[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Our Problem is Immorality (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 4/1/2009 3:07:04 AM EDT
|
Walter E. Williams- Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. You say, "That's a pretty heavy charge, Williams. You'd better be prepared to back it up with evidence!" I'll try with a few questions for you to answer. Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends. In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That's simple. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights. The reason why your college professor, politician or minister cannot give a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government. Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They'll be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes. As it stands now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability and as such, what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy. I am all too afraid that a historian, a hundred years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government but it all returned to mankind's normal state of affairs –– arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite. |
|
Quoted:
In before the atheists and heathens You were too late. Notice that there was not one single mention of the word "God", or "Jesus" or "religion"? Just because someone doesn't believe in a deity, doesn't mean that they don't have a set of morals. Also, there are plenty of religious people who would read that opinion piece and become upset because they are lacking in a moral foundation. |
| I believe all this started with the 60s "free love" generation. Everything was ok, there was no repercussions for anything. That translated into the decline of the concept of personal responsibility, and enabled people to do what they wanted, when they wanted, with no regard for its effect on others. |
|
Quoted:
I believe all this started with the 60s "free love" generation. Everything was ok, there was no repercussions for anything. That translated into the decline of the concept of personal responsibility, and enabled people to do what they wanted, when they wanted, with no regard for its effect on others. Did you read the opinion peace? Buellar? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe all this started with the 60s "free love" generation. Everything was ok, there was no repercussions for anything. That translated into the decline of the concept of personal responsibility, and enabled people to do what they wanted, when they wanted, with no regard for its effect on others. Did you read the opinion peace? Buellar? Look deeper. Not at people's actions, but what motivated them to act. Sorry, I do not communicate clearly many times. |
|
Quoted:
You can have morality and immorality (right and wrong) without religion. Yes....and in the opinion of at least one founder morality was a necessary condition for a truly free society. So remember that the next time you hear people talk about the moral decay of our society. Realize that it's not just about boobie channels and premarital sex. The liberal doctrine of abdicating personal responsibility and instant gratification in all aspects of life (what do you think those idiots meant by sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll?) creates many of society's problems that liberals use as a justification to trample our rights and take our property. We ought to keep in mind that: | | | | | | V |
|
Quoted:
................... Notice that there was not one single mention of the word "God", or "Jesus" or "religion"? ........... . I believe that is the primary reason we have this "immorality" problem. If you take "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality all you have is the morality you learn on TV or from the partying crew you grew up with. By taking "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality we no longer have a standard by which to judge and thus we have allowed what was once considered immoral to an OK occurance. That's not going to be popular with the antis but that's just the way it is. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe all this started with the 60s "free love" generation. Everything was ok, there was no repercussions for anything. That translated into the decline of the concept of personal responsibility, and enabled people to do what they wanted, when they wanted, with no regard for its effect on others. Did you read the opinion peace? Buellar? Look deeper. Not at people's actions, but what motivated them to act. Sorry, I do not communicate clearly many times. Is personal responsibility to blame? Sure, people have been told for decades that the reason they are poor isn't because they used bad judgment when dropping out of high school or knocked up the homecoming queen, but I am having a hard time tieing the "enabling people to do what they wanted, when they wanted, without no regard for its effects on others". Perhaps I am just sleep deprived. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
................... Notice that there was not one single mention of the word "God", or "Jesus" or "religion"? ........... . I believe that is the primary reason we have this "immorality" problem. If you take "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality all you have is the morality you learn on TV or from the partying crew you grew up with. By taking "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality we no longer have a standard by which to judge and thus we have allowed what was once considered immoral to an OK occurance. That's not going to be popular with the antis but that's just the way it is. So explain to me, how people like myself and Subnet arrived with a good set of morals, while numerous church goers seem to have no problems with the "soak the rich, give me free stuff" mentality? You do not need a deity and the threat of going to hell to be a moral man, and if you do, I feel awfully bad for you. I believe in the natural law of man, that all men have the right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness, and I arrived to that belief without the aid of the church or Bible. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
