In the new millennium we’ve seen many an issue come up and there was “moral debate” over said topic. It has called some questions to my mind about the status of ethics within the American psyche. During elections we’ve heard the term “moral majority” tossed around a bit, actually…quite a bit. I, and probably a great deal of others as well, have questioned a few of the subjects of the political and social spectrum in the past few years, and how groups have reacted, both in the news and through legal actions. And how the term of “moral majority” applies to Americans.


The fact that there is such an anathema in many people’s minds about banning the torture of detainees, whether in Guantánamo Bay or otherwise, whether Al-Qaeda prisoners or otherwise, whether during wartime or peacetime, is a tad perplexing.

The fight over the Ten Commandments being present in courthouses.

The use of the term “Happy Holidays” to appeal to a broader audience than Christians and be more “politically correct”, and how offense is taken to its use.

The uproar over the brief appearance of a “nipple” of a pop star in the middle of a violent sports game, that advertised alcohol at commercial breaks and had programs afterwards laced with coarse language, raised tremendous controversy.

That there is a sort of xenophobia of the Latino population of immigrants flooding to our country in recent times.

The appearance of an “all-white” cemetery in Georgia, and “all-white prom” in an Alabama high school.

That a risqué relationship between the President and an intern working in the White House is worthy of impeachment of office, while other “scandals” are overlooked with much enthusiasm. Even carrying over into the current President and the denigrations being spoken of today.

That there is a bloodthirsty cry amongst the citizenry for execution, as seen with California recently and that Texas is attempting to speed up the death penalty. That their tax dollars are more important to them and so the criminals in question should be terminated to save money and deal out absolute punishment.

That a desire exists to teach “Creationism” in public school science classes, and supporters adamantly lobby for such action.


That bureaucratic indignities “broken” in the media, such as the recent Plame affair, are glazed over or not paid much attention to, with the heat passing within a few weeks. As seen in past presidential terms and still appears today.

How homosexuals are so scorned that the term “gay” is a disparaging insult used flagrantly, and the allowance of marriage of a homosexual couple is so repudiated that it must be blocked in the place where it was first allowed (San Francisco), and states have begun taking measures to block any allocation for a gay or lesbian legal union.

The finding of favorability in taking the grievous course of action to go to war, and standing by said conflict when the reasoning for it has come to naught. How the collective population calls for war that both drags them into further debt and causes death, as well as tarnishes reputations around the global diplomatic scene, and that the catalysts that threw the country into the conflict are facing a deep amount of skepticism.


Many of these points are drawn out from a preponderance of the populace and having their views being enforced on the rest. This “majority rule” is offensive to the most basic of principles of the United States, a supposed land of the free where the Constitution of aforementioned republic allows for protection for freedom of expression of all ideologies.
Other issues, such as euthanasia, polygamy, stem cell research, corporate scandals of the executives, and abortion, also come to mind and the veil of anger surrounding the positions on such issues. And how federal government is using its power to shoot down an investment in ideals that a state government has contrary to their own. Is it moral to enforce your views on someone else? I would venture to say ‘no’.
The mass of the population that is thrown around on issues and candidates by their religion, and how the recent news of spirituality in America, rather than speaking for themselves and thinking about the issues of the day themselves.
Such a blinded view often carries over to pollution; the disregard for environmental effects of our actions shown in the past are starting to wear off, but not to an extent where the luxuries of the modern day are infringed upon. The prodigious amounts of money doled out (especially during this time of year) to exhibit vainglorious displays of materialism and obsession with commercialism show an obedience to money that can be often terrifying.
And the heroism aroused in tales of America in its early days and throughout history, from the imperializing of North America, to the seceding of half the nation, to heavily influencing European, Latin, and Asian politics, it is all justified and within good cause as many are led to believe. The “might makes right” and extremist “nationalism” that is present and rearing its ugly head in America is startling. God, War, Buy, Gay, National Pride, Lies, and other buzzwords rule our vernacular in the media.

Forgive the rambling nature of the above passages, but the status of America’s societal and individual ethos is beginning to make me worry about this nation which I adore. We’ve got lower crime and abortion rates in this year, more people own homes and go to college, and fewer teenage pregnancies, as well as more immigration than ever before. Not too long ago I asked what you believe “morality” is from your eyes, now I want to throw out some topic for debate, and apply that morality to American society. Do you think Americans act in a moral manner?Individually? As a nation? If not, why? And how would you prefer we act? And so on and so forth…

Share you thoughts. :)

My biggest worry is the greed of the people, do we really need alot of the garbage that is out there? Is it allright to pollute just so we can drink 20 soda's instead of water etc... Are we destroying the important things just so we can sit on our allready fat lazy butts? What has happened to helping another, sure everyone donates a buck here or there but do they get involved on a personal level. How many would stop and help someone in need, is it just easier to walk on by and let someone else worry about it? The other problem I see is public rudness, what ever happened to the words thanks or please, and what about holding a door for someone?

Evakian

Your post didn't really deal with ethics. It dealt with things that are happening that you don't like.

There is no great acceptance of torture in people's minds. There is a question of what constitutes torture though. Is embarrassing a prisoner torture? Is disconcerting him torture? Is making him uncomfortable torture?

There is even some question of if torture is ever justified. If you have in custody a man who by telling you what he knows can save one hundred lives do you torture him or do you allow the one hundred innocent to die?

There are those who believe the Ten Commandments belong in the courthouse because our laws are based on a mixture of Roman Law, English Common Law and Judeo/Christian Law.

The use of the phrase Happy Holidays might be more inclusive but to many Christians it glosses over or ignores the reason for the season. Christmas is more than just another Happy Holiday to Christians. It is the second holiest day of the Christian calendar. Saying Merry Christmas shows respect to Christians and their beliefs.

Americans are more prudish than either their European or South American counterparts. Janet Jackson knew this and knew that he 'equipment malfunction' would be met with anger by a large portion of the viewing public. The 'slip' occured during prime time when many children were watching and that tended to upset some parents. Nudity, either partial or total has its place. The Superbowl is not that place.

The xenophobia over Latin American immigrants has a lot to do with the fact that they are illegal and pay no taxes yet partake of our health and educational systems. It also has to do with the fact that they are the first large group of people who seem unwilling to learn English and who expect us to learn Spanish in order to communicate with them.

So long as there are all black cemeteries and all black proms and blacks only scholarships there should be a place for certain all white things. If the cemetery is privately owned no one has the right to say who should be buried there other than the owners. If you do not like it, don't be buried there.

President Clinton was not impeached because he participated in oral sex with a young intern. He was impeached because he lied under oath. That is perjury and that is the crime for which he was impeached.

I am personally against the death penalty in all cases but the majority of Americans seem to not be in agreement with me. It is not a matter of saving money but of the feeling that some crimes are so heinous that they deserve the ultimate punishment.

Since both Creationism and Evolution deal with how organisms change from one form to another where better to teach it than in a science class. Many theories were taught in science classes that are no longer accepted. At one time Lysenkoism was big in the scientific world. The theory has since been discredited. Perhaps some day in the future it will again be accepted by scientists. Evolution can explain how organisms can change within a species. It cannot explain how life began.

For you to say the Plame affair was glossed over is ludicrous. It was front page news for weeks on end and is still in the papers and on television. Far greater shortcomings have been swept under the rug in the past.

Gay marriage is an issue filled with emotion. It goes far beyond mere legalities. Some oppose it for religious reasons, some for social reasons. There is a difference between gay marriage and gay unions in which gays are afforded all the rights, priveledges and responsibilities of heterosexual couples. The fact that the word gay can be freely bandied about is a good thing not a bad one. It means that gays are now accepted enough to be the butt of jokes, not in the locker room by snickering adolescents but in the same way other groups are joked about. It wasn't that long ago that the term wasn't even used in polite society. Donn't despair. Before too long the term gay no longer be used. Terms for groups change. Negroes became coloreds became Afro-Americans became African Americans became Blacks. Homosexuals became fags became queers became gays and will one day become something else. Group identifiers are constantly changing.

