Where Does America Garner Its Morals and Ethics

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams – 1798

Once again this week, a story developed that should cause Americans to ask the question of this blog title.


“A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong.” Todd Starnes Published July 28, 2010  FoxNews.com

What is telling about this story is the reason Julea Ward is given for her removal. The university contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association code of ethics. Another student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since 2009, but school officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct. Not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity.

So the question becomes, where does the American Counseling Association get its code of ethics? Certainly not solely from the America John Adams presumed or for that matter, than most all the signers of our Declaration of Independence. Julea and Jennifer are only reflecting morals our nation was found upon. The issue of gay life style is controversial but for a Christian is clear, given the scripture. It all boils down to where this country will receive direction related moral issues. Should we accept and allow the results of a kleptomaniac as an alternate lifestyle because they can’t help it; they were born that way? If not, then why the gay lifestyle? Both are from the same moral compass. Take it a step further, why not accept and protect the serial killer because he can’t help himself; he was born that way?

You may get a sense of where I stand. But let me quote myself from another work I’m working on. The character Leland explains his stand on a gay lifestyle.

"Time has proved this 'alternate' life style hasn't saved people in any way. Rather it's caused multitudes of havoc. They have a right to believe as they wish. Never should they be mistreated or abused simply for having an opposing opinion on sexual preference. They need the help and support of society the same as everyone else. The thing I struggle with is how we Christians should react to that. We don't have laws protecting an employee from being fired if he's drunk or high on the job. Nor is a compulsive gamblers' job protected if he decides to be absent from work for weeks to go on a gambling binge. I say that because the Bible tells us these things are wrong.

"These acts erode and undermine the basis of a good working society and it is the Bible that teaches this. Yes, gays have rights but not anything reaching beyond that which will counteract the worldview this country was founded on. This means no special or equal family status, military standing or any other special privileges they're now striving to achieve, because the Bible says it’s wrong.

"I know the Lord teaches us to love one another and we should, but we need to show that love in the context of His word. Sometimes love is very tough, just as Jesus was with people at times. You notice when the Pharisees brought the women to Him to be stoned He directed those who had no sin to throw the first stone. They all walked away because they had to, but remember He told the women to sin no more. Jesus gave her a chance to understand her plight, but expected her to break the cycle she was in."

Search - Richard Coller

This issue will be with us for years to come. All I can say to Julea, Jennifer and all who want a degree in any counseling program is this. They had better understand where that institution derives its moral base and attend a school that will allow biblical counseling. They will be a better counselors for it.

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

Protection from Ourselves

It’s been awhile since I have published anything on my blog. Sorry about that, but another project has kept me very busy until now. So, to kind of catch up let us look at the general idea about why the Tea Party movement has been so active while the Obama administration has been in office. If you read Federalist paper #63 you will find James Madison considered the people could easily undermine their own republic. For that reason he suggested a Senate appointed for a six year term. I’ll let him explain.

“Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” (emphasis added)

James Madison – Federalist Paper #63 Independent Journal, Saturday, March 1, 1788

The large numbers of Tea Party supporters (and others with similar concerns) are probably those who “they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” The founders of our republic understood that “the people” could be misled under certain circumstances. We could fail to patiently garner visions that propel the republic America was founded on. That the people might be compelled by men of anti-republic sediments using ideologies conflicting founding principals and easily misunderstand the corroding effects: et, “too big to fail”, “redistribution of wealth”, “social justice”, etc. This is not ideology attributed to one party but found throughout liberals and conservatives, but has high jacked the liberal philosophy more effectively.

Our republic is founded on individual freedoms, individual rights, individual accountability, individual salvation, and individual numerous other responsibilities that keep a republic working as it should. Any type of socialism that requests collective or group responsibilities directed by a government acting as “big brother” or “director of the majority” against the majorities’ will is anything but a republic our founders envisioned. As “we the people” of the American Republic wake up and realize our individual accountability to our neighbors and nation, there will be more of the Tea Party and similar movements working against progressive, social government actions.

As James Madison indicates, people with republic ideals will discover they are driving off the road and want to steer back on course. Obviously, it is easy to drive back to the road from a shoulder or parking lot, rather than a muddy field. Hence, the reason he argued for a system that would react slower and thoughtfully in times of reactionary or misinformed people. Americans realize we are headed for a muddy field even though the “map” directs otherwise. We know it is time to turn this country back on course because the GPS is falsely programmed.

Government Spending Credit Report - Inform “We the People”

Let us use Education as an example



"Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom."

John Adams

“Too big to fail” and “government bailouts” are all we have heard about for close to two years. The latest request is by Education Secretary Arne Duncan to ask lawmakers to put aside “politics and ideology” as they consider a request for $23 billion in “emergency” funding for public schools. As a taxpayer this is very disturbing to me and I’m sure to the largest percentage of Americans. When is all this “bailout”, “rob Peter to pay Paul” economics nonsense going to be checked? What a great subject to deal with head on. Everyone would agree that our children’s education is something we need to support. Keeping that in mind, we need to have the right information in order to understand how to support that great goal.



I’m sure you are asking “what is he talking about?” First, let me tell you that I’m close to this subject because my daughter is a public school teacher and the major bread winner for her family. Like most Americans I’m proud that we have a system supported by the government (notice I say supported – important to keep in mind) that helps guarantee each person can have a quality education maintained by all taxpayers’ money. Our teachers need to know that we stand behind everyone of them who performs to goals of our expectations as a whole.



The current system has failed in the sense that we seem unable to support it finically. Why is that? There have been suggestions. Education analyst Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., said this.



“More federal funding is not going to solve states' fiscal problems and could in fact exacerbate those problems, by really preventing states from making the difficult budgetary decisions necessary to reduce costs and effect long-term systemic education reform. The real problem within the public education sector has been more and more non-teaching staff positions. These positions continue to grow and really put a strain on state budgets. Roughly half of those people employed by the public education sector are in non-teaching positions.”



This makes a lot of sense to me and I believe we can help direct monies to government supported programs like education if we apply something every American family has either learned to do or should do. Most successful American families have learned to budget based on their family income. That includes borrowing and using credit wisely to achieve intended realistic goals for our needs then wants: in that order. One great tool we have today to assist the decision making on our budgeting is to learn how to use credit reports. These have much information on them that direct us on when we should and should not use credit, how much we could handle and when we should make a change to keep us financially viable.



I’m sure you have caught on to what I suggest. Why not have credit reports for each of our government agencies and recipient of said agency (aka, each school district) that our representatives could use to gauge fiscal responsibilities. For that matter, with today’s technology, it could be made available for all the people to check and inform our representative of our thoughts and wishes. These could help understand status before criticality and make adjustment long before it is serious (too late at this point, but many families learned the hard also). We want our government and all its representatives (politicians) to operate just as we need to. I know there are others much more capable than me to suggest how this might work and it may be too simple for those who serve the people to comprehend but many a family has succeeded by applying principals around this concept. It’s time the government listened to the people and acted more like us.



"Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands."

Thomas Jefferson

News, Information and Opinion – What About A Free Press?

“The only security of all is in a free press. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

Thomas Jefferson

Not many would argue how our constitution stands on the idea of a free press. Most on both sides of the political arena want to make sure these rights stay free, information flows unreservedly and opinions can be expressed. What I find interesting is how people decide what might be wrong or right. When it comes to news, plain and pure facts and political opinions many will decide the truth based on whether it is liberal or conservative in nature. And both types make the mistake when defining facts from opinion. A friend was certain to make sure I understood this by listing a few places where she received much of her information and didn’t want to hide her understanding of these viewpoints.


“Liberal, yet their facts check out.”

I appreciate the honesty and I have no problems with it. Interesting but I question whether she could equally say of other sources, “conservative, yet their facts check out.” As with many, I think it might be a struggle. So many will predetermine facts reported based on knowing who supplies the information. I might be considered naive but until it is proved otherwise; I tend to believe all the mainstream media outlets, as a rule, try to make sure they report the facts. Now, please understand there is a great difference between the facts of a news report and an opinion based on those facts. This same person has this to say about one news outlet.



“… and wouldn't trust Fox News as far as I could throw my car.”



In her defense, because I find it hard to believe differently, I presume she meant she could not trust the opinions of said news outlet. But then again, the blogs sphere and other news stories (where ever one gets them) seems to indicate people prefer to blur the difference because it is easier to consider truths based on liberal facts or conservative facts. A fact can be proven and if not then it just may be an opinion and that is another issue to discuss. But let’s stick to the facts. It is much like preferring a Chrysler over a Honda. Both are cars but people would argue that point because of such a bias for one or the other. They may choose to believe one is not a car because of who makes it. With that kind of attitude you might see me driving a Honda and tell me to go buy a car. All I’ve really learned is that you don’t like Hondas. The question then becomes, “Why do you prefer a Chrysler over a Honda?”



For current events, I look to all sources of information and evaluate them on their own merits. If it is a fact, which can be tested, then it matters not from whom I garner it from. One thing I do purposely is look for what is reported and notice what is ignored. That says more sometimes than the facts themselves. This means I need to look at all sources to compare who is reporting what. There is the tendency by many reporters to ignore or not report “facts” that make it difficult to support either their liberal or conservative perspectives: and that of course is revealing in itself. So I might not trust as much a news outlet that ignores certain facts or stories because it does not support their idea of what’s news worthy and support their opinions. But guess what, that is news also.



It is not so much who is reporting what, as much as the viewpoint it is filtered through. The problem is many people don’t have a good understanding of what they believe or why they believe it so generally sway from one ideal to another as it feels right. Or their principles are so fanatical that they can not accept any variations or conceive what others might prove as truth. I agree with this statement.



“The truth lies in reading the Constitution, a knowledge of history, and studying the commentaries by the authors, which clearly explains their intentions without the need of conjecturing intellectuals educated with propaganda 250 years later.”



If you can’t consistently point to values, principals and ethics that require integrity to persistently convey ideas, then one might need the support of a particular liberal or conservative bias to sort through.



For instance just yesterday I heard about Attorney General Eric Holder indicating the president was willing to look at changing the Miranda rules to help process terrorists. Many conservatives think this is a good idea but even though I lean towards conservative opinions I strongly disagree with this sudden 180 degree turn around. Why? Without going into the details, this idea goes against what I believe about our American justice system, why we have this law and it would only weaken our liberties as we know them.



Check all avenues of news information. I do listen to Fox, CBS, ABC and I especially am interested in NBC/MSNBC for what they consider news worthy and what they ignore. I compare what the Huffington Post, Washing ton Post, Wall Street Journal, Politico and other major “papers” report. News magazines such as Newsweek, US News, The Weekly Standard and Time all give varying perspectives on current events. But I rely a lot on the Internet also for information that might not make the regular media. It is interesting the people who fight most for “freedom of the press” are often times the same ones who dwell on which is right and wrong regardless whether it is news (facts) or opinion.



“Grant me thirty years of equal division of inheritances and a free press, and I will provide you with a republic.”

Alexis de Tocqueville - 29 July 1805, Paris – 16 April 1859, Cannes

Capitalism vs. Socialism

"I never ... believed there was one code of morality for a public and another for a private man."

Thomas Jefferson, In a letter to Don Valentine de Feronda, 1809

Many people today feel the following statement may be true.


"I don't see that we're headed for socialism, though a lot of people are asserting that. It's just hyperbole, an attempt at rabble-rousing.”


When it comes to protecting our American republic this is the crutch of the whole debate, is it not? If you visit Wikipedia.com you can get paragraphs of definitions and variation there of, related to the subject. We could find one that fits our general philosophy quite well, depending on our understanding. But I believe the following one, found elsewhere best states my understanding of socialism.


1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

The Free Dictionary.com

I like this one because it not only defines it well, but the second definition points to the reason any acceptance of socialism is repugnant to a free market system, which America is suppose to be. So now ask yourself, “Is our government distributing and/or controlling goods or direct plans that controls our economy?” How about social security and more recent, company bail outs and now the new government healthcare system? If these are not forms of socialism then what are they? It is taxes used to redistribute the wealth.


I can not argue with the faults stated by some that the Bush administration has helped this drift we are talking about. As a matter of fact, I can think of only one recent president who might have understood this and tried to remedy it and that was the Regan administration. The subject of American socialism might seem like a hyperbole because many who adhere to capitalism have drifted so far from our founders principals and philosophies, which should control the free market that it does seem at times one is no better than the other. But the answer is not going to be to replace it with a new or different system un-related to capitalism, like socialism all progressives are trying to institute; nor any big government either party sees as the answer.


Progression away from our founders’ principles (my definition of a progressive) under any party affiliation is wrong. No big government plan is good for the republic. The difference between the Bush and Obama administration is that Bush may have been uninformed or misunderstood the principles our republic should work under, but Obama seems very direct and purposeful in his decisions directly headed for socialism. He truly believes it is the answer, but he would be wrong.


What is the answer? Why is capitalism sometimes the overbearing, power grabbing entity it should not be? As a nation we have drifted away from the principles that would help it be the positive influence our founders intended. As I mentioned in my previous post yesterday, we need to come back to the American religion. It needs to be taught once again as it use to in schools and college and lived every day by the people. We, as the people, need to be the virtuous, honest, respectful citizens as a whole the nation was founded upon. Our republic intended such and the founders expected it to be taught and practiced this way. If we are that people, then our economy (and all aspects of community) would reflect it and we would not need the government or anyone to direct us or our resources because it would be taken care of without it. Our founding fathers profoundly understood this and expounded diligently for us to hold these truths. We need to stay away from socialism and practice the principles our republic was found upon.


"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Patrick Henry

The American Religion

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams October 11, 1798

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

James Madison, 1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia

I had a loving friend (I mean that literally, not facetiously) who replied to a post I made on a social network and thought I would share it and my response. The post involved me encouraging my Christian friends to take a look at the Manhattan Declaration and if they agreed with it consider signing it. Here were the three comments made to that post.

1) “It's not a Christian country. It's a country with christians in it.”

2) "Two quotes from James Madison:"
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”

3) "The Christians are fine, Rick, they're protected. It's the rest of us I'm concerned with. Please note:"

Artilcle VI of the Constitution states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States...

Here was my response.

“You make some good points. But first make this distinction, I wrote this post on the Manhattan Declaration TO Christians of America and never insinuated this is a Christian nation. Our founders did not use that religious characteristic. But they all agreed to the “American Religion” essential for all philosophies including the basic tenets of our nations founding. This means they drew their perspectives from all religious ideas of the time, philosophers (heavily on Cicero) and similar historical readings. This gave them principals (28 according to W. Cleon Skousen, “The 5000 Year Leap”) which all the founders agreed upon to include even the deists and agnostics present.
     Now, Christian principals fit nicely into this frame but it was meant to be the essential components of our republic government: not validate or promote any religious ideals upon the governed. Hence, the reason for the separation of Church and state. They did not want any particular sect or denomination to pollute the tenets they agreed upon for a good government. All the founders agreed with this and the quotes from Madison simply support it. They wanted separation OF religion not FROM religion. And finally, the Christians are not fine or anyone else who calls themselves Americans, because our current course is undermining the fore mentioned principals our republic is founded upon. Unless you are for socialism or something even more constricting, then everyone should try to express ways to keep us from going down that road. For a Christian, that might mean the Manhattan Declaration but maybe not. There are many other petitions to achieve the same goal.”



There are hundreds of quotes by our founders that support this concept. I happen to be a Christian and the American way of government fits nicely with my philosophies. But every patriotic American, people who believe in our republic, need or should understand the principals our nation is founded upon and at the very least adhere to the “American Religion” or if it makes you feel better, the “American Philosophy”.

 

Conservatism is Black and White

"I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man."

George Washington

I am always saddened when in the news I see prejudice. But when it is in the form of a racial thrashing to ignore or hide a philosophical ideal, it just proves the ignorance or blatant dishonesty of some people. I am referring to those who unjustly slander someone because they align themselves with the Tea Party movement and happen to be black. They've been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values just because they are conservative.


"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.


If you don’t like the political ideals someone holds then talk about those issues. But no, like most bullies, a racist against his brothers and sisters finds it easier and effective to simply try to demean them, bring them down on other aspects because bullies are not smart enough or have authentic ammunition to counter on the level the issue is really about.


Timothy Johnson continued with this and it tells where the real concern is. "Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks."


It shouldn’t matter if someone is white, black, yellow, red or rainbow, because it is not about color but a philosophical world view and guess what – we will not always agree but that can be OK when experienced in a good republic (one as our founders developed). So, heed George Washington’s words be honest people. If you can not be that virtuous then we shall need to be the kind of patriots our founding fathers exemplified.


"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

Samuel Adams