PDA

View Full Version : Buchanan: Is America Still a Good Country?




LibertyEagle
03-28-2013, 11:28 PM
Is America Still a Good Country?
Thursday - March 28, 2013 at 11:29 pm

By Patrick J. Buchanan


“Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

So wrote Alexis de Tocqueville.

Yet, judged by the standards of those old “pulpits aflame with righteousness,” is America still a good country?

Consider the cases taken up this week by the Supreme Court.

In one, the court is asked to rule on California’s Proposition 8, where voters declared marriage to be solely between a man and a woman. In the second, the court is asked to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal support for same-sex marriages.

Whatever their beliefs, the justices, one trusts, will leave this to the states and people. For Roe v. Wade, where seven justices found the right to an abortion lurking in the penumbras of the Ninth Amendment, poisons our politics to this day. We don’t need a re-enactment of that civil war.

Still, what America decides about same-sex marriage will reveal much about what this generation believes to be a moral society.

Traditionalist America has always held homosexuality to be unnatural and immoral, ruinous to body and soul alike, and where prevalent – as in Weimar, Germany – the mark of a sick society.

This belief outrages millions. Yet it is as old as mankind and was held universally in the Christian West until this century. Moreover, it is grounded in biblical truth, tradition, natural law and Catholic doctrine.

Before 1973, the American Psychiatric Association regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder. Most states treated it as a crime.

The new morality argues thus:

For a significant slice of the population, homosexuality is natural and normal. They were born this way. And to deny homosexuals the freedom to engage in consensual sexual relations, or the right to marry, is bigotry as odious as was discrimination against black Americans.

Yet, though gospel to many, this belief has only the most shallow of religious, moral and philosophical roots. It seems grounded in a post-1960s ideology that holds that all freely chosen lifestyles are equal, and to discriminate against any is the true social sin.

Needless to say, the traditional morality and the new morality are irreconcilable.

But if the new morality – that homosexuality is normal and same-sex marriage morally equal to traditional marriage – is true and valid, Frank Kameny was a prophet and Christianity is indictable for 2,000 years of ostracism, persecution and suffering imposed on homosexuals.

Or perhaps we believe that moral truth evolves – that, for example, adultery may be immoral for one generation, but not so for the next.

The issue here goes beyond what the Court decides.

For even should the advocates of same-sex marriage prevail, their victory will not be accepted by believers in the traditional morality, but simply be seen as but another step in America’s descent down a slippery slope to hell.

Indeed, for millions of Americans, this society – which has eradicated Christianity from its public institutions and enshrined secularism in its place, which considers abortion a woman’s right, which is blasé about 53 million unborn children destroyed since Roe, which puts homosexual liaisons on the same moral plane as matrimony – is a society that has lost its moral bearings and is rapidly losing its mind.

Which raises a serious separate issue.

If we Americans cannot even agree on what is right and wrong and moral and immoral, how do we stay together in one national family? If one half of the nation sees the other as morally depraved, while the latter sees the former as saturated in bigotry, sexism and homophobia, how do we remain one united nation and one people?

Today, half of America thinks the country some of us grew up in was bigoted, racist, homophobic and sexist, while the other half sees this morally “evolving” nation as a society openly inviting the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah and that is hardly worth preserving.

A common faith and moral code once held this country together. But if we no longer stand on the same moral ground, after we have made a conscious decision to become the most racially, ethnically, culturally diverse people on earth, what in the world holds us together?

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights?

How can they, when we bitterly disagree on what they say?

By throwing out the old morality and embracing a new morality on abortion and same-sex marriage, America tossed her sheet anchor into the sea. And from the turbulent waters we have entered – our illegitimacy rate is above 40 percent, and no Western nation has a birth rate that will keep its native-born alive in anything like the present numbers – America and the West may have set sail on a voyage from which there is no return.

http://buchanan.org/blog/is-america-still-a-good-country-5519

Antischism
03-28-2013, 11:58 PM
As a non-religious person, I welcome a society that isn't restrained or demonized by organized religions to the point where slut-shaming and gay-bashing are prevalent and induce psychological damage to individuals who should be free to choose what they want to do with their bodies or whom they want to marry. Get the Federal Government out of marriage completely or quit treating homosexual couples as second-rate and give them the same rights as heterosexual couples if it isn't going to change.

You really think society was better when homosexuality was repressed and people suffered internally because they feared being completely ostracized if they came out of the closet? It's still an issue today, but it's a lot better with all the open support. In fact, it's usually the deeply religious families that tend to inflict fear and pain in the hearts of their offspring who identify as homosexual. Where's the tolerance? Regardless of your religion, you should show tolerance towards others, even if you don't agree with their lifestyle or the fact they're attracted to the same sex.

It's a huge fucking deal for those who have a history of being beaten, bullied or demonized by society to gain equal rights, even if ultimately, we want government out of the business of marriage. As long as that isn't the case, there should be equality as not having it sort of legitimizes the ass-backwards view people have about homosexuals being illegitimate, godless demon-spawns from hell who should stay out of public sight. For those who aren't homosexual? It should absolutely not be a big deal that they're fighting for their rights. It's easy to deny a group of people until you've walked in their shoes, for some. I don't have to walk in anyone's shoes to see the reasoning behind a cause such as this.

Or what, do you have to make sure you toe a party line and get behind other "conservatives" who oppose gay marriage? Is it too "liberal" leaning for you? Don't want to associate yourself with those "dirty leftists" and their godless ways? Grow the fuck up.


TL;DR

Quit worrying about homosexuals rightfully wanting equality in our current system, and focus on getting government out of marriage ultimately. That's a pretty easy and sensible proposition.

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just a rant.

heavenlyboy34
03-29-2013, 12:02 AM
The overall piece is fine. However this:
Before 1973, the American Psychiatric Association regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder. Most states treated it as a crime.
is weak support for the argument. Psychiatry (as distinct from psychology) is quackery. (see "The Myth Of Mental Illness" by Szasz) And a state outlawing (or legalizing) something does not necessarily make it bad (or good).

emazur
03-29-2013, 12:53 AM
If we Americans cannot even agree on what is right and wrong and moral and immoral, how do we stay together in one national family?

He's partially right but it's not that simple because there is such such a thing as individuality.


The majority is never right. Never. That's one of those social myths that every free and intelligent man must fight. Who are the majority in a country, anyway, the wise or the foolish? Why, the fools are! They have an overwhelming majority the world over! But I'll be damned if it then follows that they should govern the intelligent people!
- Henrik Ibsen, "An Enemy of the People", 1882

If "society" says that gay is bad and gays should be punished if they engage in certain behaviors, what's to stop "society" from saying that introversion is bad and introverts should be punished if they act outside the norms (if you're an introvert, you probably have felt very much out of place at times in your life, particularly in school, and giving in to the norms of society is the last thing you'd ever want to do). Same goes for atheists (I happen to be one of those as well). Hell, libertarians and constitutionalists were found to be on the shit list when the MIAC report was leaked.

But to answer his question "how do we stay together in one national family", the answer is the non-aggression principle. That isn't to say such a national family won't have squabbles over morality (there are legitimate arguments for example if having an abortion is aggression which for many boils down to whether or not life begins at conception). But such squabbles won't be enough to destroy his goal of a national family.

dillo
03-29-2013, 12:59 AM
If gays cant marry than straights shouldnt be able to divorce

LibertyEagle
03-29-2013, 01:14 AM
It shouldn't be up to the government. But, that doesn't mean it's moral, either. Of course a lot of things are not. Our Founders did warn us that our form of government was only for a moral people. Most people seem to have forgotten that, however.

LibertyEagle
03-29-2013, 01:16 AM
If gays cant marry than straights shouldnt be able to divorce

So, you think churches should be forced to marry gays, if they do not want to?

dillo
03-29-2013, 01:23 AM
So, you think churches should be forced to marry gays, if they do not want to?

can you get married without a church at all? But no I wouldnt force churches to do anything.....I just find it amusing that in a country with a divorce rate above 50%, infidelity rates even higher that people still somehow to take a stand to the horrible gays getting married

libertariantexas
03-29-2013, 04:01 AM
So, you think churches should be forced to marry gays, if they do not want to?

They wouldn't need to be forced. There are plenty of pastors who would willingly conduct marriage ceremonies for gays.

libertariantexas
03-29-2013, 04:08 AM
It shouldn't be up to the government. But, that doesn't mean it's moral, either. Of course a lot of things are not. Our Founders did warn us that our form of government was only for a moral people.

You get your morality from an ancient anthology written and compiled by primitive men. That's fine.

But many Americans do not agree with the "morality" defined by those primitive men.

Some of us do not find consensual sexual activity between free adult citizens to be "amoral" (whether heterosexual or homosexual).

I'm pretty sure that if the Republic collapses, it won't because a couple of gay chicks are getting it on in their home- we have much bigger problems than fretting over nonsense like that.

abacabb
03-29-2013, 04:33 AM
As a non-religious person, I welcome a society that isn't restrained or demonized by organized religions to the point where slut-shaming and gay-bashing are prevalent and induce psychological damage to individuals who should be free to choose what they want to do with their bodies or whom they want to marry.

A little more slut-shaming would see less disease and broken homes, which a lot of people would stand to benefit. I don't want any of these things to be illegal, but I think it is irrational to cheer on behaviors that have obviously destroyed so many lives.


If gays cant marry than straights shouldnt be able to divorce
Truth.

otherone
03-29-2013, 05:09 AM
When was America a "good" country?

