Randy Inman
Kim K.
Weekend Edition- Thoughts on Why Everyone is Wrong
July 5th 2008 22:56
Both Republicans and Democrats at large are guilty of the same offense in some way- a thing I like to call "forced morality." I understand that not every Republican or Democrat fits into this mold, but I also understand that these basic philosophies are too far ingrained into each system to completely ignore. I present two limited examples of how this works, with the understanding that it happens on a much grander scale.
Republicans tend to force a personal morality on people. I've seen WAY too many people who believe that their vision of personal morality is the only right one and that others need to bow to their version. These are the people who use the Bible as their lawbook and try to incorporate its teachings into everything (often misinterpreting key passages) while cramming their opinions down others throats in the name of God. Many Republican Christians mistakenly believe that the founding fathers put the "In God We Trust" on our money, and wrote "Under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance. For them, it proves that our founders intended religious morality to be a part of our country. A few facts for you: "In God We Trust" was added to the money in the 1860's after Christian citizens and clergy who were embroiled in politics repeatedly wrote requesting it. The "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.
The founding fathers of 1776 were extremely explicit on keeping religion separate from government in all ways. They did not say that religion was evil, or that it was bad for a politician to say a prayer if he felt the need- after all it was about freedom of religion- the freedom both to practice as you wish or not practice if you wish. That said, they absolutely did not want religious morality to intervene in government issues. A few quotes from some of our founding fathers:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” -George Washington
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.” -James Madison
I would guess that they would see the addition of "god" into government entities would be a step toward the tyranny that they had witnessed, as would quoting the Bible as a resource for everything from abortion laws to gay marriage. I very rarely hear a very well founded scientific or socially relevent argument by someone with a Bible in their hand.
Liberals on the other hand, have policies that force a social morality on people. Yes- we should all WANT to help our fellow man and save for retirement, but should these things be mandatory? There is absolutely a similar parent mentality going through both sides. The Democrats feel the need to make sure that everyone is taken care of and will force it by taking from one and giving it to another. Most people know that welfare and such systems were not in place in this country until FDR's New Deal. While some hail FDR as a savior during the great depression, there is plenty of evidence that his actions actually prolonged the depression and put off the recovery that was inevitable in the economic cycle. There is an interesting article from the Cato Institute about that here. I've had many socially minded people over the years say that they have no faith that people would survive without federal government assistance. Perhaps some would end up in a very poor position, but in a very candid question let me ask- Is that my mandatory responsibility? I have no personal responsibility in how people got into a certain position, so why is it then my responsibility to get them out of it? Others have said that in a civilized world, people should want to help one another and not complain about it. Yes- they should want to help each other and they do. Philanthropy is alive and well in this country and would continue to be so, probably by leaps and bounds more, without the federal government playing mommy to all of us and taking our money to redistribute like the last chocolate chip cookie. Although it may sound like it, I'm not entirely heartless and give to people that I feel deserve a helping hand. I wish that we all had the opportunity to support those we choose to help and not just hand our money to who the government has (sometimes wrongly in our eyes) deemed worthy. A few quotes for you on property rights:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.... Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent?" -Samuel Adams
"Property as the fruit of labor-property is desirable - it is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence." Abraham Lincoln
Morality is a very subjective thing. We each have personal beliefs and the need to help in individual ways, I see no reason why we all just can't allow each other to live as we see fit barring any direct or intentional harm to others.
same difference
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” -George Washington
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.” -James Madison
I would guess that they would see the addition of "god" into government entities would be a step toward the tyranny that they had witnessed, as would quoting the Bible as a resource for everything from abortion laws to gay marriage. I very rarely hear a very well founded scientific or socially relevent argument by someone with a Bible in their hand.
Liberals on the other hand, have policies that force a social morality on people. Yes- we should all WANT to help our fellow man and save for retirement, but should these things be mandatory? There is absolutely a similar parent mentality going through both sides. The Democrats feel the need to make sure that everyone is taken care of and will force it by taking from one and giving it to another. Most people know that welfare and such systems were not in place in this country until FDR's New Deal. While some hail FDR as a savior during the great depression, there is plenty of evidence that his actions actually prolonged the depression and put off the recovery that was inevitable in the economic cycle. There is an interesting article from the Cato Institute about that here. I've had many socially minded people over the years say that they have no faith that people would survive without federal government assistance. Perhaps some would end up in a very poor position, but in a very candid question let me ask- Is that my mandatory responsibility? I have no personal responsibility in how people got into a certain position, so why is it then my responsibility to get them out of it? Others have said that in a civilized world, people should want to help one another and not complain about it. Yes- they should want to help each other and they do. Philanthropy is alive and well in this country and would continue to be so, probably by leaps and bounds more, without the federal government playing mommy to all of us and taking our money to redistribute like the last chocolate chip cookie. Although it may sound like it, I'm not entirely heartless and give to people that I feel deserve a helping hand. I wish that we all had the opportunity to support those we choose to help and not just hand our money to who the government has (sometimes wrongly in our eyes) deemed worthy. A few quotes for you on property rights:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.... Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent?" -Samuel Adams
"Property as the fruit of labor-property is desirable - it is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence." Abraham Lincoln
Morality is a very subjective thing. We each have personal beliefs and the need to help in individual ways, I see no reason why we all just can't allow each other to live as we see fit barring any direct or intentional harm to others.
| 46 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by rickb_georgia
I am having a real problem trying to figure out who NOT to vote for this year. I am old enough I am only going to get one or two more elections in ... my hope is I will get one more chance to cast a vote on one of two good presidential candidates, but alas, not this time around.
Comment by Josie