Questions

Oct. 9th, 2005 04:25 pm
sarahmichigan: (Default)
[personal profile] sarahmichigan
1. When and how did the emphasis in this country shift from valuing Freedom to valuing blind patriotism and a clinging to an illusion of security?

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." -Ben Franklin

2. I recently read a quote in an essay talking about how you don't have to be religious or attend church to be a good person. "It's our actions that show exactly how moral and responsible we are." I wonder how many people believe that? I'm a firm believer in the idea that "actions speak louder than words." I don't care what you profess to believe or hold as an ideal; I care about the message your behavior sends. But not everyone thinks that way.

Date: 2005-10-09 01:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pstscrpt.livejournal.com
1. It's been a gradual thing, but I blame Karl Rove for the sudden acceleration. I'm not that comforted by the fact that Bush can't run again, because tomy mind, Rove is a much bigger threat.

2. I mostly believe that, but many (most?) Christian denominations specifically deny that what you do is more important than what you believe.

Date: 2005-10-09 02:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] texasjay.livejournal.com
1. Disagree strongly.

2. Disagree strongly. Name me one that teaches that as part of its dogma.

I don't believe in blind patriotism, Sarah, as you've probably guessed. I believe in the fundamentals this country was based on. Liberty, justice, minimal government, free speech, free exchange of ideas, and more. I also believe that it is a much simpler path to be blindly patriotic than to question what you are being told, and question what you observe for yourself, which explains much of what I think you are observing. People have become too complacent.

As for attending church or being religious being definitive of being a good person, not true. I know many people who would not fall into these categories, but who are admirable role models nonetheless. People who follow the teachings of Christ know that you can't just talk the talk. According to Roman Catholic dogma, we have to live our faith. Attending Mass is not sufficient. But I will allow [livejournal.com profile] pstcrpt this: too many supposed Christians have no concept of living the faith.

Finally, I will posit this supposition for your consideration. We do have a morality problem in this country, and it takes this form: too many people are ready, willing, and able to excercise their rights, but not assume their responsbilities. These responsibilities extend to their familial, personal, work, and community relationships.

Date: 2005-10-09 02:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] texasjay.livejournal.com
I'll have to ask my boss about that one, pstcrpt. She and I have had discussions about Catholocism, and what its tenets are. She is having issues with her Southern Baptist heritage, and this may be part of it. Thanks!

Date: 2005-10-09 02:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pstscrpt.livejournal.com
I think it's true of most of the more conservative Protestant denominations (Sarah, is CoC a "Faith Over Works" denomination?). I grew up Methodist, which is much more liberal, but I was never very observant, so I'm not sure if they didn't believe that, or just didn't stress it much to avoid alienating people.

Date: 2005-10-09 04:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sarahmichigan.livejournal.com
They tend toward it. It doesn't matter what you do during your life if you've asked Jesus to be your savior and have been baptized, and ask forgiveness for your sins. My bro-in-law is a preacher, and he said he doesn't believe you can "lose" your salvation once you have it.

Date: 2005-10-09 04:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pstscrpt.livejournal.com
he doesn't believe you can "lose" your salvation once you have it.
Is that just a personal belief? It's Southern Baptist doctrine, but I was under the impression that the other conservative protestant denominations (CoC, Pentacostal, Missionary, etc. (whatever happened to the Puritans??)) didn't share it.

Date: 2005-10-10 08:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lefthand.livejournal.com
So god is a chump?

I find it difficult to believe that a supreme being can't see when he/she is being played for a fool.

Date: 2005-10-09 03:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stacycat69.livejournal.com
So, what about the talk in the bible that one who has strayed and come back is better than one who has been faithful all their lives?

Or the confessional denominations, that say as long as you have Jesus in your heart, he takes all your sins away, so just be Reborn right before you die, and God will forgive you.

I have no problem with true christians that live their faiths. I have a Huge issue with hypocrites that try to use their religion to show how they are better than me.

I fully agree with your last statement. A big problem with this country is that no one will accept responsibility for their own actions. See New Orleans for a good example.

Date: 2005-10-09 05:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pstscrpt.livejournal.com
You're looking for the parable of the prodigal son.

Date: 2005-10-09 07:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] texasjay.livejournal.com
I've always had an issue with end-of-life confessions. But I've also heard stories of people who have lived less-than exemplary lives reach the end of theirs, and [you'll forgive me] come to Jesus. As a priest who related several of these stories to the congregation noted, it's not that the sinner will spend no time in pergatory. But without true repentence, at least under Catholic dogma, there can be no entry into Heaven.

I agree whole-heartedly on the issue of hyprocrites. Unfortunately, these people show who they are in many ways. The more subtle ones who are less than obvious in what they are saying can do the most damage.

As for NO, that will be a mess for years to come. Sad thing is, I doubt anyone will learn the lessons from it.

Date: 2005-10-10 08:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pstscrpt.livejournal.com
You're using Catholic views of repentance and redemption, though, which are a lot more reasonable (or at least better for providing some sort of moral authority) than those of most Protestant denominations.

Date: 2005-10-10 10:22 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] texasjay.livejournal.com
That's what I'm gathering from the discussion. Thanks!

Date: 2005-10-10 07:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mogwar.livejournal.com
Actually, all protestant denominations believe that salvation is through faith and not works. That is one of the major differences between them and Catholicism. (And to be really technical, Catholics don't believe in salvation through works, either. They believe in the power of the confessional. I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination who believes it is possible to be saved through works entirely without any faith. Original sin negates all that. We are incapable as a species of being "good enough" on our own, which is why the son of God had to come and sacrifice himself on our behalf.)

Date: 2005-10-10 08:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pstscrpt.livejournal.com
My mother claims that Methodists hold that both are required, but I'm not sure she isn't just projecting her own ethics onto her church.

Date: 2005-10-11 10:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] texasjay.livejournal.com
Yes, all Christian denominations have faith as their basis for salvation. No, Catholics don't believe in salvation through works, but faith. We are, however, supposed to put our faith into practice.

But Sarah's original question wasn't one of salvation, was it? Wasn't the issue a question of practicing what one preaches?

To my thinking, if you espouse it, you ought to be willing to practice it, otherwise you risk being a hypocrite.

Date: 2005-10-11 11:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sarahmichigan.livejournal.com
Yes, my original emphasis wasn't really on church or religion, but on my belief that your actions show your true morals/values, which may or may not be in accordance with what you *say* you believe.

however, this tangential thread about faith vs. works in American religious traditions might shed some light on why some others don't share my belief that actions are more important than words/beliefs.

Still pondering. I had no idea this post would generate this much discussion, but it's been fun!

Date: 2005-10-11 11:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] texasjay.livejournal.com
Definitely a good discussion, Sarah!

I can't imagine someone NOT subscribing to the idea that actions are more important than words and beliefs.

Date: 2005-10-10 08:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dare2grok.livejournal.com
Related to #2, I don't know how large the "faith over works" crowd is, but I have something for them to consider. What if their supreme being(s)
say(s), "Yeah, true faith is the only thing that gets you in my door, but true faith's side effect is that it drives the believer to perform acts of good. Not only can I see into your mind and see whether your faith is real or not, but even if I couldn't read your mind lack of true faith manifests itself in lack of good acts."?

Date: 2005-10-10 08:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pstscrpt.livejournal.com
Good acts could come from any religious belief, though, even if you discount that people can be good without religion.

Date: 2005-10-10 08:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mogwar.livejournal.com
They already do that to some extent. Most mainstream protestant denominations I've been involved with state explicitly that to be truly saved you must turn your life completely over to God, and if you do that, you will then *want* to do what He tells you to do, and you will not want to do things that He wouldn't want you to do. Desires for breaking God's rules come solely from Satan, and if you are truly secure in your faith and have really given your life to God, he will protect you from Satan's evil influence. (Of course, due to original sin, we are imperfect beings who are never capable of turning our lives completely over to God, and thus it is our own fault when we fall prey to Satan's influences. But God did offer us an out, we're just not ever going to qualify for it. Which explains the whole story of Job.)

It's kinda insidious actually, the way they have an explanation for everything. But a whole bunch of people have put a whole bunch of thought over a whole bunch of time into Christian theology. We shouldn't really be surprised that it seems that they have an answer for everything.

Date: 2005-10-09 02:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stacycat69.livejournal.com
1. I dont know, but its scary.

2. Ive had so many arguments about morality lately. Some christians believe that they are more moral than I am, based soley on religious belief. My ethics are not given to be from a diety, they are my personal choices that I live with, and I am perfectly happy with them. :-) But, my ethical choices are what I do in my actions, not just what I think and say.

Date: 2005-10-09 06:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] flyinglemurs.livejournal.com
1. I don't know either, and it scares me too. And it seems its more than just blind patriotism to the country, but other things too. Automatically thinking what you are supposed to. Or blind loyalty to a bad job that takes advantage of you also come to mind.

Wasn't it Churchill that said (and I may have this wrong).."If you give up a little freedom for a little security, chances are you will wind up with neither". Yepppppers.

2. Well I am totally on the page of you can be a good person with or without religion.

Date: 2005-10-09 09:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] windswept.livejournal.com
That BF quote is one of my all-time favorites.

Date: 2005-10-10 07:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dare2grok.livejournal.com
Shifts back and forth between liberty and "security" (quotes imply the illusory kind) are mostly impossible to pin to distinct times. It's a long, never-ending cycle consisting of vastly innumerable micro adjustments in legislation, enforcement interpretation, and judicial interpretation at all levels: federal, state, and local. I agree with you that we have a nanny-state, but it's been there and quite active since before I was born, and when I look at the anecdote of my adult life commencing at 18 years old all I can say is that the encroachment of the state on me has receded a little bit. If I could point to a major example of that and one which applies in the arena of security, it is the removal of draconian gun control laws in the majority of states which only gave the illusion of personal security, replaced with sensible laws which allow for lawful people to ACTUALLY provide their own personal security while maintaining strong (though not perfect . . . nothing ever is) checks against irresponsible people.

I, too, am amazed at how many folks lazily figure that a mere facade of ethics or morality is good enough for themselves or others. I'm sorry to say there are even some in my extended family. Specifically, these family members wouldn't miss a meeting of church, yet their treatment of even their own blood kin is, shall we say, in direct contradiction to the WWJD bracelets hypocritically displayed on their wrists. I'm a firm believer that one is justified by one's actions, not merely by one's words or memberships. Fortunately, though not everyone thinks this way, many do. I'm glad you spoke up about that.

Date: 2005-10-10 07:57 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sarahmichigan.livejournal.com
I agree with you that this is probably cyclical throughout history. But when I read the constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and other writings by the Founding Fathers, I'm struck by how often they reference "liberty" and "freedom" and how little politicians in the last 50 years seem to showcase those words and ideas.

Date: 2005-10-10 10:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dare2grok.livejournal.com
I'm totally with you on that, Sarah. I'm disheartened that most of the passionate discourse of politicians seems to revolve around the criminal indictments of themselves, their friends, or their opponents rather than liberty and freedom and the protection and pursuit of those noble things.

Date: 2005-10-11 10:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] texasjay.livejournal.com
Or, you could take the indictment mania as a freedom to indict. lol

What's interesting is that smear campaigns have been around as long as either the Declaration or the Constitution. The Federalist Papers are one of the few remaining examples of how vociferous the debate was over the adoption of the Constitution. The difference we have today is that it is so simple to capture the audio and video of current events, and we get inundated with these sounds and images, that it feels like the rancor is greater than it was 200+ years ago. In fact, it wasn't. There just isn't much of a record left to us of those times.

Date: 2005-10-13 07:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] madrigalblue.livejournal.com
You seem super-cool--do you mind if I add you? I clicked on your name mostly because I am moving to Michigan by the end of the month:)

That Ben Franklin quote is one of my favorites. It really shows that the US is becoming pretty much the opposite of what the founders intended.

Date: 2005-10-13 07:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sarahmichigan.livejournal.com
go ahead. :)

May 2023

S M T W T F S
  123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 31st, 2025 10:45 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios