PDA

View Full Version : Press home the meaning of morality




GunnyFreedom
12-03-2012, 10:59 PM
As Ron Paul correctly quoted, our Constitution is only fit for the government of a moral people. Too many Americans do not understand morality. Most people genuinely want to be 'moral' they just don't know what that means. A big part of what we need to be doing is teaching people what morality means, and helping them to achieve it. We do that, and like the snowball rolling down hill the rest of our task becomes a lot easier.

Here is an example of the argument I have been framing for Tea Partiers and Christian Conservatives to great effect.

...

No Christian in their right mind would walk up to their neighbor, hold a pistol to their head, and demand that they comply with the will of God and start acting like Christ. We all would know on first blush that this is blatantly immoral. And yet we seem to believe that if we get the government to do our dirty work for us than we can wash the blood from our hands like Pontius Pilate.

George Washington said "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington understood that all of government boils down to the end of a gun. To hold someone at gunpoint and demand that they behave the way we think God wants them to is immoral. It's even immoral when we get government to do it for us.

John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Unless we the people are a moral people, then our Constitution will not function. We are the Christians. We are the conservatives. Morality begins at home. When we wink and nod at the initiation of aggressive violence at home and abroad just because we agree with reason that force is being used, then we are perpetuating immorality and helping to destroy the Constitution.

If we are serious about saving this country, then we have to restore the Constitution. If we are going to restore the Constitution, then we have to find some clarity about what is, and is not moral. The Pharisees thought they were moral because they used force to enforce the law of God, but they were not, and Jesus called them out for it.

So also we today think we are being moral when we demand that government use force to enforce the will of God, but we are not. What we are doing is demonstrating that we lack the measure of faith in the power of God to maintain His Kingdom holy.

Instead, as we have rejected the initiation of aggressive violence by our own hand, let us also reject the notion that we can make the government do that for us. Then we can restore a moral foundation for America, restore the Constitution, and save the United States for ourselves and our posterity.

...

This is an argument that has so far in my experience been very effective with traditional conservatives and Christian conservatives towards re-establishing the proper foundation for an American government that obeys the Constitution and secures the liberty of the people.

Try articulating it in your own words, and see how it works with the traditional and Christian conservatives in your circles.

In any case, it is a good idea to heed the advice of Ron Paul and understand that a key component to restoring the Constitution and restoring liberty in America, will be restoring the moral fabric of America. Only we must also understand what morality is. It is not the moralizing action of the Pharisee who gave thanks to God for being without sin, it is rather in the humble nature of the tax collecter who could scarcely lift his hand to God to seek forgiveness.

GunnyFreedom
12-03-2012, 11:33 PM
One of the people who just liked this argument on my FB wall is one of those hard-core uber-Christian Tea Partier types. See, we really CAN bring them over, we just have to do the hard work of education.

Odin
12-03-2012, 11:50 PM
"To hold someone at gunpoint and demand that they behave the way we think God wants them to is immoral." That's not exactly categorical, if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night, I would do exactly that to them!

I think the idea of morality is very complicated. I understand the point of using someone else's conception of morality in order to bring them over to your side, ie to Christians you appeal to Christian principles and try to show them that their actions or beliefs are inconsistent with what they claim to believe in. But what morality actually IS though is a bit different. We have to win the battle over what morality actually is. Democrats and Liberal have their philosophy - consequentialism/utilitarianism, or the principle of 'the greatest good for the greatest number.' Too many conservatives or libertarians try to argue based on this principle, instead of understanding what is wrong with it. If you want to know what is wrong with utilitarianism, imagine there are 6 people in a hospital - one healthy person and 5 sick people. The 5 sick people are going to die, however they can all be saved if the doctor kills the healthy patient and uses his organs to heal the people who are sick. So you "save" 5 lives by ending only 1. Utilitarians would have to say that the moral course of action is for the doctor to kill the healthy individual.

But that is the principle that the "left" in this country ascribes to and operates under, and they have created a frame of mind based on that principle that causes everyone to evaluate and judge policies, programs, and acts of government based on 'the greatest good for the greatest number' which IMO leads to an immoral society, because that principle is wrong.

GunnyFreedom
12-04-2012, 11:24 AM
Depending on where you live, it may be a good idea to avoid Christianity when teaching voters on the morality of nonaggression, but it is certainly not a good idea in North Carolina.

California, as I see where you are from, it may be.

Odin
12-04-2012, 12:58 PM
Probably depends who you talk to. Most people my age that I know (early 20's) are not religious, or claim to be Christian but don't really go to church. Older people seem to be largely Christian though. Even then each sect of Christianity is different, from what I've seen Catholics and Presbyterians seem to take their religion more casually (especially Presbyterians and other such Protestants), but Evangelicals take it far more seriously.

I would say on the whole you would have about a 50% chance of picking someone out who could potentially be convinced by Biblical reference. Probably a much higher percentage in NC.

VIDEODROME
12-04-2012, 01:17 PM
I'm not sure that government should be based on morality or try to be a moral authority. It should exist for common security and to protect our rights. For example, the right a person to not be killed for their organs.

I don't see government acting exactly on moral grounds but protecting our rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. If anything a patient owns their life and body. That is the ultimate property right.

GunnyFreedom
12-04-2012, 01:23 PM
I'm not sure that government should be based on morality or try to be a moral authority. It should exist for common security and to protect our rights. For example, the right a person to not be killed for their organs.

I don't see government acting exactly on moral grounds but protecting our rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. If anything a patient owns their life and body. That is the ultimate property right.

Governments trying to impose morality is the problem, because that's immoral. It's not about governments but about people. The Constitution only functions in the government of a moral people. Morality (for our purposes in the Ron Paul movement) can be summarized as the "Non Aggression Principle." Outside of the Ron Paul movement you would use synonyms (ie "Golden Rule") for the same principle.

By working to instill morality (read - NAP) amongst the voters at large, over time you end up with a government that functions according to the Constitution and actually protects liberty, as the Founders intended.