................... Notice that there was not one single mention of the word "God", or "Jesus" or "religion"? ........... . I believe that is the primary reason we have this "immorality" problem. If you take "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality all you have is the morality you learn on TV or from the partying crew you grew up with. By taking "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality we no longer have a standard by which to judge and thus we have allowed what was once considered immoral to an OK occurance. That's not going to be popular with the antis but that's just the way it is. Bullshit. You don't have to be religious to know that raping, killing, lying and stealing are wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe all this started with the 60s "free love" generation. Everything was ok, there was no repercussions for anything. That translated into the decline of the concept of personal responsibility, and enabled people to do what they wanted, when they wanted, with no regard for its effect on others. Did you read the opinion peace? Buellar? Look deeper. Not at people's actions, but what motivated them to act. Sorry, I do not communicate clearly many times. Is personal responsibility to blame? Sure, people have been told for decades that the reason they are poor isn't because they used bad judgment when dropping out of high school or knocked up the homecoming queen, but I am having a hard time tieing the "enabling people to do what they wanted, when they wanted, without no regard for its effects on others". Perhaps I am just sleep deprived. Well, think of Enron. They were "professionals" who embezzled the company to death, to the detriment of all the employees, destroyed all the pension funds, financially crippled thousands of people - for what? To line their pockets - to do what they wanted, when they wanted, without regard for its effects on others. Now that's exploded on a national scale with Wall Street, the auto companies, credit swaps, basically the entire economic downfall of our country. They're all looking at each other, asking what happened, because no one feels they are to blame. They are not being held accountable for their actions, and we are all going to suffer because of it. The concept of personal responsibility has apparently been discarded. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
................... Notice that there was not one single mention of the word "God", or "Jesus" or "religion"? ........... . I believe that is the primary reason we have this "immorality" problem. If you take "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality all you have is the morality you learn on TV or from the partying crew you grew up with. By taking "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality we no longer have a standard by which to judge and thus we have allowed what was once considered immoral to an OK occurance. That's not going to be popular with the antis but that's just the way it is. Bullshit. You don't have to be religious to know that raping, killing, lying and stealing are wrong . Told you it would be unpopular with the antis but that's the way it is. You only think that raping, killing, lying and stealing are wrong because you learned that when you grew up, that wasn't hardwired into your brain. The moral standard that says raping, killing, lying and stealing are wrong didn't originate in thin air either, nor did network television come up with it. I wonder how many arfcommers know where it came from? |
|
Quoted:
You do not need a deity and the threat of going to hell to be a moral man, and if you do, I feel awfully bad for you. I believe in the natural law of man, that all men have the right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness, and I arrived to that belief without the aid of the church or Bible. ...not entirely. While faith was not universal among the founding generation, faith was nevertheless an important thread in the fabric that made up our social structure. Liberals have been attacking that fabric since the late 19th century, believing that their "progressive" notions were the path to nirvana. All of the founders weren't true believers, but ALL of them did have a high regard for the purpose that faith served in society. The "progressives" have been steadily hammering away at the important institutions of our society (faith chief among them, along with the education system and the court system) in an attempt to destroy our society so they can rebuild it in their own image. Those who hold that the founders had the right idea and who credit them as influential are themselves influenced by Paul's Epistles as surely as they are by Locke or Plato, as all of those had great influence on the founders themselves. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
................... Notice that there was not one single mention of the word "God", or "Jesus" or "religion"? ........... . I believe that is the primary reason we have this "immorality" problem. If you take "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality all you have is the morality you learn on TV or from the partying crew you grew up with. By taking "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality we no longer have a standard by which to judge and thus we have allowed what was once considered immoral to an OK occurance. That's not going to be popular with the antis but that's just the way it is. Bullshit. You don't have to be religious to know that raping, killing, lying and stealing are wrong . Told you it would be unpopular with the antis but that's the way it is. You only think that raping, killing, lying and stealing are wrong because you learned that when you grew up, that wasn't hardwired into your brain. The moral standard that says that raping, killing, lying and stealing are wrong didn't originate in thin air either, nor did network television come up with it. I wonder how many arfcommers know where it came from? I see. So learning moral standards from your parents/community is TOTALLY different from learning it from a religious community or reading it in a book The Bible did not invent morality  Hammurabi's Code proscribed those actions 2000 years before Christ was born
ETA: And the fact that I'm not a Christian does not make me "anti" anything
