Monday, October 12, 2009

Rejecting the Right

“We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.” -Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.


A premise of this blog is that our constitutional liberties can only be preserved on the foundation of a moral citizenry. As Patrick Henry put it, “No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles”. Accordingly, I view philosophies and ideologies contrary to moral discipline, and those who espouse them, as threats to and enemies of the Constitution.

I want to highlight two speeches, one religious and one secular, which tied the degradation of our society to an effort to eliminate discrimination between right and wrong. I highly recommend everyone find time to watch both speeches. You can view, listen, or read the first speech entitled “Morale Discipline” by Elder D. Todd Christofferson in its entirety (15 min) here. You can view the second speech entitled “How Modern Liberals Think” by Evan Sayet in its entirety (48 min) here.

Elder Christofferson defined moral discipline as “self-discipline based on moral standards”. He posits that, “In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay. Societies will struggle in vain to establish the common good until sin is denounced as sin and moral discipline takes its place in the pantheon of civic virtues”.

Mr. Sayet’s speech describes some of the political and secular circumstances that exist in today’s society that result in just the opposite. He details a modern philosophy that brands any government, society, or even individual who denounces sin as bigoted. This philosophy, he says, attempts to eliminate discrimination between good and bad, right and wrong, or behaviors that lead to success versus behaviors that lead to failure in society.

Quotes from the speeches follow below (emphasis mine). The first quote from the Wall Street journal wasn’t directly quoted in either speech, but was included as a footnote to Elder Christofferson’s speech.


Wall Street Journal on Societal Decadence:

“Sin isn’t something that many people, including most churches, have spent much time talking about or worrying about through the years of the [sexual] revolution. But we will say this for sin: it at least offered a frame of reference for personal behavior. When the frame was dismantled, guilt wasn’t the only thing that fell away; we also lost the guidewire of personal responsibility. . . .

“The United States has a drug problem and a high-school-sex problem and a welfare problem and an AIDS problem and a rape problem. None of this will go away until more people in positions of responsibility are willing to come forward and explain, in frankly moral terms, that some of the things that people do nowadays are wrong” (“The Joy of What?” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 12, 1991, A14).”

Elder Christofferson on Societal Decadence:

“The societies in which many of us live have for more than a generation failed to foster moral discipline. They have taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for himself or herself what is right. Concepts such as sin and wrong have been condemned as “value judgments.” As the Lord describes it, “Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god”(D&C 1:16).

“As a consequence, self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments. One columnist observed that “gentlemanly behavior [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior. . . .

“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.”

“In most of the world, we have been experiencing an extended and devastating economic recession. It was brought on by multiple causes, but one of the major causes was widespread dishonest and unethical conduct, particularly in the U.S. housing and financial markets. Reactions have focused on enacting more and stronger regulation. Perhaps that may dissuade some from unprincipled conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circumvention.3 There could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, enforcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone. In the memorable phrase of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, “We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.”

“In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay. Societies will struggle in vain to establish the common good until sin is denounced as sin and moral discipline takes its place in the pantheon of civic virtues

Elder Christofferson on Intelligent Use of Agency:

“…[I] have heard a few parents state that they don’t want to impose the gospel on their children but want them to make up their own minds about what they will believe and follow. They think that in this way they are allowing children to exercise their agency. What they forget is that the intelligent use of agency requires knowledge of the truth, of things as they really are (see D&C 93:24). Without that, young people can hardly be expected to understand and evaluate the alternatives that come before them. Parents should consider how the adversary approaches their children. He and his followers are not promoting objectivity but are vigorous, multimedia advocates of sin and selfishness.

“Seeking to be neutral about the gospel is, in reality, to reject the existence of God and His authority. We must, rather, acknowledge Him and His omniscience if we want our children to see life’s choices clearly and be able to think for themselves. They should not have to learn by sad experience that “wickedness never was happiness”.

Evan Sayet on Modern Liberalism:

“[Modern Liberalism] is diametrically opposed to that which is good, right or successful”.

“[Modern Liberalism] sides with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure rather than the ones that lead to success”.

