The Bobcat Nation

What do you think is the greatest obstical facing our country?

I think that it's the push for "fairness" and equality. I don't mean racial or sexual equality, but that all children should be made to feel equal. No one should fail, or lose, or be held back. Although all men are created equal, they are not. We are all unique, and trying to funnel everyone through the same mold is only going to weaken out society.

ChiOCat wrote:What do you think is the greatest obstical facing our country?

I think that it's the push for "fairness" and equality. I don't mean racial or sexual equality, but that all children should be made to feel equal. No one should fail, or lose, or be held back. Although all men are created equal, they are not. We are all unique, and trying to funnel everyone through the same mold is only going to weaken out society.

We just need to make everyone watch "The Incredibles," and that issue will disappear.

I am personally more afraid of religious wackos starting WWIII with nukes to appease their twisted views of God, but I'm easily spooked that way.

I've said this before, but I think the greatest obstacle facing our country is the polarization that exists in the political arena. Because there are only two political parties with any real power, every single issue turns into a war in Congress -- if the Republicans come up with a solution to a problem, the Democrats feel compelled to attack it, if only to score political points (and the Republicans do the same to the Dems; neither party is innocent). The effect spills over to the general public, too -- instead of actually thinking about issues and forming their own opinions, most people who consider themselves to be Democrats automatically adopt the "liberal" position on every issue, and most people who consider themselves to be Republicans automatically adopt the "conservative" view, and both sides often do so without putting any real thought into the issues themselves.

The only way any of this will ever change is if the Libertarians, the Green Party, and some of the other "fringe" political parties can take some power away from the Dems and the GOP. I don't see that happening anytime soon, but I do hope it happens sometime in my lifetime -- I think it would lead to a lot less partisan bickering in Congress, and a lot more time spent actually solving this country's problems.

Our culture of entertainment, the politics of power rather service, and our moralism based on existentialism and relativism. The unholy trinity for national deconstruction which stand opposed and antithetical to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

I actually thought that entertainment was a somewhat appropriate pathway towards the pursuit of happiness (one of many). Conversely, people being critical about the basis for someone else's morals undermines both the liberty and pursuit of happiness component of the people being called out.

No qualms with the "politics of power rather than service." 100% agreement on that one.

Grizlaw wrote:I've said this before, but I think the greatest obstacle facing our country is the polarization that exists in the political arena. Because there are only two political parties with any real power, every single issue turns into a war in Congress -- if the Republicans come up with a solution to a problem, the Democrats feel compelled to attack it, if only to score political points (and the Republicans do the same to the Dems; neither party is innocent). The effect spills over to the general public, too -- instead of actually thinking about issues and forming their own opinions, most people who consider themselves to be Democrats automatically adopt the "liberal" position on every issue, and most people who consider themselves to be Republicans automatically adopt the "conservative" view, and both sides often do so without putting any real thought into the issues themselves.

The only way any of this will ever change is if the Libertarians, the Green Party, and some of the other "fringe" political parties can take some power away from the Dems and the GOP. I don't see that happening anytime soon, but I do hope it happens sometime in my lifetime -- I think it would lead to a lot less partisan bickering in Congress, and a lot more time spent actually solving this country's problems.

Grizlaw. I think it was George Washington that said our country would fail if we ever arrived at a point where we had a two-party system.

If you go down to the basics, though, the Republican and Democratic parties are very much alike. Aside from some very polarizing issues (i.e. abortion), they take very "middle of the road" positions. They are trying very hard not to alienate anyone so that they can maintain majorities. If you read the party views on most issues they read almost exactly the same. You have to go to the "fringe" parties to really get anything different. It's only when bills actually get into Congress do you get the "let's oppose this because it was introduced by a member of the other party" attitude.

But I think what scares me the most about our country today is the lack of involvement in government. It's all good and well to say that having a two-party system is bad, but we won't ever leave that system unless more people take an active interest in what's going on and vote. Most people don't bother to vote unless it's a presidential election (as if that's the only important position in our government). Midterm presidential elections (such as what's coming up this November) see an enormous drop in voter turnout. In the 2002 midterm election, only 40% of the voting eligible population actually voted. 60% of Americans who are eligible to vote didn't think it was worth it to vote to elect their representative to the House in Congress.

I turned 18 two months after the 2004 presidential election, but I had many friends who were old enough to vote. I had to take some of them to the registrar's office myself to get them to register, and I had to remind them to vote. I think it's sad that so many people complain about how our government works (or doesn't work), and then do nothing to change it. You may think that one person who votes for a different party rather than picking a democratic or republican candidate that is the "lesser of two evils" (I can't say how many times I've heard that when people are discussing how they voted) won't matter, but if everyone who thought like that found a different candidate and everyone who doesn't bother to vote would take the time, we'd be into a whole new ballpark with our government.

Bay Area Cat wrote:I actually thought that entertainment was a somewhat appropriate pathway towards the pursuit of happiness (one of many). Conversely, people being critical about the basis for someone else's morals undermines both the liberty and pursuit of happiness component of the people being called out.

No qualms with the "politics of power rather than service." 100% agreement on that one.

Regarding "entertainment" as a value to a well rounded life, there is no debate. What has developed in our culture is entertainment has become an uber-value. We live around a center of diversion that tickles our fancies, deifies our "star/Amercian Idol" and marginalizes serious thinking. The root of happiness is never found in the shallow offerings of cheap thrills and giggles. Happiness is realized far more through the normal grinds of life: i.e. the development of real relationships that last over time, the discovery of the "universe in a grain of sand", and the simple pleasures of creating something worthwhile that benefits others. What we call happiness today is often boiled down to simple hedonism rooted in profanity. There is very little real entertainment out there, and no, Disneyland is not where you find it.

Your comment that "being critical of other peoples morals undermines liberty..." is an amazing statement to make BAC. I don't condone subjective moralism. To do so is to seat Hitler at the table with "reasonable men" and give him an equal voice in the debate of right and wrong. I am an advocate for standards of morals that exist beyond our "whims and wishes". Sliding scales of justice/liberty, for I do believe they are twin sisters, don't ultimately lead to greater freedoms only to greater chaos. Someone needs to be able to point to a Hitler and say he is wrong on the basis of something other than personal opinion. To say Hitler was immoral can only ultimately be declared when he is laid up to the standard of morality. A morality that does not slide with subjectivism.

Freedom/liberty is the serendipity of living within the lines of an ultimate standard or morality. Just ask the Romans.

Grizlaw wrote:I've said this before, but I think the greatest obstacle facing our country is the polarization that exists in the political arena. Because there are only two political parties with any real power, every single issue turns into a war in Congress -- if the Republicans come up with a solution to a problem, the Democrats feel compelled to attack it, if only to score political points (and the Republicans do the same to the Dems; neither party is innocent). The effect spills over to the general public, too -- instead of actually thinking about issues and forming their own opinions, most people who consider themselves to be Democrats automatically adopt the "liberal" position on every issue, and most people who consider themselves to be Republicans automatically adopt the "conservative" view, and both sides often do so without putting any real thought into the issues themselves.

The only way any of this will ever change is if the Libertarians, the Green Party, and some of the other "fringe" political parties can take some power away from the Dems and the GOP. I don't see that happening anytime soon, but I do hope it happens sometime in my lifetime -- I think it would lead to a lot less partisan bickering in Congress, and a lot more time spent actually solving this country's problems.

Good post GL.

There is a large "us vs them" mentality that is just building and solves very little. The country is almost split down the middle on many issues but if there's 51% majority the other 49% are left in the cold, so to say.

I would like to see from all political officials the ability to compromise and make decisions for the betterment of the entire country, not just half of it.

catsrback76 wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:I actually thought that entertainment was a somewhat appropriate pathway towards the pursuit of happiness (one of many). Conversely, people being critical about the basis for someone else's morals undermines both the liberty and pursuit of happiness component of the people being called out.

No qualms with the "politics of power rather than service." 100% agreement on that one.

