Tags
"Natural Law", Abraham Lincoln, America, Conformity, constitution, Education, free, freedom, Honesty, liberty, Progressivism, Religion and Spirituality, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, United States
A national consciousness is a shared sense of national identity. The principles and ideas we all believe in that make us ALL AMERICANS! Things like Hot Dogs, Hamburgers and Apple Pie and dare I say Chevrolet. Maybe a Norman Rockwell print or a Veterans day Parade. Maybe, dare I say, the Constitution. What are we allowing our National Conscience to be formed by?
I remember an event on the Illinois River called Steamboat Days. It taught of early American Culture and times of steam travel up and down the river as a means of life. I learned how to throw an Indian Tomahawk. I learned about hard tack and life as a river runner. Things that made us and brought us to where and what we are.
In our history we have done great things. We have come together to repel National Socialism in the form of the Nazi’s. We have opened the land by building a highway system unequaled by any other. We have gone to the moon and back. Not once but many times. We have setup shop in space. We have done some amazing things as a nation.
We held slaves as property. We segregated our fellow citizens with intent. We developed Abortion clinics (Margret Sanger) to sterilize blacks and kill black unborn children as to keep the population down. We fought a war amongst a divided nation.
We have done some really crappy things as a people too. But the only way that we can prevent these things from occurring again is by preserving the past. Not just the Norman Rockwell past, but the past of the slave and the Eugenics Progressives as well. For if we do not remember from whence we came, we will go there again.
I can imagine that the site of a Planned Parenthood center brings great strife and unease to a person of color. How could it not. It was developed in the spirit of human Eugenics and means of keeping the blacks from increasing in number. Even a marriage license must be a terrible thing for a black to endure. After all it was devised by a people that wanted to prevent racially blended families. So where are the cries of abuse and demands for their removal?
Who are we allowing to shape our conscience? We must really ask ourselves this question. Why? Well, contrary to what the Supreme Court thinks, we do have a right to conscience. Contrary to the race baiters on all sides and the talking heads that want to make millions more in advertising through salacious viewership. Contrary to the tension filled debates that seem to be breaking out all over our nation overnight, we, you and I; Black and White, Rich and Poor, Old and Young, Gay and Straight, we have a right to our conscience. What we do not have a right to is “not being offended”.
It is time we think for ourselves as a people. We must not allow electronic imagery to shape our conscience. It is when we all exercise our own mind and conscience as honest and free men that our National Conscience will once again invoke the image of Rockwell, Hotdogs and running through the sprinklers on a hot summer day. We must put aside our artificially engineered derision and get back to doing what we do best. We must get back to our foundational principle of each man being created equal with equal justice for all under the law. Each man having the right to exercise their thoughts, beliefs and convictions without fear of being arrested or called a bigot.
We must look inward before we look any further outward.
We are not ready for the conversations we are having as a Country right now. At least not the way they are being presented. Case in point:
This ruling had little to do with marriage and had everything to do with control and the foisting of ideals on people. Remember, the marriage license was not around when George Washington married. (neither was the Peoples House) It was brought about by Progressive Liberal minded Socialists that wanted to keep the white race clean.
If two people of same sex wish to marry then so be it. Just not in my Church. But that would require a two way street. It would mean that if you wish to marry then you must find a religion and a church to marry you. So how long now before our Religious protections under the Constitution become assailed by something that is not even constitutionally provided for? Marriage is not mentioned, hinted towards or even considered in the Constitution. But freedom of religion is.
Whether I think two men should be married or a man a goat and tree be married is irrelevant to this discussion. Because for me to be honest with myself I must accept that others have beleif systems that vary from mine. I must in the least allow them the right to exercise them. That is as long as they do not pick my pocket or break my leg nor infinge on my right to conscience.
I do not have to sanction them. I do not have to agree. I do not have to facilitate the act of union by two people be they heterosexual or not. And at the same time those of the homosexual community do not have the right to force me to abandon my principles and religiosity to facilitate their behavior.
So let me ask you. Do you think this two way street will flow evenly in both directions? It just might if we think for ourselves and tell the agitators to shut the hell up and to crawl back under the rock that they climbed out from. It can if our own conscience is defined, and known, then we can have these discussions. Right now though, we are not ready for what is upon us and these questions are causing great strain on our National Conscience.
Look at how national chains and politicos are taking knee jerk reaction to a very tragic event. The event was not caused by the flag. It was caused because we have a diminished National Conscience.
We are not thinking, we are being told what to think. When we think for ourselves we are a great people. When we let others think for us, we are in trouble. It is OK to disagree. Just let us do so as Americans, neighbors, friends, family or even strangers in such a way that honors who we are as a people. Let us do it in such a way that we honor ourselves. Be honest. Stand for belief. Be prepared to defend it. Be prepared to test it. Be prepared to become stronger.
But for God’s sake let’s all stop the damn whining and grow the hell up. Stop letting everyone else define who we are! It is time to come together. We must identify those that want us separated as a people and be sure to dismiss them.
Unity my fellow Countrymen! UNITY ! From many seperate parts one !
