So you think the US is in a moral downfall....

I'd say things go in cycles, and the 1990s were the bottom of the pit in terms of moral decline. The baby boom generation has been a severely destructive force at all levels of American society, and when compared to their parents' generation, I'd say it's hard not to make a case that the WWII generation was considerably more admirable on the whole. I hope my generation will be better, although I'd say that remains to be seen. One thing is for certain in my view- a society based on the "do whatever you feel like and don't worry about the consequnces" mentality of the baby boomers cannot be sustained over the long term.

 

"One thing is for certain in my view- a society based on the "do whatever you feel like and don't worry about the consequnces" mentality of the baby boomers cannot be sustained over the long term. "

Right on.

 

Unfortunately, we all view things differently because we're allowed to think freely. At this moment, we probably have the most freedom Americans have had since the pioneer days. The Cold War has ended, and we've established trust with the US government again, and the government trusts us. Thats what has happened. IMO, Victorian England was just as bad as the '60s.

 

In a manner of speaking, I think Jerry Falwell was right, but that is just me to a point. The left wing blames their enemies for Columbine the way Falwell accused them, so I see no problem with it, especially when it is his opinion only.

 

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Gal 6:7


One of the most apt verses in the Bible, whether you are Christian or not.

 

I agree strongly with what falwell said in that interview. That is my personal belief. And I'd like to say im part of the current Generation 'X' and i think we are blowing our morals all to h***. Ya'll like to tell me that things in the past were just as bad or worse. Well where's your wonderful proof that things are getting better? If there is it's minuscle in comparison to the level of our corrupted morals.

 

"The left wing blames their enemies for Columbine the way Falwell accused them, so I see no problem with it, especially when it is his opinion only."

I don't see it as a partisan issue; I'm just opposed, on general principle, to using national tragedies for political gain.

"Ya'll like to tell me that things in the past were just as bad or worse. Well where's your wonderful proof that things are getting better?"

I don't recall offering any; what I have pointed out is that, nostalgia aside, America has never been this bastion of superior morality that some people cling to regardless of fact.

This generation has its problems. Most do. We also have many things in our favor, advantages no other generation has ever enjoyed. Maybe your experiences with our generation have been negative--so have many of mine--but rather than focus on the worst in all of us, I prefer the best.

If you want raw statistics, I can offer a few. Violent crime, although it still occurs, continues to drop at the national level. Our air, which fifteen years ago was almost unbreathable in some cities, continues to clear up. More people than ever now go on to college, gaining skills and opportunities on a scale few generations ever have.

For all the press negativity gets, there's still much to admire in the world. You only have to know where to look.

 

Well, no one takes advantage of national tragedies for personal gain more then Democrats do ,and especially no one more then Bill Clinton would. He was more into the post-COlumbine world then he was in the bombing campaign against Milosevic.

 

"Generation X/Y/Z" has just been following the path laid out for them by the baby boomers- but I don't think they/we have ever entirely bought into it. You could draw a parallel to Luke in Star Wars- he follows his father's path right up to the point where he has to decide whether he wants to follow in his footsteps, and then he turns back. Lucas hits on a larger truth there, IMO.

 

Yes, TripleB, but I think the issue goes beyond partisanship. I have just as much disdain for Falwell's opportunism as I do for that of the feminist coalition who tried to cash in on the 9/11 relief fund.

To address Palpazzar's earlier comment, there's certainly been a "decay" of stability in America, but I see stability itself as being morally neutral; it can keep people safe or keep people in bondage, often both at once.

 

Funny thing about the feminist comment you made, is the the supposed pariah's of the womens right movement, the NOW, have only recently begun to talk about the plight of women in afghanistan and they never do or say anything to praise the Bush Administration for the work they have done on this recently, which is more hten CLinton did in his entire term in office.

The Christian Coalition and Pat Robertson in particular, have spent more money and sent more missionaries to Afghanistan to help the women there then the NOW yet they are supposed to be out to destroy women, if you believe Kim Gandy and NOW.

Which just kinda shows that the only thing the NOW really cares about is left wing liberal politics, not the state of women.

 

Sorry about the gender confusion, TreeCave.




Does anyone take NOW seriously anymore? They are so extreme they have lost all their credibility.

 

I never stated that the US is wonderfully moral. I think humans are basically, throughout history and the world, basically amoral, which is different from both moral and immoral.

