News-Record.com

In 2087, Mehrdad Bazrpash completed his book, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the United States of America." He listed the causes as follows:

1. The rapid decline of honor with a corresponding increase of selfishness, demonstrated by nasty attitudes towards other not within an ever-narrowing circle of personal cronys.

2. Higher taxes for spending of public monies to enrich the already haves and remove incentives for the rest through free bread and circuses in exchange for their quiet vote.

3. The mad craze for pleasure, with sports becoming more exciting and brutal; many in society that seeking pleasure above anything else.

4. The building of gigantic armaments, focused without when the real enemy is within.

5. The decay of religion, with un-thinking sheep droids following self-proclaimed "wise-men" into ever-narrowingly defined faith that approached antinomianism: with God forgiving them for what every they do on earth and for an ultimate trip to heaven.

One thing that amazes me about this sort of letter (and this is hardly the first time its sort has graced the editorial page) is that it comes from a Christian who thinks that our social ills will be solved by giving more social prominence to his religion. Never mind the fact that the last 4 centuries of Rome's existence was marked by a constantly-growing prominence of the Christian religion, as well as growing social problems.

One thing he failed to mention in Gibbon's analysis of Roman history is that the squabbling that came about in the Roman world and led to it being carved up by the encroaching barbarians was mainly due to incessant rifts among the ruling Christians.

The lessons of history should be clear enough. Europe learned it with a vengeance... give too much power to a religion, and you'll pay with decades or even centuries of blood.

what a crock from another religious fanatic.

According to Gibbon, Christianity was a major cause of the fall of Rome. From Wikipedia:

"In addition Gibbon attacked Christianity. Christianity, he says, created a belief in another world, that is to say that a better life existed after death. This fostered indifference to this life among the Roman citizens who believed they would live a better life once they died, thus sapping their desire to maintain and sacrifice for the Empire. He also believed its comparative pacifism tended to sap the traditional Roman martial spirit."

O.K., forget the reference to religion in Nicholson's letter...what about the other four? These are not the rantings of a religious fanatic but the proclomations of many prominent social scientists. Everyone wants to jump to the religion point to the exclusion of everything else. Sure, you can always pick at letters like Nicholson's...for example, which Bible do we obey?

I am not supporting or attacking the religious convictions of anyone because this is the most private of personal convictions. I consider such attitudes the ultimate statement of arrogance.

The other issues are real, problematic and having a very serious impact on society as a whole. Other thoughts on the other points in the letter?

OK cutawad, you asked. I believe the first issue addressed in the letter has validity. We have, as a society, perpetuated the idea that marriage is disposable. (Like almost anything you can name.) Almost every younger person I know is in a marriage for what THEY can get out of it. (Naturally they would deny this. But just sit and listen to them talk about their spouse and the message is very clear. It's about me, me, me.)

So when "me" is not getting what "me" thinks "me" deserves, "me" heads for the lawyer's office. No give and take, no counseling, no discussion. Then society ends up with all the anger and bitterness the parties involved bring to the table, including the dysfunctional offsprings. (A qualifyer: I am not talking about marriages where there is abuse. Those should be dissolved, IMO.)

Where I differ from most folks is in what constitutes a family. I think two women or two men can offer a child/children a loving, stable enviornment.

I agree and disagree with the second point, taxes. If an adult is physically and mentally able-bodied, I think they should get limited benefits for a limited time. Anyone can be down on their luck and need a helping hand. But I believe the practice of long term public assistance for able-bodied people should cease. And the practice of giving away the store to illegals should never have started.

I do not mind paying taxes for the support of the old and disabled, even if it means I bring home less. But most of our tax monies go for pork projects, wars and making the rich richer, not for taking care of our citizens.

Three is a given. There is nothing about that statement with which I disagree.

I also agree with four. We have spent billions upon billions to "protect" our nation only to have it destroyed from within. We are out own worst enemy. Reference 1, 2 and 3. Until we focus on our own nation, own citizens and clean up our own backyards, we are doomed to repeat history (as we already are).

To thrive, we must have leadership that understands "by the people, for the people", not a bigger military budget. We need leadership that is not filled with corruption, that puts our nation and people front and foremost. Not one where cronyism takes presidence.

Like most posting here, I think religion is a private matter. Not something to be forced on another in the name of God.

Claudius was named emperor by the Praetorian Guard because Caligula had given in to homosexuality and had not produced an heir. If the guard didn't have an emperor to protect, they didn't have jobs. It wasn't just divorce that was a problem in ancient Rome, it was also homosexuality and Caligula wasn't the only one. The family became less and less important as the elite valued their own pleasure over the drudgery of having and raising a family.
People throw over the conventions of morality because they want to "do their own thing" and if "it doesn't hurt anyone else, then it must be OK." Besides "religion is an anachronism." Maybe that's true, but religions (not just Christianity) all have codified what they think morality is. Scoffers at religion also end up scoffing at morality. A person's religion does not necessarily affect society, but a person's morality always does. Because the one of the jobs of religion is to perpetuate its morality I think there will always be religions and they will always be useful.

Morality isn't a religious thing. One can be a moral person and be an atheist. As well as one can be a Christian and be horribly immoral. (Bush, Falwell, Graham, Robertson to name a few)

... there was also a HUGE disparity between the Rich and the Poor - with MOST being increadibly poor and only a very few owning just about everything.

The most reliable way out of poverty was to join the Military. Sound Familiar?

Brian Harper: You are correct about morality.

Concerning your reference to others in your post, please read my prior post.

I didn't say that all religious people are moral, I said religion is useful in that they all have an established moral code. In fact, religion has played a large part in establishing the moral and legal code in this country. Yes, there are religious people who are immoral, but there are just as many if not more who are atheists and immoral as well.

spooge,

Please be aware that there are people who are neither atheist or religious, but who hold themselves to have high morals.

I'm aware that many people who are atheists are moral. My older sister is one of them. However, I don't think that human beings are intrinsically moral creatures. It is a code of behavior they are taught, it doesn't just spring up from within. Religion is one of the vehicles for teaching what's moral and what's not.

My truly wacky leftist brother in law said something of genuine interest the other day -- He teaches his children VALUES - and delibrately does not teach them MORALS.

His definition - which I liked - is that you are self-accountable for your Values, but Morals are what the self-righteous imposes upon others.

VALUES: A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable ... implies high regard ... importance or worth ...

MORALS: Teaching ... correctness of character and behavior ... in accord with right or good conduct [defined by others].

I thought this was a great letter.