The Debate We Have to Win, Otherwise We Lose the Country

Townhall.com ^ | February 23, 2013 | Steve Deace

[LearsFool]

I’d say the author has won the debate. But it certainly won’t save the country.

Or does he really think that “not having the right” will stop this wickedness?

Does he think that these perverts with sexual disorientation waited for someone to shout “It’s your right!” before engaging in their unspeakable acts?

Does he think that explaining the concept of natural rights will sway voters who were never swayed to their present viewpoint by reasoned argument in the first place?

Yes, the author makes a very good case. The only trouble is that it ignores the problem. And what’s worse, it distracts from it. He needs to go back to the agora or the courtroom, where such high-falutin’ debates are considered worthwhile.

[griswold3]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, October 11, 1798.)

[onyx]

Thanks very much for the ping to the excellent article/column posted by Kaslin.

Thanks very much, dearest Kaslin! This one is a keeper and one I’m sending to several friends with children and grandchildren and to my own family members too, (of course).

BTTT.

[onyx]

All contributions are for the Current Quarter's Expenses.



Clue you, Chief Justice John Roberts!
Please Contribute, Monthly if you can!

Very Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!

All contributions are for the Current Quarter's Expenses.



Clue you, Chief Justice John Roberts!
Please Contribute, Monthly if you can!

Very Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!

[SoConPubbie]

I would disagree with the author on one point.

If we cannot convince them, we don’t loose the country.

The question will then have to be settled by force of arms.

In that war, we win.

[Mister Da]

“You have no right to do that which God says is wrong. Never have, never will, and should an earthly authority contradict this and permit your fallen nature to manifest itself, the God the “father of the Constitution” James Madison referred to as “the Governor of the universe” will ultimately adjudicate your case in eternity.”

If there is no God, or God is politically denied, then the above sentence is meaningless; effectively voiding inalienable rights, making all rights contractual & subject to state approval.

[Las Vegas Ron]

SFL

[Yosemitest]

AN excellent post, — thank you.
Here's part of an important speech you might enjoy.

“ … it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being
who rules over the universe,
who presides in the councils of nations,
and whose providential aids can supply every human defect,
that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States
a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes,
and may enable every instrument employed in its administration
to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge.
— In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good,
I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own,
— nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either.
— No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.
— Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation
seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency;
— and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government,
the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted,
can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude
along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.
— These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed.
— You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that
there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

By the article establishing the executive department, it is made the duty of the President
"to recommend to your consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
—The circumstances under which I now meet you will acquit me from entering into that subject,
further than to refer to the great constitutional charter under which you are assembled,
and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given.
— It will be more consistent with those circumstances,
and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me,
to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism
which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them.
— In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges,
that as on one side,
no local prejudices, or attachments,
no separate views, nor party animosities,
will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye
which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests:
so, on another,
that the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality;
and the preeminence of free government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world.
— I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire:
since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union
between virtue and happiness,
— between duty and advantage,
— between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity. —
Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right,
which Heaven itself has ordained.
— And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. —

… Having thus imparted to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together,
I shall take my present leave;
but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race, in humble supplication that,
since He has been pleased to favor the American people with
opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity,
and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government, for the security of their union, and the advancement of their happiness,
so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures
on which the success of this Government must depend. —”

Also worth your time — is the story — BEFORE the speech.

George Washington: The Reluctant President.

Never allow your schools to stop teaching CURSIVE WRITING and steal their history away from them.

[usconservative]

Absolutely! Just printed it off for my two sons (16, 14) to read. The oldest is in an AP Course (college prep)in his Sophmore Year in High School. His teacher is a flaming liberal. Bet this column will set him off and knowing my oldest son, he’s going to enjoy watching his teacher go nuts. :-)

[TArcher]

 

"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--Thomas Jefferson

 

Got Natural Law?

 

 

Sex, Evolution and Behavior

By Martin Daly and Margo Wilson

 

 

Got Socio-Biological Fitness?

 

 "Gay" penguins don't - not even in the San Francisco zoo

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=San+Francisco+gay+penguins

 

FAIL.

[foxfield]

Bump,

[marsh2]

Thanks. I will see if I can order it through our library.

[loveliberty2]

One point which has been made by posters to this thread relates to the Constitution's requirement of Oaths of office.

Perhaps this is a good time to highlight the Framers' true intent and significance of an Oath. Clearly, such an Oath presupposes a Sovereign whose law is above human law. That is an important concept for rising generations to consider and to understand.

In the Year 1876, a Black Minister, historian, and Ohio State Legislator was invited to speak on the occasion of a celebration of the 100th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

In that "Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon" delivered by the Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett at St. Paul A.M.E. Church in Urbana, Ohio, Arnett traced the histories of nations and the ideas history underlying our Declaration and Constitution, documenting his remarks about America's Christian foundations with quotations from Founders, Presidents, and Supreme Court Justices, as well as the Constitutions of the States.

