Restoring Honor Rally – Striking at the Root

I agree with you on all of that. My only point with Palin is that she gets thrown under the bus more than she deserves, because relative to the people actually in office, her policies are much more palatable. But I would certainly would rather see her stay out of the race, as there are many other candidates that I think have more to offer. Thanks for the comment!

Nice quote and analogy to cleaning one’s room!

Those liberal ‘goons’ Lincoln and MLK sure were anti-American, huh?

Maybe… Some good old Washington would cheer things up.

“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
—George Washington writing to a Jewish synagogue worried about prosecution after the revolution (since Jewish people were seen as ‘ruining the new American nation’ back then)

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it”

–George Washington, in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (1783);

Crud. He’s a commie too. Let’s go further back. John Winthrop – one of the earliest founders and colonial governors. The one man who was most influential on the philosophy of the authors of the constitution. Can’t miss with him.

“Wee must entertaine each other in brotherly affection. Wee must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of other’s necessities. Wee must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekeness, gentlenes, patience and liberality. Wee must delight in eache other; make other’s conditions our oune; rejoice together, mourne together, labour and suffer together, allwayes haueving before our eyes our commission and community in the worke, as members of the same body. Soe shall wee keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace.”

—John Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity,” one of the most influential documents on early American thought, written by one of the first colonial founders (1630).

Huh. Almost seems like our founders had a drastically different vision than the one this march is trying to ‘revive,’ doesn’t it?

Thanks for your posts. In response:

1) (–Abraham Lincoln, July 1, 1854 Fragment on Government) There is nothing wrong with that quote. I believe that is the purpose of government. The argument rests on “what” things should be considered as government being uniquely capable of delivering. Maintaining the defense of the nation -> yeah the government should probably get involved. Educating our children -> I see no reason why they should be doing this.

2) (—The Revenue Act of 1861, passed by Abraham Lincoln instituting the income tax) There is nothing wrong with the income tax itself. What is wrong is the way its been twisted, complicated, and warped to try to influence behaviors and rewards voting constituencies.

3) (—Martin Luther King Jr.) There certainly can be a better distribution of wealth. Jesus commanded that we give to the poor. He did not say that government should force you to give to the poor, but instead talked about being meek in heart. I would like to see our leaders mandate less, and persuade more from the morality of their lives and the impact of true inspiring leadership.

4) (—George Washington writing to a Jewish synagogue worried about prosecution after the revolution (since Jewish people were seen as ‘ruining the new American nation’ back then) If I understand the quote correctly, Washington is calling for more dedicated citizens who give of themselves in service to their nation. I totally agree with this. This is best implemented in two ways: 1) through military service, and 2) by private citizens doing what they can to be less of a burden on the nation (i.e. not asking the nation to bail them out of crap).

5) (–George Washington, in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (1783);) Absolutely. Thinking outside the box, what if we had a forced 2-yr military service, like they have in Israel. Then we could get rid of a bunch of career military industrial complex people, we’d be less prone to run off and fight wars because everyone in the nation would have something to potentially lose, and we’d have more respect for our nation. Of course, there are a bunch of downsides and it’s probably not practical, but it’s an interesting thought.

6) (—John Winthrop’s “A Model of Christian Charity,” one of the most influential documents on early American thought, written by one of the first colonial founders (1630).) Exactly what Jesus taught. I’m glad to see our nation’s earliest thinkers being influenced so heavily by Christianity. I wish more of our contemporary leaders were likewise influenced. If more people were more Christlike, we’d need even less government than ever before.

So you see, my friend, we read the same quotes, but walk away with very different conclusions.

-John

Okay a couple things on your points.
1) Our founders disagreed with you. *ahem*
“Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.”

–John Adams in one of the earliest colonial constitutions

Now, you can say “This is just saying education is important” – well, since it was part of a colonial constitution, it is inherently part of the government.

2) The income tax is consistent, convenient, and difficult to dodge. If you can think of a better form of taxation, go for it.