KrokHead
03-29-2013, 05:16 AM
If we Americans cannot even agree on what is right and wrong and moral and immoral, how do we stay together in one national family? If one half of the nation sees the other as morally depraved, while the latter sees the former as saturated in bigotry, sexism and homophobia, how do we remain one united nation and one people?

I wish people would tolerate a difference in opinion. The homosexuality 'issue' (an issue that affects virtually none who oppose it) is a diversion from real issues.

LibertyEagle
03-29-2013, 06:11 AM
You get your morality from an ancient anthology written and compiled by primitive men. That's fine.

But many Americans do not agree with the "morality" defined by those primitive men.
Many Americans think it's fine for your neighbor to take all your possessions too. Does that make it ok?


Some of us do not find consensual sexual activity between free adult citizens to be "amoral" (whether heterosexual or homosexual).

I'm pretty sure that if the Republic collapses, it won't because a couple of gay chicks are getting it on in their home- we have much bigger problems than fretting over nonsense like that.

Some people think a whole lot of things are nonsense. Like gun control, states' rights, drones, ....

Personally, this isn't a big issue for me. But, I sure don't agree with the federal government forcing the issue, either.

jkr
03-29-2013, 07:46 AM
fuck who you want but dont FUCK with the words!

LibertyEagle
03-29-2013, 07:52 AM
When was America a "good" country?

I don't know. Perhaps you should a few of those millions of people all over the world who were willing to risk their lives to come to America.

See, I don't hate my country, as you seem to. I just want it BACK.

LibertyEagle
03-29-2013, 07:54 AM
fuck who you want but dont FUCK with the words!

Yes, basically. hehe

otherone
03-29-2013, 08:03 AM
I don't know. Perhaps you should a few of those millions of people all over the world who were willing to risk their lives to come to America.

See, I don't hate my country, as you seem to. I just want it BACK.

Millions of people eat at Pizza-Hut too, it doesn't make Pizza-Hut good.
When was "America" ever YOURS to get "back"? What does that even mean?

acptulsa
03-29-2013, 08:10 AM
'Everybody is running around in circles, announcing that somebody's pinched their liberty. Now the greatest aid that I know of that anyone could give the world today would be a correct definition of "liberty". What might be one class's liberty might be another class's poison. I guess absolute liberty couldn't mean anything but that anybody can do anything they want to, any time they want to. Well, any half-wit can tell you that wouldn't work. So the question arises, "How much liberty can I get away with?"

'Well, you can get no more liberty than you give. That's my definition, but you got perfect liberty to work out your own.'--Will Rogers


Whoever troubles his own household will inherit the wind, and the fool will be servant to the wise of heart.

The United States is still a good nation to the extent that we still exhibit the tolerance upon which the nation was founded, and which has always been its strength. The problem comes from the propagandists and the secular humanism dogmagandists who portray intolerance directed toward those deemed intolerant as promoting tolerance. For when we deem intolerance to be tolerance, then our keel is truly broken off and we are truly at the mercy of the shifting winds.

Political correctness is far more political than correct, and for that reason is our undoing. And quite frankly, Mr. Buchanan, I don't believe that any preponderance of America's population have ever been of a 'hive mind' in regards to every detail of morality. But while we have managed to cling to the ideal that, as Will Rogers said so well, you can only get as much liberty as you give, we have enjoyed the most peace, prosperity and success.

'History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.'--Thomas Jefferson

It seems to me that our biggest problem today is that we fail to understand that the High Priests of Secular Humanism are just another band of priests.

Sola_Fide
03-29-2013, 08:10 AM
The churches that de Tocqueville was talking about were mostly Calvinistic churches who would say Pat Buchanan was bad.

phill4paul
03-29-2013, 08:12 AM
Until you get rid of all the 'benefits' afforded to married couples then this debate will go on until there is equality. Since that is not likely to happen then the definition of marriage, in the eyes of government, should simply be redefined as 'benefit designee.'

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html


Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:
Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

erowe1
03-29-2013, 08:17 AM
If we Americans cannot even agree on what is right and wrong and moral and immoral, how do we stay together in one national family?

Maybe ever trying to make us stay together in one national family was one of the mistakes the founders made in the first place.

LibertyEagle
03-29-2013, 08:29 AM
Millions of people eat at Pizza-Hut too, it doesn't make Pizza-Hut good.
When was "America" ever YOURS to get "back"? What does that even mean?

America was intended to belong to US. Didn't you know that?

I want our government back within the bounds of the Constitution and the majority of the power to be with the people. It used to be a lot more that way. Perhaps you are too young to remember.

LibertyEagle
03-29-2013, 08:31 AM
Maybe ever trying to make us stay together in one national family was one of the mistakes the founders made in the first place.

The founders never wanted a one-size-fits-all. Each state was to be its own experiment as a republic.

