Isn't morality simply convention or consensus of the majority. "When in Rome do as the Romans do"! I have heard it said that good religion is common sense. Can this be said of morality also.

I still think we feel people who slam doors in others faces or talk to loud in public in other words being less than courteous, respectful and kind are a little bit loose upstairs.

Mike I believe I am simply stating a truism. The Golden Rule works both ways. Most of us expect to be treated in the same courteous, respectful, and kind way in which we treat others. Thus there is an expectation of positive results from our kindness Since we expect a positive result or return we do not entirely do it voluntarily or selflessly. This is a learned behavior, children do not know this rule. This subject is discussed in detail in books conerning "Evolutionary Psychology" of which I read a smattering of one. It is a very interesting subject. Mike the only reason I picked on you is because in Fridays quote about police you also went a little over board. The quote simply said that we should be careful that cops are porperty fulfilling their duties. It was not a diatribe against cops. So while right thinking people are vigilante against crime they should be vigilante against bad cops also.

This needs some expansion. I think he is talking about the dichotomy of form versus substance. Choice being the form and results being the substance. The difference between honoring democratic institutions and processes no matter where they may lead or dropping such institutions and processes even at the point of a gun to get the result than a non-democratic method desires.

Most good deeds are not vouluntary, they are done under the Goden Rule. We expect that the good we do to others will be done in return to us. We see it in our every day life when folks hold the door for us when we enter a bldg. Those who fail to voluteer usually find themselves living in a pretty miserable world or nut a house.

As usual Mike miss reads the quote. Buckley says nothing here about the law being bad nor does he say that the law is complete enough to take care of all that is evil. The statement is a positive statement and recognition of the facts on the ground. It has nothing to say about unconstitutional law. It does have a lot to say about NGO's that carry and enforce mores, and principals such as church, etcetera. STONG MORES CAN KILL YOU CAN'T THEY? Or is that a moray I am thinking about.

You naive folks who cast wanton and wayward aspersions at police need to pause just a moment and recall what happens when they are taken away, and I mean anywhere in the world. Baghdad after the fall of the old regime and before new "law and order" was installed. New Orleans after katrina etcetera. As far as bringing up Lenin it occurred to me today that the folks on this site who wish to restore the republic (nation) to its fomer purity also want to eliminate the freedoms of folks to be couch potatoes, have 500 channels etcetera. The Soviet Republics did that also dictating what is art, music, and cinema. I can envision the new old republic already with daily forced exercises for the couch potatoes first and then for every one else to follow. Then mandatory one channel TV with the republic in control. Mike in a republic as you or Archer have explained it there is no reason for debate or trying to change one another's opinion. All is set down either in the Constitution or God's Natural Law. All we need do is study those things. Since the 51% group have no say in any matter what is the point of discussing or arguing any issue or coming to a consensus in your idea of "republic".

Robert most scholars believe Jesus said many things and they were written down by others. I agree 100% that they were added to and I also agree and Jesus even admitted that his speech and teachings were taken from 1000 years of Hebrew teaching. Whether any of us ascribe to Christianity or any other religion we cannot understand western civilization or the histroy of the United States without understanding Jesus' and Christianity's influence. I still recommend "The Religious History of the American People" by Ahlstrom. It is not a theology book but a history book.

In a democracy perfect agreement is never a good thing. The reason we have and value democracy is for our right to speak up, discuss, and urge our views on each other. Such is the case in all democracies but may not be the case in all republics. On the other hand a vigilant society needs an optimal amount of cooperation with duly installed authority and police.

Albert Camus wrote, "The only Christian I have ever liked was THE FIRST ONE". Seems that is what Ol' Ben is saying also. Jesus humanized the concept "God" that is why some find it hard to think of him as divine.

There is nothing better than making money and cornering a market. Watch Carnegie's story, even his daughter stated he virtually mentally and physically brutalized Italian immigrant labor in his Pittsburgy steel mills. When he got old and tired and was the richest man in the world he gave it all to libraries. Who do we thank for the libraries him or the destitute steel workers that made him rich? All I was suggesting Mike is that natural law, the laws of biology, life expectancy, the rotation of the earth and moon etcetera are much more God's Natural Law that the laws of the dismal science.

Archer, I CARE!

Some moral impositions or consensus is inevitable in a society. These quotes today point out that things never change. Adams and Thoreaues quotes show they felt in 1800 and 1830 the same way we do today and we think our times are so bad. I suggest the presence of some psychological condition at work in the human personality, for these guys were just as miserable as we are.

You are so good Mike at turning a quote to your agenda. I respectfully suggest that "God of Nature's fiscal law" says that a billionaire generally gets no more years to live than others, can eat no more than others, gets only 24 hours a day like the rest of us. Huge wealth brings only power over economics and people. For information about optimal use of wealth go to responsiblewealth.com .Some of the members are Gates, and Buffet.

Politeness, delicacy, decency are generally considered to be good qualities. Beware of the phonies who cannot look you straight in the eye.

The institutional descendants of the Puritans are the United Church of Christ and the Unitarians. The United Church of Christ was formed by a uniting of the Congreational Churches and some other smaller Reformed Churches. If you look at a UCC Hymnal it says printed by the Pilgrim Press.

