I took a look at your earlier link. After reading points one and two I'm not sure you should be taking advice from a guy who would prefer we play a game of nuclear chicken with China and Russia.
That was written in 1958, so some of the statements there are no longer relevant. There was a reason I picked selected quotes and didn't just paste the whole document. I did some further research and am not going to pursue this particular avenue. The question is more one of general principles than of one specific instance.
The principle to which I refer is that there are a lot of people who hate (I'll abuse the term just like everybody else does) religion for various different reasons. They don't have to sit around a conference table and make a formal plan to oppose it; they all just work against it in their own ways, from different angles, with the result that serious Christianity is marginalized. Sure, you can be a Kennedy Catholic and play the tired old line that Biden used, “I personally believe what my faith teaches, but I don't let that affect how I act or influence the way the world is”, but that's basically selling out and believing in nothing. The US bishops released a statement the day after the debate saying everything Biden said about the HHS contraception/abortion mandate was wrong. When you lie on national television to the detriment of your own church, then the divide between church and state has gone too far, and you have betrayed one to serve the other. The fear and indeed reality that I am concerned about is that this arrangement of loyalty to Ceasar over G
od is both antithetical to what it means to be Christian, and the fact that it will become not only as it is now, common and voluntary, but actually mandatory, to the point that it excludes Christians from the political process altogether.
you think PETA is a radical anti-Christian group.
Perhaps including all of PETA is an over-generalization. It's a large group which like most has its benign and radical elements.
Statements like "dogs are people too!" look cute on greeting cards, but the problem is some people actually believe that. Peter Singer is one notable example. He believes that personhood, for the purposes of rights under the law, depends on the level of consciousness and higher mental functions. In his ethical system, an adult dolphin and chimpanzee have more rights than a human child or someone with Alzheimer's. In other words, I am concerned about the people who do not believe in human exceptionalism, and those who do not believe in inherent rights based on being a member of the human species, with no qualifications. It follows rather logically from the concept of atheistic evolution; homo sapiens is just another animal with an unusually complex brain, and there's nothing that gives us any more right to exist as a species than the common housefly. From there follows the idea that we have no inherent and inalienable rights, only rights granted by social construct/government, and that to truly act as responsible citizens of nature, sometimes we have to act against the apparent good of our own species to protect nature at large.
This is the main problem I have with the climate change alarmists. It's not so much the science that I question, but the social consequences of jumping on the "sky is falling” bandwagon. Disasters and fear of disasters always facilitate an increase in government power, an increase that is rarely reversed. Already we have government mandates on lightbulbs, toilets, vehicle MPG standards, as well as the draconian carbon limits I mentioned earlier in regards to coal power plants. Despite the amount of money that Obama, as well as private industry, has put into “green” energy, currently something like 0.5% of American energy comes from wind and solar. It doesn't make sense to grind our economy to a halt by regulating its main sources of production out of existence and subsidizing technologies that can never work on a large scale, just so we can point to a chart that says we reduced our carbon output by X%, which may or may not have any meaningful effect on global climate in the long run. It makes somewhat more sense to me to regulate things on smaller scales such as LA, where smog is a real problem due to the geography. Those negative effects on humans can be measured much more easily than trying to guess ocean levels 100 years from now.
Of course the next step, indeed already underway in many parts of the world, is population control. Those who value the environment above individuals or cultures believe they are right to apply whatever means necessary to reduce the human population which is supposedly driving the meltdown of the planet and extinction of species. China's infamous one child policy is the most obvious example of this, in which women are forcibly aborted and sterilized if they have more than one child. You don't hear the “pro-choice” advocates making a big deal about those women's lack of choice. In other places, we yews economic pressure and withhold humanitarian aid, making it conditional on legalization of abortion and similar policies.
