to impose a federal law on a state issue. The other moral issues aren't even things that the president should even be involved with.
Stem cells? Until science can prove that a fetus is alive at conception, it's a religious question, and therefore cannot be involved with the government.
Abortion? That's up to the supreme court.
And how in the hell did a cheerleader from Andover come out as more manly than a Vietnam veteran with three purple hearts?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's funny is that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" change all the time. The criteria changes constantly, but anyone can quote revisionist history and claim it as truth.
That's why morality is absolutely essential for a balanced society. It goes back to the fact that the founding fathers themselves established this nation on Moral Law.
(Thomas Jefferson himself, the so-called advocate for the separation of church and state, used federal funds for churches, mandated Sunday as the Sabbath, and even used public property for religious services. He wouldn't get away with ANY of that today.)
Morality MUST be a factor in choosing our leaders, because our civic leaders affect the spread and/or supression of those moral behaviors that the public might see as healthy or damaging to society at large. Issues like abortion, stem cell research and homosexuality cannot be simply the venue of the secularist alone, because decisions are made on criteria that does not take into consideration God's Law, a criteria that many people believe to be above all.
I like the quote from Barbara W. Tuchman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. Said she: "When it comes to leaders we have, if anything, a superabundance—hundreds of Pied Pipers . . . —ready and anxious to lead the population. They are scurrying around, collecting consensus, gathering as wide an acceptance as possible. But what they are not doing, very notably, is standing still and saying, ' This is what I believe. This I will do and that I will not do. This is my code of behavior and that is outside it. This is excellent and that is trash.' There is an abdication of moral leadership in the sense of a general unwillingness to state standards."
THIS is why many people voted against Kerry.
She continued: "Of all the ills that our poor . . . society is heir to, the focal one, it seems to me, from which so much of our uneasiness and confusion derive, is the absence of standards. We are too unsure of ourselves to assert them, to stick by them, if necessary in the case of persons who occupy positions of authority, to impose them. We seem to be afflicted by a widespread and eroding reluctance to take any stand on any values, moral, behavioral or esthetic."
I'll raise my glass to that. Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am reading a book by Dinesh D'Souza, an Indian immigrant to the US, called WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT AMERICA.
It is wonderfully readable in that he addresses many issues concerning the rise of Anti-American thought and action--from Europe, to Islam, to China, to America-bashing American citizens. D'Souza isn't just a spout for Conservatives--he points out very sharply many of the reasons America is hated and some of the possible justification for that hatred. He is thoughtful and logical and clear. And the man knows a lot of history. I am impressed with his ability to trace trends through decades as well as through centuries.
His book addresses many of the issues that have been raised in this thread so far, the most pertinent being the present state of morality in the US and how it affects the world's perceptions and responses to us. Among other things, he points to the rising thought in the 1960s and 70s that morals (and behaviors dependent on them) became increasingly individual-based. The old, "I'm OK, You're OK" school of thought that says whatever makes a person happy is what is right and valuable, that any one set of values is equal to any other set of values. It sounds like Moral Relativism to me, and a society cannot long survive with that as its predominant philosophy.
If a society negates that which makes it strong by declaring it bears no more value to it than things (and ideas) which weaken it, then it cannot endure. If that is where we, as an American society, are headed, then we will fail. In fact, we will be wiped out.
I believe that so long as we hold to the values that are promoted in the Constitution, written by men who were almost all believers in God and who overwhelmingly practiced some denomination of Christianity, the country will endure--will continue to receive God's protection. In spite of much of that we see in the news, in entertainment, in tradition-destroying behavior by "don't push that out-dated morality on me" people, I don't believe the country is as corrupt or decadent as it sometimes looks.
There is a reason why our mass of citizenry is referred to as "the silent majority." We don't make a lot of noise; we just live our lives, raise our families, treat people with fairness and respect--mostly. Decadence, lascivious lifestyles, crime, aberrant behaviors and all that make for a lot of press; good news and quiet, boring morality just doesn't sell or entertain. Aren't we told that no news is GOOD news??? (sorry)
As far as Mormons are concerned--the church is growing all over the world, including in the US. So long as there is a solid core of people (and I don't mean only the Mormons) who actually live their lives based on the laws of God, then the country will continue to flourish. I think, right now, that that is happening. The fact that the country just elected a man (I believe based largely on his unapologetic declaration and demonstration that he loves God and tries to live accordingly) who values freedom as it is defined in the Constitution and is willing to defend it as such--all that is a positive sign that the country will endure.