Regarding "entertainment" as a value to a well rounded life, there is no debate. What has developed in our culture is entertainment has become an uber-value. We live around a center of diversion that tickles our fancies, deifies our "star/Amercian Idol" and marginalizes serious thinking. The root of happiness is never found in the shallow offerings of cheap thrills and giggles. Happiness is realized far more through the normal grinds of life: i.e. the development of real relationships that last over time, the discovery of the "universe in a grain of sand", and the simple pleasures of creating something worthwhile that benefits others. What we call happiness today is often boiled down to simple hedonism rooted in profanity. There is very little real entertainment out there, and no, Disneyland is not where you find it.

Your comment that "being critical of other peoples morals undermines liberty..." is an amazing statement to make BAC. I don't condone subjective moralism. To do so is to seat Hitler at the table with "reasonable men" and give him an equal voice in the debate of right and wrong. I am an advocate for standards of morals that exist beyond our "whims and wishes". Sliding scales of justice/liberty, for I do believe they are twin sisters, don't ultimately lead to greater freedoms only to greater chaos. Someone needs to be able to point to a Hitler and say he is wrong on the basis of something other than personal opinion. To say Hitler was immoral can only ultimately be declared when he is laid up to the standard of morality. A morality that does not slide with subjectivism.

Freedom/liberty is the serendipity of living within the lines of an ultimate standard or morality. Just ask the Romans.

To get directly to the veiled point ... I don't want our morals defined by the religious right. You can have moral subjectivity and relativism in society without condoning Hitler. There's a middle ground that I am very comfortable with wherein people define their own morals, and then we have laws in place that prevent people from infringing upon the rights and happiness of others.

Didn't the Roman Empire actually fall after Constantine brought it under a strict Christian theocracy? The last time I heard a reference to the fall of Rome, it was a lefty saying that Rome fell because it overextended its military, and made the comparison to the U.S., so I guess it is a historical analogy that gets used for all purposes.

Bay Area Cat wrote: To get directly to the veiled point ... I don't want our morals defined by the religious right. You can have moral subjectivity and relativism in society without condoning Hitler. There's a middle ground that I am very comfortable with wherein people define their own morals, and then we have laws in place that prevent people from infringing upon the rights and happiness of others.

Didn't the Roman Empire actually fall after Constantine brought it under a strict Christian theocracy? The last time I heard a reference to the fall of Rome, it was a lefty saying that Rome fell because it overextended its military, and made the comparison to the U.S., so I guess it is a historical analogy that gets used for all purposes.

In actuality Constantine's politicising of "Christianity" was an attempt to consolidate power with church leadership and bring structure to moral disintegration that was happening culturally. Rome was overextended militarily with the splitting of the empire into the East/West divide. Make no mistake about it, strength comes from within, not without and as the center of the empire began to collapse at it's moral center, starting from the top down the superstructure was bound to fall. And of course it did.

On the point regarding "people defining their own morals" the simple question is "who defines right and wrong"?

catsrback76 wrote:On the point regarding "people defining their own morals" the simple question is "who defines right and wrong"?

There are some universal morals that most people agree upon ... don't kill, rape, etc., and these have been codified into our criminal code with no objections.

What we don't need are people literally interpreting religious texts to define things as "wrong" that don't hurt anyone else. That's where people should have the liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness in any way they see fit (as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights and liberties of others). Example -- gays not being codified as being criminals because Pat Robertson considers them to be "wrong" due to a verse in Leviticus.

It's not hard to establish a core set of beliefs that encompass "right" and "wrong," in our society or any other, and our laws have done a decent job of that. What we need to be mindful of is not making laws that merely impose somebody's morality on other people, even if the "immoral" acts harm nobody and have no apparent detriment to anybody in any way other than the religious sensitbilities of people.

After all, we all know that depicting big Mo is a societal "wrong" in Arab countries, probably punishable by death. Are they a superior society because they strictly define "right" and "wrong" for their citizens? Or, rather, are they merely codifying religion and taking away any real freedom and liberty from their own people?

