A Road to Destruction
"Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD."
With these words, the beginning of the end for the city of Sodom was underway. Later, we read that, because of the immense wickedness of the people, God destroyed the city completely. The question then arises: How long can a city or nation that fully embraces wickedness stand? I don' t have that answer, but there are enough examples around, in growing numbers, that we may soon find out.
Perhaps there is no better example than that of Quebec. This Canadian Province has long been known for it's tolerance of everything (except, of course, intolerance). However, Quebec goes farther than simple tolerance, it fully embraces the very things that led to the downfall of the city of Sodom.
A recent story in the New York Times explains that candidates running for political office in Quebec possessing a strong sense of morality need not apply:
In Quebec, it not only works in one's favor to be morally inept, but it can be one's political demise to stand against it...evidenced by opposing candidate's silence on the issue:
Why the embrace of moral ineptitude in our public figures? Perhaps it is because we have abandoned the idea of selecting the best among us. Certainly, political leaders have been flawed throughout the ages, but if we are honest, we have longed to have someone in leadership whom we could admire; whom we could encourage our children to emulate. We had a sense (in this country, at least) that our leader should carry moral authority, calling us to be better than we were, encouraging us to remain faithful to the God we served and who we believed had established us as a nation. America's greatest heroes are men like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln who led with humility, strength, courage. They were men who took their responsibility as a leader very seriously and who understood that their position was "under God."
These are, of course, ideals. These men were fallen sinners as the rest of us, but virtue was something to which they aspired and we, as a country, attempted to follow their examples. This is something which America, following countries like Canada, France, and others, is rapidly abandoning. The moral authority that America has stood upon as a leader of the free world is not crumbling because of political choices, but because we no longer embrace moral responsibility. The recent situation in Iraq is but one example. Attacking a country because we were attacked, as in Afghanistan (i.e. retaliation), was supported by a wide majority. Going into Iraq and liberating a suppressed people because it was the right thing to do and should have been done a decade earlier has been met with falling poll numbers, representing diminishing support.
Perhaps the attitude in Quebec sums up the reasons for the changes we are witnessing:
"Early in the morning Abraham went to the place where he had stood before the LORD . He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and all the land of the plain, and he saw that smoke was going up from the land like the smoke of a furnace."
With these words, the beginning of the end for the city of Sodom was underway. Later, we read that, because of the immense wickedness of the people, God destroyed the city completely. The question then arises: How long can a city or nation that fully embraces wickedness stand? I don' t have that answer, but there are enough examples around, in growing numbers, that we may soon find out.
Perhaps there is no better example than that of Quebec. This Canadian Province has long been known for it's tolerance of everything (except, of course, intolerance). However, Quebec goes farther than simple tolerance, it fully embraces the very things that led to the downfall of the city of Sodom.
A recent story in the New York Times explains that candidates running for political office in Quebec possessing a strong sense of morality need not apply:
Quebec voters are a famously tolerant lot. They elect many gay and lesbian politicians, and they seem to think that political leaders who don't admit to having smoked marijuana are lacking in joie de vivre.The article goes on to say that "Mr. Boisclair's poll numbers did not drop. In fact, they soared, at least initially, with more than 70 percent of Quebecers saying in polls that his cocaine use was not an issue."One premier in the 1970's ran over and killed a homeless man and then was re-elected.
The real test of Quebecers' broad-mindedness began last month, however, with a published report about Mr. Boisclair's lively night life in Quebec City - complete with excessive drinking and cocaine use - while serving in the provincial cabinet in the 1990's.
So nobody was particularly surprised when André Boisclair, a 39-year-old gay man who banters about his sexuality on television talk shows, became the instant front-runner in the leadership race to head the separatist Parti Québécois.
In Quebec, it not only works in one's favor to be morally inept, but it can be one's political demise to stand against it...evidenced by opposing candidate's silence on the issue:
Afraid of a backlash, Mr. Boisclair's opponents have hardly mentioned his drug use. At a two-hour candidates' debate Wednesday night here, it came up only once - and obliquely at that - when Ms. Marois, in her closing remarks said: "We will soon be at a decisive turning point in our battle. To succeed we must be beyond reproach."At this point, America lags behind Canada in embracing tolerance to the point of moral destruction, but it is certainly the direction we are headed. In more and more cities, from San Francisco to New Jersey, Las Vegas to New Orleans, candidates with strong, moral conviction are considered obstructions toward progress. The results of the last presidential election notwithstanding, the president who is considered by a large segment of the United States to be the strongest in the last decade is the one who eventually admitted to numerous affairs and was impeached for lying under Oath. Yet this president, had he been constitutionally permitted, would have run a third time and more than likely won a third term.