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ................... Notice that there was not one single mention of the word "God", or "Jesus" or "religion"? ........... I believe that is the primary reason we have this "immorality" problem. If you take "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality all you have is the morality you learn on TV or from the partying crew you grew up with. By taking "God", or "Jesus" and "religion" out of morality we no longer have a standard by which to judge and thus we have allowed what was once considered immoral to an OK occurance. That's not going to be popular with the antis but that's just the way it is. So explain to me, how people like myself and Subnet arrived with a good set of morals, while numerous church goers seem to have no problems with the "soak the rich, give me free stuff" mentality? You do not need a deity and the threat of going to hell to be a moral man, and if you do, I feel awfully bad for you. I believe in the natural law of man, that all men have the right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness, and I arrived to that belief without the aid of the church or Bible. +1 Morality without religion takes more work is all. |
|
Quoted:
I wonder how many arfcommers know where it came from? ...according to Locke it was part of the social contract that men agreed to as a part of an effort to form a society...which was in and of itself an attempt to protect their rights and property. Moses, of course, had a different view of its origin. Personally I don't care if someone believes either Locke or Moses....all I care is that they BELIEVE it and that they LIVE it. That's what's become a fundamental problem in the "conservative" movement today. If you believe Moses' theory then you are some sort of mentally deficient dullard who believes fairy tales and has an IQ in the 30's, and intelligent people should be embarrassed by your existence and should distance themselves from you immediately lest they catch your stupid. They should lament YOU as the problem with the modern right and should waste no opportunity to tell others that we should ditch your superstitious nonsense and adopt a more "modern" [read: Progressive] understanding. For examples of this, look how some self described "conservatives" treated Sarah Palin while simultaneously lauding Obama. "She doesn't believe in evolution!!! Consternation! Uproar! WHARRBLGARBL!!!!" Meanwhile they swooned over the most liberal presidential candidate since FDR who in a few short months has done more damage to the American way of life than FDR could have done in his wildest dreams. I'm FAR more interested in how someone will GOVERN than who they pray to or what their stand on evolution is. "Progressives" have been so successful in playing divide and conquer, however, that many self proclaimed "conservatives" can't get past ancillary issues that don't matter. Sarah Palin couldn't be VP because she was dumb and believed a bunch of hokie religious stuff. Fred Thompson wasn't religious enough, according to Jimmy Dobson. I want to line the whole lot of them up and do a Three-Stooges style down the line face smack and ask the people making such retarded comments what the hell they are smoking. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You do not need a deity and the threat of going to hell to be a moral man, and if you do, I feel awfully bad for you. I believe in the natural law of man, that all men have the right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness, and I arrived to that belief without the aid of the church or Bible. ...not entirely. While faith was not universal among the founding generation, faith was nevertheless an important thread in the fabric that made up our social structure. Liberals have been attacking that fabric since the late 19th century, believing that their "progressive" notions were the path to nirvana. All of the founders weren't true believers, but ALL of them did have a high regard for the purpose that faith served in society. The "progressives" have been steadily hammering away at the important institutions of our society (faith chief among them, along with the education system and the court system) in an attempt to destroy our society so they can rebuild it in their own image. Those who hold that the founders had the right idea and who credit them as influential are themselves influenced by Paul's Epistles as surely as they are by Locke or Plato, as all of those had great influence on the founders themselves. You make a valid point, but that still doesn't mean that one much be a church go'er to understand morality, and in my case, objective morality. |
|
Quoted:
You make a valid point, but that still doesn't mean that one much be a church go'er to understand morality, and in my case, objective morality. Of course they don't. The existence of faith in our society, however, has helped nurture the idea of an objective morality based on personal responsibility. That's why the "progressive" nitwits hate it so very much. Look at what annoys liberals the most and then ask yourself why they hate it. They don't have a problem with the concept of faith, as they believe in Global Warming and think Obama is a savior. Their problem with faith as it has been traditionally practiced in America is that the ideas it promotes are absolutely antithetical to what they want. To them, the state is god and they hate any competition. Whether we pray to Jehovah or not, we should all be able to agree that "He that does not work shall not eat!" The Bible teaches that people should eat their OWN bread in quietness and contentment. Traditional public virtue in America says that you have an obligation to care for you and yours. Whether we believe in God or not all of us SHOULD be able to say "Amen!" to that sermon....and the same is true of a number of other fundamental principles. Personally I couldn't care less if someone loathes the welfare state because they see it as a violation of the notion of personal responsibility held to be critical to success by our founders or if they believe that it's a violation of Paul's command to the Corinthian church....what matters is that we AGREE on it. We (meaning ALL OF US) have to stop being so damned worried about the exact path we took and instead spend our time worrying about reaching the ultimate destination that we all share. |
|
And alot of those that fight, or have fought, against what the Founders Established would consider themselves to be 'people of faith'.