It has been defined to me that the separation of church and state simply means that the goverment will establish no state religion--it will not declare any religion as the official religion of the government (like the Church of England, etc.) It also declares that the government will not impede any religion, either. That seems to be ignored by people crying foul if a city wants to have a Christmas tree in the town square.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you're missing the point, Estveres. Government should not impose any law on the people because it is a part of their religion.
We might as well make it illegal to worship any God but ours. Atheists don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. They don't believe in sin, just right and wrong. The government has no right to tell them that it's wrong because something they don't even believe in says it's wrong.
That's my point, and Jefferson's point.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but to dismiss an ideal because it's a part of someone's relgion is a very clever way for secularists to see THEIR ideals dominate the culture...and repress others.
As has been said before, Jefferson and others saw a clear difference between christian ideals and imposing christianity. They condemned apostate religions and their abnormal influence, while advocating that Biblical-based behavior is the best way by which a country can stand.
People can dismiss it, but it's what they said.
An ideal can be held without being "religious," and even if it is, so what? I'm free to join the military before I can vote, I'm free to bear a child before I can drive, I'm free to have an abortion but I can't drink alcohol while I'm pregnant––ideals are being made into law every day, and both secularists and religious alike have the right to defend and advance their causes without advocating any particular faith or creed.
(BTW, though I'm free to get pregnant, I'm not real interested in being the first male to try it. I've read it possible, but...)
quote: The fact that the country just elected a man (I believe based largely on his unapologetic declaration and demonstration that he loves God and tries to live accordingly) who values freedom as it is defined in the Constitution...
*grin* Yeah, you've pretty much got to base it on his avowed love of God, because there's certainly little other evidence that he values freedom as defined in our Constitution.
Seriously, man, Bush is no more a godly man than I am. And he's certainly not a defender of the faith.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Tom, I certainly couldn't say whether or not you are a godly man. If, however, you judge a person's godliness on what he says he believes about god and how he lives his life based on those beliefs, I think you could say President Bush is a pretty godly man. OK. Not in comparison to, say, the Pope, or to ( :-) ) Scott Card, but I do believe Bush comports himself based on his Christian beliefs. I think research on his personal worship practices would bear this out. Heck, all you need to do is listen to the Liberal Left to hear how Bush is so totally obsessed with God and religion.
I would hope, more than anything else, that a president of this country would know that freedom is the most important thing he has to protect. I would also hope that he knows that because he understands that our freedoms stem from God's will for men.
If we give up our the freedoms promised to us in our Constitution, as a country, we have given up everything. I believe Bush takes that very seriously. While some complain that he has stepped on those rights, I believe in the long run, those people will be proven very wrong.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If, however, you judge a person's godliness on what he says he believes about god and how he lives his life based on those beliefs, I think you could say President Bush is a pretty godly man.
Ah. See, I don't see how being a Christian in any way informs Bush with godliness; he doesn't comport himself in a way that suggest he understands the principles of his own religion, insofar as those principles go deeper than attending church and pretending to care about people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Archer--I really appreciate your posts. Your viewpoint really helps keep discussions like this one going, and provides a sounding board for ideas. Thank you.
That said, I do have to disagree with you somewhat about the old/new testament parallels.
First, i have to disagree about the Republican/Democratic classifications. I am neither. I am a moderate conservative--for example I don't like the death penalty, but I also don't like abortion. Party aims change. All Republicans are not conservative, and all Democrats not liberal. Even conservative/liberal change meanings...for example in Russia they have opposite meanings as they do here.
So even more important to me than political labels or social labels is my religion.
It is the right of every American to vote according to their religious beliefs, and how they interpret them, if they so choose.
quote: Democrats: The rich should give to the poor. The Bible: The rich should give to the poor. Republicans: The rich earned their money and should keep it.
As a Christian, the main idea here is charity. Compulsory taxes are not a way to offer charity. Your motivation is important. Something that is taken cannot be freely given. In my church we not only donate a portion of our income to the church (which pays for physical needs of running a religion, such as buildings as well as humanitarian needs throughout the world), but we also are encouraged to generously donate monthly to the poor.
quote:Democrats: Violence is generally wrong and should only be a last resort. The Bible OT: Violence is gennerally wrong and should be a last resort. The Bible NT: Violence is always wrong, and when it is exacted on you, you should never return the violence. Republicans: Violence is a tool that should be used when it is the most effective tool.