The more recent Star Wars trilogy (Ep 1-3) provide an clear, although exaggerated, example of one of the ways the radical environmental movement can effect us. Certain ideologies flourish in a time of crisis that would not in a more stable setting. Unscrupulous people, consumed with the hubris of their own plans, put pieces into place and wait for an opportunity to put them into motion. Even better is when the crisis can be manufactured on a convenient timetable.
To yews a more realistic example, this is the same principle that facilitated Hitler's rise to power in the 1930's. The German people were humiliated after WWI, and their economy was in shambles. A charismatic leader came along who was able to take advantage of the situation by providing hope and national pride, create order out of chaos, and put the country in a position of strength. Somewhere during the process such minor concerns as human rights were cast aside, as is typical during the rise of most police states.
As a general rule, I would tend to argue for less state control. The entire point of my previous post was to say that people should be in charge of themselves, with the government having only the minimum necessary power. Once power is gained by the government, it is never given up; the balance of power is a one-way trip (re: Palpatine, Hitler). Obama has said in as many words that he'll just pass everything he wants by executive mandate, since Congress won't do his bidding. The Supreme Court has justices that no longer believe in the primacy of our own Constitution, of which they are supposed to be the most rigorous defenders.
The vast majority of federal bureaucracies operate without much oversight or accountability to the people at large. They only ever make new regulations, imposed on the people, with little to no recourse. Example: Mark Levin filed an FOIA request with the EPA on upcoming regulations. It was denied. He filed the appeal, according to procedure, with... the EPA. Also denied. He is currently suing the EPA in federal court for failing to respond to this completely legal request to preview the mountain of regulations they are preparing to release after the election. The recent GSA scandal is another example of government going “open loop” and getting out of control.
I'm having trouble determining whether in your argument you would prefer more state control or less state control. I say this because you make the case that laws are an extension of morality. If so then you appear to want laws imposed that are Christian. You appear against the freedom of people to make choices. But what strikes me as counter to this is you also appear to be afraid of state control.
An example of Christian laws would be: no business transactions on Sunday; everyone must attend church on Sunday, though which church is up to you; you must give 10% of your income to the church; depending on your denomination, you must refrain from alcohol indefinitely, or meat on Fridays; etc.
The moral law is separate. It depends not on one's religion, but on human nature. It should be put into law and enforced when it is in the public interest. Polygamy is outlawed since it is harmful to the rights and equality of women. Prostitution is outlawed because it poses a public health risk, and encourages infidelity and the breakup of marriage. Abortion ought to be outlawed since science in the last 30 years has validated that life begins at conception and is a continuum thereafter, with no obvious hard breaks before which human rights can obviously be denied. And if you think all “conservative” principles come as a bundle...
http://www.plagal.org/ (I was rather shocked to come across this group, to say the least. It's like finding an elephant with talons and gills.)
Like it or not, our society is founded against the backdrop of Judeo-Christian principles, with law based to a large extent on British common law, derived from Roman law, which of course were both heavily influenced by Christianity. To make an entirely secular law you would have to throw out everything including the Constitution and start from scratch (which certain people actually favor). I daresay it's pretty much impossible to write a law that doesn't favor one existing system of morality over another. Again, the question becomes which view of human nature and morality is going to form your understanding of law. Least common denominator doesn't work since you can always find someone with a lower standard than yours.
Throughout many years people have said that certain changes will destroy America or its various institutions. Whether it is letting women vote, wear higher skirts, letting blacks vote, or marry white people, or letting gays serve in the military, or get married, none of these things have destroyed America. The shoe has not dropped. I have faith that it will not drop. There is no reason to be terrified of the future because of social change. Nations aren't destroyed by that. People aren't killed by that. They may be killed for it. Nations may be destroyed for it. But that is other people hurting people. Other nations destroying nations. Not divine wrath or some judgement on society in general.
