Litkicks Message Board Archive

tell me what you think...

Posted to Poetry and Politics




quoting you Billectric:

"I don't think any one country is morally better than another."

The Soviet leaders were atheists, in fact, my understanding is that to make communism work, the government must hold the supreme ideal of humanity (what they believe every man should want), to enforce it, to dictate its shape and function, for it to be successful in becoming a religion in and of itself dictating its own morals. Could you say that the Soviet Union was on the same moral ground as the United States in regards to human freedoms?

Are there morals without some religious base...are there morals without a foundational faith of some sort? I don't agree that all countries are morally alike, all morally equal in their behavior and guiding convictions. However, those countries whose constitutions are associated with a faith will not escape the ridicule that comes when strict adherence to that faith's associated doctrines (whether they are understood properly or not) are not followed. And perhaps this makes us the most evil nation on earth (all liberals cheer now) due to the traces of hipocracy in our blood that in other countries may not even raise a blush of shame. And maybe this is where this notion that there ultimately can be a world cooperation and peace (and that full onus should be on us) comes in. It's the concept of a "heaven on earth".

Is it a misguided sense of moral obligation that has some people believing that America is the most evil of nations because it chooses to defend itself (even preemptively) when it should be choosing peace (ie. absolutely no option of war)? And I don't ask this merely in regard to this current situation with Iraq. Should we as a country "turn the other cheek" if stuck or "turn a blind eye" to danger and should it be the President's (in regards the office, not Bush) call to decide that the nation he or she represents and the people he or she has sworn to protect should be left vulnerable rather than safeguarded? Would you rather have the President of your nation make the choice to protect the opposition's family of another country over, say, you and your family? Would you rather that he or she be more concerned about the lives of foreigners than of your life and the lives of those you love? Would you rather that Mr. or Mrs., Miss, Ms. President of America have more loyalty to the enemy than for their own country?

Although Bush professes to be a Christian, he does not wear the clerical collar in the office he has chosen to fulfill. If he had, he'd be the Pope, not the Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation on earth, a nation that must look after its own interests if it wishes to continue enjoying the benefits of its position. This is not to say that Bush, in publically revealing his faith, does not invite attack upon himself. And morally, that is a dilemma considering his position and his faith. However, the founding fathers of this nation held the belief that there was a higher unseen power to answer to, to call on, a power whose commandments and humanitarian beliefs and integrity the founders of this country tried best to integrate into a Constitution, Bill of Rights and the justice systems.

anyway, there's my long-winded opinion