RSS

Tag Archives: Morality

RE: “Bush Did It, You Hate Obama”

RE: “Bush Did It, You Hate Obama”

“Bush did it/Bush did it too/You hate Obama” = “Talitha, I am really not educated on the issues enough to present a viable argument, so I’ll just blame Bush or try to divert attention from this by saying you hate Obama”

This is in response to many messages on social media and emails I have received in response to my blogs. If the shoe fits wear it (but there’s no need to tell me you’re wearing it), if not, don’t.

The most effective and strongest elected leaders take the moral and fiscal compasses they inherit and begin immediately to steer the people in the right direction. They do not give scapegoats or precedents more weight than the Constitution, which they take a public oath to uphold (on a Bible at that). They use common sense, morality, business and legislative acumen as well as the voice of the people, to ensure that every American is empowered to pursue life, liberty and happiness as the forefathers envisioned and as natural law makes apparent. If you want to argue that Obama is the best man for the job or that he is the lesser of two evils that’s fine but if you cannot do so apart from blaming Bush, or indulging in mind reading to tell me how I feel, then I submit, that you have not thoroughly studied the platform of the one you support to start with. Therefore, you cannot effectively argue aside from anti-Bush, anti-GOP or anti-Tea Party talking points and rhetoric.

In this election year, the most effective debates are color-blind and strictly seek to critique policy, legislation and actions in light of the constitution, not popularity, race, class or culture. Personally, I have conceded that America is too immature to do this, even after we have been separated by time from the many racial, cultural, gender-based and religious struggles, that so many of those before us gave their lives for, knowing that they would not see or benefit from such freedoms themselves. I urge you all to pray for all of our leaders and one another, that we would grow as a nation and reach the level of maturity and intellectual prowess needed, not merely to stay afloat but to thrive again. As for now we are no better than children squabbling over trinkets in a burning building. God help us. God help us all. God (please) bless America, even though we don’t deserve it.

Advertisements
 
3 Comments

Posted by on June 23, 2012 in Politics, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Walter Myers III: Closer To Truth?

Walter Myers III: Closer To Truth?

This past week I had a married couple as guests at my home, and as usual when they come to visit we invariably get around to discussing religion since Philosophy of Religion & Ethics is my current course of study. I’m not sure if they are agnostics or simply skeptics, though my guess is that it is more the latter. Both are highly intelligent and moral folks who are concerned with living good lives, being kind to others, donating to good causes, and being loving, attentive parents to their young children. But they tend to look strongly askance at anything of a religious nature, though they admit there are some good things that come out of religion that are beneficial to society. Fundamentally, John and Sharon (not their real names), are skeptical that any of my efforts in studying religion necessarily allow me to get any closer to truth than anyone else, no matter how much I may study. Why do they conclude this, and am I simply wasting precious time and energy studying philosophy? Since they both feel there are other people who study as much as I do yet come to different conclusions, their logic is that we cannot get to truth since everyone doesn’t necessarily come to the same conclusions concerning the existence of God, or further that Christ is indeed the Son of God who died on a cross and resurrected on the third day.

At core, John and Sharon have the view that what may be true for me, and others that accept Christ, may not be true for others who accept some other religion such as Islam or Hinduism, or who simply conclude that all religions are false. But it’s okay if it’s true for me and provides some benefit, and I shouldn’t be naive in believing that my truth might actually apply to them or others. I didn’t explain that this view is the typical postmodern thinking that Americans have gradually accepted over the past 40-50 years, which posits that there are no overarching, universal truths. Truth, according to postmodern thought is simply a social construct and a creation of the human mind. Yet John and Sharon admit that in their everyday lives, they behave as if there are universal truths. They feel that stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, and that it is not okay to abuse children. But if there is no such thing as objective truth, then why would they live their lives as if it is so, even asserting there are indeed some moral imperatives as just described? It is wholly inconsistent to on the one hand believe that everything is relative and evolving, while at the same time making statements as to how a certain state of affairs ought or should be when things are constantly undergoing change. If everything is relative and truth is what you make it, then the words oughtor should are in effect meaningless when used in communication.

While John and Sharon are skeptical there is objective truth, and that Christianity could even accord with truth, it is an interesting thing we all agreed that the moral sense of right and wrong is fairly universal within the human race. Even those who choose to do wrong (presuming they are normally functioning) know implicitly what is the good or right thing to do, but simply choose not to do the good or right thing because they have the free will to reject it. This sense of moral order in the universe is, in theological terms, called common grace, since it may be apprehended by all and is common to all humankind. So herein we may reasonably conclude that even though there is nothing we can know exhaustively, common grace can be reasonably construed (in an epistemic sense) as an objective truth, and is true wholly independent of whether we give it cognitive assent or not. In essence, I’m arguing that on this basis, John and Sharon would be wise to conclude that there are indeed some objective moral truths that are not just true for some, but true for all, including them. In other words, truth is truth, and truth has no dependency on them, yet it is there for them to ascertain should they choose to accept it. I feel they sense this, but are somehow afraid of the consequences of accepting this view.

To continue reading click here

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 15, 2012 in Philosophy, Religion

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: