Why We Are, Where We Are

by Cato Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:28 am

I was looking at articles this morning and ran across this opinion peice.

The cancer at the heart of America’s political economy is cultural. This great nation was built by an ethic – a spirituality that taught citizens to work, earn, save, invest, and use their wealth to serve their neighbors. This biblical ethic has been replaced by secularism’s entitlement culture that teaches people that they have a right to this, that and the other without corresponding obligations to work, save, and serve. This new culture forces the state to take from productive citizens or borrow from other nations and spend it on man-made rights. This corruption of character is destroying the world’s greatest economy, but can democracy allow leaders to go against the voters’ voice?

Read the Entire Article Here

Now before you all go nuts and accuse me of wanting a theoracy, which I don't by the way, hear me out. People have to want this, you can't use the force of law to make people change. They have to see that secularism's entitlement culture is a failure and they have to want change. Just as Vishal Mangalwadi says we are a nation that was built by an ethic. That is ethic is work, save, and serve. That isn't done with law or by the point of gun. It is an ethic that is taught and learned, an ethic that is passed from one generation to the next. One has to desire this ethic and one has to live by this ethic. Simply is isn't law that needs changed, it is men's hearts that require change. The thing is that men have to want change and have the courage to change.

by Aaron Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:13 pm

Interesting Cato. You say you don't want a Theoracy but you cite an article that calls for exactly that.

by Cato Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:15 pm

Aaron wrote:Interesting Cato. You say you don't want a Theoracy but you cite an article that calls for exactly that.

Where does the man call for a theocracy, Aaron?

It doesn't take a theocracy to live by a standard of ethics, like working for a living, saving, helping your neighbors. It is that standard of behavior that Mr. Mangalwadi is calling for. He is simply stating that is standard of ethics is founded in the Judeo-Christain Bible. You know as well as I the founders didn't establish a theocracy, they established a constitutional republic. However, that republic was based on allowing the individual to choose his own destiny, reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of their decisions.

They established a government that was suppose to show no respect for any individaul or group. Instead, all were equal with the law applying equally to each person. While, the constitutional republic the founders established wasn't perfect and never would be perfect, it was far superior to anything that has existed before or since. The founders defination of "all men" definatedly needed twicking, which eventually happened.

It is interesting that you complain about the fiscal mess the nation is in, which it is, but you are unwilling to address the root cause, which is laziness, greed, and corruption of a large part of the citizens and the corruption and power mongering of our leaders.

by **ohio county** Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:27 pm

I don't mean to butt in but I think the author has in mind social mores that may have been the result of a more commonly held faith. For instance, when unwed child-bearing was considered taboo there was less of it. There may not be anything inherently immoral about unwed child-bearing but it is an indicator of poverty and fatherless children often lack discipline.

Similarly, back in the day when citizens fell upon hard times and had to go on relief they often hid that fact from their neighbors as it caused them some shame. I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with being on relief I'm just saying that when the recipients of relief consider it a societal taboo it tends to be less permanent and a condition from which they want to escape by getting back on their feet.

And, while both these conditions may not be cause for shame, society benefits greatly when they are. This is the power of unwritten social mores. A theocracy isn't necessary - just a strong societal conscience... Diversity of faiths may preclude these commonly held mores in today's society. But many faiths share them. Did the Jews ban the eating of pork for some purpose beyond the fact that pork spoils quickly in arid climates? They may have touted cloven hooves or unclean living conditions but, let's face it: pork is dangerous nearer the equator.

by Aaron Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:04 pm

Cato wrote:
Aaron wrote:Interesting Cato. You say you don't want a Theoracy but you cite an article that calls for exactly that.

Where does the man call for a theocracy, Aaron?

Those who prayed, “Your kingdom come, your will be done in Scotland (or England, or Holland)” found the grace to free themselves from the tyranny of men. Not just Islamic, but every culture that rejects the kingdom of God condemns itself to be ruled exclusively by sinful men.

by Aaron Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:29 am

ohio county wrote:I don't mean to butt in but I think the author has in mind social mores that may have been the result of a more commonly held faith. For instance, when unwed child-bearing was considered taboo there was less of it. There may not be anything inherently immoral about unwed child-bearing but it is an indicator of poverty and fatherless children often lack discipline.

Was there less of it or were the children simply shuffled off into orphanages to be raised until they were old enough to be placed as indentured servants or did girls disappear and return a year later and suddenly an aunt or a cousin had a new child? I would submit that the greatest percentage increase is not in the number of unwed mothers, but in the number of those women who keep their children and actually raise them and while one parent homes aren't the desired result, is it worse then places children in orphanages, out of sight, out of mind?

ohio county wrote:Similarly, back in the day when citizens fell upon hard times and had to go on relief they often hid that fact from their neighbors as it caused them some shame. I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with being on relief I'm just saying that when the recipients of relief consider it a societal taboo it tends to be less permanent and a condition from which they want to escape by getting back on their feet.

I agree, being on welfare has become less taboo but I wonder, are the increased numbers of those on welfare a result of less shame or is it simply due to availability. During the Great Depression, one could go on relief but they had to go stand in long lines and all that was available was a small amount of money. Today, there is money, health insurance, food stamps, day care, housing and it has become a way of life.

And once you are on that way of life, it becomes extremely hard to get away from it. For instance, a single parent can qualify for all the above but if they get a job, not only do they lose the job, they lose the food stamps, have to pay increased rent, lose the health insurance and often don't get day care paid for. The solution is not returning to biblical teachings as the article suggest, the solution is to simply enforce welfare reform and force the people to work if they receive benefits.

After all, it's hard to blame the work ethic of today when Jamestown nearly failed because the people saw no reason to work in a communal society in which all was shared. It wasn't until private property rights were instituted that Jamestown flourished.

Perhaps the solution is not to cage welfare recipients in 3rd world style housing but to give them ownership in homes and to work with them in bettering themselves instead of revoking benefits upon gainful employment.

ohio county wrote:And, while both these conditions may not be cause for shame, society benefits greatly when they are. This is the power of unwritten social mores. A theocracy isn't necessary - just a strong societal conscience... Diversity of faiths may preclude these commonly held mores in today's society. But many faiths share them. Did the Jews ban the eating of pork for some purpose beyond the fact that pork spoils quickly in arid climates? They may have touted cloven hooves or unclean living conditions but, let's face it: pork is dangerous nearer the equator.

I don't often disagree with you Jimmy but on this one, I must. I don't believe there was significantly less unwed childbirths (as a percentage of the population) society a hundred or hundred fifty years ago as the number of orphanages attest. I also don't believe the reason less people were on relief was a result of shame, I think it was due to the availability of that relief.

And on both cases, I don't think returning to days gone by or adhering strictly to biblical teachings is the solution. I think the solution is simply welfare reform. Force the people to work for what they receive and make it more profitable for them to move away from the welfare rolls and most will. The change must be made by government in how we deal with these segments of society.

by Cato Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:47 am

Aaron wrote:
Cato wrote:
Aaron wrote:Interesting Cato. You say you don't want a Theoracy but you cite an article that calls for exactly that.

Where does the man call for a theocracy, Aaron?

Those who prayed, “Your kingdom come, your will be done in Scotland (or England, or Holland)” found the grace to free themselves from the tyranny of men. Not just Islamic, but every culture that rejects the kingdom of God condemns itself to be ruled exclusively by sinful men.

Is or is not this true?

by Aaron Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:48 am

by Aaron Fri Apr 15, 2011 10:15 am

What I'm saying OC is that women have been having babies out of wedlock for years, men have been walking out on their families and the poor have always been with us. What has changed is how we deal with them. Instead of shunning unwed mothers forcing them to either live in shame or move away from home, take a new husband and live a lie or ship children off to orphanages or entire families live together, we have replaced that with government assistance. Assistance became a crutch, and with more intervention, became the lifeblood of those on relief.

What needs to change is not a return to the bible as this man claims but a change in how we deal with welfare more then anything else. Force people to work and they will as they did in Jamestown 400 years ago. Remove the incentive of men abandoning their children and it will slow down, particularly in the African American community.

After all, that history is not one of laziness and sloth as many want to portray but one of centuries of hard work and sustainment despite the worst of conditions. That community didn't see wholesale degradation until, good Christian people thought it best to provide them assistance but instead of using their church dollars, they felt it best to use tax dollars.

by Cato Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:52 pm

Aaron wrote:What I'm saying OC is that women have been having babies out of wedlock for years, men have been walking out on their families and the poor have always been with us. What has changed is how we deal with them. Instead of shunning unwed mothers forcing them to either live in shame or move away from home, take a new husband and live a lie or ship children off to orphanages or entire families live together, we have replaced that with government assistance. Assistance became a crutch, and with more intervention, became the lifeblood of those on relief.

What needs to change is not a return to the bible as this man claims but a change in how we deal with welfare more then anything else. Force people to work and they will as they did in Jamestown 400 years ago. Remove the incentive of men abandoning their children and it will slow down, particularly in the African American community.