Bay Area Cat wrote:

catsrback76 wrote:On the point regarding "people defining their own morals" the simple question is "who defines right and wrong"?

There are some universal morals that most people agree upon ... don't kill, rape, etc., and these have been codified into our criminal code with no objections.

What we don't need are people literally interpreting religious texts to define things as "wrong" that don't hurt anyone else. That's where people should have the liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness in any way they see fit (as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights and liberties of others). Example -- gays not being codified as being criminals because Pat Robertson considers them to be "wrong" due to a verse in Leviticus.

It's not hard to establish a core set of beliefs that encompass "right" and "wrong," in our society or any other, and our laws have done a decent job of that. What we need to be mindful of is not making laws that merely impose somebody's morality on other people, even if the "immoral" acts harm nobody and have no apparent detriment to anybody in any way other than the religious sensitbilities of people.

After all, we all know that depicting big Mo is a societal "wrong" in Arab countries, probably punishable by death. Are they a superior society because they strictly define "right" and "wrong" for their citizens? Or, rather, are they merely codifying religion and taking away any real freedom and liberty from their own people?

What an interesting take Brad. You are comfortable with a moral "consensus" drawn from the majority, but not everybody. Not only is that unfair, who picks the "middle ground" moral contributors? Essentially what you are saying is that you don't want anybody, even God (assuming you believe there is a God who exists), directing your choices. Your view demands that you decide what will be moral right and wrong. I'd be fine with that if you were morally pure and always right .

As a theist I am convinced that the only fair way, the only right way, and the only humble way to live is to follow the dictates of God concerning my/our life. You mentioned "not raping, not murdering...etc" as universally held beliefs that MOST people hold to. What about those who don't hold to them? Why don't they? Why do most people believe rape, murder, lying, coveting, stealing, dishonoring authority, are moral wrongs??? I do not believe we have voted them into society along an evolutionary track of discovery. They are "instinctive" because God put them into the heart of man, and to violate them is to violate something very basic to what makes us all human.

Man cannot live by Darwin's mantra of "survival of the fittest" for we are created for higher living than that. We live to promote life, giving,truth, honor, generosity, worship, and community. Moral laws confirm the dignity of humanity as God given values that all men live by regardless of who they are, where they are, and what they think about it. And they come from an unchanging standard of right and wrong, God Himself.

Or, we can just have laws that prevent other people from infringing upon the rights and liberties of others, and avoid the thousands of years of wars that result from people trying to figure out whose version of "God's word" should be the binding sets of right and wrong.

And as long as people's actions don't infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (and thus necessitating that they be illegal), they should be of no concern to anybody else.

Democracy, not theocracy. I am VERY comfortable with that approach. Those who choose to live by a God's law are more than welcome to do so. But those who want everybody to live by their own God's law need only look to Saudi Arabia and Iran to see the glorious results of such a system.

catsrback76 wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

catsrback76 wrote:On the point regarding "people defining their own morals" the simple question is "who defines right and wrong"?

There are some universal morals that most people agree upon ... don't kill, rape, etc., and these have been codified into our criminal code with no objections.

What we don't need are people literally interpreting religious texts to define things as "wrong" that don't hurt anyone else. That's where people should have the liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness in any way they see fit (as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights and liberties of others). Example -- gays not being codified as being criminals because Pat Robertson considers them to be "wrong" due to a verse in Leviticus.

It's not hard to establish a core set of beliefs that encompass "right" and "wrong," in our society or any other, and our laws have done a decent job of that. What we need to be mindful of is not making laws that merely impose somebody's morality on other people, even if the "immoral" acts harm nobody and have no apparent detriment to anybody in any way other than the religious sensitbilities of people.

After all, we all know that depicting big Mo is a societal "wrong" in Arab countries, probably punishable by death. Are they a superior society because they strictly define "right" and "wrong" for their citizens? Or, rather, are they merely codifying religion and taking away any real freedom and liberty from their own people?

