The House on the Sand

Our Mentality: Moral Equivocation
Quote: “Whateva, I do what I want!” Eric Cartman


The underlying basis, which forms the entire system as we know it in America, are morals provided to us through a Judo-Christian heritage. Slowly we are eroding these standards in a march toward secularism. Let us start at the beginning and work our way towards an end without religion based morals.

Take a simple atheist with a simple choice in belief that results in a world view such as:

“There is no God. There is no omnipotent function ruling the universe. In all likelihood there have been other species that have evolved and populate the known universe.”

Let’s ask a better question of the atheist:

Me - “Why is killing someone wrong?”
Atheist – “Huh?”
Me – “If I want to reach across this table and stab you to death with this knife should there be any negative repercussions?”
Atheist – “Yes.”
Me – “Why?”
Atheist – “It would be assault with a deadly weapon and murder which are both felonies.”
Me – “Why are there laws prohibiting murder and assault then?”
Atheist – “To help maintain public order.”
Me – “So what you are saying is that we should make out laws based on whatever helps to improve public order?”
Atheist – “Generally speaking, yes.”
Me – “So let’s get back to the meat of the question though, where did those laws originate from?”
Atheist – “The writers of the constitution and the specific legislators in the states ratified their own versions and form of those laws.”
Me – “So other than keeping public order there’s nothing wrong with killing people?”
Atheist – “I wouldn’t agree to that statement.”
Me – “Why not?”
Atheist – “Well, they have the right to live and attempt to prosper. You would be interfering with that.”
Me – “Let me take a different angle at this. So as an atheist you believe in pan-spermia or evolution in some form?”
Atheist – “Something along those lines is very likely.”
Me – “So the classic view with survival of the fittest determining basically how evolution goes has at least a foothold in your mind?”
Atheist – “I don’t like where this is going.”
Me – “All I’m saying is that if you instead apply Survival of the fittest to the killing question there’s nothing wrong about it. It something that just happens.

My simple point is that without some type of Judo-Christian based morals underlying our laws you are effectively building a house on sand (eventually it will wash away). If the basis of our laws simply becomes public order (The better question being why even keep public order?) and there isn’t a right/wrong component to the law eventually the law will break down. You can only maintain rule as long as the majority of the populace can be kept in fear for whatever reason (Family, Life, Property, ect…) much like the European Middle Ages.

Take a look at the Chinese system as it now stands. There are systematic culling’s of children, political dissenters, Christians and anyone else that stands in the way of public order (Or whatever a select few individuals determine). Basically the system is underwritten by fear of the Survival of the fittest principle without morals.

Another way to look at this issue is control of property. Take the Iraqi oil fields for example. The American public would have hugely benefited if after the 2003 invasion we would have just confiscated the land (much like Russians treatment of Afghanistan in the mid 1980’s). Without a moral sense that the land belongs to the Iraqi people we should have just stated “We will get better use out of this land. It’s ours. You are unfit to remain in possession of it. Thanks.” this is the slippery slope that the world as a whole is headed down. In the near future China will finally outgrow its borders and start looking for additional resource points.

Let me not digress any further. The more we pull away from laws that are simple (no obfuscation) and Judo-Christian based the more rifting we will see in our populace. Almost every issue that is in the political sphere of contemplation currently has a very simple solution but are we willing to accept that consequences? Some would consider having religion based morals as a hindrance but I personally see them as a way to set up effective guideposts.

Most of the following articles will be based on these 3 simple principles:
1. Love thy neighbor. I have enough compassion in my heart to see my neighbors prosper and grow without coveting what they have.
2. Positive Effects. Does the action or freedom have some type of direct positive effect?
3. Sustainability. Is the concept or idea sustainable on a large scale or able to perpetuate itself without a large negative effect.

Good day and God Bless.
Taskmaster Cyning