“The modern liberal looks back on [the history of] human civilization and knows only one thing for sure, that none of the ideas that mankind has come up with, none of the religions, none of the philosophies, none of the ideologies, none of the forms of government – none have succeeded in creating a world that is devoid of war, poverty, crime, and injustice. So they are convinced that since all of these ideas of mankind have proved to be wrong, the real cause of war, poverty, crime, and injustice must be found, can only be found, in the attempt to be right.

“If no one ever thought they were right, what would we disagree about? If we didn’t disagree, surely we wouldn’t fight. If we didn’t fight, of course we wouldn’t go to war. Without war there would be no poverty, without poverty there would be no crime, without crime there would be no injustice. It’s a utopian vision, and all that’s required to usher in this Utopia, is the rejection of all fact, reason, evidence, logic, truth, morality, and decency.”

The best way to eliminate rational though [or] the attempt to be right, is to work always to prove that right isn’t right, and to prove that wrong isn’t wrong.”

“[Modern Liberalism’s] one criterion for truth, beauty, honesty, etc, etc, is does it tear down what is good and elevate what is evil. Does it tear down what is right and elevate what is wrong. Does it tear down the behaviors that lead to success and elevate the ones that lead to failure so there is nothing left to believe in.”

Sayet on a Cult of Indiscriminateness:

“The way the elite do this is by teaching our children, starting with the very young, that rational and moral thought is an act of bigotry. That no matter how sincerely you may seek to gather the facts, no matter how earnestly you may look at the evidence, no matter how disciplined you may try to be in your reasoning, your conclusion is going to be so tainted by your personal bigotries, by your upbringing, by your religion, by the color of your skin, by the nation of your [7th] great grandfather’s birth, that no matter what your conclusion is, its useless, it is nothing other than a reflection of your bigotries; and therefore the only way to eliminate bigotry, is to eliminate rational thought.”

“[The rising generation is] raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative, because it’s opposite is the evil of having discriminated… In order to eliminate indiscriminateness the modern liberal has opted to become utterly indiscriminate. The problem is, of course, that the ability to discriminate, to thoughtfully choose the better of the available options, is the essence of rational thought [or as Elder Christofferson put it, ‘the intelligent use of agency’].”

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Socialism: The Core of the Health Care Debate II

“…no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction.” -- Ezra Taft Benson, American Heritage of Freedom

In my recent blog, "Socialism: The Core of the Health Care Debate", I discussed how the unconstitutional principle of re-distribution of wealth is the selling point of a nationalized health care system, naively accepted by some well meaning individuals and embraced by the greedy. I also mentioned that many politicians champion health care reform to increase their political power by making the citizenry increasingly more reliant on government solutions and increasingly less reliant on themselves. I read an article today by Roger Hedgcock with a title I may well have used for my blog, "Health Reform is Spelled F-O-R-C-E". The article reminded me of additional reasons to eschew national health care.

If America socializes our health care, public costs will drive health care decisions, not individual choices or desires.

The government will eventually determine when “end of life” medical care is cost prohibitive, or wasteful and pointless. (See video where President Obama implies that individuals are incapable of making good “end of life” decisions; that government must save them from evil medical practitioners who will milk them dry by loading their elderly parents up with needless tests.)

Health care costs will cause Federal regulation to expand into a broader range of activities since nearly everything affects health in some way or another. For example, it is conceivable that the Federal Governement will try to regulate the likes of McDonalds out of business for nutritional reasons. It is conceivable that they will force doctors to perform abortions and euthanasia on demand.

Roger Hedgecock writes:
“When you cut through the different bills working their way through Congress, cut through all the speeches, all the charges and counter charges raging in the debate on health insurance "Reform"---at the bottom line is governmental force. A shift of power and money and choice from the citizen, taxpayer, and patient to Government.…
…The same mentality that led President Clinton to blurt out that taxes were good because "we know better how to spend your money than you do" is evident today in the arrogant attitude that only this behemoth increase in government power can save us from our inability to provide health care to ourselves and our loved ones.”
Beware of this Pandora's Box, America!