The buck stops where?

April 22, 2005 by DJ Lanphier

It is one of the great riddles of our times: How can the religious right, who clamor endlessly for the “good old days” and rant endlessly on about how American society is drowning in a lack of moral values (why do they hate America?) support a man like George W. Bush who has, for the life of his career as President of these United States of America, avoided taking any and all responsibility for the foibles and mistakes of those he is sworn to lead and take charge of?

Simple. He lacks personal responsibility. Ironically, it is this exact same issue which the right used to attack Clinton.

The religious right also lacks that all important ethical back hone- responsibility.
In an ethical and moral universe, men and women are responsible for their words, actions and thoughts in a manner which requires us to be honest, not only to ourselves, but to those around us. It requires a commitment not only to ones G-d or set of beliefs, but also to oneself, and most importantly, to the greater community and greater good. Therein lay the abyss.

If one is swimming in an ideological ocean, and the greater good is the shoreline, the ideology becomes more important than the goals it professes to dictate which are so far away on land. This is why a person who says they are pro-life has no ethical problem with killing an abortionist. The ideology trumps the greater ethical and moral good. Quite simply, it’s an ethical and moral jump in logic that seems to so many to make sense because they can not see the shore, they only see the water around them.

Thus, many on the right are not responsible to their own beliefs nor their own actions. Their ideology trumps all else in their narrow world view. If their ideology is steeped in evil and incorrectness, they would stand by it to their death, for it would require an evaluation of their ideology.

It’s an ancient perspective that has dogged civilized man from the very beginning.

Leadership is of a much higher caliber of moral and ethical work and desire than someone like George W. Bush is even capable of comprehending.

The buck stops somewhere else…

And, that is a very sad reality for many of us to watch unfold.

buzz-twang : news and views : blog

Posted in Uncategorized. RSS 2.0 feed.
  • Possum

    The commitment to the greater good, and one’s self trumps God? What is the greater good and who defines it? On what basis is the greater good defined?

    By this logic, Osama is a rightous hero because he acts in his belief of the greater good. Hitler is to be upheld for his attempts to free the world of the Jews-again, for the greater good from his perspective.

    The question in this ocean of ideas is what anchor you use to create a foundation for moral thought. It sounds good on paper to say that all Christians who are pro-life would kill an abortionist. But there is no moral basis for this-so the Christian has violated his own beliefs. There are extremist (read perverted and decieved) people who call themselves Christian just as there are extremist liberals who think harming loggers to save trees is ok.

    Choosing to paint the majority with the actions of the few is a fantastically ignorant way to make an inflammatory argument sound good.

    This blog seems to be a shotgun approach to say that Christians are bad and everyone else is good. With a little anti-Bush thrown in for garnish.

    D

  • David

    What is the greater good and who defines it? On what basis is the greater good defined?

    Greater good is that which allows the progression of life and community.

    That which takes away life and community is not of the greater good.

    By this logic, Osama is a rightous hero because he acts in his belief of the greater good. Hitler is to be upheld for his attempts to free the world of the Jews-again, for the greater good from his perspective.

    It’s not a matter of belief. It’s a mater of action and reality. OBL is not a server of the greater good because his actions (propelled by his beliefs) are contratry to life and community. He takes away life and community. Your analogy gets bogged down in rational perspective towards “belief”, which is not what I’m referring to at all.

    The question in this ocean of ideas is what anchor you use to create a foundation for moral thought.

    Simple: that which is contrary to life is wrong. That which nurtures life is part of the greater good. Apologism for actions and beliefs that harm the greater good are one of the primary causes of violence, in all it’s forms, of mankind upon mankind and mankind upon its environment.

    It sounds good on paper to say that all Christians who are pro-life would kill an abortionist. But there is no moral basis for this-so the Christian has violated his own beliefs. There are extremist (read perverted and decieved) people who call themselves Christian just as there are extremist liberals who think harming loggers to save trees is ok.

    No where did I state that “all Christians who are pro-life would kill an abortionist”.

    My statment was simply meant to highlight the contradiction. That is all. You can read as much as you wish between the lines, but you do so at your own risk.

    I am by nature and experience, a Christian, by the way. A Gnostic. Baptized as a Catholic. But, I belong to no church at the moment, nor do I solely practice the belief that Christ is my savior. I see that as an unrequired impediment to my already strong relationship with G-d.

    Choosing to paint the majority with the actions of the few is a fantastically ignorant way to make an inflammatory argument sound good.

    Again, it was merely an observation. No where do I state “all Christians”. I do though, use the term “religious right”. And, from what I’ve observed and experienced, I stand by what I’ve said.

    I do not feel the “religious right” is in any way representative of the majority, or reflects the ideas and beliefs of the majority.

    They like to think that they are the majority. But, they are fantastically wrong.

    So, what “majority” are you referring to exactly?

    This blog seems to be a shotgun approach to say that Christians are bad and everyone else is good. With a little anti-Bush thrown in for garnish.

    Like most on the “religious right” you seem to think that the world evolves around you and your beliefs and that everyone needs to think as you do.

    You are wrong.

    I find it most revealing that you don’t consider nor mention the main point of the blog, the very real fact that Bush is a man of avoiding responsibility. (You rather choose to simply attack me. Interesting.)

    Why?

Switch to our mobile site