Archer if there is something so special about the term republic in reference to the sacredness of propety why was it that the republican revolution in France took away the property of the nobility as well as their heads. Took away much of the land of the church which owned 10% of France. The Louvre Museum was started by Napoleon who took the treasures (property) away from the nobility and placed it on display for all to see. I have heard that there are or were few property rights in the republics of the Soviet Union. You deal in wishful thinking my friend, trying to create something out of nothing rather than letting histroy speak for itself. In the early years of our republic there were some moves afoot by the lower classes to get out from under debts owed to the upper classes and the government of the United States stepped in to maintain an orderly business climate. Government is very much involved in protecting property rights after all that is what recorders of deeds, and courts are all about. But this system of law does not hang or fall on the false notion that "republic" is the opposite of "democracy". The words are not opposisites at all. Republic is akin to Nation and soverignity, Democracy is akin to the management style of that nation or republic. The United States is a republic that is ruled by democracy. Our representative democracy has never taken property away from folks like the French republicans did, so there!

When De Toqueville wrote his book about America in 1830 he called it "Democracy In America" when Wilson got us into war it was to make the world safe for democracy not safe for republics. When Bush went to war it was to create a model democratic government in the Middle East for the rest to follow. When Texas joined the union it gave up its title of Republic (which title signifies soverignity) and took the title of state of the sovernign union. You are naive Archer if you do not believe people in other nations republics own property and have rights. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A democratic republic period. It is not a republic governed by dictatorship, aristocracy (sometimes big business) or oligarchy. You need a new vocabulary Archer and a course in logic.

Purtitans get a bum rap. Read "The Religious History of the American People" by Ahlstrom, Princeton Univ Press. The Puritans established a thriving highly educated and motivated society in Mass in a short span of 50 odd years that became a model for an expanding nation. New England and the Puritan experience is know throughout the world as a noble experience in theology, philosophy, education, democracy, etcetera. (Let us momentarily forget the unpleasantness at Salem, which was an aberration.)

Some think Hitler had some twisted moral righteous enter core. Narrow minded moral righteousness without a doubt but if he had slept around more and been more normally "immoral" some say he would have been more normal. I guess he was an extreme obsessive-compulsive.

Goldwater was the first Presidential nominee I could vote for and I did. There was always something refreshing about him. Of course he did not get elected but years later he returned my favor towards him by being supportive of Willam J. Clinton. He is right about un-elected (and generally unelectable) and thus undemocratic preachers dictating to us.

Paula I empathize with your desire for more quality in life. We don't have to listen to telvision or read books that we don't want to listen to. Some families are able to give their children experience with classical music, good books, museum trips you. But you know kids. My generation was into Elvis, and Rock and Roll also and our parents thought it was terrible. But somehow we survived.

The attacks in some of the above posts are attacks upon are freedoms to have pop culture, to have 1000 channels etcetera. Folks on this site who attack the free pop culture are really attacking freedom itself. Maybe Archer you would like us to appoint a Minister of Culture like the French have and they can tell us what art, music, and proper TV is or should be. I am sure you could be on the top of the list of applicants for the job. As far as the first internal invader I see it as the folks who spread this nonsense expressed as "the United States is a republic not a democracy". The statement is a falsehood, bad use of language and bad logic for the following reasons. It should read "the United States is a republic that is a democracy". In modern usage "republic" simply designates a territory and its ruling system to be soverign. The word does not explain or describe the type or style of that system. The description of style is left to the words aristocracy, oligarcy, democracy, dictatorship etcetera. In front of the Texas Capitol bldg in Austin there is a statute with this inscription "Presented by the Daughters of the Republic of Texas to the State of Texas". These words are telling and explanatory to our understanding. What it says is that the Territory of Texas was a republc (a soverign entity) and that now it is a state or subdivision of a soverign entity called the United States of America. Texas gave up its' soverignity but still retains democracy as its form of government. Now I know that the Constitution "guarantees a republican government" to the states. In the late 1700's republican government meant a government of, by and for the citizens rather than primarily monarchy. The bruhaha in the Colonies and France was about the dissolution first of all of the hegemony of the King of England and then of the King of France and placing trust in the rule of men, the public. It was revolutionary. When de Tocqueville wrote his exhaustive tome about his travels in America in the 1830's he titled it "Democracy in America". Anyway it is time to end this damnable lie, illogical twisting of words that is enslaving the unthinking masses to commit intellectual harikari.

Not so good. Ever heard that blood is thicker than water. Some families cannot see beyond themselves to reach out to other families. Thus from time immemorial or at least since Hammarabi we have had codes to define relationships in society. Good upbringing is immortant for a member of society to know how to be courteous, respectfull and upright. But where do the these values come from. The family or from society? Religion and politics or government all have a similar goal - to bring people into unity. Most religions have at their core the idea of "an orgainizing principal".

Things are the way they are because that is the way "we" want them to be. Archer blames everything on the government for the last 80 years as if there is some monolithic person named government. The people in public service come and go, they are your friends and neighbors. To always be against your friends and neighbors who form the majority who manage our schools is well just being poor sports. We all have a right to vote and elect the school boards and the "government". When the election is over we have the responsibility to accept the result until the next election. This is part of living in a republic that is a democracy rather than in a republic that is a dictatorship, oligarchy, or aristocracy.