Wednesday, April 11, 2012

The Correct Epitaph for Santorum's Run

Belvedere has it exactly right:

As for Rick Santorum…

You tried to get people to start understanding how cultural and social decay is linked directly to economic and political decay.

You showed that you understood what John Adams meant when he wrote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
There are smaller minds--specifically in Madistan--who substitute 7th-grade caricatures and "thinking" for criticism of Santorum, Grothman, and others.

Too bad. 

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

With the implication being that only those who are Christian are fit to govern. Everyone else need not apply, eh, Dad29, because you and your ilk are the "adults" in the room. And the "war imagery" from the link is a nice touch. Perhaps the "smaller minds" know better when they see home grown extremism in the raw.

Amy said...

With the implication being that only those who are Christian are fit to govern.

Really? Where does it say that in the post?

The implication, if any, resides solely in your delusional mind. "Home grown extremism" indeed.

Dad29 said...

Anony believes that there are no moral Jews, Confucians, or Hindus.

That's the implication, ain'a?

Amy--Anony is frightened of morality as a whole. It's called a 'guilty conscience'--and it manifests as a perpetually-whiny 7th-grade "sarcasm".

Anonymous said...

"Anony believes that there are no moral Jews, Confucians, or Hindus."

Interesting how Dad29 left out Muslims. Couldn't bring yourself to include that group, ain'a?

The exclusion of this religion is telling. Are you frightened of morality as a whole?


Amy says, "Really? Where does it say that in the post?"

It's right in front of you when the author states "The Left has engaged us in a fight to the death. They seek nothing less than to destroy everything we hold dear and sacred, and we owe it to those who come after us and to The Founders, who bequeathed us our precious Republic, to carry on the fight to destroy Leftism."

The meaning of this quote is that the Left is immoral. If the Left is immoral, then they are a danger to our nation and must be removed any and all positions of authority in society...permanently.

"Time for the WOLVERINES to regroup and rearm."

The author of the source Dad29 linked to is clearly promoting the idea that a nation's morality is conditional on ALL of its citizens acknowledging God and submitting to His principles. To do otherwise would result in denial of God's headship and authority. This final act would bring God's judgment on America and her people.

So, the question begs WHOSE GOD MUST citizens ultimately acknowledge for America to avoid this fate? And what happens to citizens who do not believe in God (or are deemed "immoral"), or do not adhere to the "correct" way of following that God?

Dad29 said...

Anony doesn't get it.

There's a big difference between "immoral" (which de facto recognizes moral behavior as best) and "amoral"--which was the concern of the quoted Founder AND the concern of thinking people in the USA.

But it's more fun for Anony to be aggrieved-without-foundation. Makes her day.

Anonymous said...

Let's assume that Dad29's interpretation of one of our great statesmen is correct...it's not, but let's humor him.


Moral--Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

Amoral--An absence of, indifference towards, or disregard for moral beliefs.

If a person is immoral, they do something wrong, either purposely or through ignorance.

If a person is amoral, they do not know the difference between right and wrong, either purposely or through ignorance.

Even though "amoral" is similar to innocent in not knowing good from bad, amoral is usually a bad thing and innocent a good thing. Often, innocent means doing good because you have never thought of evil; an amoral person might do good or bad.

But according to Dad29 and company, liberals purposely does bad things. They cannot be amoral, but only immoral. Why? Because they do not believe in God, or least not what is the "proper" way to worship him. Therefore, what they do is wrong. If what they do is wrong, then they are immoral...and NOT subject to the Constitution and its protections, and certainly are unfit to govern.


"Makes her day"--So purposely referring to a person who disagrees with you as "she" makes you feel manly? Now, would your actions fall under "amoral" or "immoral" conduct?

You just couldn't bring yourself to include Muslims as a group that is moral. The exclusion of this religion is indeed telling. It would appear you are frightened of morality as a whole.

TerryN said...

Another component of 7th grade thinking is incorrectly reading between the lines, then drawing incorrect conclusions.

Anonymous said...

All you do on the blogs, TerryN, is make comments without entertaining the thought of debate.

Care to provide a counter argument? Or are you going to cower behind juvenile statements?

TerryN said...

I'm not here for a debate. I'm here as an observer mainly because it is futile to debate with people who make anonymous statements like this.

"Or are you going to cower behind juvenile statements?"

My observation at 4/12/2012 12:45 PM is proven once again.

Anonymous said...

"I'm not here for a debate."

And you say I act like a 7th grader?


"Because it is futile to debate with people..."

Why don't you give the ol' college try! You can do it!

You are no different than any partisan, liberal or conservative. Sad!

Anonymous said...

Don't mind TerryN. She's got her partisan hack blinders up 24/7.

Anonymous said...

Anony 5:33 p.m. here. TerryN is a man, not a she. Don't be that way, it just gives Dad29, TerryN, and others more ammunition.

Dad29 said...

according to Dad29 and company, liberals purposely does bad things. They cannot be amoral, but only immoral. Why? Because they do not believe in God, or least not what is the "proper" way to worship him

"Worship" has nothing to do with this. Right conduct is the question.

Properly defined, the moral law is "...the norm of human conduct, whether revealed or known by reason. The term is used to distinguish the law as binding in conscience, from mere statutes or directives intended to ensure good order." (Hardon, Catholic Dictionary)

All reputable social scientists know that moral law IS knowable by reason. Thus, the amoral person is an actor whose behavior is ipso facto irrational OR who defies revealed moral law.

Abortion is murder, and is the holy grail of the Left. Defending abortion--or ensuring its availability through taxation--is not only cooperation in evil, it is also a form of theft: the forcible taking property for an unjust cause.

Your choice: irrational or immoral.

Anonymous said...

"PROPERLY defined", "all REPUTABLE social scientists"...indeed, from YOUR world view.

"Worship" has nothing to do with this. Right conduct is the question."

It is well established from your point of view that liberals ALWAYS make irrational choices. Their decisions cause wrong. If they cause a wrong, they are immoral. If they are immoral, they are NOT subject to the Constitution and its protections, and certainly are unfit to govern.

It is also well established from your point of view that liberals are incapable of "properly" worshiping because their views on religion--IF they are even religious!--directly contradict the tenets of the RCC. If one fails to strictly adhere to the process or to its principles, they are irrational. If they are irrational, they are a causing a wrong. If they are causing a wrong, they are immoral. If they are immoral, they are NOT subject to the Constitution and its protections, and certainly are unfit to govern.

And, of course, since abortion is the Holy Grail of the Left, then all the more reason in your eyes to ensure that liberals are NOT part of the governmental decision making process...at all!

Because you wholeheartedly agree that our nation's morality is conditional on ALL of its citizens acknowledging God and submitting to His principles. To do otherwise would result in denial of God's headship and authority. This final act would bring God's judgment on America and her people.

Regardless, the question begs WHOSE GOD MUST citizens ultimately acknowledge for America to avoid this fate...and what happens to citizens who do not believe in God (or are deemed "immoral"), or do not adhere to the "correct" way of following that God.

So worship AND right conduct BOTH have EVERYTHING to do with it, my friend.


On another note, on September 25, 2006, Pope Benedict held a meeting with approximately 20 Muslim diplomats. Here, he expressed "total and profound respect for all Muslims".

I suggest you get on board.

Dad29 said...

It is well established from your point of view that liberals ALWAYS make irrational choices.

False. Straw-man silliness. E.G., Dershowitz' comments on the Z case are dead-on.

If they are immoral, they are NOT subject to the Constitution and its protections, and certainly are unfit to govern.

False again. All citizens remain subject to the Constitution--and its requirements. Your statement implies that you are willing to be ruled by the amoral and/or immoral. In that case, North Korea is looking for new citizens.

...abortion is the Holy Grail of the Left, then all the more reason in your eyes to ensure that liberals are NOT part of the governmental decision making process...at all!

Promoting or cooperating in abortion--especially through taxation--is flat-out immoral. Not ALL liberals do so; but those who do ARE unfit to govern. There is no "redeeming value" when one deliberately eradicates the first right of the Declaration, and (in effect) steals property to do so.

Regardless, the question begs WHOSE GOD MUST citizens ultimately acknowledge

There is one God, and His name is not "Allah."

...he expressed "total and profound respect for all Muslims".

Respect in the B-16 sense comes SOLELY from the understanding that all of mankind are children of God (not "Allah".) But respect for persons is not to be confused with respect for (or agreement with) their errors.

Error has NO rights. None.

Try again.

Anonymous said...

"False. Straw-man silliness. E.G., Dershowitz' comments on the Z case are dead-on."

They are stating their opinion, not making policy choices. BIG difference. I do not recall when you even provided tepid support for a liberal legislative endeavor.

"If they are immoral, they are NOT subject to the Constitution and its protections, and certainly are unfit to govern. --False again. All citizens remain subject to the Constitution--and its requirements.--"

You get a cookie for isolating that statement without considering the context of my overall point.

So, if all citizens are subject to the Constitution, it would appear you now think Adams was WRONG in that only "moral" and "religious" people are subject to the Constitution.

Because ALL CITIZENS includes atheists and Muslims who are legal American citizens...yet how can they be "moral" or "religious" from your perspective? It would appear you are contradicting yourself.

"Not ALL liberals do so; but those who do ARE unfit to govern."

And where is that clause in our Constitution that states that those liberals who believe in abortion are unfit to govern? I must have missed it.

Besides, the members of a society, which includes all faiths, races, and ethnic groups--who have their own unique ways of looking at things--they will ultimately decide who is "unfit to govern".

"Respect in the B-16 sense comes SOLELY from the understanding that all of mankind are children of God (not "Allah".)"

So Muslims are not part of mankind because they believe in Allah, who is not a God? Therefore, this religious group, every single member, should not be respected?
I must have missed that message from my priest.

Sorry to inform you, but from a religious perspective, respect for EVERY HUMAN BEING comes SOLELY from the understanding by all faiths that each person are children of God...regardless of that faith's name for or beliefs in that God.

Dad29 said...

I do not recall when you even provided tepid support for a liberal legislative endeavor.

I, like Dershowitz, have opinions. You, too!

you now think Adams was WRONG,,,

That's not what Adams said, nor what I said. Straw-man again. Can't you learn a new trick, Fido?

I must have missed that message from my priest.

Actually, you missed Reading Comprehension, and you missed it by several miles.

Clearly, you are simply another "Jim" troll--if not "Jim" in the pixels.

THIS is what the Left has to offer in "debate"? Distortions, lies, straw-men, and pure bluster?

Anonymous said...

"THIS is what the Left has to offer in "debate"? Distortions, lies, straw-men, and pure bluster?"

Spoken like a true hard-headed partisan, with all the fixings. When all else fails, resort to Alinsky Tactic 4102. Is this what they taught you and Capper in school?

Adams is clear with his point. Anyone who falls short of the prescribed criteria--faith and scruples--is not worthy of being in charge of the government.

Now, Belvedere and company take it one step further--let's destroy Leftism. Hey, what better way to "vanquish" them by co-opting the Constitution and ensuring that a certain set of values will be entrenched for those deemed worthy, chiefly a moral and religious people (but definitely not Muslims). Go for it, I say!

Just be honest, Dad29, of the overall intention by the WOLVERINES, that's all.

Dad29 said...

You say:

Anyone who falls short of the prescribed criteria--faith and scruples--is not worthy of being in charge of the government.

The quote:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

Evidently abstract thinking is not part of your repertoire. There is NO other explanation for your flat-out misrepresentation of Adams' words.

Anonymous said...

The Framers most certainly considered religion an important source of social morality, but they were also keenly aware that denominational conflict and interdenominational conflict could destabilize a government. Richard Henry Lee wrote, “...true freedom embraces the Mahometan [(Islam)] and the Gentoo [(Hindu)], as well as the Christian religion.” This Founding Father had an understanding that the law could NOT be used to force people to believe one way or another. If the law is used to force the Christian religion, that same law could then be turned to forbid it..

Imagine that, a Founding Father who respected Islam and recognized its legitimacy!

Certainly, the Founding Fathers agreed on legitimate ends of government. They disagreed about how the state could secure those ends, in particular whether the government could employ religion as the means to secure liberty. John Adams is CLEAR in his endorsement that religion supported the good order of society , and that government should endorse and encourage religion. SOME people at that time and today take it to mean ONE PARTICULAR FAITH ought to be the religion to guarantee that order. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Richard Henry Lee, however, emphasized the need to limit government in order to protect liberty from religious zealotry.

Adams ABSOLUTELY believed our form of government was only meant for a self-governed people; a people who know how to live morally right. Liberals from your point of view WILLFULLY do not live morally right. They lack ANY sense of that notion to properly conduct themselves, especially in their political agenda, because they are Godless and have no soul. Therefore, there is a movement today by a certain religious groups to ensure that this group of “low lifes” are NOT making decisions in government and do not have the means, or are limited in those means, to exercise their freedoms.

It's called context, interpretation, and meaning regarding the Adams quote. Belvedere's deftly and carefully measured his words as to appear that his message would appear to be ambiguous, yet his other statements bring out his ideas loud and clear.

Come again about abstract thinking?

TerryN said...

I see this needs to be reiterated. Not important but hey, I was browsing here.

I'm not here for a debate. I'm here as an observer mainly because it is futile to debate with people who make anonymous statements like this.

"Or are you going to cower behind juvenile statements?"

Nobody's cowering. There are some chuckling however:-)

Anonymous said...

I am chuckling, too, TerryN, because you've got 7th grade logic to a T!