Of the Oath of Office, he said:

"Oaths and affirmations are appeals to God, by him who makes them, that what he has said, or what he shall say, is the truth. It is the most solemn form under which one can assert or pronounce anything, and its violation is a crime of the darkest hue; one which God has declared he will punish; one that is made infamous and punishable by fine and imprisonment, by the laws of the land. Thus Christian obligation is required of every officer of the general Government, who fills any position of trust, honor or emolument. Many reports are required in the form and shape of affidavits."

Every lover of liberty should read all of this remarkable Sermon whose theme is "Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, but Sin is a Reproach to Any Nation."

Here is a link through which, by clicking on Arnett's name, anyone may access and read a full text version.

[Bob Ireland]

On the narrow subject hinted at in the story: same-sex marriage - marriage is not a right! That is why we license it! If a man wishes to marry three women then he will not be granted a license; if a woman wishes to marry her vacuum cleaner than a license will not be granted; a man's horse cannot collect survivor's benefits.

We license marriage as we license the privilege of driving a vehicle: to those we socially deem responsible and mature. For many thousands of years the purpose of marriage is to preserve the procreative ability to produce a family, and the family has been the foundation of social structure since before recorded history.

The fascinating thing about those advocating same-sex marriage is that they wish to overturn the popular will of the people. The present case in California is a perfect example; over 60% of Californians voted to prevent same-sex marriage; the activists celebrate when they get one judge to overturn the will of the people. What is the chance for freedom and the will of the majority in a society that celebrates one tyrant who is willing to overthrow that will?

Let each state deal with such issues as they will on the basis of a popular foundation... there should be no room for judicial fiat!

[usconservative]

On the narrow subject hinted at in the story: same-sex marriage - marriage is not a right! That is why we license it!

Marriage was first taxed by the King of England as a way to increase his coffers. That was the introduction of Government interference in what was considered to that point to be a religious, or church sanctioned institution only.

In modern times, Marriage Licenses are both a way for Government to "tax" an activity to increase its coffers and a contract between those who marry and the State.

The contract is the license, which is governed by State Laws (which vary state to state) which defines what happens when the marriage is dissolved. Think alimony, child support, division of assets, etc..

The word "marriage" therefore has been corrupted by the State (think: Government) which incorrectly leads people to believe that the Government can regulate or specify who can/cannot get married.

The reality is, marriage is a religious ceremony performed within the constructs of a church. Yes, it is possible to get married in a church without a license (in some, not all states) the issue is the State (Government) will not recognize the marriage w/o the marriage LICENSE which the state requires if a couple is to take advantage of specific benefits such as tax advantages, ability to speak for the other in the event of serious illness or death and the like.

Now, if we Christians were to seriously revolt against the Government on this topic, we could simply do it by getting married in the church and rejecting the "marriage license" and all it entails by the State. This of course also means refusing the 'tax breaks and benefits' which means giving up several financial advantages the State's "Marriage license" provides.

This would put marriage firmly back in the churches where it belogs, and get Government "out of the marriage business" where it's never belonged.

The other benefit would be gays could no longer claim the term "marriage" since any God fearing, bible believing church would never perform a "gay marriage." That reduces the gay agenda to simple "civil unions" (which in effect, is what every marriage is at the State level.)

I've always argued the core issue isn't anything to do with creating "civil unions" and including the same "benefits' as heterosexual couples enjoy today.

For the gay agenda it's really all about corrupting the institution of marriage, and by extension the Church and Christianity.

That's their real intent.

[gonzo]

Thanks, Kaslin! Sometimes it's hard to see through the glitter out there .......................................................................................... FRegards

[gonzo]

I love youse guys

Please keep the USSS away from me ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... FRegards

[Yosemitest]

"Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett ... Of the Oath of Office, he said:

'Oaths and affirmations are appeals TO God,
by him who makes them,
that what he has said, or what he shall say, is the truth.
It is the most solemn form under which one can assert or pronounce anything,
and its violation is a crime of the darkest hue;
one which God has declared He will punish;
one that is made infamous and punishable by fine and imprisonment, by the laws of the land.
Thus Christian obligation is REQUIRED of every officer of the general Government, who fills ANY position of trust, honor or emolument.
Many reports are required in the form and shape of affidavits.' "

Very well said, but WHO is enforcing it today?

Remember:

"It is not enough in a situation of trust in the commonwealth, that a man means well to his country;
it is not enough that in his single person he never did an evil act,
but always voted according to his conscience,
and even harangued against every design which he apprehended to be prejudicial to the interests of his country.
This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation,
falls miserably short of the mark of public duty.
That duty demands and requires that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent;
that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated.
When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect
it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it.
It is surely no very rational account of a man's life, that he has always acted right
but has taken special care to act in such a manner that his endeavours could not possibly be productive of any consequence."

Edmund Burke

[borntobeagle]

save fore later read