I recently was in Sheetz getting a cup of coffee. I heard two girls talking, both still in high school. One was telling the other she was pregnant. She was actually celebrating the fact she was going to have a baby. While you are right the way we deal with public assistance has to change, morals need to change a bit also. How we deal with assitace can be easily changed, since all that is regard is either enforcing or cahnging the law. On the other hand the modern day attitude and behavior that has lead to so many unwed pregnancies is hard to change. It can't be changed by enacting law. It regard a desire for people to see that something is indeed wrong and needs changed and then changing their behavior.

Aaron wrote:After all, that history is not one of laziness and sloth as many want to portray but one of centuries of hard work and sustainment despite the worst of conditions. That community didn't see wholesale degradation until, good Christian people thought it best to provide them assistance but instead of using their church dollars, they felt it best to use tax dollars.

So then Christainity is the evil behind the mess this nation finds itself in?

I don't know what your bible tells you, but mine tells me that I am responsibile for caring for my neighbor, not the government. One last point by the way, there is a world of difference between calling yourself a christain and actually being one.

by Cato Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:53 pm

Aaron wrote:No

So Obama and the gaggle of baffoons in Charleston and Washington are not evil?

by Aaron Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:47 pm

by Aaron Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:45 am

Cato wrote:I recently was in Sheetz getting a cup of coffee. I heard two girls talking, both still in high school. One was telling the other she was pregnant.

Grandma was 13 when mom was born. Seems teen pregnancies was the norm when 18 to 20 and no husband or kid was considered an old maid, huh!!!

Cato wrote:So then Christainity is the evil behind the mess this nation finds itself in?

I don't consider Christianity evil. What I consider wrong is the men who claim to go good in the name of Christ.

Cato wrote:I don't know what your bible tells you, but mine tells me that I am responsibile for caring for my neighbor, not the government.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I've never proported that the government should take care of my neighbor. If you read what I wrote, you will see that not only do I believe we need serious welfare reform, I blame that mentality for the majority of our problems.

I think where we differ is that I don't believe we should be governed by the bible as this article claims and you appear (at least to me) to support. The Bible I've read agrees with me on that viewpoint.

15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

I like that way of thinking as did our founding fathers.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Cato wrote:One last point by the way, there is a world of difference between calling yourself a christain and actually being one.

I agree which is why I've never called myself a christian. Whenever I hear someone make statements like that, Maththew Chapter 7 comes to mind. As such, it's a good thing that when my time comes, I'll answer to Christ and not Cato, huh!!!

by SamCogar Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:44 am

Aaron wrote:Was there less of it or were the children simply shuffled off into orphanages to be raised until they were old enough to be placed as indentured servants or did girls disappear and return a year later and suddenly an aunt or a cousin had a new child? I would submit that the greatest percentage increase is not in the number of unwed mothers, but in the number of those women who keep their children and actually raise them and while one parent homes aren't the desired result, is it worse then places children in orphanages, out of sight, out of mind?.

Me thinks you would have a different perspective on the above ...... iffen you had lived thru those times of pre 1960, ........ rather than just believing anything n' everything you read or are told that "sounds good to you".

I agree, being on welfare has become less taboo but I wonder, are the increased numbers of those on welfare a result of less shame or is it simply due to availability.

You can thank LBJ and his Great Society Program (now known as the ARC) for making the "freeloader life" available to millions throughout Appalachia.

Perhaps the solution is not to cage welfare recipients in 3rd world style housing but to

You put the cart before the horse. The welfare recipients moved in first ..... and turned it into 3rd world style housing after moving in.

I don't often disagree with you Jimmy but on this one, I must. I don't believe there was significantly less unwed childbirths (as a percentage of the population) society a hundred or hundred fifty years ago as the number of orphanages attest.

Well now, we all know that if you don't believe it ..... then by damn it ain't true.

And iffen you believe that orphanages were created for the purpose of housing children of unwed mothers because they didn't want to care for them ...... then that is an absolute truth also.

lots of BS

by SamCogar Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:54 am

That community didn't see wholesale degradation until, good Christian people thought it best to provide them assistance but instead of using their church dollars, they felt it best to use tax dollars.

again just Why We Are, Where We Are 395770

lots of BS

.

by Aaron Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:21 am

SamCogar wrote:
Aaron wrote:Was there less of it or were the children simply shuffled off into orphanages to be raised until they were old enough to be placed as indentured servants or did girls disappear and return a year later and suddenly an aunt or a cousin had a new child? I would submit that the greatest percentage increase is not in the number of unwed mothers, but in the number of those women who keep their children and actually raise them and while one parent homes aren't the desired result, is it worse then places children in orphanages, out of sight, out of mind?.

Me thinks you would have a different perspective on the above ...... iffen you had lived thru those times of pre 1960, ........ rather than just believing anything n' everything you read or are told that "sounds good to you".

Where did I say it sounded good to me. Me thinks you shouldn't try to put words in my mouth because you can't come up with a valid argument or comments worth posting and you're bored with nothing else to do.

SamCogar wrote:
I agree, being on welfare has become less taboo but I wonder, are the increased numbers of those on welfare a result of less shame or is it simply due to availability.

You can thank LBJ and his Great Society Program (now known as the ARC) for making the "freeloader life" available to millions throughout Appalachia.

I know who to thank, thank you very much and I'm aware of history, so much so that I know entitlements go back to the 30's and FDR.

SamCogar wrote:
Perhaps the solution is not to cage welfare recipients in 3rd world style housing but to

You put the cart before the horse. The welfare recipients moved in first ..... and turned it into 3rd world style housing after moving in.

It's easy to make a point when you only quote half a sentence. You can put people in mansions but if they don't own it, they ain't taking care of it whereas you put someone in a squallor and give them ownership and they'll take pride in what they own. It's the very foundation of this country.

SamCogar wrote:
I don't often disagree with you Jimmy but on this one, I must. I don't believe there was significantly less unwed childbirths (as a percentage of the population) society a hundred or hundred fifty years ago as the number of orphanages attest.

Well now, we all know that if you don't believe it ..... then by damn it ain't true.

Nothing to add I see. I'm not suprised.

SamCogar wrote:And iffen you believe that orphanages were created for the purpose of housing children of unwed mothers because they didn't want to care for them ...... then that is an absolute truth also.

Orphanages were created because there were children with no one to take care of them. For someone who is supposedly bright, you're not very.

SamCogar wrote:lots of BS

I see, per the norm Sam, you have nothing beneficial to add to the conversation. Once again, I'm not suprised.

by SamCogar Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:28 am

Aaron wrote: Where did I say it sounded good to me.

Given the fact that you presented the following as if it was ....... your own thoughts, .... thinking, ........ it doesn't surprise me that you would now claim or imply that the following didn't really sound good to you even before and/or after you posted it, to wit:

Aaron wrote:Was there less of it or were the children simply shuffled off into orphanages to be raised until they were old enough to be placed as indentured servants or did girls disappear and return a year later and suddenly an aunt or a cousin had a new child? I would submit that the greatest percentage increase is not in the number of unwed mothers, but in the number of those women who keep their children and actually raise them and while one parent homes aren't the desired result, is it worse then places children in orphanages, out of sight, out of mind?.

Do you have a habit of posting things with the implication that they are FACTUAL ...... even though "they don't even sound good to you" or that you believe are NOT actually true? geek

by Aaron Sat Apr 16, 2011 9:39 am

SamCogar wrote:
Aaron wrote: Where did I say it sounded good to me.

Given the fact that you presented the following as if it was ....... your own thoughts, .... thinking, ........ it doesn't surprise me that you would now claim or imply that the following didn't really sound good to you even before and/or after you posted it, to wit:

Aaron wrote:Was there less of it or were the children simply shuffled off into orphanages to be raised until they were old enough to be placed as indentured servants or did girls disappear and return a year later and suddenly an aunt or a cousin had a new child? I would submit that the greatest percentage increase is not in the number of unwed mothers, but in the number of those women who keep their children and actually raise them and while one parent homes aren't the desired result, is it worse then places children in orphanages, out of sight, out of mind?.

Do you have a habit of posting things with the implication that they are FACTUAL ...... even though "they don't even sound good to you" or that you believe are NOT actually true?

Sam, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Are you saying orphanages are not factual or that to by citing what happened in the late 18th and 19th century, one has to think it was "good?" You're making NO sense dude. Turn away from the light, run and take your meds. Once you do, perhaps then you can clarify the point you are trying to make.

I can wait on the answer but for your own health, hurry as when one gets as delusional as you are, the point of no return is close.

Time is of the essance. Don't wait.

by Cato Sat Apr 16, 2011 11:39 am

Aaron wrote: I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I've never proported that the government should take care of my neighbor. If you read what I wrote, you will see that not only do I believe we need serious welfare reform, I blame that mentality for the majority of our problems.

What I am saying, maybe not the clearly, it is the entitlement mentality that has to change. Believe me Aaron, I agree with what you are saying there.

Aaron wrote:I think where we differ is that I don't believe we should be governed by the bible as this article claims and you appear (at least to me) to support. The Bible I've read agrees with me on that viewpoint.

I don't think we should be governed by the bible either and I have never avocated that. I do think however, we would be better served by observing many of the principles avocated by the bible. Things like working, caring for one's family, using one's own assets to help their neighbors, minding one's own affairs and business, being satisfied with what one has, not coveting another's property or position, and generally living a peaceful life. No government or law can force a person to do these things. I has to be a decision made by each individual. To borrow from Ron Paul, he one time said in speaking about abortion, it isn't the law that needs changed, it is men's hearts and the law can't do that.

Aaron wrote:I agree which is why I've never called myself a christian. Whenever I hear someone make statements like that, Maththew Chapter 7 comes to mind. As such, it's a good thing that when my time comes, I'll answer to Christ and not Cato, huh!!!

I do call myself a christain and I wear the name proudly. The word Christain means simply belonging to Christ. I try, though many times not all the successfully, to incorporate the teachings in the New Testament into my daily life. I will tell others why I am what I am and as we are doing here I do try to explain how we would be better off if we all tryed to live by the principles I pointed out above. The catch is, I can't, nor would I force anyone to do as I advocate. That would be stupid not to mention again every princple of liberty. One has to desire to follow Christ, they can't be forced.

by Aaron Sat Apr 16, 2011 1:35 pm

I think there are a great deal of conservatives who feel the same way and like you, they link it to biblical or christian values. My questions is, why not say all you are saying without alienating two thirds of the population?

by Cato Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:45 pm

Aaron wrote:I think there are a great deal of conservatives who feel the same way and like you, they link it to biblical or christian values. My questions is, why not say all you are saying without alienating two thirds of the population?

I guess what I fail to understand is, how am I alienating anyone? I don't preach theacracy and I don't believe in such things. I don't demand the force of law be used to force my views on others. All I am simply saying is what the scriptures teach. I am saying you can accept what is written or you can ignore it. I am saying however, if you want change in a positive direction then one should search the scrptures and apply at least the social items they teach.

by Aaron Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:10 pm

Cato wrote:I don't preach theacracy...

...one should search the scrptures and apply at least the social items they teach.

So these scriptures, are they limited to the King James version of the Christian bible? What about the Catholic Bible, are those verses acceptable? Or how about the social items of the Koran, the Śruti and Smriti?

Would you be open to the teachings of Muhammad, the Dalai Lama or Buddha, all of which have similar teachings as those of Jesus in the New Testament Bible?

And speaking of the Bible, is it only the New Testament we should follow or should we also consider the Judea Bible which consist of the Old Testament as well?

by Cato Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:10 pm

Aaron wrote:
Cato wrote:I don't preach theacracy...

...one should search the scrptures and apply at least the social items they teach.

So these scriptures, are they limited to the King James version of the Christian bible? What about the Catholic Bible, are those verses acceptable? Or how about the social items of the Koran, the Śruti and Smriti?

Would you be open to the teachings of Muhammad, the Dalai Lama or Buddha, all of which have similar teachings as those of Jesus in the New Testament Bible?

And speaking of the Bible, is it only the New Testament we should follow or should we also consider the Judea Bible which consist of the Old Testament as well?

When I made the statement, I was speaking about the new testament as recorded in the King James, new king james, or American Standard. However, your post fails to explain why I alienate people as you seem to claim. While I am more than willing to sit and discuss the matter, I make no demand that people accept what I believe. Unlike some of the teachings you refer to I make no demand neither do I expact the force of law to compell other to believe as I do. What I want to know is why you think that people who believe as me alienate 3/4s of the population.

by SamCogar Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:25 am

Aaron wrote:Sam, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

Interesting, ..... veeeeerrrrrrrryyyyyyy INTERESTING.

When anyone in the world, ...... except you, ...... is the topic of discussion, .... you, Aaron, are always, at the very least, 139% sure what every individual or party mentioned in said discussion ........ is trying to get at ...... and expound on the brillliance of your intellect in knowing all about such things.

But when you are "the topic of discussion", ... Aaron, .... and you don't like the way the discussion is going, ........ you immediately feign your total ignorance about what was said ....... and reply with your CYA response of ..... "I'm not sure what you're trying to get at".

I wish I had a cold beer handed to me everytime you ever used that excuse. Razz

Bragging about your "brilliant intellect" if it involves another party, ....... but claiming your "total ignorance" iffen it involves you.

Whatta hoot you are, Aaron.

by Aaron Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:14 pm

Less then 1/3 of the people agree with your beliefs of the bible guiding us Cato. 2/3rd's are offended by it.

by Sponsored content

Why We Are, Where We Are

Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are

Re: Why We Are, Where We Are