- This topic has 6 voices and 34 replies.
-
Posts
-
You are seriously advocating armed rebellion instead of giving the current congress with a Republican House majority a chance to fix it?
IF they can fix it, which I have my doubts. What if Dems win back Congress and keep the WH in 2012? It's very, very possible because the media is fully in the tank for them and him.I don't think it would be a good idea for me to talk about this anymore in a public forum. Who knows who's looking. But an armed revolution because of food prices/shortages is not a far-out, extremist, conspiracy-driven theory. It has happened in the past, is happening now (see Africa), and could happen here.
I think we would have to see food riots and people starving in the States before armed insurrection is realistically on the table. Comparing food riots in Africa and rising prices in the States is apples and oranges.
I would agree that theoretically, we as Americans (or of any democratic nation) must always leave the option of rebellion open. I don't know that our democracy would work without it, or else a tyrant would find no obstacles to his rule. With that said, I think the threshold must be quite high, such as significant violations of a number of human rights with no other recourse (I realize that some human rights are currently violated in the U.S.).
Absent significant civil unrest and/or gross violations of basic rights any talk of rebellion is stillborn because the vast majority of Americans would not be behind it. By gross violations I am talking about police state type stuff not school boards setting progressive curriculums or court challenges to public Christian displays. Not even deliberately depriving agricultural zones of irrigation water to artificially inflate food prices or using subsidies to suppress agricultural production. Despite some peoples hatred for the left talk of violence at this point is not only unwise but actually counter-productive.We have seen how the left has used rhetoric as a foil for the actions of a madman, how much mileage could they get out of violence they could prove was committed by an actual conservative. Something like that could actually erase all the conservative goodwill generated by the actions of the left over the last two years since Obama took office.In the final analysis, I am convinced that working within the system is the best way to restore and revive the nation. That being said, the option of rebellion is ALWAYS there, it is an option of absolute last resort though. Rebellion could turn out to be a cure worse than the disease.
I don't want to add “water” to the fire, here's a link about water management problemsUpdate : Out of context
“To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge.””It is a mindless philosophy that assumes that one's private beliefs have nothing to do with public office. Does it make sense to entrust those who are immoral in private with the power to determine the nation's moral issues and, indeed, its destiny? The duplicitous soul of a leader can only make a nation more sophisticated in evil.” — Ravi ZachariasMorality cannot exist outside of God… there is no basis for it right and wrong without a Creator. So what happens is the country falls apart when it's leaders support or even condone that which is immoral. This is why there is such a rub between the left and the right. Dark and light cannot coexist. Now, I'm not saying which is which, because there is dark at both ends of the spectrum, but when you take morality out of the confines of what it was always intended (God) then the result is that the absent of any moral standard results in the duplicitous soul that Dr Zacharias mentions, ergo, a corrupt society.
This is why there is such a rub between the left and the right. Dark and light cannot coexist.
That pretty much sums up what I'm trying to say. This is a spiritual battle. God commanded us to hate (yes hate) what is evil. I don't see much room for civility with that. This isn't Liberal vs. Conservative or Dem vs. Rep, it's good vs. evil.
This is why there is such a rub between the left and the right. Dark and light cannot coexist.
That pretty much sums up what I'm trying to say. This is a spiritual battle. God commanded us to hate (yes hate) what is evil. I don't see much room for civility with that. This isn't Liberal vs. Conservative or Dem vs. Rep, it's good vs. evil.
What is the essential difference between what you are saying about the left and what Islam says about the West? I am all about goo and evil and making distinctions but if we also descend into barbarism then we are no better than those we oppose. Kind of hard to talk about being the shining city on a hill when in our hearts we wish for the deaths of those who disagree with us isn't it? I am not the biblical scholar that others are but I don't seem to remember reading where Christ told us to hate our enemies, perhaps you can enlighten me on where that particular passage is?
Is saying “you are of your father the Devil” civil?Is saying “get behind me Satan” civil?Does turn the other cheek mean we can't speak up?If some church member is habitually sinning, we are told to expel him from the Church. Is that civil?Did Jesus ever command us to get or go along with the world? He did not. However, He did say that the world will hate you because of Him.And since Islam is a false religion, I don't care what they have to say about the West. It is absolutely not the same. How do you “lovingly” or “civilly” tell an abortionist that he or she is a murderer?
Now from a secular point of view, why should we civilly allow a small group of environmentalists to affect the food supply of the whole country? Since these people can't seem to be reasoned with, the only other alternative is rebellion.
Is saying “you are of your father the Devil” civil?Is saying “get behind me Satan” civil?Does turn the other cheek mean we can't speak up?If some church member is habitually sinning, we are told to expel him from the Church. Is that civil?Did Jesus ever command us to get or go along with the world? He did not. However, He did say that the world will hate you because of Him.And since Islam is a false religion, I don't care what they have to say about the West. It is absolutely not the same. How do you “lovingly” or “civilly” tell an abortionist that he or she is a murderer?
I guess it depends on how you define civil doesn't it? I am not saying we need to be passing out hugs or making kissy-face with political or philosophical opponents, far from it. I am saying that threats or acts of violence are not necessary RIGHT NOW. It may come to pass that armed rebellion is the only choice to rights what we perceive as wrongs, I just do not think we have reached that point yet and that making such threats or committing such acts hinders conservatives and makes it more likely that such actions will become necessary. It is true in politics as in the animal kingdom that nothing fights harder than an animal that is cornered and if conservatives actually threaten liberals while they are in power our fears of a liberal police-style state will likely become a self-fulfilling prophecy if liberals think that is their only choice to contain conservative anger.Don't forget that the executive has much more power currently than the founders envisioned and there are enough orders-are-orders types in law enforcement that they would gladly trample on citizens rights if such orders came from the executive. The saving grace right now is that the liberals cannot pass new laws because Republicans control the House. The bottom line is that I think we should give republicans a chance to fix the country's problems. They have two years to get a start on it but even a faithful showing of intentions by the House will prove that our system is not completely broken yet; the passage of the Obamacare repeal in the house is an earnest for our faith even if it has no realistic chance of getting past the Senate or a presidential veto.
Here are two good opinion pieces on both sides of whether civility is important in our society and especially in Political discourse.
- 1. Rev. Robert Sirico:
Civility, not just after tragedy
- 2. Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie: The Religious Case for Less Civility and More Passion
I still hold that the old saw about catching flies with honey vice vinegar applies the vast majority of the time.
I still hold that the old saw about catching flies with honey vice vinegar applies the vast majority of the time.
That's assuming you or anyone else has the ability to catch one of those vile Leftists with kindness. To be clear, my incivility applies mainly to them. People in the middle can and should be spoken to reasonably.My new philosophy towards the Leftists is to calmly and matter of factly tell them the truth once or point out their error. If they can't handle it, too bad. Walk away.