Just as not having 'faith' may not make you immoral, having 'Faith' does not make you moral. Faith has little to nothing to do with morality. The early progressives would be as likely to quote Jesus as they would Karl Marx. A lot of them thought they were doing 'God's Work'. The Temperance Movement was lead by 'people of faith' by and large. Few things, other than slavery, have been more immoral. |
|
True. Moral responsibility is the basis for any free society to sustain/perpetuate itself, regardless of religion. It can be typified as "Leadership By Example" vs "Do As I Say, Not As I Do.". A certain amount of self-sacrifice is usually required, but some choose not to see it as sacrifice. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You make a valid point, but that still doesn't mean that one much be a church go'er to understand morality, and in my case, objective morality. Of course they don't. The existence of faith in our society, however, has helped nurture the idea of an objective morality based on personal responsibility. That's why the "progressive" nitwits hate it so very much. Look at what annoys liberals the most and then ask yourself why they hate it. They don't have a problem with the concept of faith, as they believe in Global Warming and think Obama is a savior. Their problem with faith as it has been traditionally practiced in America is that the ideas it promotes are absolutely antithetical to what they want. To them, the state is god and they hate any competition. Whether we pray to Jehovah or not, we should all be able to agree that "He that does not work shall not eat!" The Bible teaches that people should eat their OWN bread in quietness and contentment. Traditional public virtue in America says that you have an obligation to care for you and yours. Whether we believe in God or not all of us SHOULD be able to say "Amen!" to that sermon....and the same is true of a number of other fundamental principles. Personally I couldn't care less if someone loathes the welfare state because they see it as a violation of the notion of personal responsibility held to be critical to success by our founders or if they believe that it's a violation of Paul's command to the Corinthian church....what matters is that we AGREE on it. We (meaning ALL OF US) have to stop being so damned worried about the exact path we took and instead spend our time worrying about reaching the ultimate destination that we all share. I agree with 100% that you posted. I really wish some would shelve personal egos with this regard. Too many people will completely discount anything one would have to say if they find out that they are an atheist. Others, will hold people in complete contempt for their unwavering faith in Christianity. However, this is a useful exercise as it explains how some of us arrived to our current belief system, and I think that is important. Really what matters is a belief in a higher power, whether that be a deity, or a belief that there is a natural order of things. |
|
Quoted:
True. Moral responsibility is the basis for any free society to sustain/perpetuate itself, regardless of religion. It can be typified as "Leadership By Example" vs "Do As I Say, Not As I Do.". A certain amount of self-sacrifice is usually required, but some choose not to see it as sacrifice. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I disagree. I have not sacrificed one single thing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
True. Moral responsibility is the basis for any free society to sustain/perpetuate itself, regardless of religion. It can be typified as "Leadership By Example" vs "Do As I Say, Not As I Do.". A certain amount of self-sacrifice is usually required, but some choose not to see it as sacrifice. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I disagree. I have not sacrificed one single thing. A-HA! Actually we are in agreement then, as I have not sacrificed anything either in order to be a moral man. A moral person does not see the "easy way out" or passing on a chance for self-gratification as a "sacrifice" but rather as the right thing to do...a moral person wouldn't have it any other way. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted: Quoted: In before the atheists and heathens Williams point is devoid of any religious connotation. You can have morality and immorality (right and wrong) without religion. Agreed. While most folks would point to "religious" people as the example of being "moral", some of the most immoral folks I know have been regular churchgoers and considered themselves "religious", while some of the most "moral" people I know lead a more questioning life (in terms of the concept of G-d) but conduct themselves in a consistent behavior. You can be moral and ethical and not have to believe in G-d. Ed. for spelling |
|
Quoted:
Since the time of Moses, religion has been the most common vessel for delivering the message of morality. But like many others here, religion at an early age did not determine my morality, it only reinforced it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile However, there are also points to be made. There is a difference between objective and subjective morality. Co-habitating with a female is viewed as an immoral activity, but it isn't objectively immoral. You can't explain it other than "I think it is wrong". I think the two get confused too much. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In before the atheists and heathens Williams point is devoid of any religious connotation. You can have morality and immorality (right and wrong) without religion. Exactly. Morality and religion do not go hand in hand! Oh yes they do. So explain my morality. 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Since the time of Moses, religion has been the most common vessel for delivering the message of morality. But like many others here, religion at an early age did not determine my morality, it only reinforced it. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile However, there are also points to be made. There is a difference between objective and subjective morality. Co-habitating with a female is viewed as an immoral activity, but it isn't objectively immoral. You can't explain it other than "I think it is wrong". I think the two get confused too much. The problem with not using an external measure of a standard of morals/ethics is when you encounter someone (dare I suggest a "chaotic neutral" character from D&D?  ) who believes that theft - or other actions many would deem immoral - is alright if the end justifies the means?ETA after seeing Danner130's post - if one includes religion in this side, you could say that a "Satanist" is conducting morally acceptable acts when he acts in a fashion that is taboo to Christians. Technically speaking, as long as they are acting in a consistent fashion within their own sense of morals and values they can be said to be "moral and ethical". But as a counter one can use the various codes of conduct from a wide variety of religions (without accepting a belief in the diety involved) to show that the majority of behavioral taboos (theft, murder) cross cultural boundaries with ease. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In before the atheists and heathens Williams point is devoid of any religious connotation. You can have morality and immorality (right and wrong) without religion. Exactly. Morality and religion do not go hand in hand! Oh yes they do. So explain my morality. +1 I'm all ears.... |
|
So, when I did my taxes and found that, due to the nature of things I qualify for the tax credits which are now acting as a kind of wealth re-distribution. Since I accepted the money, does that make me immoral? Some of the justifications have been that many people take them who do not need them, or who work less hard knowing that they will get free money.
Also, I do believe that this type of thing is at the root of what is wrong with out society. The failure to follow a moral code/ethical standard. Many people who have advocated such things have failed to live up to them in the past and doubtless some of the people who caused our current situation feel that they did nothing worse than make certain that they took care of #1 first. Of course, many criminals will say that they are good people, too. Failure to live up to standards is something that anyone can do. It is what you do about your failures that shows whether you really believe in your standards or not. |
|
Quoted:
So, when I did my taxes and found that, due to the nature of things I qualify for the tax credits which are now acting as a kind of wealth re-distribution. Since I accepted the money, does that make me immoral? Some of the justifications have been that many people take them who do not need them, or who work less hard knowing that they will get free money. Also, I do believe that this type of thing is at the root of what is wrong with out society. The failure to follow a moral code/ethical standard. Many people who have advocated such things have failed to live up to them in the past and doubtless some of the people who caused our current situation feel that they did nothing worse than make certain that they took care of #1 first. Of course, many criminals will say that they are good people, too. Failure to live up to standards is something that anyone can do. It is what you do about your failures that shows whether you really believe in your standards or not. Would that by chance be the earned income tax credit? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In before the atheists and heathens Williams point is devoid of any religious connotation. You can have morality and immorality (right and wrong) without religion. Exactly. Morality and religion do not go hand in hand! Oh yes they do. So explain my morality. +1 I'm all ears.... A truly religious person will have morals. I would also say that a person with morals has religion, of one kind or another, just not necessarily what many people would recognize as 'religion'. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, when I did my taxes and found that, due to the nature of things I qualify for the tax credits which are now acting as a kind of wealth re-distribution. Since I accepted the money, does that make me immoral? Some of the justifications have been that many people take them who do not need them, or who work less hard knowing that they will get free money. Also, I do believe that this type of thing is at the root of what is wrong with out society. The failure to follow a moral code/ethical standard. Many people who have advocated such things have failed to live up to them in the past and doubtless some of the people who caused our current situation feel that they did nothing worse than make certain that they took care of #1 first. Of course, many criminals will say that they are good people, too. Failure to live up to standards is something that anyone can do. It is what you do about your failures that shows whether you really believe in your standards or not. Would that by chance be the earned income tax credit? That would be EIC and additional child tax credit, I believe. It returned 200% in addition to what I had paid in Federal taxes last year. Odd thing, I only got back 2/3 of what I paid to the state. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, when I did my taxes and found that, due to the nature of things I qualify for the tax credits which are now acting as a kind of wealth re-distribution. Since I accepted the money, does that make me immoral? Some of the justifications have been that many people take them who do not need them, or who work less hard knowing that they will get free money. Also, I do believe that this type of thing is at the root of what is wrong with out society. The failure to follow a moral code/ethical standard. Many people who have advocated such things have failed to live up to them in the past and doubtless some of the people who caused our current situation feel that they did nothing worse than make certain that they took care of #1 first. Of course, many criminals will say that they are good people, too. Failure to live up to standards is something that anyone can do. It is what you do about your failures that shows whether you really believe in your standards or not. Would that by chance be the earned income tax credit? That would be EIC and additional child tax credit, I believe. It returned 200% in addition to what I had paid in Federal taxes last year. Odd thing, I only got back 2/3 of what I paid to the state. My view is that the EIC is wellfare, which in my view would make you a looter. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In before the atheists and heathens Williams point is devoid of any religious connotation. You can have morality and immorality (right and wrong) without religion. Exactly. Morality and religion do not go hand in hand! Oh yes they do. So explain my morality. +1 I'm all ears.... A truly religious person will have morals. I would also say that a person with morals has religion, of one kind or another, just not necessarily what many people would recognize as 'religion'. They must have a system of belief, yes. It may or may not include a higher power. |
|
Quoted:
Please don't turn this into a religious debate. That article is DEAD ON. I'd hate to see this thread spiral down into the pit of stupidity. VTHOKIE...you have a source link on that? I wanna share it and I'm gonna need the link. Damn, I can't believe I forgot the link. http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/04/01/our_problem_is_immorality |