3) This is idealistic and I think you can recognize it. I’m not trying to be offensive since you seem to be one of the few thinking Tea Partiers. I think you’re horribly wrong of course, but at least you’re not blindly toting signs. It’d be really nice if everyone followed Jesus and all that, but it doesn’t happen. The only way to make sure people do their duty is to force them to via taxes and redistribution of wealth. Not a COMPLETE redistribution. Take Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway. Incredibly high taxes, but also the happiest citizens in the world. Denmark, in particular, has a 50% income tax BUT has had the happiest people in the world (Forbes and Gallup surveys) for over 20 years. In fact, if you plot the countries in these surveys, there is a direct correlation between “increased taxes” and “higher citizens.” It seems counter-intuitive until you realize that Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc. all have free college (even for non-citizens), average salaries over 20,000 USD above the average salaries here, some of the best medical care in the world (and little to no waiting – even for walk-ins. This is mostly due to the sparser population) and jobs that are required to help you with rent and a bunch of other things.

4) You skipped most of it. The bits about freedom of religion. Oh – and the best way you can serve your nation is to serve it. Not to be indirect and go through the private sector. The best way is to work for the government, do your best, and pay your taxes without trying to get out of as much as you can. Obviously, the first one isn’t doable for everyone, but the other ones are. The private sector is much more indirect help and thus fails the Occam’s Razor test.

5) I actually agree with this, but we’d have to throw in gender non-discrimination and sexual orientation non-discrimination or you’d get people like myself all up in a tizzy. Otherwise, I support it fully.

6) I like Winthrop very much as he was one of very few Christians that actually acted Christ-like. Not a Christian myself, but real Christians tend to be good people. That being said, not all of our founders were Christian. Thomas Jefferson was famously Deist with agnostic leanings, for example. John Adams was Unitarian and did not believe in the divinity of Christ at all. The interesting thing with our country’s foundations is that most of the people who set the stage were Christian (Puritans, specifically. Though the Separatist Puritans were not as influential as the rest), but the people who drafted the constitution and created the government as we know it were mostly non-Christian (actually, most were Deist).

I’ll leave you with one more thought. Which of these quotes describes most of the people getting the large Bush tax cuts and stuff today? What I mean to say is, when defending Capitalism (or the “let’s not help the poor people” mentality the Tea Party dictates), which of the following two quotes more comes to mind?

“In this arid wilderness of steel and stone I raise up my voice that you may hear. To the East and to the West I beckon. To the North and to the South I show a sign proclaiming: Death to the weakling, wealth to the strong!”
—The Satanic Bible

OR

“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
—Matthew 19:24

“Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.”
–Hebrews 13:16

“Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”
–Luke 6:38

I have read both books and find merits in each, but honestly the style of government and Capitalism the Tea Party is aiming for is quite aligned with The Satanic Bible. There’s a reason most priests vote Democratic (unless they’re Catholic with the whole ‘abortion’ thing). Go ahead and ask your local priest what his/her opinion on Capitalism is – you’ll be surprised at the response.

(I, myself, am a Buddhist flickering between Mahayana, Rinzai Zen, and Soto Zen)

Well, I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I came across this website the other day, and I thought it was relevant to the discussion: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/fast.htm

I especially like this quote by Lincoln: “We have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

“It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.”

He then calls for a national day of fasting. I really like that he not only spoke about his faith in God, but that he encouraged people to act based on that faith.

Haakai,
Thank you for the quotes and thoughts. I am just wondering if you personally believe that the country is currently experiencing a “moral decline.” Along this same vein, I am curious as to your thoughts on the best source of ethical standard or code of conduct for the country at this point in history (i.e. to where should we turn for our guiding principles in laws that we make, foreign policy that we choose, etc.)
Many thanks

Thanks for the comment. For everyone else, this comment refers to the follow-up post: http://www.melonakos.com/2010/09/01/restoring_honor_recap/.

I don’t know much about the individual columnists in the various media outlets, but I do know that many tend to keep around token opposite views to appear more balanced than otherwise. Here in Atlanta, the AJC recently was searching to add a token conservative columnist.

Certainly, the spin Ross gave the event was more positive than I would have expected from those pages. Most opposing viewpoints were trying to spin it this way: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/29/what-theyre-saying-about-the-828-rally/

Actually, that’s not a bad question.