Even we pay way too much attention to the federal government, while giving very little to our local and state governments. In that respect, we are part of the problem.

Philhelm
03-29-2013, 08:31 AM
You get your morality from an ancient anthology written and compiled by primitive men. That's fine.

But many Americans do not agree with the "morality" defined by those primitive men.

To be fair, I would argue that most people in Western society have their moral codes heavily influenced by Christianity, whether they realize or choose to acknowledge such.

LibertyEagle
03-29-2013, 08:32 AM
Until you get rid of all the 'benefits' afforded to married couples then this debate will go on until there is equality. Since that is not likely to happen then the definition of marriage, in the eyes of government, should simply be redefined as 'benefit designee.'



Yeah, I'd agree with that.

scottditzen
03-29-2013, 08:33 AM
When was America a "good" country?

I believe it was a summer weekend in 1953...according to The Onion.

otherone
03-29-2013, 08:39 AM
America was intended to belong to US. Didn't you know that?

I want our government back within the bounds of the Constitution and the majority of the power to be with the people. It used to be a lot more that way. Perhaps you are too young to remember.

I'll be 50 in August. Give me a specific date, and we can debate who the power belonged to at that time. I get tired of people pining the loss of those mythical good 'ol days. The purpose of our government was to prevent the Rights of the people from being stomped on by others. It's an excellent, moral, GOOD proposition that has never actually seen the light of day. Whether the US is better than Guatemala or Cambodia is not germane to the hypocrisy of our system of government.

torchbearer
03-29-2013, 08:45 AM
To be fair, I would argue that most people in Western society have their moral codes heavily influenced by Christianity, whether they realize or choose to acknowledge such. I was thinking most of it originated with the Egyptian culture and religions during the times of the pharaohs. for example, most clocks have 12 hours/steps. the Egyptians marked their day and night- each with 12 steps. monotheism had its origins in that culture. the first story that read like the story of jesus came from southern Egypt. I believe it was written about ra, maybe horus-ra? i'd have to look it up again to get the specific. those ideas migrated to the Lebanon. from there it migrated to rome and beyond.

Matthew5
03-29-2013, 08:55 AM
I think the confusion here is when we debate that America was once good, we have different meanings of "America" (are we talking about government, national action, or local society?) and "good". America did some horrible things in the 1800s in the form of slavery, genocide, and the conquering of free people. And her evils continue today in the form of abortion and killing of innocent lives overseas in the name of empire. So was America ever "good"? That's debatable.

I believe the real issue with the article is the question as to whether national unity is possible. Can a society function in unison when the morals that guide it are so different? I see this within Protestant churches right now and how many are walking away from the liberalization of their denominations. The apostolic Church has had to decide many times to anathematize heresy in order to maintain the purity of the faith. Is it time to do the same as a society? And this goes for both sides, if your moral code is one of secularism, then excommunicate those that adhere to a Judeo-Christian code and vice versa. Isn't that what we champion, the freedom of association?

torchbearer
03-29-2013, 08:59 AM
I think the confusion here is when we debate that America was once good, we have different meanings of "America" (are we talking about government, national action, or local society?) and "good". America did some horrible things in the 1800s in the form of slavery, genocide, and the conquering of free people. And her evils continue today in the form of abortion and killing of innocent lives overseas in the name of empire. So was America ever "good"? That's debatable.

I believe the real issue with the article is the question as to whether national unity is possible. Can a society function in unison when the morals that guide it are so different? I see this within Protestant churches right now and how many are walking away from the liberalization of their denominations. The apostolic Church has had to decide many times to anathematize heresy in order to maintain the purity of the faith. Is it time to do the same as a society? And this goes for both sides, if your moral code is one of secularism, then excommunicate those that adhere to a Judeo-Christian code and vice versa. Isn't that what we champion, the freedom of association?

just say no to homogeny. why should there be national unity when it means applying force to individuals to fall in line with the will of an elite group who use social issues to manipulate dumb-asses? we should be proud of our difference because it takes all kinds.

otherone
03-29-2013, 08:59 AM
To be fair, I would argue that most people in Western society have their moral codes heavily influenced by Christianity, whether they realize or choose to acknowledge such.

What has been inherited from ancient civilizations is the idea that Secular Authority is derived from Supernatural Authority. Moral codes are in place to keep the herd from stampeding.
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
-Napoleon Bonaparte

Occam's Banana
03-29-2013, 09:11 AM
It seems to me that our biggest problem today is that we fail to understand that the High Priests of Secular Humanism are just another band of priests.

I must spread some rep. As an igtheist (and therefore about as "secular" as you can get), I could not possibly agree more with this statement.

The phenomena denoted by the terms "religion" and "religious fanaticism" need not have anything to do with gods and rites and churches ...

Matthew5
03-29-2013, 09:13 AM
just say no to homogeny. why should there be national unity when it means applying force to individuals to fall in line with the will of an elite group who use social issues to manipulate dumb-asses? we should be proud of our difference because it takes all kinds.

I agree that stress (opposing forces pulling in different directions) is required for a society to flourish. Without stress, it grows very stagnant. But we're talking about an underlying set of values that drive a nation. If those values are polar opposites, how will we accomplish the goals of our societies?

erowe1
03-29-2013, 09:17 AM
I agree that stress (opposing forces pulling in different directions) is required for a society to flourish. Without stress, it grows very stagnant. But we're talking about an underlying set of values that drive a nation. If those values are polar opposites, how will we accomplish the goals of our societies?

You pursue your goals, I pursue mine.

Sola_Fide
03-29-2013, 09:25 AM
I was thinking most of it originated with the Egyptian culture and religions during the times of the pharaohs. for example, most clocks have 12 hours/steps. the Egyptians marked their day and night- each with 12 steps. monotheism had its origins in that culture. the first story that read like the story of jesus came from southern Egypt. I believe it was written about ra, maybe horus-ra? i'd have to look it up again to get the specific. those ideas migrated to the Lebanon. from there it migrated to rome and beyond.

Ah, parallelomania. Also, saying monotheism had its origin in Egyptian culture is seriously nuts.

Christian Liberty
03-29-2013, 09:37 AM
Does Pat Buchanan advocate banning of sodomy? Its not clear from this article...

While I do share the position that homosexuality is immoral, it is also none of the government's business. Government should not be involved in defining voluntary associations. The government should get out of marriage altogether and let people do what they want.

torchbearer
03-29-2013, 09:41 AM
I agree that stress (opposing forces pulling in different directions) is required for a society to flourish. Without stress, it grows very stagnant. But we're talking about an underlying set of values that drive a nation. If those values are polar opposites, how will we accomplish the goals of our societies?

to spread your values, are you going to use the force of government? or do you intend to witness to others a virtuous life? Ol' Pat Buke would use government force to 'make' people in this country bend to his values.
I think the most successful value systems would win out in a free market of ideas.

otherone
03-29-2013, 09:41 AM
You pursue your goals, I pursue mine.

lol.
When someone starts talking about "accomplishing the goals of our society" I start looking for brown shirts....

torchbearer
03-29-2013, 09:43 AM
Ah, parallelomania. Also, saying monotheism had its origin in Egyptian culture is seriously nuts. Its nuts if you don't have the info.
I will provide.



The Cult of the Sun God and Akhenaten's Monotheism
Egypt During the New Kingdom, the cult of the sun god Ra became increasingly important until it evolved into the uncompromising monotheism of Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV, 1364-1347 B.C.). According to the cult, Ra created himself from a primeval mound in the shape of a pyramid and then created all other gods. Thus, Ra was not only the sun god, he was also the universe, having created himself from himself. Ra was invoked as Aten or the Great Disc that illuminated the world of the living and the dead.
The effect of these doctrines can be seen in the sun worship of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who became an uncompromising monotheist. Aldred has speculated that monotheism was Akhenaten's own idea, the result of regarding Aten as a self-created heavenly king whose son, the pharaoh, was also unique. Akhenaten made Aten the supreme state god, symbolized as a rayed disk with each sunbeam ending in a ministering hand. Other gods were abolished, their images smashed, their names excised, their temples abandoned, and their revenues impounded. The plural word for god was suppressed. Sometime in the fifth or sixth year of his reign, Akhenaten moved his capital to a new city called Akhetaten (present-day Tall al Amarinah, also seen as Tell al Amarna). At that time, the pharaoh, previously known as Amenhotep IV, adopted the name Akhenaten. His wife, Queen Nefertiti, shared his beliefs.

Akhenaten's religious ideas did not survive his death. His ideas were abandoned in part because of the economic collapse that ensued at the end of his reign. To restore the morale of the nation, Akhenaten's successor, Tutankhamen, appeased the offended gods whose resentment would have blighted all human enterprise. Temples were cleaned and repaired, new images made, priests appointed, and endowments restored. Akhenaten's new city was abandoned to the desert sands.

Data as of December 1990
Source: Library of Congress Country Studies

Matthew5
03-29-2013, 09:50 AM
I'm speaking from a sociological standpoint, societies are a part of human nature. What drives that society? A homogeneity of morals is one of the driving factors. A split majority of morals will lead to a breakdown of that society.

otherone
03-29-2013, 09:54 AM
I'm speaking from a sociological standpoint, societies are a part of human nature. What drives that society? A homogeneity of morals is one of the driving factors. A split majority of morals will lead to a breakdown of that society.

So what. Free association creates and sustains "society". You question "what" drives society? I question "who" has the authority to drive society?

torchbearer
03-29-2013, 09:56 AM
I'm speaking from a sociological standpoint, societies are a part of human nature. What drives that society? A homogeneity of morals is one of the driving factors. A split majority of morals will lead to a breakdown of that society. many who graduate sociology(b.a.) typically don't understand the content as all they did was regurgitate facts on test. the problem would not lie in the fact that people aren't cohesive. the problem lies in the size of the unit blocks. a community could be 200 people living out in a rural area, all of whom are there by choice to live as a cohesive group of shared values. now, throw that group into modern America and they are deviants causing breakdowns. do you see the fallacy of your statement?

erowe1
03-29-2013, 09:56 AM
I'm speaking from a sociological standpoint, societies are a part of human nature. What drives that society? A homogeneity of morals is one of the driving factors. A split majority of morals will lead to a breakdown of that society.

I would describe that aspect of human nature differently.

It's not that there is some need for objectively definable societies, such that they might not exist and then if they don't bad things happen.

It's more that we all as individuals naturally categorize ourselves into groups. I don't think we could possibly not do that. And no matter what sociological phenomena exist around us, we will consider some people part of the same group as us. We will share goals with them. But it's not that we naturally automatically belong together and then need to have like goals, it's more that having like goals will be part of what unites us.

erowe1
03-29-2013, 09:57 AM
many who graduate sociology(b.a.) typically don't understand the content as all they did we regurgitate facts on test. the problem would not lie in the fact that people aren't cohesive. the problem lies in the size of the unit blocks. a community could be 200 people living out in a rural area, all of whom are there by choice to live as a cohesive group of shared values. now, throw that group into modern America and they are deviants causing breakdowns. do you see the fallacy of your statement?

A community could also not be geographically defined.

We in this forum are a community.

ClydeCoulter
03-29-2013, 10:02 AM
A community could also not be geographically defined.

We in this forum are a community.

And what binds us (into subgroups) depends on the topic or ideal. We split into different groups depending. But we still, for the most part, respect each others right to associate or not in a given instance.

angelatc
03-29-2013, 10:06 AM
The overall piece is fine. However this: is weak support for the argument. Psychiatry (as distinct from psychology) is quackery. (see "The Myth Of Mental Illness" by Szasz) And a state outlawing (or legalizing) something does not necessarily make it bad (or good).

I thought that too. For a while, people were burned as witches, but moving past that doesn't seem like such a bad thing....

But this is the real point of the article:
If we Americans cannot even agree on what is right and wrong and moral and immoral, how do we stay together in one national family? If one half of the nation sees the other as morally depraved, while the latter sees the former as saturated in bigotry, sexism and homophobia, how do we remain one united nation and one people?

torchbearer
03-29-2013, 10:06 AM
A community could also not be geographically defined.

We in this forum are a community.
I had a professor that specialized in the study of community. the most unique were the gypsy's. he traveled with them as an observer to study.
This is the nutshell of arguments on communitys:

The classic perspective on community offered by Carle Zimmerman (1938) is consistent with this theme, in that the basic four characteristics argued by Zimmerman to define community (social fact, specification, association, and limited area) require a territorial context. George Hillary (1955), in a content analysis of ninety-four definitions of community advanced in sociological literature, discovered basic consensus on only three definitional elements: social interaction between people, one or more shared ties, and an area context. However, Hillary noted that area context was the least required of these three definitional elements. Others (e.g., Lindeman 1930; Bender 1978; McMillan and Chavis 1986) argue that community can be achieved independently of territorial context where social networks exist sufficiently to sustain a Gemeinschaft quality of interaction and association. According to this point of view, territory is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to define the existence of community. In this vein, David McMillan and David Chavis suggest a state of community exists when four elements co-exist: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connections. They argue that communities can be defined either in relational terms or territorial terms as long as these four elements are present together.

Matthew5
03-29-2013, 10:09 AM
I would describe that aspect of human nature differently.

It's not that there is some need for objectively definable societies, such that they might not exist and then if they don't bad things happen.

It's more that we all as individuals naturally categorize ourselves into groups. I don't think we could possibly not do that. And no matter what sociological phenomena exist around us, we will consider some people part of the same group as us. We will share goals with them. But it's not that we naturally automatically belong together and then need to have like goals, it's more that having like goals will be part of what unites us.

I would agree with you. Grouping is a natural part of human nature. So does there come a point when a current group no longer identifies with each other and it's time to part ways? That's the crux of the article, I believe.

ClydeCoulter
03-29-2013, 10:13 AM
Grouping is an adhoc thing. Depends on the topic at any given time. Although there is a point, perhaps, where there is no agreement on anything. Hence, the power of division.

Matthew5
03-29-2013, 10:17 AM
I had a professor that specialized in the study of community. the most unique were the gypsy's. he traveled with them as an observer to study.
This is the nutshell of arguments on communitys:

Perhaps this exposes one of the great weakness of the American society. It's too many micro-societies trying to function as the macro (and therefore dictate to the smaller societies).