It should only be used at the last resort....unfortunately its a matter of opinion as to when that occurs. For example, in WWII, we DID wait until it was the last resort, and did almost nothing--to this day our nation still bears part of the burden of guilt of over 10 million civilan lives, mostly Jews, who were tortured and killed by the Nazis. So when was the last resort? When the Japanese actually bombed some of our own? Or should we have waited as long as France waited? Or should it have been when we first had intelligence of horrible concentration camps years before? (Kind of reminds me of the whole WMD situation). Would the liberal movement of the time accused the President of simply warmongering? Who knows? Furthermore, the Iraq war was not just Bush and not just Republicans, although you imply that it was just them. It was the Democratic Party as well the venerable President Clinton. War is a terrible thing. But who decides what the last resort it? That's the real question.
quote: Democrats: Capitol punishment is wrong and no deterent to crime. The Bible OT: If you do these things, you should be killed. The Bible NT: Capitol punishment can only be enforced by the perfect... No man is perfect except Jesus. We aren't under the laws of the old testiment anymore. Republicans: People who kill should be killed in return.
Lol, I love this one...state your whatever research you want, half say it is a deterent, half say it is not, but that's not the point. I mean, it would be a deterent to chop people's fingers off for illegally downloading mp3s, but that wouldn't make it right. So the issue is not whether something deters crime.
And you know, I can't help but think that people are not impartial enough to decide on the death penalty. I mean, look at that joke of a Scott Peterson trial. So hey, what can I say I guess I'm liberal on this one
quote: Democrats: Bad behavior should be prevented by education. Republicans: Bad behavior should be punished. The Bible NT: Love the sinner, hate the sin
My religious view: Bad behavior should be prevented by education. Starting in the home. Schools also provide a social framework in which to teach social values (i.e. what is acceptable in society, what is not), however schools should not attempt to teach morals. However, bad behavior will still occur (although not as prevelant as it is now). When it does occur it needs to be corrected. Correction may include punishment, but punishment should not be the purpose. I think it is sick what our prison system is. The aim for violators should be correction, with a goal of helping them become a productive member of society again. Locking someone in a cage, and allowing the kinds of atrocities that happen in our prisons does in NO WAY help the inmate, or society. Punishment is God's, not man's.
So anyways, please don't characterize me (one of the hated religious right) as being uneducated, ignorant, uncaring, stupid, hypocrite, etc. I've lived in different countries, in 4 different states, and have my eyes wide open. I'll bet most people who criticize this country and what we stand for have not lived in any other countries for an extended period of time. It gives a new perspective to this great nation of ours.
Anyway, I know that you stated that the quotes I have responded to above are generalizations, but I just wanted all to realize that they are generalizations in fact, not just name.
Anyways, thanks for all the response.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I just want to add a thing or two about the death penalty:
How can the Republican party platform be that of pro-life AND pro-death at the same time? Many of them claim they're pro-life because of the Bible, and yet many of those very same people flatly ignore Jesus's teaching on the death penalty. I have never understood this.
The fact that the example in the NT was that of a woman being killed for adultery has nothing to do with what Jesus said. He said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." His point was that all sin is equal in the eyes of the lord, and that anyone who puts someone to death for a sin is being a hypocrit.
And on the prison system:
Prison should not be punishment. It should be a place where people are kept away from society so they cannot damage it, until they are able to be safely re-introduced into society.
Punishment is not a deterent for crime. The only effective punishment man has really ever come up with besides the excesive death penalty is cutting off a theif's hand- because then they can't steal as effective anyway (even though the purpose of the punishment was to force the offender to eat with the same hand that they whipe with). If you increase a punishment for a crime, people won't stop doing it. They'll just be more careful when they do it, or will pick crimes for which they think they can't be caught.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Men, capital punishment is very very wrong. Firstly, how can a state (f.e US) decide of whether person should live or die. This is outragous. Of cours it is necessary to exclude wrongdoers from the society, that's what prisons are for. God (and I think most of Americans belive in Him) is the only one who can decide of whether his little sheep should exist or not. Secondly- you can never, absolutelty never be sure if you judgement was right. I mean, if you even see a person killing someone then you might be hallucinating, or it was a very similar person, or it was a hologram created by some aliens. Thirdly not always a killer is resposible for murder. You might be have been put in trans, or have been threatened. I personally wouldn't hesitate wheter to kill or not if my family was to be killed. And then, Y don't you kill all your soldiers if
quote: Republicans: People who kill should be killed in return.
? Personally I think there are worst things than killing someone.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
