Political values...an oxymoron?

[nikolai_42]

American politics has become so innundated with moral problems that the whole "separation of church and state" stance that exists today (i.e. not 200 years ago) threatens to sever the bonds that now (tenuously) maintain some sort of civil order and (vague, at best) moral compass.

If one simply changes "church" and "state" to "morality" and "politics", it should be obvious how dangerous the current stance on separation is. Without morality, what does politics become? What does anything become? And the link back to morality...is what? What's best for me? What I feel like doing? Where is the objective standard? How can one have a moral political scene without objective moral guidance? Where does that morality come from?

 

[bybee]

American politics has become so innundated with moral problems that the whole "separation of church and state" stance that exists today (i.e. not 200 years ago) threatens to sever the bonds that now (tenuously) maintain some sort of civil order and (vague, at best) moral compass.

If one simply changes "church" and "state" to "morality" and "politics", it should be obvious how dangerous the current stance on separation is. Without morality, what does politics become? What does anything become? And the link back to morality...is what? What's best for me? What I feel like doing? Where is the objective standard? How can one have a moral political scene without objective moral guidance? Where does that morality come from?

America has become the "Land of the Individual" We are hamstrung by individual rights superseding common sense, decency and the common good.
Self indulgence, entitlement and incivility reign.

 

[Sheila B]

Relativism was prophesied as the scourge of our time. I am only now really beginning to see the gravity of it. Chaos! " Tolerance" means no one has objective truth!

 

[bybee]

Relativism was prophesied as the scourge of our time. I am only now really beginning to see the gravity of it. Chaos! " Tolerance" means no one has objective truth!

I remember years ago when I first began reading on "Situation Ethics". It sounded good but always there was something that nagged at me about ultimate truth, goodness and morality.
Mankind goes down the toilet whenever it rejects objective reality, truth, beauty, morality.

 

[nikolai_42]

I remember years ago when I first began reading on "Situation Ethics". It sounded good but always there was something that nagged at me about ultimate truth, goodness and morality.
Mankind goes down the toilet whenever it rejects objective reality, truth, beauty, morality.

And people today (broad generalization, here) tend to think we have advanced from where we were several hundred years ago. Meanwhile, the men who formed the United States recognized the need for this COMMON moral grounding and almost universally agreed that it was provided by Christianity. Not to force religion on anyone, but to set up moral standards. Are moral standards "forced"? Ask people today and if you have standards (other than those based on your personal feelings and opinions), then I think many would consider them "forced".

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

Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.
George Washington

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
Benjamin Franklin

 

[The Barbarian]

Relativism was prophesied as the scourge of our time. I am only now really beginning to see the gravity of it. Chaos! " Tolerance" means no one has objective truth!

It means the state cannot impose anyone's personal idea of truth on anyone else. It's why the Church condemns unjust discrimination against homosexuals, even as it considers homosexual relations unacceptable.

 

[Sheila B]

I remember years ago when I first began reading on "Situation Ethics". It sounded good but always there was something that nagged at me about ultimate truth, goodness and morality.
Mankind goes down the toilet whenever it rejects objective reality, truth, beauty, morality.

:up:

 

[Sheila B]

And people today (broad generalization, here) tend to think we have advanced from where we were several hundred years ago. Meanwhile, the men who formed the United States recognized the need for this COMMON moral grounding and almost universally agreed that it was provided by Christianity. Not to force religion on anyone, but to set up moral standards. Are moral standards "forced"? Ask people today and if you have standards (other than those based on your personal feelings and opinions), then I think many would consider them "forced".

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

Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.
George Washington

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
Benjamin Franklin

Excellent quotes!

 

[The Barbarian]

And people today (broad generalization, here) tend to think we have advanced from where we were several hundred years ago.

Slavery is gone, and women tend to have equal rights. But I don't think that people are generally any more virtuous now than they were several hundred years ago.

Meanwhile, the men who formed the United States recognized the need for this COMMON moral grounding and almost universally agreed that it was provided by Christianity.

Jefferson and Madison, who convinced their fellow founders to accept the Bill of Rights, argued that the moral grounding included Jewish, "Mohammedan" and "Hindoo" people, among others.

Not to force religion on anyone, but to set up moral standards. Are moral standards "forced"?

All of those seem to value honesty, charity, hard work, and love of God. Seems to me, the golden rule, and that common thread of "natural law" given to all men, is what our common moral grounding has always been.

 

[Jose Fly]

American politics has become so innundated with moral problems that the whole "separation of church and state" stance that exists today (i.e. not 200 years ago) threatens to sever the bonds that now (tenuously) maintain some sort of civil order and (vague, at best) moral compass.

If one simply changes "church" and "state" to "morality" and "politics", it should be obvious how dangerous the current stance on separation is. Without morality, what does politics become? What does anything become? And the link back to morality...is what? What's best for me? What I feel like doing? Where is the objective standard? How can one have a moral political scene without objective moral guidance? Where does that morality come from?

First, religion can't exactly stake a claim to the moral high ground. Second, of course we can have morality without religion.

Well....maybe some of us can.

 

[chrysostom]

First, religion can't exactly stake a claim to the moral high ground. Second, of course we can have morality without religion.

Well....maybe some of us can.

do you accept natural law?

 

[Jose Fly]

And people today (broad generalization, here) tend to think we have advanced from where we were several hundred years ago.

Um....yeah. I'm astounded by all the people who look back on the days of institutional slavery, genocide of Native Americans, institutional oppression of minorities, and institutional oppression of women as "the good ol' days".

The American Taliban indeed.

 

[Jose Fly]

do you accept natural law?

What do you mean by "natural law"?

 

[chrysostom]

What do you mean by "natural law"?

what they mean by natural law

 

[Morpheus]

What do you mean by "natural law"?

Try here.

 

[Jose Fly]

So which version of natural law are you espousing? The one determined by observing nature, the one from logic and reason, or positive law?

 

[chrysostom]

So which version of natural law are you espousing? The one determined by observing nature, the one from logic and reason, or positive law?

oh so now you're an expert
well take you pick
anyone of them is better than nothing

 

[Jose Fly]

oh so now you're an expert
well take you pick
anyone of them is better than nothing

??????????? Why did you ask me if I accept "natural law" if you didn't know which version of it you were talking about? :idunno:

 

[chrysostom]

??????????? Why did you ask me if I accept "natural law" if you didn't know which version of it you were talking about? :idunno:

I don't even know why I am talking to you

 

[Jose Fly]

"Do you accept natural law?"

What do you mean by natural law?

"One of these things."

Well which one?

"I don't know."

Then why did you ask me if you don't know?

"I can't talk to you."


:idunno: