On June 16, 1858 Abraham Lincoln gave his famous speech where he said a house divided against itself cannot stand. That was one hundred and sixty-six years ago. He was talking about slavery as the dividing factor. He didn't say he would abolish slavery; he was saying how the people would have to decide on that issue. He just believed, correctly, that eventually it would have to be all one way or the other. It was a moral decision to be made by the citizens of the United States of America. A morality that was very offensive to the majority of the population. Only those that could afford to "own" that commodity of human labor or profited from such dismissing the moral issue altogether. To them it was just business. It was an accepted practice, a part of everyday life and everyone was doing it.
Lincoln lost some support by making such a statement. He lost his home state of Illinois in the election because of that. Still, in the big picture he won election, in part, because of that as well. Slavery existed in the northern states at that time and continued to exist until January of 1865. Yes, it wasn't abolished everywhere in the nation until the passing of the 13th amendment. Reconstruction had begun. A building back of a nation, better than it was before. It was a triumph for morality! We had declared that "all men are created equal" and this was another step in defining just what that meant. There were those, even then, declaring that yes, all men were created equal but that didn't guarantee all men's circumstances would be equal. And being enslaved was just a function of circumstance.
The fight began due to economic and political control. The moral issue was secondary to that. It was a great motivator to get the common man to join the fight, to do what is right for the moral fabric of the nation. That is still being used as a motivator to this day and will continue into the future. That is part of humanity. Even in our imagination that exists. Consider the "prime directive" in Star Trek. We aren't to interfere with the development of alien worlds, it's a morality thing. Following our civil war the idea was separate but equal. They weren't slaves anymore that had been lost in the economic and political battlefield. The morality of those supporting slavery hadn't been changed by their defeat on the battlefield. It wasn't until 1954 that the Supreme Court struck down that doctrine in Brown vs the Board of Education. Once again, a defining of a moral precept. That doctrine is morally wrong!
We are seeing a fight for moral values today. That is what "Pride" month is all about. An attempt to define morality for future generations. What "Pride" represents is morally offensive to the majority. That is what I believe to be the truth of the matter. But there are economic and political forces that benefit from all of this, and that is the sole reason it is being "celebrated." It's what's best for business. There have been and always will be those that react to an offense with violence.
At one time in America, one could be challenged to a duel for making an offensive remark. That was considered an honorable reaction. Those "celebrating" today are also the ones removing characters from cereal boxes, burning and banning flags, destroying statues and renaming schools and military bases because, they are offensive. They are doing so based on their definition of what moral behaviors should be. They believe that parading your moral behavior, forcing it upon others, is the moral thing to do. The list of those behaviors grows almost daily and indeed a plus sign was added to include anything other letters do not mention specifically. Fighting for the "cause."
Those states succeeding from the union wrote their "declaration of causes" supporting their right to "property" as slaves were called. Today we are hearing a declaration of causes for the establishment of a new national morality. A fundamental change to what we teach our children regarding moral behaviors. It begins with mocking those that hold religious beliefs in contradiction to that cause. It has progressed to the point where even some of our churches are adopting this new "moral" code. I'd suggest that has to do with more with "business" than it does morality. You can't expect people to donate to your cause unless you are supporting theirs. Seems rather obvious to me. It's an old story. Didn't Jesus throw the money changers out of the temple?
I don't hate anyone for their moral choices. I will attempt to redirect them, however, offer guidance and encouragement to act in a more moral fashion. Still, what you do in the privacy of your home is your business. What you attempt to present in public, what you encourage my children to embrace is my business. I will speak out in opposition. I am an American and In God I do trust. I believe John Adams was correct, out constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. When my moral values are questioned and challenged, I will respond. That is the stuff of wars. Wars are lost one battle at a time. I'd suggest morality is degraded one rationalization at a time. Is the moral thing to do the acceptance of what is immoral? That's the purpose of this "celebration."
No comments:
Post a Comment