Perhaps the REAL problem is that we seem to have no moral leadership in
government, industry, entertainment, sports, or virtually any other aspect of
our modern lives.One need look no farther than the Utah legislature,
Congress, Hollywood, our corporations and banks to see the real problem. Even
many religions are failing to provide clear leadership.Fear and
greed are the ruling passions of our day.
A Moral decline? Quite clear the way we are doing things are eroding the Moral
ideas. We are going backwards as the way things are going.
Thanks for such a strong statement of the need for moral individuals if we are
to establish a truly moral society.
Mr. Cameron described the problem and tried to describe a solution, but what was
reported could be construed as "moralizing". Lord Sacks in two
editorials (one appearing yesterday) did an admirable job of of not only
diagnosing the root causes of lawlessness and crimes of opportunity, but
explaining how we got here and how we can (and have in the past) recovered our
sense of society, civilization and morality. It is in those positive values that
the negative slope we are on can be brought back into balance and the lives of
all of us can begin again to encompass hope, confidence and a vision of a better
future. He accurately and persuasively shows how religion and other creeds that
encourage thoughtful responsibility, morality, family and citizenship are the
things that can rescue us from the debilitating and destructive directions their
opposites have created over the last 50 years. Bravo, Lord Sacks. I hope
everyone is listening - especially those who think government is the answer
instead of being part of the problem.
"In the wake of Britain's recent and unprecedented rioting, Prime Minister
David Cameron spoke forcefully about the need to stem society's moral
decline."I'm sorry, but this kind of hyperbole is just strange.
I suppose to not know English history is forgivable for Americans, but to to
think this sort of thing has not happened at all is just silly.Two
quick examples: The Peasant's Revolt of 1381, ending with the
beheading of the Arch Bishop of Canterbury over a poll tax levied on the people
at his suggestion.More surprisingly and strangely, Charles II tried
closing the coffee houses of England in 1675 out of fear of the spread of
liberal ideas. So many people revolted, including Whigs and Tories,the
"Proclamation for the Suppression of Coffee Houses" only lasted 11
days.* * *My point is editors should know better that to
exaggerate the facts in order to establish their premise.
Yes, I agree with this.Somethings are obviously dumb. Somethings
are also dumb in the long term although there may be perceived shortterm
benefits.In foreign policy there is this view called Realpolitic
which says that the world is too dangerous of a place to permit morality to
determine our foreign policy. Our national interest is more important than our
morality.Based on realpolitic we overthrow a democratic government
in Iran in the 1950's because we felt that Iran being led by the Shah of Iran
would help Iran be a buffer to keep the Soviet Union out of the Arabian gulf.Looking back on that now, this not only immoral it was incredibly
short-sighted. Morality would have kept us from making a huge mistake. But at
the time it seemed like a good idea to those involved.
Whose "morals" do we decide are to be trusted though? MLK was an
incredible human being who saw through race and socio-economic level. Sadly
though there were other people during MLK's life who taught that good morals are
to keep races separate and not mix with others. Time has shown us who had the
correct morals. But during the 50's and 60's there was much debate about who
actually had the correct morals at the time. Today is no different- there is
opposition on which morals are correct or not. So whose morals do we trust?
Some seem to think that we are proposing a return to religious values as a cure
when clearly history has shown than many religious leaders have been morally
corrupt. It is not individuals who profess to be righteous that we advocate
worshiping, it is ideals and principals that encourage and promote harmony, good
will and self control. Religion, in spite of all of the flaws demonstrated by
imperfect people, has a very good track record overall for promoting strong
families and thus societies. But there are other also other institutions which
are also productive - when allowed to function according to their creeds: Boy
Scouts and Girl Scouts, just to name a few.We would do best to stop
spitting out hatred against institutions which we personally have been offended
by and look to embrace programs, creeds and organization which lead to better
values, higher regard for each other, personal responsibility and stronger
character individually and collectively. There are bound to be flaws and
problems in anything that people are connected with, but we work through that as
well, and somehow come out better as a result.
I see socialism as a cause of immorality. Government and dependency on
government is not good for a nation.
I shudder when I see someone promoting the idea of "morality", and
"What in Tucket?" is the perfect example. "Government and
dpendency on government is not good for a nation". Government is not good
for a nation..what we should have anarchy? Morality is simply a catch phrase
for what I think is right, and then it's touted out like a given. Talk about specific behaviors such as personal responsbility, charity,
specific sexual behaviors etc. fine, but "morality" ugh..makes me
Being moral is politically incorrect. That's the problem. There is a new movie
called 'Mars Needs Moms.' They should make one called 'Earth Needs Dads.'
There is no getting around the fact that kids need a Mom AND a Dad.
If we, as parents, were to teach our children about morality, the first lessons
should be "do unto others as you would others do until you" and
"love thy neighbor as thyself". Today everything is all about ME, ME,
ME!! If we were to try to do away with pride, selfishness and envy in our lives,
morality and peace would stand a chance of survival.
@pragmatistferlifeThe best definition I know of for government is a
line from America The Beautiful: "Confirm thy soul in self-control; thy
liberty in law."Of course we need government. But we ARE
(theoretically) the government. A government for, of, and by the people. We
ought to govern ourselves first and delegate that which we cannot do
individually. That ought to be the goal, shouldn't it? How much
better would this nation be if people governed themselves morally and
The need for a higher level of moral thought and action is indeed high in our
society. Moral leadership is something that each family, neighborhood, city,
etc. needs. To combine that with Dr. King, however is rather strange. For how
great he was as a leader, and a man who fought for change, he too, like over 50%
of men in our country was an adulterer. How is that moral leadership? Many men
do great things, but it takes a bit more to be a great man.
B, I would agree with your second post, at so far as it says we should govern
ourselves. I'm all for personal responsibility, in fact no system works without
it..yes including our own welfare state. But, the hyperbolic rehtoric of some
well known posters here, that everyone on the left is lazy and wants everything
for nothing is pure trash. Your first post however is exactly the
kind of "moralizing", that makes me cringe. There's no getting around
every child needs a mom and a dad..pure nonsense. Part of life is randomness,
and cruelty. Not every kid is going to have a Mom and a Dad for any number of
reasons..and they are going to do just fine. What's not ideal is when a kid is
raised without love, comfort, or support..and guess what some kids even overcome
this. Love, comfort, and support come in all kinds of packages, always have and
"social order without the responsibility of citizenship, liberty without
the responsibility of morality and self-esteem without the responsibility of
work and earned achievement."This is the very definition of the
NEO-liberalism/socialism that has been sweeping the globe, and which
the left has been trying to transforms us into here for over a century, under
various names like progressivism, liberalism, the black theology that Obama
learned as his church for over 20 years,Hate the achiever, take
from those that work, nanny state dependent people, government/public
entitlements, union thuggery, indoctrination of chidren, and so forth,without any morals, without any work.Iceland, greece, spain, great
britain, it has breed great contention, and economic distress
whereever it is installed. It is a failure that needs a police state to keep the
people oppressed and controlled.As our founding fathers noted, you
need representative republic that recognizes rights, liberty, life, comes from
God, and a religous moral people for it to succeed.
Truth - what in the heck are you talking about. Have you even been to Iceland,
Great Britton or Spain? By your comments, the nearest you have been is on your
local conservative blogosphere. The rhetoric about hating the
achiever is unexplainable. How Dr. Kings words are twisted to infer he, or
anyone else hates the achiever is beyond comprehension. What it more sounds
like are those who are so self focused that their primary concern is themselves
only. What is destroying this country is this rampant selfishness of thinking
doing or sacrificing for your community or country is somehow a breach of your
personal freedom. Freedom was never won by the individual, but by those who
were willing to sacrifice for their country, for their brothers and sisters
whose names they don't even know. This is the generation of me, I
and what is in it for me." I hope everyone is listening -
especially those who think government is the answer instead of being part of the
problem."Without government, over 50 percent of this country
would not have the right to vote or attend school. Left to their own devices,
previous generation treated each other really poorly.
@pragmatistferlifeI understand that every kid isn't going to be
raised by a mother and a father. And I am not saying that kids who don't have a
mother and father aren't loved. However, it is hard enough to raise kids with
two parents in the home. It is near impossible to give the kid everything
he/she needs with only one parent. Too many men in this country shirk their
duties and too many women allow them to get away with it. The country would be
better off if it's men did their part in raising kids.
@Utah Blue... Government, when fulfilling its appropriate functions is both
affordable and effective. When it grows out of control and tries to take control
of things it was never intended to do (consuming 24% of the Gross National
Product while it does it) it becomes an impediment to freedom and liberty,
destructive of the economy and a drag on its growth, and extremely unaffordable
and ineffective. It has become part of the problem.
When the state interferes it is accused of being a Nanny-state, when it does
not, it is accused of inaction, not caring and failing in its duty. What we
really lack is any moral compass amongst the mischievous media who seem to
report without any regard to what affect their slant on the truth will have. The
chances of the media actually doing something about this is as likely as turkeys
voting for Christmas. The truth is that we all have a part to play in bringing
back firm standards to society, religion based or not.
Honestly, I fear religious people who believe that their "morals" are
the only "morals". Morality is relative. Relative to culture,
region, etc.Morals do not derive from religion. Religion isn't the
fount of morality.For a change I'm going to agree with
Re: one old man | 5:17 a.m. Aug. 28, 2011 We took our cue on moral
leadership from Bill Clinton. He assured us that what he did in the privacy of
the Oval Office was none of our business.
ShaunMcC, You infer that the most important thing a society/nation can do is
produce wealth and any thing government does that impedes that is wrong. Yet
the founding document of our freedom states as a goal the pursuit, of life,
liberty, and happiness. Nothing there about wealth. Wealth certainly enables
life, liberty, and happiness, but is only a tool not a goal or end.
Rifleman said:We took our cue on moral leadership from Bill Clinton. He
assured us that what he did in the privacy of the Oval Office was none of our
business.I'm guessing you forgot about Reagans moral compass?President Reagan secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of
an arms embargo.Drugs sold on the street of America to fund a secret
war.Once again morality is relative, one lied about sex, oh the
horror, and others lie about wars and drugs and death.I tend to lean
towards death being more immoral than sex, but I see it all relative.
I was disappointed in "Moral Leadership" published on August 28, 2011.
First, we are a Republic not a Democracy. Please learn the difference.
Second, don't raise the moral flag of Martin Luther King so high. He was known
to have constant extra-marital affairs and even referred to them as "a form
of anxiety reduction" ("Bearing the Cross" by David Garrow and
writings by Ralph Abernathy along with many other sources.) A great civil
rights leader and champion of the oppressed, yes. But don't make him out to be
a saint. He wasn't. When talking about civil rights giants, don't forget to
add the names, Bill Cosby, Flip Wilson, Nat King Cole Jr., Dianna Ross and the
Supremes, etc. Bill Cosby especially entered the living rooms of the
"white" society and made them laugh. He became, along with many
other entertainers, the softener of integration that many hardcore racists in
this country needed to allow them to accept a new level of equalization that had
not been a part of their past for generations. Equality was inspired by God
and weakened by the persuasions of Satan. May God Bless America and all of us
too, we need it.
Rifleman:President Clinton has not been in office since 1/2001.Everyday re-Pubs disparage President Clinton just adds another day for
the Democratic Party to do the same to President Bush.What goes
around comes around.
According to the Utah State Legislature, as of May 2011 we no longer live in a
"democracy" or a "republic". We live in a "Compound
Constitutional Republic"(HB 220,2011). How can we expect our children to
learn the "correct" type of government if the adults in the state are
not going to use the "correct" term?