I would argue that women wearing higher skirts, and by extension the erosion of morality in general, has done a great deal to harm people on an individual basis, in addition to society as a whole. We've only had a radical change in this direction for the past two generations, so the end results haven't percolated through the entire culture yet. To point out a few (from memory, these aren't exact but qualitatively they're pretty close), a divorce rate of 50%; well over 50 million surgical abortions; 1 in 6 teens with an STI; 41% of births out of wedlock; etc.
In response to your earlier question, which I have been asked numerous times before, “what harm will gay marriage do?”, I am assembling a list. This may take a few weeks as I have a lot of other things to work on.
If you have faith that this society will not implode, you are living in denial of human nature and human history. Every great civilization in history got their 15 minutes (or centuries) of power, then they crashed and burned. There is a relationship between the moral strength of a people and their ability to resist external pressure. As many occupying armies have discovered, there is a difference between controlling land, and conquering a people. However if the spirit of the people is already dead, then the conquering army will have much less difficulty assimilating the native population.
This quote is apparently misattributed to de Tocqueville, but I'll just state it as is. America is great because it is good; when it ceases to be good it will cease to be great.
The cycle of democracy:
From Bondage to Spiritual Faith,
From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage,
From Courage to Liberty,
From Liberty to Abundance,
From Abundance to Selfishness,
From Selfishness to Complacency,
From Complacency to Apathy,
From Apathy to Dependency, ← America is here, re: Romney's 47 percent (twisted out of context by the media, but it makes my point here).
From Dependency back into Bondage.
I don't have a fear that the United States will cease to exist as a geographical and political entity. My fear is for the end of America as it was founded to be, with a loss of its original intent. Political correctness, anti-discrimination, and confiscatory tax rates, will supercede freedom. The Constitution, much like the Bible, is only alive and well to the extent that those who interpret it and defend it are faithful to the original intent. Just like the words of the Bible, you can twist the words of the Constitution to mean pretty much anything you want. The idea of a “living document” is basically synonymous with “slippery slope”, or the proverbial house built on sand. The truths contained in the Constitution are universal, and to the degree that we follow it as intended, we remain the land of the free. To the degree that it is ignored or replaced, we lose freedoms.
Also, the whole point of democracy is that decisions are dictated by the numerical majority. Are you against democracy now too?
Yes, against absolute democracy, as any rational person familiar with history should be. Absolute democracy is mob rule. This is why we have a Constitutional republic. The law and the rights it contains is above the ability of the majority and the government to take away from the minority. This system recognizes that there are certain truths, the recognition and practice of which are fundamental to the existence and function of a civilized society, and that the every-changing opinion of the majority of people in the nation may not always recognize those truths. Therefore we put them “out of reach” and give them power over us. This idea is expressed in a different manner in the movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still” (1951). If you haven't seen it, the second hit on my search for it yielded the full version:
http://www.classiccinemaonline.com/cine ... still.htmlReading what you've written I get the sense not just that you are afraid but that you are terrified. I have trouble reconciling this with the idea that you are a person of faith. This is becuase if one has faith that things will work out in the end then there is no need to be terrified.
Don't be afraid. Be kind to others. If your path is the one meant for them then they will see it through your heart, your kind works, your reason, and they will change and it will spread.
Indeed my faith says that things will work out in the end, which really means after we are dead. My faith tells me that this world will remain in a state of at least partial disorder, and that the war against evil, within individuals and between nations, will continue as long as long as there is a human species. I may not live to see the end of this country or this world, but if I have children, I have no interest in seeing them subjected to a New World Order in which Christians and everyone else are subjected to an increasingly totalitarian police state.
A few quotes:
Abraham Lincoln “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
George Washington “Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.”
Edmund Burke “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
Thomas Jefferson “That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.”
Ronald Reagan “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
Mohandas Gandhi “I claim that human mind or human society is not divided into watertight compartments called social, political and religious. All act and react upon one another.”
Dr MLK Jr “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
Pope John Paul II “When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.”
C S Lewis “The safest road to hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”
John Adams “We have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Lyle Myhur “When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet.”
