Personally, several of the most egregiously mean spirited acts every directed at me or my family were performed by people who considered themselves devoutly religious. Blaming the weak moral situation in this country on political beliefs is selfish masturbation.
I'm sorry I did not read this post thoroughly until a few minutes ago. My bad. I want to ammend my post above about conservatism, the Left, and "religion".
First, a "religious" belief, as Christ defined it, is a bad thing. In this case, one places one's faith in the instructions of
Men, instead of the instructions of God, through His Word, the Bible. The Saducees and the Pharisees are a good example of "religious" people. This "religious" kind of belief is how people get the erroneous impression that you can do whatever you like on Saturday night, as long as you confess it on Sunday morning and say a few repetitions of a specific prayer. According to Jesus, it just isn't
so.
Lets talk about the political beliefs you reference in the quote that I copied at the top of this post. What political beliefs might be attached to a weakening of the moral fiber in America? For one thing, a belief that God has no place in public or governemnt discourse. According to the founders, this was not their intent. This idea has, however, become a hallmark of the Left, and as a former member of the Left, I know that its home is indeed the democrat party. Other hallmarks of the Left are that we should trust only our own human "good intentions" as the basis of trying to "live a good life", and that there is no authority over us as humans in the making of those decisions.
Another good example is the feminist agenda, which managed to make itself irrelevant when it failed to side with the woman that Bill Clinton had allegedly raped, Kathleen Willey. Just as Arnold's fondling accusers, she waited beyond the statue of limitations to come forward. The previous feminist wisdom is that a statute of limitations is not an impediment to publically declaring the man who is involved as a rapist, since "women never lie" about this activity. No matter, they decided to remain almost silent in the case of Clinton, referring to his "clumsy passes" at women, and his activities with a woman the age of his daughter as "consensual", even though this activity meets the defined standards of sexual harassment in any US state, since she, as an intern, fell into the class of "employee" and he, as Presiident, fell into the class of "employer", and the White House was the "workplace".
I'm sure that you can come up with several more examples of the impact of a "religious, but not
righteous" system of beliefs on a political party and its agenda, just as I can. As you have seen, Clinton's attendance of church has nothing to do with the heart of a faithfull believer. Indeed, it is a good example of the secular humanist approach to "religion" which is the only tolerable position for the titular head of the modern democrat party, which I supported and voted with beginning with George McGovern and which ended with my vote for Bill Clinton for his first term.
While we can't blame the Left for the entire decline of morality in America, we can agree without doubt that the Left has consistently worked to undermine morality and promote their favorite anthem of the Sixties, "do your own thing". When you adhere to this idea, you are constructing your own "morality" as you go, which is really no morality at all.
Here's to substantial, deep, free thought.
I always support substantial, deep thought, but I fear that many leave their thinking to CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. Katie Couric as the perky arbiter of morality? No thanks.
"Free" thought suggests to me the kind of thought that is unimpeded by morality, and that's our subject. Freewill, on the other hand, allows us to choose our path, so it is incumbent upon us to
choose wisely.
