immaculata Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Check out this editorial in our newspaper today: Moralists shun democracy August 26, 2003 It almost makes me sick how Christians can sit there and claim themselves to be part of a religion that preaches peace and love, yet they'll literally cast out individuals who do not share their narrow-minded, moral points of view. I can't recall how many times I have flipped to the Forum section and found letters going on about how immoral it is to be gay, a lesbian, tattooed, pierced, sexually active, divorced, an atheist, listening to rock or rap, watching trash on television, or pretty much any red-blooded American freedom that we should be able to indulge in without having to read or hear the cockeyed rationalities of these right-wing fundamentalists who think that what comes out of their mouths and/or pens is legitimately moral. These supposed moralists should keep their mouths shut and their pen caps on because trying to tell individuals how, when and where to be moral is not an active participation of this great American liberal democracy. It is in fact a fascist point of view and should be kept in their churches and not in our faces. There they can go ahead and wallow in their despotic beliefs while we indulge in the freedoms given to us by our forefathers, and truly practice being liberated Americans. Lucas D. Herr Mackinaw AAAAARGGGHHH!!! God save us from liberal morons!! My friend and I plan to write a letter in reply (and send it in under HIS name, since I just mailed one in and they only publish from the same author every 60 days.. sneaky sneaky!!) Any ideas you guys wanna throw in? Come on, it'll be fun! All for the Immaculata, Katrina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 They actually allow this piece of literary trash into a respectable newspaper? not only did it have nothing objective in it whatsoever, it also had quite a few grammatical errors, including the run-on sentence that is also known as the whole second paragraph. lol. I would never let this in my paper if I were the editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 I would first define what "moral" means. Then I would describe how being "gay, a lesbian, tattooed, pierced, sexually active, divorced, an atheist, listening to rock or rap, watching trash on television, or pretty much any red-blooded American freedom" has actually contributed to our BONDAGE, in the form of AIDS, cancer, STD's, 11,000 deaths by shooting per year, suicide, scitsophrenia, paranoia, etc. Freedom is when you can leave your own door open at night. Freedom is being able to let your children out at night without fear. Freedom is not worrying about AIDS or disease. When you act with Christian MORALS you are free. And you set society free! I'd then conclude by telling him that it is HE who is taking away from our freedom. And I'd suggest that he conduct an experiment to prove his possition. Tell him and his cronies to move to an island and live the "free" life. If they make it back alive in 10 years, then we're wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Please include this... America IS NOT a democracy. America is a Republic. The founding fathers hated democracy... and shunned it. In democracy, society always sinks to the lowest common denominator. God Bless! ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetarplayer Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Let's point out the fact that atheists still have the right to do whatever they want, because we're not forcing them to share our views, narrow-minded as they may be. They have the right to ignore us. They have the right to disagree. They do NOT have the right to take away our right to freedom of speech. Anti-Christian liberals do not have the right to to ban God in public places. They want to say that the Founding Fathers of America were idiots, because our Fathers actually believed in a higher power. They want to say that the people who fought for our freedom are wrong. (You know where else people say that? Iraq.) They want to rewrite the Pledge of Allegiance, because the atheists are louder than the Christians and they should get their way. Gee, which sounds more anti-American: "I think it's immoral to be in a sexual relationship out of marriage," or, "Let's rewrite the Pledge, Preamble, and the phrase on the back of our currency so less than 10% of America's population can be happy"? It's a fact that Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the United States make almost 90% of the population. If you're thinking democratically, it means the majority rules. The irony is that they are trying to take away our God-given rights. It's a gift from a God whom they don't even believe in. And guess what? American Christians are not the only people who have beliefs on what's moral and what's not. Even if atheists were to pass a law that said, "Christians are no longer allowed to say anything," there are still Christians around the world who can say what they feel. So, no; we will not be silenced because 10% of the people think they're being brainwashed by the dastardly believers. God bless. -Mark LaBelle P.S. I just realized that I've written an entire artical all by myself... sorry. :D You don't have to use it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 You know, if the letter writer had said that sort of thing about Jews, Muslims, or any other religious group, you can bet that the letter wouldn't even be published! Or if it was, the whole town would be at his door wielding torches and pitchforks! But because he says that about Christians, I bet few people would even bat an eye! Perhaps you should include that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 So in another words, everybody can voice their opinions except us?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immaculata Posted August 26, 2003 Author Share Posted August 26, 2003 So in another words, everybody can voice their opinions except us?????? Pretty much so!! Ironmonk- could you please clarify the difference between democracy and republic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geetarplayer Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 A democracy is where every citizen gets to vote on every single law that is passed. In a republic, we vote for representitives, congressmen, etc... to decide what laws to pass. I think that's how it is. The Greek philosophers also rejected democracy, because they realized that some citizens are just stupid... and sometimes that's the majority. -Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 (edited) A democracy is where every citizen gets to vote on every single law that is passed. In a republic, we vote for representitives, congressmen, etc... to decide what laws to pass. I think that's how it is. The Greek philosophers also rejected democracy, because they realized that some citizens are just stupid... and sometimes that's the majority. -Mark Thank you sir! Isn't just amazing how many people in the media and politicians scream "democracy", when we don't have one.... the world is full of half wits, and so many of them get on TV... That is something I just don't understand...lol God Bless & Love in Christ, ironmonk Edited August 27, 2003 by ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdewolf2 Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 The kind of thinking reflected in this article is probably a reflection of the individualism endorsed by the founding fathers. In that sense, the author could be right. But freedom is not the highest of all values. What, after all, is freedom for? Freedom must be subordinated to the truth. Unless society intends to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ, it will find that it's so-called freedom is merely an illusion, leading people straight to hell, both in this life and in the next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Well i don't know most really thinking morallist do reject democracy, and many reject republics as well---- The majority cannot change ehat is right and what is wrong. Anyway democratic republics are all based on the needs of 18th/19th century warfare hardly a moral guide in and of itself. Give me a King restricted by Custom and a powerful nobility, Give me a King and this morallist will be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 God Save the King! Don John, it is so good to finally "know" another monarchist. My friends all think I'm crazy when I say monarchy is the highest and best form of government. Well, they think I'm crazy regardless, but the monarchist stance doesn't help anything. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Democracy need not be totally absent from government, nor does it neccesitate redefining morality. The root problem in our pursuit of democratic forms of government is the reasoning behind them, which, I believe, was rationalism, an erroneous philosophy. Democracy existed in limited forms in monarchies, but the attitude toward morality was different. Were our government founded on sound moral principles, it would be more palatable. Democracy, however, needs be inefficient and wasteful if it is too pervasive. I am not certain it is more likely to be corrupted, though perhaps those pursuing democracy are more likely to have a wrong view of human nature and also a poor understanding of the functioning of human society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immaculata Posted August 27, 2003 Author Share Posted August 27, 2003 The kind of thinking reflected in this article is probably a reflection of the individualism endorsed by the founding fathers. In that sense, the author could be right. But freedom is not the highest of all values. What, after all, is freedom for? Freedom must be subordinated to the truth. Unless society intends to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ, it will find that it's so-called freedom is merely an illusion, leading people straight to hell, both in this life and in the next. That's excellent!!! I'll be sure to put that in there! Thanks everyone! B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now