A moral decline? I don’t see that, really. I mean, there’s more sex I guess…? I mean, the words “moral decline” have been tossed around a lot lately. I honestly think that’s because it’s election season more than anything else. Let’s see how often they’re used after November – it’s like the Mosque thing. Everyone with a brain expects that ‘controversial’ topic to go away after the elections.

As to what “moral decline” means? I’m not sure I follow, entirely. I assume by “country” you mean us as a nation, rather than the state. In this situation it is common knowledge (take any intro Sociology course) that societies have a natural tendency to move left. This is because more and more people are continually aiming for acceptance into the national identity. Right now it is LGBT rights, before it was women’s rights, and before that was African American rights. In other countries (ala, Japan), there were pushes for the Burakumin to be legally equal, pushes for Korean repatriotization for the unpatriotized Korean descendants (long story), and a bunch of others. This same thing happens everywhere. It might be scary for you, but it is natural. It is only in an extreme government where that can be stopped or halted. This was actually the point of the Islamic Revolution that formed the Islamic Republic (watch Persepolis, you’ll learn a lot). The fact of the matter is, the “tea party” side of the fence isn’t nearly extreme enough to stop the progress from happening – it will only delay it slightly. In terms of actual moral values though, I see nothing inherently wrong with the direction our country is moving in. Well… Okay, there’s the fact that we still have millionaires and billionaires when, frankly, no one should be seriously pulling down more than 200k a year (after taxes, to be fair). The fact that that’s socially acceptable is deplorable to me. Take the 60′s. Back then there were marches because CEO’s were making 50 times the average salary of a lower worker. Now the average is literally 50000 times for larger companies and no one lifts a finger to help the people who need it most, instead focusing on politics or whichever pundit makes them feel good on the television.

If you are talking about the state? Honestly, Barack Obama is like a less effective Teddy Roosevelt. He panders to the far right more than Roosevelt and has gotten a lot less done, but their basic philosophies are the same. People whined then too, by the way. Saying America was “turning communist” and that this was “the end of our country.” Instead, what we got were national highways, libraries, minimum wages for workers, laws regarding overtime, regulations for food and drugs, and the ability to form responsible unions. Posterity has remembered Roosevelt well for his actions, though he was hated by a vocal minority back during his presidency. I predict Obama will be remembered for his Health Care Legislation in that it removed pre-existing condition requirements. I believe he’ll be remembered for his legislation requiring sexual orientation to be added to the national hate crimes list. People cried communism and were “deficit hawks” during Roosevelt, but does ANYONE remember that? Only people like me who pour through old newspaper articles in their free time. So, in short, I see nothing ‘morally corrupt’ with the state. You may disagree with it, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find anything ‘evil.’

Now, let me ask you: What do you find morally corrupt in our country? Here’s something to think about first. Morals aren’t defined by religion. That’s one of the first things you learn in an intro Philosophy course in even the most decrepit community college. Morals are defined by logical underpinnings that aim towards optimal happiness at low cost to universal happiness. Imagine it this way. Tom, Mindy, and Sandy all want a cookie. Now, if you were to hand Tom the entire cookie, he would be excessively happy at a level of, say, 5. Mindy and Sandy, however, would be sad at a value of, say, -3. So the overall happiness would be -1. Now, let’s say we give 1/3 of the cookie to each member. They are each less happy than if they got the full cookie, but none of them is openly unhappy. Therefore, we can assume each would be at a value of about 2-3 each. So the range of comparison would be -1 as compared to 6-9. Obviously, sharing is more morally acceptable than not sharing. It is advantageous in a society, logically, to promote as much happiness as you can at as little individual happiness cost, as that maximizes each person’s individual happiness values and therefore the odds of you receiving the best you can. Basically, you want to play with the best odds you can get. Therefore, a moral action is one that achieves this goal.

Now, you can live by additional religious rules if you like. That’s fine. But those are rules (or ‘core values’ of the religion) rather than morals. With this in mind, do you have any issues that are actually MORALLY ‘wrong’ or are your arguments strictly from a religious standpoint? If they are, then might I ask – how is your trying to change things to fit your particular group any different than forcing your rules, and thus your religion, down our throats? And is it so difficult to believe that the rules you live your life by might not be perfect for everyone? Are you vain enough to believe them to be a one-size-fits-all for the entire country?