Posts
Responding to Power and Control's post "Dual Loyalties".
The question: Are you first an American, or of X Religious Affiliation? seems bogus to me in an American context.
We have a separation of sacred and profane in this country. I'm every bit the right wing reactionary Baptist in the sacred context. And I tend towards a Libertarian outlook where profane political considerations are under discussion. Attempting to push my conservative social agenda through legislation, particularly at the federal level, is every bit as dumb in the modern context as it was 2k years ago, when The Carpenter was nailing the Pharisees, rhetorically speaking.
If we want to punt on this excellent dichotomy between sacred and profane, then we'd screw ourselves. Say we went back in time 100 years. If we start letting the Federal government peek into wallets, if we take away advocacy for States in DC, if we allow the Federal government to dilute the value of the currency at will through a Federal Reserve system, then I bet we'd end up with:
- People more reliant on the Federal government than themeselves and their community of faith.
- Mind numbing deficits.
- Back breaking debt.
- Serious questions about where the loyalties lay.
Unfortunately, that last century has been a slide into decadence. FDR and LBJ preached the golden Socialist calf. BHO is merely the edge of the cliff. Princess Pelosi doesn't even blink when people raise Constitutional objections to the golden calf. Her worship thereof is complete. It's indeed strange from the perspective of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Try-Dumb-virate that this blog and the rest of the dextrosphere even question the Left.
The advent of Islamism and the idea of restoring a caliphate is among the main drivers of the question of whether one is loyal first to faith and then country. But the error is in putting these orthogonal concepts in series, where one must precede the other.
Perhaps the very nature of this question helps to explain the sick, tacit alliance between the dhimmi Left and the jihadists who'd cheerfully shorten them: both the Left and the jihadists seek to take the properly separate American concepts of sacred and profane and merge them into a single world government. A giant Socialist machine, or a caliphate.
The historical trend doesn't seem to have hit nadir yet. Too many people remain in denial about the gravity of the situation. However, the number of people screaming some flavor of WTF?! seems to be increasing. Not only that, the amount of tangible, principled, still peaceful action seems to be going up as well. It's going to be a near-run thing.
However, as long as we retain our personal religious affirmations, and communicate them positively and non-legislatively, we can heal the secular society.
PS: On an unrelated note, my FMJRA input is low this week. I was on travel. Mailbomb Smitty for good justice.
I agree almost 100% with this Andrew Sullivan reader below. I have seen the same in traveling to Europe vs. here in the States.
ReplyDeleteA reader writes:
I don't think the reader comparing actual attacks by American/European Muslims is constructive with regard to your point about Muslims in America. I've spent a bit of time in Europe, and European Muslims, very generally speaking, have not integrated one bit into mainstream European societies. I hate to use such sweeping allegations, but when a Ft Hood event happens here, I am always proud and heartened by the Muslim community's immediate rejection. My Muslim-American friends live all over this country, and though they have their quibbles with American foreign policy (and not nearly as much as one might think), they are PROUD to be Americans, and love their country, at least as much as your average American does.
In France, England, the Netherlands, Denmark, the Muslim communities are - yes, generally - wildly hostile to their governments. This is most apparent in the United Kingdom, where Muslims preach British destruction, virulent homophobia and anti-Semitism, loudly, in the street, to anyone willing to listen. Yes, this is the fringe, but it is not as widely condemned and rejected as it would be here.
Smitty,
ReplyDeleteFirst: thank you.
Second - Here is something that rings true:
The Angry Middle
It's not a resurgent right wing that should trouble Obama's party. Indeed, the stronger the right's role in shaping the Republican message, the harder it will be for middle-of-the-road voters to use the Republicans to express their discontent.
He goes on to lament socialisms prospects. Tough year for him. Tough decade in fact.
Here is what I see happening from watching the ebb and flow of politics from the last 20 or 30 years. The socialists get in and wreck the economy. Rs fix it. Then they thing because they got in they have a mandate for moral crusades. The Terry Schiavo case was particularly egregious. The Rs get sloppy with their financials. Out they go. The Ds get in wreck the economy. Then the Rs come back.
Except we have a bunch of new anti-economic laws that NEVER get repealed. Sarbanes-Oxley is killing venture capital. So we get a ratchet effect.
Let me just outline a few of the ongoing effects of Moral Socialism.
The Stalinist public school system (and mandatory attendance) was championed by Protestants as indoctrination centers for Catholics and Jews.
Alcohol prohibition was another moral crusade. Billy Sunday ring a bell? Fortunately that didn't last long.
Drug prohibition is on going. But that is failing too - politically. Medical marijuana got 58% of the vote in Maine vs 53% for traditional marriage.
Continued:
ReplyDeleteSooner or later moral socialism fails just as economic socialism does. For the same reason. Government can no more make us moral than it can make us prosperous.
I have nothing against moral crusades. Done in the private sector. It is when the moralists get the bright idea that with he help of government guns they can FORCE people to do the right thing.
Not in America. We are a nation full of people willing to break laws we don't agree with. Which is why drug prohibition with 95% compliance is such a failure.
So let me tell you what I see coming. Abortion. Not just restrictions which seem reasonable. But a total ban. Are there enough people who don't agree with this to form an abortion underground? No doubt. And then policing gets hard.
Access to women contemplating abortion is no longer frequent - because no woman wanting an abortion even if only fleetingly is going to want the fact known. Who wants to be investigated by the police?
Doctors may fall out of the practice but today we have drugs. RU-486 can be imported from France (drug dealers will handle it) or birth control pills could be used. So of course tighter restrictions on birth control pills will be required (and that will give us an increase in undesired pregnancies and thus increase the demand for illegal abortions).
Moral socialists suffer from the same defect that economic socialists have: once you have a law the law will be obeyed in the way I contemplate and voila a better world.
But it never works that way.
So what do I think should be done about abortion:
1. Kick the fn socialists out of government and get the economy moving again. Many abortions are for economic reasons. And stop staying home on election day because the fn R Party has served up some RINO. We at least have the ear of the RINO (Harriet Meyers?). The Communists are not going to listen.
2. End the drug war asap. Why are there so many abortions in the black community? Because we have a significant part of that community (about a third of all males) in jail or in the criminal justice system for prohibition violations. And we keep them there long enough to be sure to destroy any family they may have once had.
This url explains how it works:
Demographics
It also explains "Girls gone wild". And where to go to find the wild women. Hint: look for places where the ratio of women to men is above 1.05 or more. Above 1.5 and you are in (you will pardon the expression) slut city. We are not being afflicted in this nation by declining morals and a culture of evil. We are afflicted by bad demographics. So how do you fix that? Beats me. Maybe we just have to learn to live with it unless we encourage differential abortion of females. No. I don't think so. Absolutely not.
3. More intensive teaching of birth control. The Baptists COULD do this. They just don't have the nerve. But if they were really sharp they could slip in a morals lesson or three while showing how to put a condom on a banana with your mouth.
4. Information - how well do crisis pregnancy centers work? Is there a better way? In fact more information on all programs that reduce abortion. Then the private funders can get the most bang for their buck.
There are probably more things to be done. Those come to my mind.
But for God's sake. Keep it out of the hands of government. That includes government funding.
Moral Socialism: sums up Mike Huckabee in a nutshell, and is why I never will vote for him.
ReplyDelete