Is it time we recollect the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” upon which our nation was founded? Or shall we sacrifice everything and everyone we love upon the alter of postmodern nihilism?
This hits hard—and it should. Dr. K., you cut to the core of a truth we’re too often afraid to confront: when we abandon moral clarity, we don’t become freer—we become lost.
The unraveling of a republic doesn’t require an external enemy; it only takes enough people convinced that right and wrong are outdated concepts. Once moral relativism takes hold, it’s not long before chaos masquerades as liberty and self-destruction is sold as progress. Just look at the passing of Colorado House Bill 25-1312 and what it actually means.
Reclaiming our future means reclaiming the idea that truth exists—and that virtue, not unchecked appetite, is the foundation of real freedom. Dr. K., this isn’t just cultural commentary—it’s a wake-up call.
I am reading a book called, "America on Trial, A Defense of the Founding" by Robert Reich. It is pretty interesting. In Chapter Two it talks about the "two swords" or the balance between secular government and the Church. I think we have lost the pushback from the Church.
I feel compelled to remind, that your final statement before your ending question contains the word "sacrifice." The moral code that dominates western civilization, Judea-Christian theology, prescribes "sacrifice" as the means whereby one practices supreme virtue!!??
I ask one of the respondents to your excellent article, Tom, one Chriss H., the following question. Could it be that the "sword" of the church is what has brought America to its so-called "crossroads?" Could the secular sword have been impotent when it came to the'll vlose i Church's prescriptions for what constitutes moral values? That the Church's monopoly on what defines "virtue" is utterly IMMORAL, and stands in stark contrast to what must rationally be seen as virtue?
Ayn Rand powerfully made the case for what individual responsibility and the rights necessary for its exercise, requires virtue to actually be! The moral values necessary for individual freedom are the virtues necessary for the rational pursuit of self-interest. The exact opposite of "sacrifice."
I'll close with a passage from my upcoming book.
At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, this arrogant contemporary [ME!] - in addition to the fifty-six representatives from the colonies, imagines himself present as well!
This imagined fifty-seventh Representative has been recognized by the Chair to address the collection of delegates. Delegates who perhaps represent the greatest gathering of enlightened political thinkers of the time. He would argue, at any time, in history.
He has been inspired by their intelligence, moved by their intellect, and impressed - as they resolve issue upon issue impeding their progress toward their goal, by their resolute determination.
As he is recognized and rises to speak, his manner is somber and reserved – unusual for such an arrogance.
“Gentlemen (There were no women present. Additionally, it would be quite a while before the ideals expressed in Mr. Jefferson’s profound Declaration would politically include women, black Africans, and Native Americans): The political institutions you envision and have remarkably fashioned, do not have the moral foundation to secure the political ideals stated in Mr. Jefferson’s unprecedented Declaration.
Specifically, one cannot argue on behalf of a human being’s political right to their own life, creating political institutions designed, debated, and adopted to then secure same, while at the same time accepting of a morality that a human being has a "higher" moral obligation. One that imposes on him, NOT one he has individually chosen, that he live his life in service to some other purpose - either on behalf of other human beings, or an imagined greater entity or abstraction.
Those for whom you wish to politically support such "rights," and from whom their political recognition and respect must be understood and defended, will disagree with it, while they maintain that each among us has a “greater” moral obligation to fulfill. One that renders the political right to one’s own life subsidiary.
This tirelessly repeated moral subordination of the individual, on behalf of a higher moral duty has - in the past, destroyed whatever expressions of an individual’s political right to their own life as may have existed. It has mandated that such selfish ideas must either be rejected out-of-hand or legislated away on behalf of an alleged “greater good” served by such ideals. I fear that in the absence of a proper moral defense of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," this body’s unprecedented attempt at their political consecration shall become doomed as well.” – David Walden, August 12, 2005.
This hits hard—and it should. Dr. K., you cut to the core of a truth we’re too often afraid to confront: when we abandon moral clarity, we don’t become freer—we become lost.
The unraveling of a republic doesn’t require an external enemy; it only takes enough people convinced that right and wrong are outdated concepts. Once moral relativism takes hold, it’s not long before chaos masquerades as liberty and self-destruction is sold as progress. Just look at the passing of Colorado House Bill 25-1312 and what it actually means.
Reclaiming our future means reclaiming the idea that truth exists—and that virtue, not unchecked appetite, is the foundation of real freedom. Dr. K., this isn’t just cultural commentary—it’s a wake-up call.
I wish more would use this argument in response to horrific violence rather than the excuses and unconstitutional solutions that are offered.
I am reading a book called, "America on Trial, A Defense of the Founding" by Robert Reich. It is pretty interesting. In Chapter Two it talks about the "two swords" or the balance between secular government and the Church. I think we have lost the pushback from the Church.
I feel compelled to remind, that your final statement before your ending question contains the word "sacrifice." The moral code that dominates western civilization, Judea-Christian theology, prescribes "sacrifice" as the means whereby one practices supreme virtue!!??
I ask one of the respondents to your excellent article, Tom, one Chriss H., the following question. Could it be that the "sword" of the church is what has brought America to its so-called "crossroads?" Could the secular sword have been impotent when it came to the'll vlose i Church's prescriptions for what constitutes moral values? That the Church's monopoly on what defines "virtue" is utterly IMMORAL, and stands in stark contrast to what must rationally be seen as virtue?
Ayn Rand powerfully made the case for what individual responsibility and the rights necessary for its exercise, requires virtue to actually be! The moral values necessary for individual freedom are the virtues necessary for the rational pursuit of self-interest. The exact opposite of "sacrifice."
I'll close with a passage from my upcoming book.
At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, this arrogant contemporary [ME!] - in addition to the fifty-six representatives from the colonies, imagines himself present as well!
This imagined fifty-seventh Representative has been recognized by the Chair to address the collection of delegates. Delegates who perhaps represent the greatest gathering of enlightened political thinkers of the time. He would argue, at any time, in history.
He has been inspired by their intelligence, moved by their intellect, and impressed - as they resolve issue upon issue impeding their progress toward their goal, by their resolute determination.
As he is recognized and rises to speak, his manner is somber and reserved – unusual for such an arrogance.
“Gentlemen (There were no women present. Additionally, it would be quite a while before the ideals expressed in Mr. Jefferson’s profound Declaration would politically include women, black Africans, and Native Americans): The political institutions you envision and have remarkably fashioned, do not have the moral foundation to secure the political ideals stated in Mr. Jefferson’s unprecedented Declaration.
Specifically, one cannot argue on behalf of a human being’s political right to their own life, creating political institutions designed, debated, and adopted to then secure same, while at the same time accepting of a morality that a human being has a "higher" moral obligation. One that imposes on him, NOT one he has individually chosen, that he live his life in service to some other purpose - either on behalf of other human beings, or an imagined greater entity or abstraction.
Those for whom you wish to politically support such "rights," and from whom their political recognition and respect must be understood and defended, will disagree with it, while they maintain that each among us has a “greater” moral obligation to fulfill. One that renders the political right to one’s own life subsidiary.
This tirelessly repeated moral subordination of the individual, on behalf of a higher moral duty has - in the past, destroyed whatever expressions of an individual’s political right to their own life as may have existed. It has mandated that such selfish ideas must either be rejected out-of-hand or legislated away on behalf of an alleged “greater good” served by such ideals. I fear that in the absence of a proper moral defense of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," this body’s unprecedented attempt at their political consecration shall become doomed as well.” – David Walden, August 12, 2005.