Todd
03-29-2013, 10:19 AM
When was America a "good" country?

When we were all "unaware".


But seriously, it's like Dr. Paul has always said. The principles the country were founded upon were good, but nobody follows them. The only way a system of ours works is if the population's standards of morality as a whole are high

torchbearer
03-29-2013, 10:22 AM
Perhaps this exposes one of the great weakness of the American society. It's too many micro-societies trying to function as the macro (and therefore dictate to the smaller societies).
it wasn't ment to function as a macro unit.
Do you understand the difference between these two statements:
The United States
and
These united states

the first one is one unit block of governance with many wards to its state.
the second is many unit blocks independent of each other working together in coorperation.

the first one is an empire enforcing value on all.
the second is republic of republics, each individual unit carrying its own values.

erowe1
03-29-2013, 10:22 AM
I would agree with you. Grouping is a natural part of human nature. So does there come a point when a current group no longer identifies with each other and it's time to part ways? That's the crux of the article, I believe.

Human history is that happening over and over again.

There are no races or nations or groups of any kind today that go back to some primordially separate groups from the distant past.

Matthew5
03-29-2013, 10:28 AM
it wasn't ment to function as a macro unit.
Do you understand the difference between these two statements:
The United States
and
These united states

the first one is one unit block of governance with many wards to its state.
the second is many unit blocks independent of each other working together in coorperation.

the first one is an empire enforcing value on all.
the second is republic of republics, each individual unit carrying its own values.

Ok?? I was obviously arguing for the republican model. That why I said the weakness of the U.S. model is that it's a majority that dictates to the minority.

torchbearer
03-29-2013, 10:30 AM
Ok?? I was obviously arguing for the republican model. That why I said the weakness of the U.S. model is that it's a majority that dictates to the minority.
the problem isn't lack of social cohesion. the problem is with the model we are in. that is what i'm getting at.

torchbearer
03-29-2013, 10:32 AM
if we broke the units down to local governance- there would be maximum harmony and value sharing. peace would be more likely. minarchist argument

Matthew5
03-29-2013, 10:33 AM
the problem isn't lack of social cohesion. the problem is with the model we are in. that is what i'm getting at.

I think we're in agreement there. We are in an unsustainable model.

Matthew5
03-29-2013, 10:36 AM
if we broke the units down to local governance- there would be maximum harmony and value sharing. peace would be more likely. minarchist argument

Agreed, but do you feel that it's inevitable that these local units will want to join up with other units that share similar values? Should this be prevented? Is it a bad thing? Is it what got us into this mess of a country in the first place or was it a power grab by parties seeking domination?

torchbearer
03-29-2013, 10:41 AM
Agreed, but do you feel that it's inevitable that these local units will want to join up with other units that share similar values? Should this be prevented? Is it a bad thing? Is it what got us into this mess of a country in the first place or was it a power grab by parties seeking domination?

these are extremely difficult questions. in a sterile world of just objective news reporting. all people received was good info, and they were educated- they would stay in local units working in cooperation with other units. they would do so because they'd already know the problems with breaking down those smaller units.
in reality, with almost no objective news, people get bad info(spin), they are unaware of the manipulations of demagogues. so, i'd expect- if things were reset to local unit- there would be a handful of hairless monkeys that would use those mechanism to amass power to themselves by dissolving the local units under their command. and the cycle would repeat.
cause- ignorance
fix- none.

Matthew5
03-29-2013, 10:44 AM
these are extremely difficult questions. in a sterile world of just objective new reporting. all people received was good info, and they were educated- they would stay in local units working in cooperation with other units. they would do so because they'd already know the problems with breaking down those smaller units.
in reality, with almost no objective news, people get bad info(spin), they are unaware of the manipulations of demagogues. so, i'd expect- if things were reset to local unit- there would be a handful of hairless monkey's that would use those mechanism to amass power to themselves by dissolving the local units under their command. and the cycle would repeat.
cause- ignorance
fix- none.

Thanks, I've been researching local governance and minarchism lately and these are some the question I mull around.

torchbearer
03-29-2013, 10:46 AM
Thanks, I've been researching local governance and minarchism lately and these are some the question I mull around. A recent Daniel Hannan interview I read on the forums had some good stuff on this topic. the EU is facing the same exact problem.

fr33
03-29-2013, 02:41 PM
"Thou shalt not kill"

AuH20
03-29-2013, 02:55 PM
You get your morality from an ancient anthology written and compiled by primitive men. That's fine.

But many Americans do not agree with the "morality" defined by those primitive men.

Some of us do not find consensual sexual activity between free adult citizens to be "amoral" (whether heterosexual or homosexual).

I'm pretty sure that if the Republic collapses, it won't because a couple of gay chicks are getting it on in their home- we have much bigger problems than fretting over nonsense like that.

Primitive men???????????????????????????????? You surely can't be serious!! The people of the past would laugh increduously at their descendants and their ineptitude, despite the technological advantages that have developed over long periods of time. For example, Thomas Jefferson, the hopeless savage that he was would wipe the floor with our so-called best and brightest:

http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/thomas_jefferson.asp


He had an unending fascination with philosophy, political and economic theory, architecture, inventions, science and technology. He single-handedly designed and founded the University of Virginia, was the architect for his own home, Monticello, and for the homes of a number of his friends; he also studied a half dozen languages, some mathematics, astronomy, surveying, botany and zoology, and became successful as a lawyer, farmer, philosopher, political scientist, writer, scientist, musician, and inventor. In his spare time he also managed to become a respectable violinist. He was also the holder of several patents and, along with his other activities, found time to devise a folding chair, a dumbwaiter, swivel chair, pedometer, and a lazy Susan.

In retrospect, with each passing day, it's becoming clearer and clearer who is INFERIOR.

acptulsa
03-29-2013, 03:28 PM
In retrospect, with each passing day, it's becoming clearer and clearer who is INFERIOR.

You're judging all modern men by the standard set by Jefferson? Damn, we're all in trouble.

That said, Jefferson had no clue about electrical engineering, internal combustion, or relativity. He had no idea what a molecule, or DNA, or a cell was, and didn't even really know they existed. And if you handed him an iPhone, he'd be hard pressed to use it as anything but a paperweight. And he was among the best and the brightest that the Age of Enlightenment had to offer.

No, I think folks are folks, and just as capable of being great or petty as their societies allow them to be--and maybe just a little bit more.

'We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimin of their barbarous ancestors.'--Thomas Jefferson

He saw the great evil of slavery, and dreamed of a day when it could be done away with, yet participated in economic self-defense. I don't think, for that reason alone, he'd agree with your conclusion that he was a paragon that we in no way measure up to...

No, if the U.S. has an Achilles' heel, it's that we allow ourselves to get so caught up in our drive to make society advance and get better that we forget the principles that made us great. Only this failing invariably leads us into evil. For when we let some evil like slavery persuade us that one little exception to the principle that central planning is bad and states' rights are good, we wind up in a Civil War that kills, maims and starves millions, and sets precedents that we suffer under for a century and a half. If we only had sense enough to always remember 'tis better to find a way to end the evils of our society that does not violate our principles, we'd have already created an Eden on this imperfect Earth.

The Free Hornet
03-29-2013, 03:29 PM
In retrospect, with each passing day, it's becoming clearer and clearer who is INFERIOR.

It is not necessarily the people that are inferior but the culture.

The following is an incomplete rebuttal (work beckons...).


He had an unending fascination with philosophy [racist!], political [fascist!] and economic theory [capitalist pig!], architecture [unlicensed!], inventions [already patented by china/trolls/monsanto/google/apple/microsoft!], science and technology [mancentric!]. He single-handedly designed and founded the University of Virginia [not coed!], was the architect for his own home, Monticello [building code violation!], and for the homes of a number of his friends [repeat offender building code violations!]; he also studied a half dozen languages [esperanto! ebonics! no? FUCK HIM!], some mathematics [any new math?], astronomy, surveying, botany and zoology, and became successful as a lawyer [no bar exam!... nevermind they had that shit back then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Education)], farmer ['bah not GM foods!], philosopher, political scientist, writer, scientist, musician [riaa!], and inventor. In his spare time he also managed to become a respectable violinist [strings made with catguts!]. He was also the holder of several patents [part of the problem!] and, along with his other activities, found time to devise a folding chair [annexes everywhere thank him], a dumbwaiter [racist!], swivel chair, pedometer, and a lazy Susan [sexist!].

Anyway, it is harder to do many of these things to any productive end. The benefits are in specialization and somebody today with Jefferson's breadth might be seen as a layabout, dilettante, or possibly a jack-of-all-trades (master of none)

heavenlyboy34
03-29-2013, 03:38 PM
if we broke the units down to local governance- there would be maximum harmony and value sharing. peace would be more likely. minarchist argument
Some anarchists also use that argument and take it even futher-as Mises did with his "micro-secession" concept. (I know Mises wasn't an anarchist, but many of his stuff has been adopted by certain anarchists and it fits)

heavenlyboy34
03-29-2013, 03:41 PM
It is not necessarily the people that are inferior but the culture.

The following is an incomplete rebuttal (work beckons...).



Anyway, it is harder to do many of these things to any productive end. The benefits are in specialization and somebody today with Jefferson's breadth might be seen as a layabout, dilettante, or possibly a jack-of-all-trades (master of none)
And he was. No disrespect to TJ, but AFAIK, he never mastered any of the things he studied. That's not a bad thing, of course. Polymath-ism is fun. I do it myself. :)