jump to navigation

A Vote For National Morality in 2008: Political Scientist Paul Eidelberg Gives Some Reasons Why March 10, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in Chrisitanity, elections, family, freedom, morality, news, politics, religion.
trackback

My faith in the political sanity of Americans has been bolstered recently. All 2008 Presidential campaign polls show Rudolph Gulliani leading Hiliary Clinton and Barak Obama. Gulliani is getting between 52% and 46% of votes while Hiliary is getting between 40% and 46%. My optimism in these glad tidings from Polling Report.Com maybe a little premature, but it may mean the traditional side of the American divide remains healthy and strong.

America could benefit by a women or man of color in the Whitehouse. The problem with the two democrats is their party platform. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for its ideology of liberal socialist-humanism. A vote for a Republican is a vote (usually) for traditional liberalism and its moral values and ideals.

Everyone remembers Bush’s was voted in to balance the budget and support traditional moral values. Shortly after becoming president, he was forced to face the reality of terrorism. His choice to fight has gained him much disfavor amongst liberals and conservatives as well. That disfavor is reflected in recent polls in which over 60% of people polled claiming dissatisfaction with his presidency. Why? George Orwell observed “as a general rule, governments move to the Right in moments of success and to the Left in moments of disaster.” Political scientist Paul Eidelberg sees the same happening in Congress. He does not see this as a good thing. He sees the opposition to the war in Iraq as “objectively pro-terrorist.” Consider his reasoning:

American war-protesters consist primarily of left-wing “insurgents” opposed to America’s traditional values. These left-wing insurgents that want the US to lose the war in Iraq are of the same stamp as those who wanted the US to lose the war in Vietnam. They succeeded in the case of Vietnam. If they succeed in Iraq, Jihadic Islam will have taken a giant step toward its ultimate goal: A world without America and without Israel—hence a world without Christianity and Judaism.

This is the goal of the radical left in the United States, which is waging a war against family values, as may be seen in its vehement support of homosexuality, same-sex marriages, pornography, and the removal of all vestiges of religion from the public sphere. Of course, the struggle is for the White House in the 2008 election. If the Democrats win—say with Hilary Clinton—this will be a great victory form Osama bin Laden.” (From An Important Message About the Radical Left, 12/16/07)

As Professor Eidelberg points out in The Cultural Left: Islam’s Ally, Bush represents everything the left hates. He is a public Christian, a conservative Republican, and he defends traditional moral values. He opposes precisely what the Cultural Left defends: homosexuality, gay marriages, pornography, moral depravity. It is the Cultural Left that is waging war against Christian Right. They fear the Christian Right more the Islamic fundamentalism. Why?

They see in religion a threat to unfettered personal freedom. For the Cultural Left, freedom means the absence of any external moral constraint; it means complete moral autonomy, which logically includes moral depravity. This is what the cultural war in America is all about.

The Islamic saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” may explain why Osama bin Laden and the left speak the same language about the war in Iraq and on terrorism. What it does not explain is why American culture does not reflect the values of its majority, which majority I demonstrated in Is America Really A Christian Nation? is predominately Christian.

According to Professor Eidelberg, our laws do not protect those values because:

The Cultural Left has gained control of the judicial branch of government. It’s the judiciary that has decriminalized pornography, sanctioned homosexuality, and is legalizing same sex marriages. Under the mantra of human rights, a child no longer has a right to two parents.

It’s the judiciary—thanks to its secular education or indoctrination—that has made a mockery of the First Amendment by removing virtually all symbols of religion from the public domain.

In his Farewell Address,
George Washington said “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” When Americans voted in a Republican government, placing Bush in the Whitehouse and majorities in both houses, Americans voted for that kind of national morality. The above polls indicate most Americans still cast their vote for a moral state of America. This is reason to expect the trend toward a renewed national morality to continue.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. in2thefray - March 11, 2007

Well said. One can only hope the obvious becomes more so.

2. Matt The Cat - March 11, 2007

The “freedom” you wish to “legislate” is not freedom. Morality is something born from the individual, legislation will not make people more moral; just as legislation cannot make you a Muslim. The Left are libertarian in that they do not seek to legislate morality; born of religion or otherwise.

3. Libertarian Left Does Legislate Morality « The State of America - March 13, 2007

[…] do not seek to legislate morality.” That was an interesting response to a recent post entitled A Vote For National Morality in 2008. The million dollar question is whether it is true or not; does libertarians-cultural […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: