| Blogs > jiminycricket1 > My Blog |
|
KELLY..on the hot seat, for saying the "Civil War" was result of a "Lack of Compromise"." The specifics of an issue always seem to overwhelm the "Big Picture" of the issue. Narrowminded people with narrowminded views. That either are self serving or lack vision. What makes perfect sense to me, doesn't make sense to other people. What Kelly, didn't say , but some people heard, was the abolishment of slavery was a result of lack of compromise. Those people reside on both the left and the Right. Before, I totally take the side of the right on this let me explain a few things.... First the Right does it all the time..but that doesn't make it right for the Left. Second those on the Right that actually interpret it that way, are meaningless, yet we give them meaning. Racists and fascists are meaningless in regards to politics. Tools used to prevent a "lack of compromise" In the case of Kelly's statement we need to interpret.. The Civil War, as Any Civil War. You can't change it, "The Civil War" is always going to be A civil war. Any civil War is going to be a result of a "lack of compromise" . A lack of compromise is a result of a lack of respect. It's ironic.. that my interpretation of Kelly's Statement was not FOR the RIGHT, but against the Right. The South defending their moral right, for untenable issue. with or without the Civil War, slavery was NEVER going to last. Slavery was the single most specific issue of the civil war, yet it was just an issue, that defined the bigger issue. In 170 years the issue hasn't changed very much... Except the sides of the issue. No matter how you try to slice it, slavery is not a legal issue..It's a moral issue. In the Civil War, the North, no matter how right they were, tried to make slavery a "legal issue". They were taking their moral issue, making it a legal issue, then imposing it on others. That sounds awful familiar to me. As the Right now tries to make their moral issues, on LGBT, on women, on immigrant, on religion......Legal issues. The way I read Kelly.. is that we now have returned to the time of the Civil war, and a potential new civil war.....The cause is the same, just the specific issues are different. It's about morals, and a "lack of compromise", a lack of respect, And the idea that one groups morals MUST be imposed on others, without compromise. |
|||
|
I spend weeks on end, listening to the inane comments, from the Right. On issues that are so obvious to anyone with half a brain. This morning I read comments from the Left.. they are just as inane, in defense of THEIR "lack of compromise".
| ||
|
What we should have learned from the Civil War is that legally abolishing slavery didn't automatically change the morality of slavery....It's taken 170 years of whittling away it, for it become far less than what it once was. What we should know is that the 'hangers on" haven't got the message, and after 170 years realize they will NEVER get the message. As such, they become meaningless, an abberation. Again with the irony.....Americanism and morality are the same thing...they are Democratic, and open roads that lead where the people take them. You CAN'T make a people walk a road, they don't want to walk. We as Americans lack respect and confidence in other Americans.. both morally and patriotically. We think we have an obligation to change the road, we think that without compromise., and that's what leads to a Civil War. YOU CAN"T LEGISLATE AMERICANISM OR MORALITY.
| ||
|
ALL wars are the result of failure to compromise. Fossil 
| ||
|
ALL wars are the result of failure to compromise. Fossil But there is a difference between civil war and countries at war. A civil war from an idealistic standpoint has a commonality of purpose. just different sides of the same issue. In a war with the outside... that is rarely true, and primarily has opposite purposes. In that case compromise may not work. In a civil war compromise always works. I have a lot lot confidence it what I believe is right.. i don't need to convince anyone else. My confidence extends to them, and I know with or without me they will eventually come around. Let me give you an example....Guns.... I really don't have a position, don't think i need one.. I know what's right. Now from the standpoint of Liberals, wanting to take your guns is wrong, They need to figure out a way for you to want to give up your guns, and not take them away. For your standpoint, you're fighting a losing battle. it doesn't matter to me how long, you get keep yours guns... but eventually you going have to give them up. So to me, and in my confidence, both sides are spitting in the wind. If I lived at the time of the civil war, i would have felt the same way..the idea of slavery would have been so bad... I just wouldn't need to convince anybody, they will soon enough convince themselves. If you consider me, "out there", from the standpoint of logic, it would be about my logic about time...... The imperative of the NOW, is no more important than the imperatives of the yesterday and the imperatives of the tomorrow. it's all the same, just a different NOW.
| ||
|
WE talk about the separation of Church and State, but there's is not only an important connection, but and important separation. Church (and other societal influences) need to stick to the morals issues and not legal ones. The legal ones belong to the State. The connection is that they work hand in hand, to make this a better country. The State doesn't need need to get involved with moral issues, and the Church needs to stay out of legal issues.
| ||
|
The Church in it's societal responsible, that should create morality, only justifies it's own morality, and ignores the morality of it's people. The Greater good, and meaning of God, and it's representation, are far more governmental than religious. In the case of the Civil War...... there's just as much responsibility on the Church, as it is on the State. It doesn't matter which church, whether it be in North or the South. The idea of Civil War and it values, was created by the Church. The Church from the 1860's hasn't changed much, and the current moral conflict can also be assigned to the Church, as to their responsibility.... and not the States.
|
×
×