Monday, March 31, 2008

Religious Right Wants to Change Everything? Take away Freedom? Be like the morality police or the Taliban??

Christians today are accused of threatening freedom. It is a very new extent of freedom we oppose--it is licentiousness --and it started in the 60's with the free love movement of the hippies, the 1973 abortion decision, the Sexual revolution with the idea that the pill and abortion meant that women could now have the freedom that men allegedly had --to have sex and "not get caught."

But both men and women DID get caught --new headlines --HERPES and AIDS. GRID, the Gay Related Immune Disease crossed over into the straight population --"and so the band played on" --while people died in droves from their sexual liberty. And acquired life-long, painful, recurrent herpes.

Moreover, fathers were considered unnecessary as long as Uncle Sam would pay more for each new baby on the condition that there was no man in the house. So our welfare burden of LBJ's Great Society became astronomical.

THEN THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND PRO-LIFE CATHOLICS PULLED TOGETHER AS SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES TO REVERSE THE DAMAGE --AND TRY TO PUT THE LID BACK ON PANDORA'S BOX.

Our critics say we want to take away freedom and CHANGE things. No, we want to restore common sense and traditional values to the public square and the private lives of our citizens. We want to see the Sexual Revolution of the 70's and 80's reversed --so that there are fewer new cases of STD's, fewer kids thinking gay thoughts, less access to porn in the homes of youth --which porn is addicting, soul-corrosive and ruining marriages.

AS I've said before, we want a more wholesome nation, a safer one --not unduly restrictive of diversity, not punitive --but not unduly tempting people into "sex-periments," such that they, in their youth, get into life-threatening disease and decisions that will make them lonely and miserable in old age.

The best solution: a change in our hearts --such that we want what God wants.






"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

9 comments:

steve said...

I agree with you that we need a return to basic morals in this country, but I agree with Mudrake's posted article that it needs to be a broadbased "American cultural identity" movement, and not religion based (10 commandments / 5 pilars of islam) or whatever because that sort of thing excludes people based on their religion. Yes, America has a rich Christian heritage, but America of 2008 is not the America of 1770's / 1780's. We've become too diverse to favor one religious culture over another. Conservitives harp about "multiculturalism" and the balkanization of cities into ethnic enclaves, but if you prejudice large swaths of your citizens based on religion, then you force them into balkanizing based on religious and cultural identity. Yes we need a resurection of moral values, but it should be a broadbased a-religious moral awakening like "the golden rule".

I know that you guys don't want to be an "American Taliban" or an "Iranian morality Police". I apologize, sometimes I wield a sword of sarcasm like a sledge hammer. hahaha.

Rob R said...

The problem with merely an american culture based moral code is that many believe that there is such a thing as true morals, an objective moral code, and no finite culture can serve as its base.

The position you suggest presumes the adequacy of cultural reletivism.

steve said...

How are generalized moral ideas such as "the golden rule" or "am I not my brothers keeper?" inadequate cultural relitivistic ideas? Jesus told us that all morality falls under 2 generalized ideas, ideas that are for the most part non cultural and non religious:

Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It's interesting to note that the country with the highest per capita happiness rating (according to some show I saw recently) is Finland. They truly live by the morality of "am I not my brothers keeper" by supporting a robust welfare state with 65% taxation.

Barb said...

We did have an American cultural identity without governmentally emphasizing the religious roots of our value system --we didn't used to argue about abortion and gay marriage --almost no one in the US approved those things.

There was more of a consensus on human rights and wrongs before the 1960's. though we lagged in racial equality. Actually, alcohol consumption was a big issue leading to prohibition which had a positive effect on our drinking habits for decades.

Consider how many more die annually now from drunk driving than from this Iraq war in total--and are molested or abused verbally and physically --or harm themselves and their studies with binge drinking in our campuses --waking up after doing they know not what on weekends -- leading to STD epidemic in our youth --in conjunction with drunkenness's toll in the workplace --and the need for expensive rehab--yet where is the politicians' outcry about the toll of legal drinking? No demonstrations in D.C. against our drinking habits. No one calling for the rationing of liquor --which is causing so much human misery. Yet, the media and the liberals act like our losses in Iraq are the worst blight on our nation --the most unnecessary, the higher death toll -when the effects of drunkenness and our sexual liberties take a much bigger toll.

We know that Sadam was a HItler --and needed to be conquored with his sons who were worse than he --if that's possible. We were invited there by the Shia after Desert Storm --and didn't help them in their uprising until after 9/11 and our relative success in Afghanistan. (granted, a Muslim nation is hard to help --when you are ideologically "the great Satan.")

Cynics say Iraq war was "all about oil" --but where would we be in our ability to defend ourselves against radical terrorists if the middle east DID cut off all our oil? We would develop alternative resources, but would we have time to get up and running for our own defense?? with regimes like Sadam giving aid and succor to Osama's ilk? I believe that ignoring the Middle-East --staying home --would have been to court disaster here at home. disaster worse than an economic depression or recession.

It may be that hard times will sober us up. And Make our people wish that the God of the Bible would help them--even on His terms.

