Posted on 07/04/2003 4:18:28 PM PDT by wcgo2
so·ci·e·ty ( P ) n. pl. so·ci·e·ties
The totality of social relationships among humans. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.
mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-) adj. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn) n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
(from dictionary.com)
Seperation of church and state has, of late, become somewhat of a point of contention between liberals and conservatives in the United States. However, there is an underlying hipocrasy to the outrage that the liberals speak of with regard to the pledge of alleigance, ¨in god we trust¨, and the relatively frequent mention of god in our commander in cheif´s speeches.
It is relatively easy to see why it´s a point of contention, it is (if you want to nitpick) somewhat unconstititutional for god to be mentioned on the money and coinage of this great country, however, by taking the logic (or lack therof) that the liberals speak of a step further, it is easy to declare many liberal laws and ideals unconstitutional.
First off, to justify my logic, i must first point out that religon is defined above essentially as a set of values based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. Morals just happens to be a synonym of values.
Since god is ¨the author of our moral code¨ (richard holloway, Godless morality) It seems rather ridiculous to legislate that moral code, as, of course, to legislate that, you must legislate the word of god, which brings church and state together.
So how can one legislate the ten commandments while at the same time declaring that the very mention of god is unconstitutitional?
Because stealing, killing, lying and cheating are wrong. God said so.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
--John Adams
Morality (or ethics) is the third branch of philosophy (after the study of metaphysics and epistimology, and before politics and art), and is the study of the choices that man makes to achieve "the good". "The good" depends upon the nature of reality (metaphysics), and what one can accept as knowledge (epistomology).
Notice that the definition of morality includes the word "choices". In a situation where man is not free to choose, then there can be no morality, regardless of what one thinks or feels.
In other words, morality is a term which only applies when there is a choice to be made by a conceptually-thinking being. If the government forces people to do something or not do something, then that thing is no longer within the realm of morality. It is within the realm of criminality.
Originally, our government was formed to protect the individual right to make choices, and thus make morality possible; Some say America was the first moral government in the history of the world, since it was formed to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These used to be "unalienable".
When any government strays from that charter - especially to pander to some religious faction - it becomes a tyranny.
Wrong.
Plato's Euthyphro is a great illustration. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible.
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. If a person believes in a God, it is the conviction of the Holy Ghost by which they are guided and not by the idolatrous vanities of morals constructed by others.
Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion. It is analogous to Plato's cave allegory and the Oracle of Delphi. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms (or as Thomas Hobbes called them, 'phantastical images') of the brain.
There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or 'feeling' is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, much like Pavlov's salivating dogs.
Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to symbolism over substance (like Rush always says about them).
The visual aspect of that phenomenon is also used by the print media to a degree. Interactive talk radio requires thought; television does not and relies on this as a means to influence viewers...
They worship for gods 'those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream...'
Like the necromancy of the late Senator Wellstone's funeral rally, or "funerally" (see the Steven Plaut article, The Rise Of Tikkun Olam Paganism, in reference to the Wellstone brand of Judaism), the use of Martin Luther King Day, or constantly invoking the "spirit of the '60's," the Left attempts to raise spirits of the dead as a totem for worship. This was also done with respect to Diana, Princess of Wales, following her "tragic" death in 1997.
Consider the seemingly coincidental circumstance that Diana is also the name of a pagan Greek goddess, and idolatry. The figurative deification of Princess Diana and the massive outpouring of public grief are a form of civil worship. The heaping of flowers at Kensington Palace as if it were a shrine, melodramatic eulogizing and the political expressions of how the world should comply with her posthumous intent concerning certain issues is a modern use of idolatry. Royalty magazine, in a special edition, had a large drop quote spanning across two pages: "She needed no royal title…to generate her particular brand of magic." The whole magazine was dedicated to pet Leftist political causes mixed in with the pictures and soliloquy about her sainthood.
This idolatry also partly played into the modern conflict of pagan vs. Judaic concerning her billionaire playboy lover, Dodi Al Fayed. Although many consider Islamic belief to be of Judaic origin, it is pagan. The crescent symbolizing Islam was also used to symbolize the pagan goddesses (Diana, Isis, etc.) and is used by modern neo-pagan nut cases as an icon. The use of the bedrock at the Dome of the Rock and the meteorite at the Kaaba as an excuse to label it an Islamic holy site, is idolatry. This is contrary to the idea that Muslim faith is monotheistic.
There is a clear connection between modern neo-paganism and ancient paganism related to Islamic conflict with the Judaic roots of Christendom. A focus on how this is manifested in a modern sense only requires a look at pop-culture icons in entertainment, sports "heroes," and attempts by the Left to use a pseudo-Christian sense of pagan moralistic idolatry to demonize political opposition. (I present to you U.S. Senator Rick Santorum as a useful example.)
Astrology is another blatant example of pagan idolatry. What else is it? The planets have the names of pagan gods. The constellations are grouped as phantastical images of mythical legends. The astrologers are revered as prophets by psychotic, neurotic adherents in frequent fanatical devotion to any musings these charlatans utter. The proliferation of psychics, seers, soothsayers, healers, gurus, etc., etc., ad nauseum, is a social psychosis, an occulted (or masked) promotion of Leftist propaganda (see the Paglia lecture at Yale, Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s).
Marxism and their forms of Cultural Marxism are a religion, a collection of cults. In many cases they worship a dead Karl Marx like some (and I stress some) Christians worship a dead Jesus, and not a living God. This is no more apparent than in the practice of enshrinement and regular grooming of Lenin's corpse in the former Soviet Union, the use of Princess Diana, Martin Luther King Jr. and others.