Why the embrace of moral ineptitude in our public figures? Perhaps it is because we have abandoned the idea of selecting the best among us. Certainly, political leaders have been flawed throughout the ages, but if we are honest, we have longed to have someone in leadership whom we could admire; whom we could encourage our children to emulate. We had a sense (in this country, at least) that our leader should carry moral authority, calling us to be better than we were, encouraging us to remain faithful to the God we served and who we believed had established us as a nation. America's greatest heroes are men like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln who led with humility, strength, courage. They were men who took their responsibility as a leader very seriously and who understood that their position was "under God."
These are, of course, ideals. These men were fallen sinners as the rest of us, but virtue was something to which they aspired and we, as a country, attempted to follow their examples. This is something which America, following countries like Canada, France, and others, is rapidly abandoning. The moral authority that America has stood upon as a leader of the free world is not crumbling because of political choices, but because we no longer embrace moral responsibility. The recent situation in Iraq is but one example. Attacking a country because we were attacked, as in Afghanistan (i.e. retaliation), was supported by a wide majority. Going into Iraq and liberating a suppressed people because it was the right thing to do and should have been done a decade earlier has been met with falling poll numbers, representing diminishing support.
Perhaps the attitude in Quebec sums up the reasons for the changes we are witnessing:
Lise Payette, a former Parti Québécois cabinet member, suggested in a column in the tabloid Journal de Montreal that Quebecers "have a weakness" for candidates who mirror the off-color image they have of themselves. "We Quebecers fancy our heroes a little bit cheeky, defeatist, hesitant, unsure of themselves, alcoholic, a little or even a lot unreliable, a little bit fraudulent or even a little drugged," she explained. "We like to say they are like us."Perhaps it is because we no longer aspire to be led by men of virtue who believe that we can and should be better than we are. Perhaps, instead, we just want someone who can make us feel good about ourselves where we are; someone who lacks the moral fortitude to call us to greatness but, instead, makes us feel we're already there. Or perhaps, we simply no longer know the difference.
"Early in the morning Abraham went to the place where he had stood before the L
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 10/25/2005 06:33:00 AM
|
3 Comments:
Why is it that "christians" such as yourself are so intent on telling others what it is should and should not be allowed. There are only a handful of places in the Bible where the Lord actually "forces" people to do anything. As is His way (because of His love) He usually allows man to make his own decision right or wrong (and then punishes or rewards accordingly). When people of your ilk begin to pass judgement (which shouldn't be done anyways) you create more problems than you solve for non-believers. It is of little surprise that the "backlash" that conservatives get for "voicing" their religion has increased greatly with this advent of political activity in which you try to get everything banned. Now there are several things that are allowed in this country and around the world that I do not agree with, however, it is the people's who engage in such activities rights to be able to do them without someone who doesn't believe what they do telling them what can and cannot be done. I am sure that you would have a major problem if say a Muslim president was ever elected and he began passing legislation and forcing people to face Mecca and pray 3 times a day because that is what he and his constituency believed. So for the sake of everything, practice your religion (whatever it is) and tell people about it and live it as you see fit, but stop judging and forcing people to hold your beliefs, because eventually Someone will come with a great deal more authority and finality than you ever will that will set things right. So don't worry about the U.S. ending up like Sodom and Gomorrah and you and yours being destroyed, because if you worship the God you say do, then He will look out for you, unless of course you don't believe that?
As a Canadian living in Western Canada I would like to give some cultural context to Quebec and how Quebecers (or Quebecois en Francais) and the world view. 100 years ago Quebec was an unholy alliance of church (RC) and state. Birthrate was high, and not unusual for double digit numbers of kids per family. After WWII, increased communication and the exposure of church and political corruption betrayed Quebecers trust in both church and state. Now, in Quebec, marriage is rare, birthrate is low and political activism (against Canadian nationalism) is popular. You reap what you sow. The rest of Canada is not very much like Quebec. While many people oppose drug and alcohol use by their leaders, it is still a democracy and if enough idiots vote for leaders who like to party, they will continue to get elected. I don't think Quebecers want another Theocracy like they had, and in time they will get over it.
In the same sense, Bill Clinton was not punished politically for his indiscretions, and now Mr. Bush has his own base of support. In a democracy you have tyrany of the majority and you live with it, or move to Cuba or Libya or some nice dictatorship like that.
Sorry Sam, but you are biblically adrift.
In fact 'He who is spiritual judges all things' (1 Cor. 2:15). It is a common confusion among modenr Christains to mix up judging someone's final spiritual state or condemning them per se (which IS precluded) and judging ALL else whtether it is in accordance with God's teachings and the need for obedience to him.
What you are talking about smacks of fatalism - not a biblical concept.
And having lately returned from Sodom (South Jordan) I can confirm David's report that God has indeed 'snuffed out its light' and could so easily snuff out that of any modern city too, if it goes down the same path.
Or is that too judgmental for you?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home