The United States went to war as part of the greater war against terrorism. You and I might feel it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq but it was not a course taken lightly. Now that we are there it would be the height of folly to precipitously rermove our troops. The purpose of the war has changed from removing Saddam Hussein to nation building. It is now important that a democratic Arab nation arise in the Middle East as an exemplar for other Arab nations.

Majority rule is not offensive to the principles of the United States. Majority rule is one of the most basic principles upon which our nation was formed. It was for majority rule in opposition to the rule of a king and nobles that the Revolutionary War was fought. If there is to be a tyranny it is much better that it be a tyranny of the majority than one of the minority.

You ask if it is moral to force your views on someone else and then answer your own question by saying no. One group always forces its views on others. Anything else would be anarchy. The question is not whether or not it will be done but which group will be doing the forcing. We have gone from a nation in which the majority forced its views on the minority to one in which the minorit forces its views on the majority. Hardly a better situation and in many ways a worse one.

The issues of euthanasia, polygamy, stem cell research, and abortion will work themselves out. At present there is too much disagreement among people to arrive at a concensus. As for corporate corruption, that is nothing new and is less offensive today than it was in the past. Just think of the South Sea Bubble in England and the Teapot Dome Scandal in this country. Think of J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Jay Gould. Their corruption made today's pale by comparison.

Buzz words are not something new. They have always existed. Sound bites are easier for people to remember. Think of,
Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain", "Fifty Four Forty or Fight", "Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute". Some of the nations most stirring memories are of buzz words and sound bites.

You ask how people prefer America act. I prefer we continue to act the way we always have; arguing, cajoling, getting angry with each other but always, with the exception of the Civil War, resorting to the ballot box rather than arms.

Originally posted by Frogger
Your post didn't really deal with ethics. It dealt with things that are happening that you don't like.

The starting thread is meant to begin the conversation about ethics in America, spark questions, share viewpoint/story, etc.

There is no great acceptance of torture in people's minds. There is a question of what constitutes torture though. Is embarrassing a prisoner torture? Is disconcerting him torture? Is making him uncomfortable torture?
There is even some question of if torture is ever justified. If you have in custody a man who by telling you what he knows can save one hundred lives do you torture him or do you allow the one hundred innocent to die?

All valid points, alas...speaking from personal experience the news media deals with allowing torture or not, not speaking of the circumstances or motives. Skewing the viewpoint, leading me to question them.

There are those who believe the Ten Commandments belong in the courthouse because our laws are based on a mixture of Roman Law, English Common Law and Judeo/Christian Law.

Why not a copy of the Magna Carta or Twelve Tables alongside the Ten Commandments?

The use of the phrase Happy Holidays might be more inclusive but to many Christians it glosses over or ignores the reason for the season.--Saying Merry Christmas shows respect to Christians and their beliefs.

But what if the Christian addresses a Jew? Shall the lack of using Happy Hanukkah be disrespectful? Not hardly.

Janet Jackson knew this and knew that he 'equipment malfunction' would be met with anger by a large portion of the viewing public. The 'slip' occured during prime time when many children were watching and that tended to upset some parents. Nudity, either partial or total has its place. The Superbowl is not that place.

Not so much the details surrounding the incident, but the mass hysteria raised by children viewing a breast for a brief flash is what draws skepticism.

The xenophobia over Latin American immigrants has a lot to do with the fact that they are illegal and pay no taxes yet partake of our health and educational systems. It also has to do with the fact that they are the first large group of people who seem unwilling to learn English and who expect us to learn Spanish in order to communicate with them.