The point is: people weren't smoking pot in the 50's, but they were driving drunk (and drinking is involved in 86% of . They may not have flaunted extramarital sex (though they certainly had it), but it was legal to rape your wife. They may not have had kids shooting each other on campus, but they had public segregation against blacks and private segregation against women, Jews, etc.

So have our morals really gotten worse, or have we just changed our definition of what's moral?

Greedo, I don't mind you calling me a he, but DON'T CALL ME AN OREGONIAN. Six more weeks and I'll be back in CA among the living.

 

Darth Geist wrote: "So all that witch burning, slavery, Japanese internment--that was all illegal and done in secret?

Damn, I must've read the wrong history book."

While I agree that the US has done some terrible things in the past, I wanted to point out something to you. There has been a change in our history books. Revisionist history is following a particular agenda. For example, the interpretation of our Constitution has changed quite significantly since our founding fathers instituted it.

Also, for some good reading I would suggest that you read President Washington's farwell address. In it he outlines things that if done will lead to our countries downfall. To the letter those things are being done!

It just makes one wonder...

Don't take my word for it though, check it out for yourselves.

 

I should have known to arm myself when walking into this thread.

First off, I can't believe any of you are actually agreeing with anything Falwell said about September 11. So it's the ACLU's fault those planes were hijacked? It was the feminists' fault? Or maybe I've gotten it wrong--maybe it was the homosexuals' fault.

I'm throwing up right now, and not just because I've had a stomach virus.

TripleB:

"the supposed pariah's of the womens right movement, the NOW, have only recently begun to talk about the plight of women in afghanistan "

Wrong. As a card-carrying member of NOW, I signed several petitions against the Taliban, long before September 11. I remember signing my first one in 1999. (These petitions were, by the way, directed towards our government, to do something about the way women were treated in Afghanistan.)

DARTHPIGFEET: When the hippies came along in the 60s, we also got civil rights for African-Americans and women, and better access to birth control.

The 50s were a wonderful time to live in America--if you were a white male.

TreeCave: Amen.

This is directed to anyone who thinks the baby boomers have ruined America:

People have been doing the same thing for centuries, as far as shooting each other, raping women, extramarital sex, physical abuse, etc. The difference between "now" and "then," is that now, people aren't so secretive. Now, a woman can come forward and admit that she has been physically or sexually abused, with less possibility of being told that she is to blame because she was wearing a short skirt. Now, women have access to birth control so that they can avoid getting pregnant out of wedlock, and if said birth control doesn't work, she isn't necessarily made to feel shamed and sent away to some "home" in another state just because she performed a perfectly natural act; she has the choice to either carry her baby to term or have a safe, legal abortion. Now, homosexuals can be honest about their sexuality, with less chance for violent repercussions, and knowing that if there are violent repercussions, the perpetrators will be punished. Now, people can get out of unhappy or abusive marriages without worrying about being shamed in their community.

What was so moral about "then", is my question?

 

Ergh... in my above post, I meant to say that alcohol is involved in 86% of violent crime. I lost half the sentence somehow.

 

"Well, no one takes advantage of national tragedies for personal gain more then Democrats do ,and especially no one more then Bill Clinton would. He was more into the post-COlumbine world then he was in the bombing campaign against Milosevic"

If it was historically possible, I truly believe the Right would blame the Clinton Administration for Pearl Harbor. Were there bad things about that administration? Of course, show me one without flaws. But it strikes me that BEFORE 9/11, Clinton was heavily criticized for ordering missile attacks against Osama Bin Laden, supposedly to detract attention from the Lewinski scandal. Since 9/11 the story has changed: Now Clinton didn't do enough. Isn't it time to find a new scapegoat?

 

Greedo, I don't mind you calling me a he, but DON'T CALL ME AN OREGONIAN. Six more weeks and I'll be back in CA among the living.

I was just giving you a playful ribbing. ;-)


Also, it might be more correct to say that it wasn't illegal to rape your wife. To say that it was legal (I'm not sure how prevalent the abhorrent crime of spousal rape was in the 1950's or any other "Golden" era) almost makes it sound like husbands were given "permission" to rape. But then again, wives were probably also given permission to rape their husbands.



Signed,

Loving Life in California

 

Did I mention Civil rights, womens rights? No I did not. I mentioned the Hippies. Get it straight. The Hippies have this misconception of taking credit for helping the Civil Rights and Womens rights cause for some reason when they didn't.


Plus get your facts straight with the Civil Rights. The first MAJOR victory done in the Civil Rights movement happened in 1954.

Plus the 50's was a much better time to live in, and I only wish I did live back then. Things were a hell of a lot more quieter and simple.

That is just my view on things, but the hippie movement was a shameful thing, and I have my reasons for that sentiment.

 

Anakin Girl said

>>First off, I can't believe any of you are actually agreeing with anything Falwell said about September 11. So it's the ACLU's fault those planes were hijacked? It was the feminists' fault? Or maybe I've gotten it wrong--maybe it was the homosexuals' fault. <<

The context was that God may have withdrawn some of his blessings from the United States BECAUSE of the above mentioned groups. LIke I said previously, the extreme left wing has blamed the Christian Coalition and the NRA for Columbine and other things like that, so it balances out.

>>I'm throwing up right now, and not just because I've had a stomach virus. <<

Well, I hope you feel better.

>>TripleB:

Wrong. As a card-carrying member of NOW, I signed several petitions against the Taliban, long before September 11. I remember signing my first one in 1999. (These petitions were, by the way, directed towards our government, to do something about the way women were treated in Afghanistan.) <<

Since you are a card carrying member of the NOW squad, you would probably know that your president, Kim Gandy, was on The O'Reily factor about a week ago. O'Reily brought up w hat I brought up, about the Christian Coalition and Pat Roberton out of his own pocket, sending medical aid to Afghanistan's women in the form of trained Gynecologists, who were missionaries as well, to help them. NOW refused to take part with the Christian Coalition and Pat Robertson basically out of his own pocket, picked up the part of the tab that NOW was supposed to support.

I am sure they sent out a petition about it, but in the end, a petition does nothing save register complaints. It was the CC that sent out missionaries to the hard and dangerous work of going to Afghanistan and actually trying to help the women of Afghanistan and paying the tab.

In this case, the NOW was not there for some women who were REALLY in need. I am sure NOW was more concerned in defending Clinton's legacy, and helping HIllary's run
for the Senate then to bother themselves with the women of Afghanistan.

 

"But it strikes me that BEFORE 9/11, Clinton was heavily criticized for ordering missile attacks against Osama Bin Laden, supposedly to detract attention from the Lewinski scandal."

Clinton's bombing campaign targeted Iraq, if I'm not mistaken.

 

That was Operation Desert Fox. He also sent missles toward an Al-Queda training camp, in a seperate operation.

 

IN 1998, early august, days after Clinton was deposed in the Monica Lewinsky case, and Clinton made his first public statements about it to the nation...in the first 3 days after it, polls showed they did not approve of how Clinton had handled things on that public statement, where most of it was him attacking Ken Starr. Ken Starr's poll numbers went up, Clintons numbers went down.

Clinton ordered cruise missle strikes against Afghanistan AND Sudan. He claimed in Sudan he was striking a Chemical Weapons plant, and in Afghanistan, back then he claimed he was hitting a terrorist camp.

In a legendary example of how the liberal press will cover for Clinton, hardly a peep was ever said that we ended up paying Sudan 30 million dollars for the strike, because we hit medical facility, not a chemical weapons plant. Only Rush LImbaugh reported that.

now, Clinton claims they were taking a shot at Bin Laden, to help cover up his already failed legacy.

 

Having spent a great deal of time in what is considered (by some) "the city of sin" (Las Vegas) while serving as a missionary for my church, I don't believe that the overall morality of the US has changed. Instead, it has become much more polarized. Because of the many, constant forces that are pulling people in both direction (good and bad), it has become harder for a person to stay in the middle.

Las Vegas, for example, is mostly known for a whole variety of sins (drinking, gambling, prostitution, etc.). While I was serving there, I met some of the most immoral people I probably will ever meet. I also met some of the most moral and outstanding people ever.

The presence of immorality has a polarizing influence on people. Either they are attracted by it, or they are repulsed by it. There is almost no middle ground.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Now wait a minute. Don't go playing the bias card just yet because I remember there was a big deal made out of us supposedly hitting an Asprin factory or something like that instead of the intended target. So it was reported.