What an interesting take Brad. You are comfortable with a moral "consensus" drawn from the majority, but not everybody. Not only is that unfair, who picks the "middle ground" moral contributors? Essentially what you are saying is that you don't want anybody, even God (assuming you believe there is a God who exists), directing your choices. Your view demands that you decide what will be moral right and wrong. I'd be fine with that if you were morally pure and always right .

As a theist I am convinced that the only fair way, the only right way, and the only humble way to live is to follow the dictates of God concerning my/our life. You mentioned "not raping, not murdering...etc" as universally held beliefs that MOST people hold to. What about those who don't hold to them? Why don't they? Why do most people believe rape, murder, lying, coveting, stealing, dishonoring authority, are moral wrongs??? I do not believe we have voted them into society along an evolutionary track of discovery. They are "instinctive" because God put them into the heart of man, and to violate them is to violate something very basic to what makes us all human.

Man cannot live by Darwin's mantra of "survival of the fittest" for we are created for higher living than that. We live to promote life, giving,truth, honor, generosity, worship, and community. Moral laws confirm the dignity of humanity as God given values that all men live by regardless of who they are, where they are, and what they think about it. And they come from an unchanging standard of right and wrong, God Himself.

OUTSTANDING, catsrback!

catsrback76 wrote:As a theist I am convinced that the only fair way, the only right way, and the only humble way to live is to follow the dictates of God concerning my/our life. You mentioned "not raping, not murdering...etc" as universally held beliefs that MOST people hold to. What about those who don't hold to them? Why don't they? Why do most people believe rape, murder, lying, coveting, stealing, dishonoring authority, are moral wrongs??? I do not believe we have voted them into society along an evolutionary track of discovery. They are "instinctive" because God put them into the heart of man, and to violate them is to violate something very basic to what makes us all human.

So why do you suppose we have passed laws codifying the illegality of, e.g., insider stock trading -- did God also instill us with the instinct that that is inherently wrong?

Like you, I am also a religious person (Catholic, for the record), and as such, I probably believe much of what you believe. However, I also think it is important to maintain the distinction between God's laws and our (secular) laws, because that is one of the concepts on which this country was founded. God's laws exist to govern how Christians live their lives; our secular laws exist in order to maintain order in society. In my view, things that are deemed "immoral" by God should not be criminalized by our secular laws unless such criminalization is also necessary in order to serve the purpose that our secular laws serve (i.e., the maintenance of order).

Is killing morally wrong? Yes, I believe it is, but I do not believe that is the reason why we lock people up for it -- we do that because it is impossible to have an ordered society where people are free to go about killing one another, so we hold out the threat of imprisonment (or execution) in order to maintain order. If morality were the only concern, there would be no reason to make things like speeding illegal.

Just my opinion, as always...

--GL

Grizlaw wrote:

catsrback76 wrote:As a theist I am convinced that the only fair way, the only right way, and the only humble way to live is to follow the dictates of God concerning my/our life. You mentioned "not raping, not murdering...etc" as universally held beliefs that MOST people hold to. What about those who don't hold to them? Why don't they? Why do most people believe rape, murder, lying, coveting, stealing, dishonoring authority, are moral wrongs??? I do not believe we have voted them into society along an evolutionary track of discovery. They are "instinctive" because God put them into the heart of man, and to violate them is to violate something very basic to what makes us all human.

So why do you suppose we have passed laws codifying the illegality of, e.g., insider stock trading -- did God also instill us with the instinct that that is inherently wrong?

Like you, I am also a religious person (Catholic, for the record), and as such, I probably believe much of what you believe. However, I also think it is important to maintain the distinction between God's laws and our (secular) laws, because that is one of the concepts on which this country was founded. God's laws exist to govern how Christians live their lives; our secular laws exist in order to maintain order in society. In my view, things that are deemed "immoral" by God should not be criminalized by our secular laws unless such criminalization is also necessary in order to serve the purpose that our secular laws serve (i.e., the maintenance of order).

Is killing morally wrong? Yes, I believe it is, but I do not believe that is the reason why we lock people up for it -- we do that because it is impossible to have an ordered society where people are free to go about killing one another, so we hold out the threat of imprisonment (or execution) in order to maintain order. If morality were the only concern, there would be no reason to make things like speeding illegal.