Every immigrant class has dealt with its struggles in America, but in the modern era fear of a culture and/or language that is in such close proximity seems absurd. Illegal or not, Mexican or Irish, 2005 or 1845.

So long as there are all black cemeteries and all black proms and blacks only scholarships there should be a place for certain all white things. If the cemetery is privately owned no one has the right to say who should be buried there other than the owners. If you do not like it, don't be buried there.

There is nothing "wrong" with a business or other form of privately owned organizations to do so. It is their property.
The fact that racism is apparent and practiced, even in a public school (in which case it can be deterred), seems detrimental to maintaining domestic peace.

President Clinton was not impeached because he participated in oral sex with a young intern. He was impeached because he lied under oath. That is perjury and that is the crime for which he was impeached.

But he went to the courts over the affair, and the perjury came out of that. There is a severe loathing of sexuality in America that every component or practice is feared and attacked in the public stage.

I am personally against the death penalty in all cases but the majority of Americans seem to not be in agreement with me. It is not a matter of saving money but of the feeling that some crimes are so heinous that they deserve the ultimate punishment.

I'd say money goes into the equation quite a bit as well, but i was mistaken to forgo the other point. Thanks for bringing that up.

Since both Creationism and Evolution deal with how organisms change from one form to another where better to teach it than in a science class. Many theories were taught in science classes that are no longer accepted. At one time Lysenkoism was big in the scientific world. The theory has since been discredited. Perhaps some day in the future it will again be accepted by scientists. Evolution can explain how organisms can change within a species. It cannot explain how life began.

Creationism is an unscientific method of explanation for things, a for-the-most-part Christian based doctrine being pushed into federally funded school systems, and into science class.
The problem of Evolution not being able to explain the upstart of life does not detract from the potholes of creationism.

For you to say the Plame affair was glossed over is ludicrous. It was front page news for weeks on end and is still in the papers and on television. Far greater shortcomings have been swept under the rug in the past.

The Plame affair is a passing whisper now, either way--you're right.

The fact that the word gay can be freely bandied about is a good thing not a bad one. It means that gays are now accepted enough to be the butt of jokes, not in the locker room by snickering adolescents but in the same way other groups are joked about.

There still is the source of resentment over use of the term in that manner.

You and I might feel it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq but it was not a course taken lightly. Now that we are there it would be the height of folly to precipitously rermove our troops. The purpose of the war has changed from removing Saddam Hussein to nation building. It is now important that a democratic Arab nation arise in the Middle East as an exemplar for other Arab nations.

Few arguments here.

Majority rule is not offensive to the principles of the United States. Majority rule is one of the most basic principles upon which our nation was formed. It was for majority rule in opposition to the rule of a king and nobles that the Revolutionary War was fought. If there is to be a tyranny it is much better that it be a tyranny of the majority than one of the minority.

Men being afforded all equal rights under the law due to them as citizens is more of a concern that what the majority says the minorities should bend themselves to.

One group always forces its views on others. Anything else would be anarchy. The question is not whether or not it will be done but which group will be doing the forcing. We have gone from a nation in which the majority forced its views on the minority to one in which the minorit forces its views on the majority.

That is really a question for the specific issues being addressed.

The issues of...
Buzz words are not something new...

The commentary in the previous passages was either agreed upon by me, or excessory exegesis that you generously added. :)

You ask how people prefer America act. I prefer we continue to act the way we always have; arguing, cajoling, getting angry with each other but always, with the exception of the Civil War, resorting to the ballot box rather than arms.

Good post Frogger, you dissected the original post thoroughly making me regret typing that in such a furious and careless manner. Perhaps I didn't articulate myself properly, but don't go so far as to say I am not in agreement with you on these issues. I merely question the appearance and extrinsic use of the elements of racism, homophobia, and other varieties of ethical dilemmas within the country.
From that I mean,
Not a question of how a war is being conducted, by why we would take such a greivous step in the first place. Not a question of what or when objective material is on television, but why the outcry against it. Not a question of whether the majority has the power over the minority, but whether it is right to disrespect rights of the lesser ideologies or interests.
In all truth, this post was made out of anger at certain issues of the day, and quite obviously so. I posted it because i might've served as a piece of fodder on which to feast for debating, and maybe get those "ol' gears a-churnin' " in the noggin. America is not perfect, and never will be...but as we live and command the nation, it would behoove us to work hard to make it a safe place for all, to allow all members to go in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

Originally posted by Frogger
The use of the phrase Happy Holidays might be more inclusive but to many Christians it glosses over or ignores the reason for the season. Christmas is more than just another Happy Holiday to Christians. It is the second holiest day of the Christian calendar. Saying Merry Christmas shows respect to Christians and their beliefs.

Frogger PLEASE do not take this as being rude. When a person says merry christmas are they not putting down other beliefs? I celebrate this time of year for the original meaning winter solstice{21-23+}. It is a fact that the Christians took this date and use it because it was easier to convert the pagans{of the time} to Christianity. I don't mind sharing a holiday but what would happen if I went around in a mostly Christian society and said happy winter solstice? This country was suppose to have freedom of religion, which to me means we can all celebrate a time of year but should it be shown to only certain types of religious belief? I enjoy having this holiday time and spend it with Christians, but I don't feel I should have ther views forced on me. Example of something that does get my goat; I constantly here so and so {perfect Christian as many are right now ;)} telling me or others not to forget what this original day is. All I want to do is say get a clue? I don't and never have because I try not to disrespect there holiday meaning. The truth is that no one really knows when Jesus was born, probably in the summer. Like I said I am not disrespecting Christain beliefs, but it does seem {atleast on a small scale?} that they do mine. Another thing we could also mention is the tree, why as it been called/changed to a Christmas tree when at 1st this would have been considered only done by heathens?

The problem with "majority rules" is that if the majority are all fools, the rules are all foolish.(quote Dan Fussell)

The biggest problem with "majority rules" is that it ignores the fact that the Bill of Rights was largely written to prevent the majority from imposing it's will on the minority.

Originally posted by Mad dog

Frogger PLEASE do not take this as being rude. When a person says merry christmas are they not putting down other beliefs?

No they are not. You may not have read my response in another spot but I said that I think that if addressing a Jew you should say Happy Channukah, if a Hindu, Happy Diwali, etc.. It does not lessen me to wish someone else a happy holiday that he practices. It is simply courtesy.

Vilepagan

The Bill of Rights might have been written to prevent the majority from forcing its views on the minority but it in no way was written in order to allow the minority to force its views on the majority. That is what is happening in the United States today. If one person objects that person trumps all those who agree with a policy.

Frogger thanks for your answer and yes I did see the other thread.

I think what Vile and Dan were getting at is just because the majority said do this, it doesn't make it correct. As far as the minority or majority both sides can come up with wrong things but it does seem when the majority moves it as much more strength{even when the idea is bad}. I'm not a homosexual nor do I understand it, but who am I to tell two adults what to do? The majority for years put homosexuals on the burning post just because they did not like it{fear}. The same can be said for slave owner ship of yesteryear the majority said it was fine, but was it really{of course not}. With that said I'll let Vile and Dan post I'm sure they can answer better this was JMO.

Originally posted by Frogger
Vilepagan

The Bill of Rights might have been written to prevent the majority from forcing its views on the minority but it in no way was written in order to allow the minority to force its views on the majority. That is what is happening in the United States today. If one person objects that person trumps all those who agree with a policy.
========================================

Fogger, if the one spoken of above objects, and is allowed to make change, who has allowed this act? The minority or the majority?
Who gave this person access to such power? The minority or the majority?

I often hear the statement (in a negative manner) that one person makes changes, especially when abortion laws, gay rights, or the subtraction of religious words from schools or government property are discussed. Usually from a person that is in disagreement with the outcome.