The Golden Rule IS Christian, of course --and it's not what the Muslims believe in. They believe in Islamic theocracy no matter how you get it --and the denial of other religious options by law. If they are the majority --proselytizing will be illegal. with the help of the benighted liberals who agree with them about religious free speech. Because they don't want any guilt trips imposed in speech about abortion and sexual immorality.

Steve, if you likened the Religious Right to the Taliban, you weren't alone. That's right out of the course, "Liberal Speak, 101."

Rob R said...

steve, you can't legislate the golden rule across the board.

you may think that welfare is an example of this, but "man cannot live on bread alone."

good for finland on their happiness, but I don't know that they aren't benefiting from the residual effects of a christian heritage (however atheistic, or secularistic they may or may not be at the current time). If they are more atheistic like some of the other norse countries, I don't believe it will last either.

The golden rule, I don't think can be perfectly facilitated through mere subjective reflection... especially if applied to government policy. For one, that may mean abortion on demand as that is what one person would want for herself under some strenouos circumstances, where another person may think that the golden rule should extend to unborn children.

Jesus didn't merely command us to do unto others as we'd have them do unto us and figure it out by reflecting on it. As you wrote, it is the summation and purpose of the law. So how is it that the law works out that way? How is it that Jesus other teachings lead to this which supersede and replace the law? The golden rule shapes and is shaped by the understanding of everything else in the scriptures and does not stand alone. Alone, it's more of a silver rule, capable of tarnish (but of significant value nonetheless).

I'm not going to say that a welfare system can't fit into a society guided by the golden rule, but I don't think that it really gets to the heart of it either. Why? I think there is a call to personal responsiblity for our fellow human, and a robust welfare system seems more of a means to pass the buck of compassion to a faceless impersonal bureaucracy and furthermore, forces compassion through the law through this second hand means of compassion.

I do believe that a general reason for many types of suffering in the world is to provide opportunity and reasons for all of us to have compassion and form bonds and to heal not just as individuals but as a community as well.

I'm not a fan of socialism, but I do believe the notion of privatized socialism, is one with much potential, and is actually closer to what many ancient and pious christians (but not all, as I could demonstrate) put into practice. You don't see a call anywhere in scripture for governement to take care of the poor, but you do see plenty of a call for people in general to do it. (the governement in the new testament was too busy killing christians after all).

Barb said...

Rob, did you mean to say, "many believe there is NO such thing as true morals, an objective moral code...."

Yes, I think you are wise to point out that cultural relativism ultimately gives no guidance and no basis for law.

Barb said...

The liberal thinks that MYOB trumps brothers' keeper thinking --when it comes to those like me who would want to see limits on TV filth, porn, e.g.

we're already culturally balkanized, hence the vigorous vitriol from the liberal left toward the religious right. It is the left who hates more while the right is constrained by the love teachings of Christ.

Jeanette said...

Steve said, "but I agree with Mudrake's posted article that it needs to be a broadbased "American cultural identity" movement, and not religion based (10 commandments / 5 pilars of islam) or whatever because that sort of thing excludes people based on their religion. Yes, America has a rich Christian heritage, but America of 2008 is not the America of 1770's / 1780's. We've become too diverse to favor one religious culture over another. Conservitives harp about "multiculturalism" and the balkanization of cities into ethnic enclaves, but if you prejudice large swaths of your citizens based on religion, then you force them into balkanizing based on religious and cultural identity. Yes we need a resurection of moral values, but it should be a broadbased a-religious moral awakening like "the golden rule"."

You know, Steve, what you are saying actually sends shivers down my spine because it appears you are advocating or very close to advocating a One Religion world, and what does that tell you about the times in which we live?

Having been a student at a Baptist college I'm sure you know what it means.

The harvest is ready and plentiful but there are too few laborers.

I pray you don't allow your pride to get in the way of your search for a personal relationship with the Only Living God. There is none before Him and none after Him no matter what good you may see in other religions not based on salvation through the shed blood of God's Only Begotten Son Jesus.

All other teachings are false and we are warned that there will be false teachings in the last days.

I have no idea when the last days will play out and don't really care because I believe I will be in Heaven either by natural death or by Rapture. Yes, it's not a word used in the Bible but it means a gathering in.

Jesus will come for His church. The question is, will you be one of the ones He comes to receive? Because if you didn't mean it when you accepted Christ as your Savior you are as lost as an atheist.

I see a young man (young by my age) struggling with faith and I do believe the Holy Spirit is working on you but so is Satan.

You know there is only One way to eternal life and fellowship with our Creator, and no matter what you say, you can't get around it.

I'm interested in other religions only so I can know what we are up against...not that I believe what they believe. The Golden Rule is great if we can live by it, but do we?

Like the ten commandments it shows we are imperfect. No, I'm not perfect, but I'm forgiven. I still sin, but I ask God to help me in the areas where I am weak and when I do things I am not proud of I remember I have strayed from God's will.

You really need to re-examine your own soul.

Rob R said...

no, I meant that many believe that there IS an objective moral code. What I was getting at is that there IS this perspective out there which cultural reletivism cannot satisfy (and come to think of it, it cannot satisfy this other perspective by it's own requirements