Just my opinion, as always...

--GL

The institution of civil laws are based on some standard that is an overarching higher principle, or law. For example the issue of insider trading in my opinion, is a just law passed to insure that the "scales are balanced" for all people who wish to trade. Fairness is a derivative of giving no person favor based on any leverage they may have, in essence eliminating the potential for stealing. Stealing is the higher law that in my opinion provides the baseline for that particular genre of civil law.

On the issue of seperation between God's Laws and secular laws I do in fact see a difference. Gods Laws are embraced because one chooses to follow them for relationship with him and others. Secular laws run society effectively and fairly.

BAC makes the point that he is not into a Theocratic government running the USofA. Neither am I, not because I don't think that God is a better leader than our President, but that God doesn't want to run our government. He is after governing mens hearts. He is after personal leadership with each one of us. He will never force it, only invite it. However, his Laws, which are in essence a reflection of his character can be embraced by humanity and used as "guidelines and markers" to establish a just society around. Because He is unchanging, right and true, His words about community and interpersonal relationships are a much better guide for the establishment of societal laws.

My point however in the discussion, was that the breakdown of our cultural morals into relativism, is one of the greatest dangers to our existence as a viable nation. Not that we can't last for awhile as we are, but that the integrity of our nation is reflective of a general moral subjectivism, that destroys our ability to call something "right" and to call something "wrong". With the death of God, according the Nietche, man lost his anchorpoint in the only solid unchanging standard of truth there is. Him. Though God isn't dead, the moment we marginalize His directives on how to live generously together, we simply free fall into the crevasse of moral subjectivty, from which we cannot climb out. Truth is dead--and our society experiences the slow death of ever increasing vulgarity and personal selfishness.

Those kill community. Hence, our nation is at risk.

In regards to killing, I think we need to distinguish between killing innocent life, and retribution as discipline that takes a life guilty of some captial offense. I do not believe it is morally wrong to take a life that has murdered another. Is that my preference? I'm more inclined to want to not take that life knowing that the greater reality of life after death is far more important than even living here. If there is a chance for redemption I want to make the most of it. However, in the case of murder in it's many forms, and other heinous crimes, I do not object to a jury deciding for the death penalty. I believe God has given us that option in limited cases as we see it fits his guidelines.

IMO

catsrback76 wrote:The institution of civil laws are based on some standard that is an overarching higher principle, or law. For example the issue of insider trading in my opinion, is a just law passed to insure that the "scales are balanced" for all people who wish to trade. Fairness is a derivative of giving no person favor based on any leverage they may have, in essence eliminating the potential for stealing. Stealing is the higher law that in my opinion provides the baseline for that particular genre of civil law.

Is it really a "higher law," though, or is it really much simpler than that? In a society where stealing wasn't punishable by law, people would be forced to defend their possessions from thieves through violent or other unsavory means, which would lead ultimately to anarchy. Is it really some "higher moral law" that causes us to impose criminal and civil laws regarding stealing (or murdering, raping, etc.), or is it, as I suggested in my last post, simply a desire to maintain order and prevent people from taking things into their own hands?

--GL

I hate to keep coming back to this, but if devotion to a set of religious laws by an entire society is a good thing, then does that mean that the Arab world is superior to the free world of the West? They seem to be cornerning the market on unchanging virtues of right and wrong. Are they doing it right ... outside of calling "Him" somebody different than we do?

Grizlaw wrote:

catsrback76 wrote:The institution of civil laws are based on some standard that is an overarching higher principle, or law. For example the issue of insider trading in my opinion, is a just law passed to insure that the "scales are balanced" for all people who wish to trade. Fairness is a derivative of giving no person favor based on any leverage they may have, in essence eliminating the potential for stealing. Stealing is the higher law that in my opinion provides the baseline for that particular genre of civil law.

Is it really a "higher law," though, or is it really much simpler than that? In a society where stealing wasn't punishable by law, people would be forced to defend their possessions from thieves through violent or other unsavory means, which would lead ultimately to anarchy. Is it really some "higher moral law" that causes us to impose criminal and civil laws regarding stealing (or murdering, raping, etc.), or is it, as I suggested in my last post, simply a desire to maintain order and prevent people from taking things into their own hands?

--GL

I think you are right GL. From a practical side the outworking of law is that it does bring "order" and eliminates vigilanteism sp.

Your point about laws being a "basic need" (my words) to ensure stability in a society I think is true. The question is, do we simply enact laws because it meets practical needs? Why not let anarchy reign? Who says that anarchy isn't the better way? Why not endorse a survival of the fittest, get it when you can if you can, the strongest win the weakest lose, law?
To even think that way rings off key, why? I am suggesting that it rings off key because at our core we have the remnants of the harmonious voice of God speaking into our conscious that those are not "natural". Teh Law of God is written in our hearts no matter who you are, and you have to re-write the rules to dull the conscious into believing anything differently.( Which I do think we do quite often) We were designed by God to live for equality, fairness, order, and generosity qualities that have no place in a Darwinian model for human societal development.


Whether we acknowlege the source as God or not, does not invalidate the effectiveness of the law sustaining healthy community life. IF you were to take the 10 commandments for example, exempting the commandments related to idolatry, all of them, if applied in a community setting would do nothing but ensure the safety and peace of all who so lived.
My opinion of why God gave the commandments was to show us how to live in community with Himself and others in healthy ways.


Again, I am more focused on people living personally more and more by God's laws, from the heart, than I am about legislating the 10 Commandments. God's laws will not work until they are chosen as a personal thing to live up to...and if you really want to ratchet it up a bit, add the Spirit of law as Jesus taught it in Matthew 5 and now we are getting somewhere. Whew--now I am challenged.

i think it is the decay of moral fiber in the nation. i think the us needs to go back and find its roots in family, and the nation founded with Biblical ties. that society needs to reexamine itself and see the downhill spiral that it's in because of it's lacking morals. For those that are Bible thumpers like myself I found this good testimony on rebirth of the nation.


The Rebirth of a Nation

The Spirit of the Lord says, This country will be like a stump—like a tree that’s been cut down and the only thing you can see is a stump. Many will say, “What happened to the power of that great nation?” Many will say, “What happened to what they once had?” The Spirit of the Lord will have you to know, I will reduce it to a stump. I will cause the tree to fall down, but it will rise again.

The Spirit of the Lord would have you to know like an eagle that goes through a period of time where it flies and hides itself and beats its beak off and loses its feathers, and yet there comes a time when the beak grows new again and the feathers grow new again, and it continues to rise high; so likewise it shall be in this nation. Although it shall be reduced as a stump, I will cause it to be regenerated. It’ll rise high and it’ll be greater than it’s ever been before, for I have a covenant with this land, saith the Lord.

These things will surely come to pass at last, at last, at last. These things will surely come to pass at last, at last, at last. Don’t fret because of the mentality of this land. Don’t fret because they have turned their back against My Word and My way. I will not give up on this nation, saith the Lord. Although it will be reduced to a stump and like an eagle will lose its wings, I will cause it to be regenerated again. The greatness of this nation shall be seen once again. So I depend on you to go ahead and pray this nation on through. For these things will surely come to pass and have even begun now, saith the Lord.

So continue to be obedient to pray for this government. Continue to be obedient to pray for this land. I will not forsake it because of its relationship with Israel. It’ll be great and it’ll have impact. Great things will happen like the eagle that’s been rejuvenated. So rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for I am God and I will watch over this land. Do not be moved by what you see. For I am telling you so you can know it right now. Just pray. Just pray. Just pray. Just pray and you’ll cause things to be My way, saith the Lord. I’ll honor My Word in these days. For this that I have spoken through My prophet has begun. It is going on even now, but I will be faithful to My Word. This nation shall rise again in Jesus’ name, thus saith the Lord.






—Prophecy delivered by
Dr. Creflo A. Dollar
January 15, 2006
7:30 a.m.
College Park, GA