Rhetoric should have meaning Language should have value.
What then is meant by the phrase we are now hearing so often from the politico, "We have a moral obligation to pass this legislation?"
Morals must be based on some standard. Among the most frequent standards used as a basis for moral values are scripture, tradition, reason and experience.
Most of our government officials have totally rejected scripture. They have also rejected traditional values. When scrutinized, the legislation they are trying to pass does not hold to sound reason. And, when you compare the policies being put forth by those in power to the experience of history, you find that experience teaches that big government and total government control don’t produce anything good.
So, other than just being persuasive words, what value, what basis, do these so-called "moral obligations" have?
In recent decades, contrary to traditional values, we have been taught that when it comes to morals there are no absolutes. So why is the government that has propagated the educational system that teaches no absolutes telling us that we absolutely have a moral obligation to do what they are demanding?
Added to this reasoning without rationalization coming from our government, is the "duty" on our part to pay the bill for all their dictated moral obligations.
I guess my point is simple. Listening to our present leadership talk about moral obligations is about as logical as listening to Larry Flint and Hugh Hefner talk about chastity.
Steve Casey
Stonewall, La.