NationStates Jolt Archive


Morals and the Republican Party

Justianen
30-09-2005, 05:59
Morals and the Republican Party
The Republican party currently has control over the senate, congress, and executive branch of the United States government. The Republican party platform for this past election of 2000 was “good moral and Christian family values.” Obviously from the mere title of this platform and inherent flaw is discovered. The platform is based off that American, which is the most diversely populated country on the face of the planet, is almost all devoutly Christian.
American has a large mix of race and religion that is completely and totally unmatched by any other nation. In addition we are the most democratic nation that is currently functioning Without America’s vast diversity our nation would be by no means superior as it currently stands. With our diverse mix we have been able to assimilate the wonders of the world, while attempting to keep out the negative traits the world has to offer, this assimilation has caused America to grow to an economic and cultural level that has made it superior to all other nations.
If a man (or women) is dying in a hospital bed in tremendous pain, with no hope of modern medicine prevailing, some believe that the “morally correct” path is to end the patient’s suffering. While some citizens believe the right thing to do is to die naturally or “when the time comes.” Neither extremism is right nor wrong, moral or immoral. What is moral to one citizen is not moral to another. Morals are entirely subjective to the individual.
The Republican party candidate for this previous election said “I will restore morality to the White House.” A president can no more make a society moral than a society can make a president moral. The United States is currently no more moral now than if was 100 years ago and will not be moral 100 years in the future. Society as a whole will never reach an agreement on morals. Therefore, they will never become moral. Peace treaties are formed because both parties believe they will benefit from peace. They agree on some point at some level, whatever that may be. Without an agreement from both parties peace will not be achieved.
Personnel religion is by no means a guide of morals. Timothy Veigh was a Christian and he was largely responsible for the Oklahoma City bombings. Charles Manson created his own religion with socialist backings and was responsible for numerous murders. Osama Bin Laden is a radical Muslim who is largely responsible for the attack upon American coined “9/11". Religion is by no means an instant pathway to death of others, but proclaiming to follow Christianity does not automatically instill morals.
Tom Delay is currently being indited for a conspiracy to launder money, two democratic congressman are responsible for taking money from lobbyist . Richard Nixon was found out for having participated in the water gate scandal. Bill Clinton was discovered to have an affair. None of these actions came across society as moral. Government time and time again has in history to be immoral. Rather, it be the Nazi Empire, the Spartan Military State, or the Roman Empire conquerors. Government is immoral, it always has been and will continue to be.
The duties of the United States Government are broken down to the three branches, with checks and balances, the executive branch which enforces laws, the legislative branch to pass and create laws, and the judicial branch to interpret laws. None of these branches, created by our founding fathers, has the obligation to cite or create morals. This is due to our capitalistic economic system. Only in a fascist country are morals the obligation and duty of the government. The Nazi Empire and Cuban government both employ or employed fascism and the government incited morals to the people. In Nazi Germany the morals employed by the government led to the deaths of countless Jews, and any other nation that stood in the way of being “morally correct.” Government is not the proper device to yield morals to society. The society of course being made up of individual conscious decisions to adopt the government’s morals.
The South Islands
30-09-2005, 06:05
Dude, please devide your statment more clearly.

My head hurts.
Leonstein
30-09-2005, 06:08
American has a large mix of race and religion that is completely and totally unmatched by any other nation. In addition we are the most democratic nation that is currently functioning
Nope, and Nope!

With our diverse mix we have been able to assimilate the wonders of the world, while attempting to keep out the negative traits the world has to offer, this assimilation has caused America to grow to an economic and cultural level that has made it superior to all other nations.
Ahem..."culturally superior"?
Who are you to judge? So: Nope!

Morals are entirely subjective to the individual.
Unless there are actual logical reasons for them...whether that's possible, or whether that would still be a "moral" can be questioned though.

Personnel religion is by no means a guide of morals.
See the study quoted in two threads now about Religion not improving society.

Rather, it be the Nazi Empire, the Spartan Military State, or the Roman Empire conquerors. Government is immoral, it always has been and will continue to be.
It's a good thing morals aren't universal, isn't it?

None of these branches, created by our founding fathers, has the obligation to cite or create morals. This is due to our capitalistic economic system.
I'd like you to point out the link there.

Only in a fascist country are morals the obligation and duty of the government.
And in Theocracies...

The Nazi Empire and Cuban government both employ or employed fascism and the government incited morals to the people.
Cuba and fascist is one claim that I'll let slip for now...but you do know that correlation does not imply causality?

In Nazi Germany the morals employed by the government led to the deaths of countless Jews, and any other nation that stood in the way of being “morally correct.” Government is not the proper device to yield morals to society. The society of course being made up of individual conscious decisions to adopt the government’s morals.
And what is your actual point then? What are you trying to say?
Der Drache
30-09-2005, 13:04
I'm not going to quote all that.

Yes, the Republican party has been catering to the far-right Christian community. One could make a similar complaint about Democrates which sometimes seem to act as if Christians don't exist. That's only because they are catering to the far-left.

We legislate morality all the time, and there are plenty of moral issues that the vast majority of the populace agree on (such as murder, etc.) Though I do agree that we shouldn't legislate morals when they don't affect others but the individual's choice (such as sodomy).

No one is claiming that just because someone is a member of a religion they are moral, and certianly not all religions are moral by most people's definitions. But if the people from the examples you gave actually followed their religion and weren't insane and/or pushing some other agenda then I think most would consider them moral.

Just the fact that you can list so many examples of imoral leaders and imoral religous people is pretty good evidence that their is good consensous on a lot of moral issues (though not all).

Just because we have had trouble finding moral political leaders doesn't mean we shouldn't look. The reason it's good to have a moral leader is because people who truely value morals are more likely to value them in all aspects of life. Those who don't believe it is okay to do something wrong for their own self gratification are both unlikely to cheat on their wife and steal from the goverment. While someone who has the philosophy I can cheat on my wife as long as she doesn't find out may be more likely to say to themselves I can steal from the goverment as long as no one finds out.

The only problem with this is its hard to gauge how moral a person is. Maybe one person wouldn't think twice about cheating on his wife but just hasn't found anyone he want's to do it with. Someone else with stronger morals might be under strong temptation and end up cheating on his wife. So if we were to pick the president on that one action alone we might end up picking the faithful husband under the false assumption he has stronger morals
Zilam
30-09-2005, 21:13
I'm Glad someone else in the world has some common sense. If republicans are moral then fire quenches my thirst.... Point being they claim the whole moral christian thing and play onthe fears of people...One question...If republicans are moral then why do they support capitalism? Capitalism is noting more but materialism and pride.... Both of which are spoke against in the Bible
Super-power
30-09-2005, 21:27
Republican & their pseudo-morality = hypocrites.
Democrats = Hypocrites.
Need I say more?