Eric D. Miller 
I feel oddly divided by your words here today, nomo. You seem to echo my thoughts very closely, with regards to maintaining our heritage and history. I believe that individual freedoms are of top priority, but in the case of the Confederate flag (which you danced around, but didn’t outright discuss, above), I feel that government bodies should not be glorifying the history of the flag by flying it right alongside the American flag. That feels disrespectful to the hard-fought victories that the US of A has earned, including the victory that led to the reuniting of our country. If you, as a person, want to wear a Confederate flag on your person, in the form of a t-shirt, belt buckle, face tattoo, whatever… you absolutely have the freedom and right to do so. But once the government enters into this social freedom contract, then it’s a different story.
There are also some other very specific sticking points I encountered, regarding your opinion on the matter of marriage:
Marriage, in the sense of the Supreme Court ruling on Friday, is simply a governmental contract between two individuals, allowing those individuals to have spousal rights, in the eyes of the law. You mentioned that in marriage, these two individuals will require a church and a religion to marry them. Why? The government has never had any business making rules regulating religious activitiesand they aren’t about to suddenly start now. Friday’s judgement had no bearing on religion in any way, shape or form, regardless of what many zealous Christians would have you believe. The ruling doesn’t require any religious figures to join two gay people in what they refer to as the ‘bond of holy matrimony’, or, in fact, to perform any services for gays whatsoever. The ruling simply states that the state government has no right to restrict marriage licenses to ONLY a certain group of people. As a country, we’ve had this conversation at LEAST twice before (black equality and female equality), so to say that this country is not equipped to have the conversation is showing a poor opinion of the public at large. I feel like our Supreme court has looked at the conversations we’ve had in the past, regarding equality, and decided that once again, the conversation has come to the same conclusion, with equality and freedom coming out on top.
Don’t let your religion blur your vision of this country and its direction. I believe we are on the right track, and are taking the steps we need to take, in order to heal some of the scars of this country’s past. If issuing a marriage license or removing a flag from in front of a government building is required to help that healing process? Well then, as an American, that’s exactly what I’m going to do.
LikeLike
UPDATED 30 JUN 15 – 07:27 HR – Let me thank you for the time you took to pen your opinion. It seems you took the time to create a WordPress account that has no real existence other than to offer the ability to comment on this post. Well done and thank you again for the effort. :
http://talkingmonkeygames.wordpress.com
I agree on the flag and the flying over a State Capitol. However, my Capitol does not have it flying so I need not tell people of other States what they should do. SC chose to lower it to a position of less prominence, their choice. No face Tattoos here either .
So why take it down over a historic landmark? A museum of sorts.A symbol of the past? A way to remember the time in our history?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/29/confederate-flag-taken-down-at-fort-sumter/29490845/ This is about one thing and one thing only. Selfless and all out Orwellian control, and this has nothing to do with the flag. Just like the film had nothing to do with Bengazi.
“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it…. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.” ? Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.
Until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. However, that long-vaunted, Court-enforced tolerance for “intolerant” speech has now given way to a paradigm in which the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum. Justifying such discrimination as “government speech,” the Court ruled that the Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles could refuse to issue specialty license plate designs featuring a Confederate battle flag. Why? Because it was deemed offensive.
The Court’s ruling came on the heels of a shooting in which a 21-year-old white gunman killed nine African-Americans during a Wednesday night Bible study at a church in Charleston, N.C. The two events, coupled with the fact that gunman Dylann Roof was reportedly pictured on several social media sites with a Confederate flag, have resulted in an emotionally charged stampede to sanitize the nation’s public places of anything that smacks of racism, starting with the Confederate flag and ballooning into a list that includes the removal of various Civil War monuments.
These tactics are nothing new. This nation, birthed from puritanical roots, has always struggled to balance its love of liberty with its moralistic need to censor books, music, art, language, symbols etc. As author Ray Bradbury notes, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”
I stated very clearly that “This ruling had little to do with marriage and had everything to do with control and the foisting of ideals on people.” Again back to the States rights issue. If a State wishes to sanction a gay marriage, which they have done then so be it – from many one! Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Those things not prescribed therein belong to the State.
I do not subscribe to a Religion so it does not blur my vision of this Country. I hold a faith. A deep seated faith and I know the difference between – religion – faith and government.
The ruling had nothing to do with anything other than an attempt to move control closer to the Federal level and away from the States. What I failed to say in the post was that I do not beleive that the Government has any business in marriage. Hetro or Homo.
I will say that I am very pleased to see that you used an expressive yet respectful tone in your descent on my ideas. I too hope I have done the same. Without the ability to hold adult discussion we have no hope. And this Country right now is incapable of adult discussion.
Men must be honest first with themselves, and then they may be honest with others. In order for a meaningful dialogue of “searching for truth” to occur honesty has to exist. Right now, it seems people only know what others tell them to think.
There has been a lot of mean spirited vitriol on line over this and I am glad that you and I have had a chance to have an adult conversation.
I do not pretend to be the end of the story. I do not pretend to be the one with all the answers. You hold a part of the truth and so do I. I am going to take time to digest your ideas further and try to look for truth I may have missed. I ask you to do the same. Maybe we can both find a greater TRUTH.
For a matter to resolve, it takes two men to have a willingness to listen. It takes two men to question with honesty. It means that each man must then question himself with honesty as well as the other in forming the foundation to his answer. By doing so he will have formed a solid and stable basis from which to rely upon.
It is not until a man is honest with himself that he can be honest with another.
Therefore, honesty and not opinion should be the boundary of our debate. Thank you for your comments – I will study them further for truth that I may have missed.
LikeLike