Yet, I hear the statement of one person has made a change (in a positive manner) when the outcome is pleasing to the speaker.
Civil rights (M.L.King), peace(Ghandi) as two examples.

In truth, I can see no change come about that does not involve the majority is some manner. The majority either allows or dis-allows the change to occur.
A minority may instigate the change, but a majority must allow it to take root and stand, either thru action or inaction.

We seem to have built a country here where the majority of the people wanted freedom for the individual. This freedom would include that each of us be protected from government controlled religion. Our fore-fathers drew up certain laws to insure this and the majority agreed.

The paradox seems to occur when these laws are interpreted in a manner that disagrees with our personal religious beliefs.

Its seems that we only want a seperation of state and religion only when it is involving a religion or belief that is not ours.
We want individual freedom of choice- only when that individual is in agreement with us.

When the minority is forgotten, it seems, we have a form of dictatorship.

There is nothing wrong with individual freedom, Dan. The wrongness enters into the equation when that individual's freedom impinges on the freedom of others. It is not only in matters of religion. There are laws telling us not to smoke in public and now they are trying to get laws to not allow people to smoke in their own homes if children are present. They have rules that tell us we must wear seat belts and helmets. What is next, telling us we can't eat bacon because it is unhealthy.

Let each follow his own path so long as doing so causes no harm to others.

Originally posted by Frogger
There is nothing wrong with individual freedom, Dan. The wrongness enters into the equation when that individual's freedom impinges on the freedom of others. It is not only in matters of religion. There are laws telling us not to smoke in public and now they are trying to get laws to not allow people to smoke in their own homes if children are present. They have rules that tell us we must wear seat belts and helmets. What is next, telling us we can't eat bacon because it is unhealthy.

Let each follow his own path so long as doing so causes no harm to others.
=======================================

Supposedly the no smoking is to prevent second-hand damage to others.
Statistics show that seat belts and helments do help prevent damage to humans when accidents occur.

If the majority of the people decided that bacon was unhealthy it probably would disappear commercially. We could still raise our own.

Understand that the point I was trying to make is that the majority must go along with the minority viewpoint for it(the minority viewpoint) to have any effect.
The majority can have influence by sheer numbers.

Take, for example, the new no smoking in public places laws.
If all people continued to smoke in public places nothing could be done about it regardless of the laws.
Millions of people still smoking in public places could not all be arrested. Compliance by the majority gives the law strength.

This majority compliance example can be applied to most all examples of minority effects on the majority.

Strength is obtained only when the majority conforms to the minority desires.

Statistics show that seat belts and helments do help prevent damage to humans when accidents occur.

Undoubtedly they do but what right does the government have to force me to change my habits in order to be safer? Rock climbing is a dangerous sport. Does the government have the right to ban it?

Frogger I agree 1000%with your above posts{about helmets seat belts etc}. These self save laws are nothing but money makers for the government and a way to keep the population in control.

Either ban smoking all together or as Travh would say STFU!!! If smoking is legal and a person owns a public business it is up to the owner to set rules not the KGB{our government}. Seat belt laws are in place to help our over paid justice system get easy money, same with helmet laws. These self save laws are nothing more then B--- S---!!!!! Next we'll have no bacon then no power tools then only mashed food. This country is getting ridiculous with its a** bag laws. It's easier to give average Joe a ticket{plus the system will get it's money} for no seat belt then it is to get a real criminal off the street. Sorry for venting but these laws are really starting to get under my skin more and more.

Originally posted by Frogger
Statistics show that seat belts and helments do help prevent damage to humans when accidents occur.

Undoubtedly they do but what right does the government have to force me to change my habits in order to be safer? Rock climbing is a dangerous sport. Does the government have the right to ban it?
===============================

No, I do not believe the government has the right!
But, who is the government? Supposedly it is the people.

I am saying that by complying we accept and encourage the restrictions the government decides to place upon us.

I ride a motorcycle, often I ride without a helment. If every rider decided to ride without a helment what the hell could the gov. do?

I still say that for a law or regulation to have strength that the majority of people must comply.

Supposedly Congress makes laws. If the majority only elects congressional representatives that agree with the majority viewpoint the minority infringement that you speak of would not happen.

To me, this goes back to the old viewpoint of party voting only.
I do not give a damn if a candidate is from party x if he agrees with my viewpoint.

Until this country gets out of the hold of the entrenched, blood sucking, ticks we call the republican and democratic parties, we must live with laws enacted to protect minority spenders like the insurance and medical professions.

I am not trying to turn this into a political debate in the religious forum, but it is part of the ethics in America. Ethics enacted by law.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
, I do not believe the government has the right!
But, who is the government? supposedly it is the people.

which people is the big question?

I am saying that by conplying we accept and encourage the restrictions the government decides to place upon us.

I don't know about this anymore Dan, maybe in days gone bye.

I ride a motorcycle, often I ride without a helment. If every rider decided to ride without a helment what the hell could the gov. do?

Ask those that tried it in yesteryear{I was one}, money talked the rest of us got the shaft. It seems that if there is a way to make a buck it will be done no matter what vote is taking place. I would like to believe we could change a law like helmet or seat belt but it will not happen because it is a money maker.

I still say that for a law or regulation to have strength that the majority of people must comply.

This is what I disagree with, the regulation/law gets strength because it is a proven money maker.

Supposedly Congress makes laws. If the majority only elects congressional representatives that agree with the majority viewpoint the minority infringement that you speak of would not happen.

once again back to money money money.

To me, this goes back to the old viewpoint of party voting only.
I do not give a damn if a candidate is from party x if he agrees with my viewpoint.

I know we agreee on this, party bs is just that BS

Until this country gets out of the hold of the entrenched, blood sucking, ticks we call the republican and democratic parties, we must live with laws enacted to protect minority spenders like the insurance and medical professions.

I wonder if anything would change it seems every day things are done for the God allmighty dollar. Dan I understood what you were getting at I just wanted to throw my 1 cent worth in :). As you can tell I don't buy into our system anymore it as way to many holes and does not represent most folks that I speak too. I have differences with folks but for the most part alot of them also feel the same as me about or facist government. I also wonder if it is to late for the people to take back the country:(?

Mad dog, it used to be that morality was on the side with the largest army.
Now, morality seems to be on the side with the biggest advertising budget.

The minority seems to get things done by getting off their ass and doing something about their beliefs. Even a minority that bands together is stronger than a majority that sits on its ass and bitches and moans and does nothing.

We have a majority of roll-overs in this country. Sure they do not have representation that they agree with, yet are not willing to sacrifice to obtain satisfaction.

The attention span of most Americans is really short. I have tried talking to people about making changes, for a few minutes they bitch and moan. Then suddenly they are talking about some damn crap that means nothing. I believe that most people are affraid to face the fact that they are lazy and have no incentitive.

No, I do not expect any changes in my life-time. Everyone is speaking of "they."
"They" are taking away our rights. "They" need to do something about it.
Only when people realize that "they" is them and speak and act in the first person will changes occur.

Change by the masses will only be attempted when things are so bad that the comfortable life style of the average American has disappeared. In other words when it is too late.

I hate to say it but it will take a national disaster to wake people up.

I wish to add another fact.
It also does not help matters when you have a bunch of religious people sitting around saying- "yep, this was all foretold, the signs are here." "God is returning anyday now." "It is all in the scriptures." "Glad when it happens."

This mentality cannot create positive change.

Agreed

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Mad dog, it used to be that morality was on the side with the largest army.
Now, morality seems to be on the side with the biggest advertising budget.



I believe that most people are affraid to face the fact that they are lazy and have no incentitive.



Hey, didn't China say something like that about Americans a few years back?
I remember what a stink was made about it and I said to myself, "Truth hurts doesn't it?"