Moral Decline in America and George Washington

[Finrock]

To me, it is clear that as a society the United States is on a moral decline. Values that have shaped us and made us great are being tossed aside and trampled upon. More and more, I see evil being called good and good being called evil. And increasingly I see religion and those who are religious being demeaned and marginalized as uneducated, irrational, and out-of-touch.

I must mention here that the predictions made in the Book of Mormon about these days are just amazing in their accuracy. But, my point isn't to discuss the Book of Mormon.

George Washington is my favorite U.S. president. I love him because of what he stood for, for his faith in God, and because of his wisdom. In 1796, after serving two terms as president (a ciritically important precendent), George Washington gave his farewell address. One warning George Washington gave the nation over 200 years ago is strinkingly relevant today:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle (Source).

What do you think?

Regards,

Finrock

[Jenamarie]

Well, since his day we've moved from calling slavery good (and with religious justification ) to calling it , rightfully, evil. Lynchings are also now called evil, rather than having a blind eye turned on them. We aren't forcing native peoples out of their own lands (again often with religious justification) that they've inhabited for centuries with little to no compensation. "Seperate but equal" is also gone. And we aren't being forced out of Missouri.

I'd like to think we've made some real positive changes since George Washington's day.

[Guest gopecon]

Well I'll agree with Jenamarie that we've come a long way from Washington's day, with many positive changes, I would say that our current moral state is generally going downhill. You can pick and choose stats that support either position (going up or down). I think the breakdown in the family (demonstrated most strongly by the out-of-wedlock birth rate going through the roof) is a terribly serious problem. Too much of society has begun to not just accept but celebrate immoral behavior.

[Finrock]

Well, since his day we've moved from calling slavery good (and with religious justification ) to calling it , rightfully, evil. Lynchings are also now called evil, rather than having a blind eye turned on them. We aren't forcing native peoples out of their own lands (again often with religious justification) that they've inhabited for centuries with little to no compensation. "Seperate but equal" is also gone. And we aren't being forced out of Missouri.

I'd like to think we've made some real positive changes since George Washington's day.

So you question the conclusion that there is a moral decline in U.S. society?

Regards,

Finrock

[Jenamarie]

So you question the conclusion that there is a moral decline in U.S. society?

Regards,

Finrock

Our nation has always had flaws. We've always done things not in keeping with our stated values and ideals. ("All men are created equal" while enslaving a very large number of them?) My view is more "nothing new under the sun". When the West was being settled often the most successful places of business were the saloons and the brothels. I don't know if we've had anything like the "Trail of Tears" in the last 100 years of our history, and our mass murders have typically been lone gunmen, rather than organized militias trying to suppress a minority (referring to American against American killings, not outside attacks).

We've moved past some of our flaws, and taken on new ones. Perhaps some day we'll move beyond these ones too, and who knows what our future challenges might be.

[LittleWyvern]

To me, we've improved on some moral things and got worse on some moral things. That's just life. My view of how the USA has developed over the years is optimistic, and I think the USA is still a good country. Because of this, I don't buy the doomsday stuff like "America is doomed!/will crash and burn!/etc." Despite our challenges, I think our best days are still ahead of us.

[Vort]

In quantifiable, measurable terms, we are living in a society as near to heaven as it is possible to get without actually establishing Zion. We are freer, safer, more healthy, and more educated than at any other time and place in recorded history. Our shame is not our debased or ignorant state, but rather how willingly we waste the advantage given us by our ancestors and acquired so painstakingly, generation by generation.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon LittleWyvern. :)

To me, we've improved on some moral things and got worse on some moral things. That's just life. My view of how the USA has developed over the years is optimistic, and I think the USA is still a good country. Because of this, I don't buy the doomsday stuff like "America is doomed!/will crash and burn!/etc." Despite our challenges, I think our best days are still ahead of us.

A recognition of a moral decline in society does not equate to "doomsday stuff". If that is what you thought I was saying, you are incorrect.

So, in your view do you believe George Washington's advice was sound? Can we maintain national morality in exclusion of religious principle?

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Our nation has always had flaws. We've always done things not in keeping with our stated values and ideals. ("All men are created equal" while enslaving a very large number of them?) My view is more "nothing new under the sun". When the West was being settled often the most successful places of business were the saloons and the brothels. I don't know if we've had anything like the "Trail of Tears" in the last 100 years of our history, and our mass murders have typically been lone gunmen, rather than organized militias trying to suppress a minority (referring to American against American killings, not outside attacks).

We've moved past some of our flaws, and taken on new ones. Perhaps some day we'll move beyond these ones too, and who knows what our future challenges might be.

So, in your view, the general moral values of U.S. society today are better than the general moral values of U.S. society in the 18th century?

Do you think George Washington's advice has merit? Can we expect to maintain national morality in exclusion of religious principle?

Regards,

Finrock

[LittleWyvern]

A recognition of a moral decline in society does not equate to "doomsday stuff". If that is what you thought I was saying, you are incorrect.

I agree with you, but too often a discussion in moral decline leads to a conclusion that America is doomed. I have seen only very few people argue for a complete moral decline of society without also pronouncing doom and gloom on the entire country. So, while the two don't equate, one winks at the other while mouthing "look over there!"

So, in your view do you believe George Washington's advice was sound? Can we maintain national morality in exclusion of religious principle?

It is my opinion that a person can be moral without being religious. Being religious helps (and in some cases provides an incredible amount of help), but is not a sufficient and necessary condition for being moral.

In other words, I do not believe that one must be religious to be moral. What George Washington seems to be arguing is that the country cannot be moral if it excludes religion, i.e. prohibits religion from existing.

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

With the key words there being "in exclusion of." If this is indeed what George Washington is trying to argue, that a country cannot be moral if it forbids any religion from having any effect on morals, then I'd generally agree with that.

[Finrock]

I agree with you, but too often a discussion in moral decline leads to a conclusion that America is doomed. I have seen only very few people argue for a complete moral decline of society without also pronouncing doom and gloom on the entire country. So, while the two don't equate, one winks at the other while mouthing "look over there!"

I understand. I do not subscribe to doomsday mentality. I'm not that dramatic.

It is my opinion that a person can be moral without being religious. Being religious helps (and in some cases provides an incredible amount of help), but is not a sufficient and necessary condition for being moral.

In other words, I do not believe that one must be religious to be moral. What George Washington seems to be arguing is that the country cannot be moral if it excludes religion, i.e. prohibits religion from existing.

To me, your comments are confusing the distinction between religion/religious principles and "being religious". Also, the question at hand deals with national morality, not individual morality. Do you think that this distinction matters?

Specifically, George Washington is addressing the idea of maintaining national morality in exlcusion of religious principle.

With the key words there being "in exclusion of." If this is indeed what George Washington is trying to argue, that a country cannot be moral if it forbids any religion from having any effect on morals, then I'd generally agree with that.

This is an interesting question to pursue. What does George Washington mean by "national morality" and "religious principle"?

Is he claiming that a man cannot be moral if he doesn't have a religion? I don't think so. I don't think that is the case and I think arguing for or against that point, doesn't address the question.

Regards,

Finrock

[Anddenex]

What do you think?

I personally would agree with George Washington. I find it interesting that we are told by our prophets that our world, our nation, is ripening in iniquity.

How then, does a nation "ripen in iniquity" while staying morally clean? I don't believe it is possible.

Immoral people, however can still choose good aspects, and provide good laws, this however doesn't equate with a moral society.

When Zeniff left Zarahemla to reclaim lands, the Nephites with him wanted to destroy the Lamanites, however Zeniff said something very important for all of us, "but when I saw that which was good among them I was desirous that they should not be destroyed" (Mosiah 9:1).

Even among a blood thirsty, immoral population, Zeniff still found good among them.

There is obviously good in our nation. However, being good, or applying good principles, does not equate with a society that is definitely moral.

We definitely are declining in morals as a nation, otherwise we would not be ripening in iniquity.

Iniquity == immorality, specifically those standards which have been established by God.

[ADoyle90815]

While things have changed, there were good things that happened, such as slavery now being seen as evil, as is lynching. I also like that women were eventually granted the right to vote, and that it's against the law to beat one's wife.