It is the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols. It has a similitude to the Teutonic paganism of Adolph Hitler, whose idolatry was the idea of a "master race." In effect, this genocide was a mass human sacrifice to those pagan idols.
The idolatry of perversion is another totem of the Left. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion. Pornography is an idolatry of perversion. Much of television, movies, and the literary culture of the Leftist elite in print, are nothing more than a cleverly masked promotion of their Marxist cult (that is to say, masked much like actors of ancient Greek drama).
The Left is properly identified with a 'confederacy of deceivers (and perverts) that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavor, by obscure and erroneous doctrines.'
The Left is obsessed with erecting idols, images and symbols to hide their agenda(s), as well as to expand their congregation in these cults of perversion...
Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils (yet another example of religious ceremony) for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child?
Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." The idolatry of "reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.
But since we are all properly obeying the modern interpretation of the First Amendment… Good or bad isn’t the question. Good, bad, right wrong, evil, moral; all of these are purely religious concepts. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.
The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, the Government should never consider issues of morality and of right and wrong.
So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. But, it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
Based on its state constitution.
Hidden in a penumbra?
I said previously (and sarcastically), "since we are all obeying the modern interpretation of the First Amendment..."
Sarcasm is a subtle art, for those attuned to such use of language. Read further on my FR homepage...
"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?" -- George Washington
Enemies of morality are enemies of our nation.
Washington was an idol worshipper?
Who's morality? From which religion? You don't learn very fast, do you. Piety to the gods who all want different things is impossible. Human defined "morals" are a fraud like the pantheons of pagan gods.
I'm not anxious to abandon the wisdom of our Founding Fathers like you are.
BTW, today is July 4, not May 1.
Sorry, but without God.. there is no morality.
Everything becomes subjective and "morality" is merely a word men can define in any manner we please.
You say: "But, I have a consensus! Many people agree with me!"
So what? The Nazi's had allot of sympathizers also..
You say: "But, it feels moral.. "
So what? The KKK says the same thing..
You say: "But, I am the lawmaker. I can make you do it at the point of a gun.. "
So what? The Communists said the same thing..
You say: "But I am not hurting anyone.. "
So what? Who says hurting people is immoral?
The Taliban says it's "moral" Many of the Peaceniks say it's not.. Can they both be right?
If there's no God, then "morality" is meaningless.
I'll take George Washington over Josef Stalin.
In this, you're absolutely correct.. I am not about to let some star chamber, filled with sinful men define "morality" for me. Who cares about their opinion.. One man can be wrong as easily as many men can be wrong.
God himself will define morality for me.
"We are firmly convinced, and we act on that conviction, that with nations as with individuals our interests soundly calculated will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties, and history bears witness to the fact that a just nation is trusted on its word when recourse is had to armaments and wars to bridle others." --Thomas Jefferson
I do not serve the wisdom of men, for it is a fallacy to do so. It is like the worship of an idol or a king.
In this, you're absolutely correct.. I am not about to let some star chamber, filled with sinful men define "morality" for me. Who cares about their opinion.. One man can be wrong as easily as many men can be wrong.
God himself will define morality for me.
You are a gentleman and a scholar.
Thank-you, it was one of my main points exactly...
I think he has lost himself...
I think that's a fairly accurate statement. I also think it's especially true in academic circles.
There's no moral hurdle that can't be rationalized away in a matter of hours by a bunch of men who consider themselves wise.
Look at how easily the Nazi's rationalized the non-personhood of Jews and other forms of "worthless life"
And then sold it as "science"
If you can rationalize that, you can rationalize anything.. Imo.
However, I have read that paganism, pointy headed theories about "morality" the "Ayrian" race, "worthless life" and so on and so forth were widely accepted during that period.
I was left with the impression that Europe in general and Germany in particular didn't just discount these things as junk "science" in many cases.
Of course I don't know, because I wasn't there.. But it sounded like it was fairly common and not at all the moral outrage it is today.
Of course, the holocaust and the greatest sins of the Nazi's hadn't taken place yet either.
?
Oh yes, it's also interesting (I find it fascinating) to see how groups of people interact in these situations.
The Delphi effect.
People are much more susceptible to peer pressure and outside influence than they might imagine.
It's kind of frightening, actually.
hypocrisy \hi-pa-kre-se\ n, pl -sies : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; esp : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion hypocrite \hi-pe-krit\ n hypocritical \hi-pe-kri-ti-kel\ adj hypocritically \-k(e-)le\ adv
(C) 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (C) 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Aging dung dries up, blows away and diminishes greatly in odor. In a covered jar or vessel it ferments. And thus, we have your vapid commentary intra muros, wafting forth with putrified scent from such a container being loosened...
But they were, and from the very outset of our Free Republic until the moral-liberal Democrats started passing all their garbage legislation in the 1970's, and it's been downhill ever since these ideologically-oriented people came to power.
And America was ruled and enslaved by the Mullahs for hundreds of years. Right.
A meeting of the American Taliban
Intaglio etching courtesy of the Ideologue Historical Revisionist Society
The American revolution was created by the clergy. The first Speaker of the House of Representatives was a minister. The Founders held church services in the House. They gave land to missionaries, hired and bought bibles for clergy and set aside land in every new township for a church. Jefferson himself was a religious nut--both he and David Koresh decided the Bible wasn't good enough as it is and annotated it to reveal the book's true meaning. We didn't become an Iran even when religious feelings were strong enough to drive us to revolt.
I don't know where this paranoia comes from which fears America could anyday become a theocracy but it is off the charts insane.
No one can . . .escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event . . .when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.
--Calvin Coolidge
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.