Thread: Moral Authority?

I don't have an sympathy for Sheehan. She's whoring her son's memory to promote her anti-American agenda and help bring victory to those that murdered her son. If you don't believe me, she'll tell you herself: "I’m going all over the country telling moms: 'This country [America] is not worth dying for.'" Her son was a hero. She's a traitor.

It is not acceptable to parents that can't find justification for the death of their children. Parents have the moral authority to find that justification with whatever means they have.

MADD -- Mothers against Drunk Drivers -- I'm sure you've heard of them. They consist mostly of parents of deceased children killed by DUI drivers. They have lobbied Congress for years to get laws passed to get drunk drivers off of the road, and have been somewhat successful.

Even though none of their actions will not bring their lost children back, they seek to save other children under the same circumstances.

Originally Posted by Julie

It is not acceptable to parents that can't find justification for the death of their children. Parents have the moral authority to find that justification with whatever means they have.

MADD -- Mothers against Drunk Drivers -- I'm sure you've heard of them. They consist mostly of parents of deceased children killed by DUI drivers. They have lobbied Congress for years to get laws passed to get drunk drivers off of the road, and have been somewhat successful.

Even though none of their actions will not bring their lost children back, they seek to save other children under the same circumstances.

Non-analogous. Sheehan's an anti-war activist who is using her son's memory to advance her agenda. She's lied about his service and is promoting anti-Semitic views and trying to build credibility for those who killed her own son.

MADD uses facts and logic within the full context of the issue to provide a public service.

Kevin,
I forgot to answer your question. I don't believe that parents have any special moral authority. I do believe that they can provide a more forceful argument because they stir the emotions surrounding the issue. However, our policy in the Middle East, to include Iraq, is at the forefront of our national interests now due to our need to import oil (economic) and due to the rise and spread of militant Islamic forces that originate from the Middle East (security). To decide these policies based on emotion clouds judgement and doesn't serve the national interest.

I believe the the moral authority argument originated from Maureen Dowd to attempt to build up the stature of Mrs. Sheehan and present her as the "spokesperson" for all parents and galvanize the anti-war movement. However, it is important to note that Mrs. Sheehan represents less than .025% of parents who have lost a son or daughter in our fight against the terrorists and paramilitary death squads in Iraq and Afghanistan. She is not alone and there are certainly other parents with fallen soldiers who oppose the war, but there are plenty who either support the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan or prefer to keep their loss and feelings private, to not politicize their fallen loved one.

In the end, Mrs. Sheehan and every family member who has lost someone in OIF or OEF deserve our empathy. However, while they have the right to present a political view, the sacrifice made by their loved one shouldn't be used as political capital to give credibility to their political view on the war efforts.

Originally Posted by Julie

It is not acceptable to parents that can't find justification for the death of their children. Parents have the moral authority to find that justification with whatever means they have.

MADD -- Mothers against Drunk Drivers -- I'm sure you've heard of them. They consist mostly of parents of deceased children killed by DUI drivers. They have lobbied Congress for years to get laws passed to get drunk drivers off of the road, and have been somewhat successful.

Even though none of their actions will not bring their lost children back, they seek to save other children under the same circumstances.

I’d have to agree with Shek that no effective analogy can be drawn between Cindy Sheehan and a member of MADD. Again, Casey Sheehan volunteered for service in the US Army, then volunteered again when he reenlisted. He volunteered a third time when he went out on the mission that got him killed. He knew the risks each time he volunteered. While you could make a tenuous argument that people killed by drunk drivers “know the risks” when they choose to drive, it is an entirely different matter. And again, in your first paragraph, you use the term “moral authority.” What exactly is that? Perhaps it might be more accurate to say “Parents have an innate need to find that justification with whatever means they have.” And just because Cindy tells us she can’t find that justification does not necessarily mean that the justification does not exist.

On another board, someone brought up an interesting point. How far, exactly, does Cindy’s moral authority extend? She has erected crosses with the names of those killed in Iraq at her little campground. Other parents have actually come to her campground and taken the crosses with their child’s name away, saying quite clearly “You don’t speak for me, Cindy.” In her grief, does she have the “moral authority” to abuse not only the memory of her son, but all the other sons and daughters who have died in Iraq? Does her “moral authority” give her the voice to speak for the parents of all the dead, whether they want her to or not? In other words, where does Cindy’s moral authority end, and the moral authority of other parents begin?

It seems to me that the arrogance of using other’s names in her campaign, knowing those others do not agree with her, makes Cindy more “morally bankrupt” than “morally authoritative.”

Kevin McHugh

"Parents have the moral authority to find that justification with whatever means they have."

No they don't. They should be guide by the bounds of Morality like everyone else. She doesn't have the moral authority to betray this country to find justification for her son's death.

The shakers that challenge the status quo, and threaten the power of governments in other countries are very often idolized by Americans to the extent that Americans support them, and in some cases, fight wars and overthrow their Governments for them.

In retrospect, when one of these shakers have a difference of opinion with our Government, they are looked upon as "traitors." Is this hypocrisy, or maybe what we think is good for other countries....really isn't?

Originally Posted by Julie

The shakers that challenge the status quo, and threaten the power of governments in other countries are very often idolized by Americans to the extent that Americans support them, and in some cases, fight wars and overthrow their Governments for them.

In retrospect, when one of these shakers have a difference of opinion with our Government, they are looked upon as "traitors." Is this hypocrisy, or maybe what we think is good for other countries....really isn't?

Dissent is welcome and encouraged. However, a person who lies and spews bigoted views while claiming their country isn't worth dying for isn't anything that I'd put forward as a model to emulate or praise. Doesn't she see the complete contradiction in her position that she believes the right wing paramilitary death squads are justified in their attacks and that these are the same groups that killed her son, whose death she is using for her outrage?

American isn't worth fighting for? It is Iraq that is the country that she feels isn't worth fighting for.

Originally Posted by Julie

American isn't worth fighting for? It is Iraq that is the country that she feels isn't worth fighting for.

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Ar...ewartrally.htm

“This country is not worth dying for"

The above is a quote from a transcript of a 27 April speech from the innocent Mrs. Sheehan. The antecedent is clearly America - if you look at the entire transcript, the only country mentioned prior to "This" is America (unless you consider California its own separate and distinct country ).

Here's a few more good ones from the same speech:

"I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that ******** to my son and my son enlisted."

"When Congress gave George Bush the right to go to war, they abrogated their constitutional responsibilities and they basically made our constitution null and void."

"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. "

Originally Posted by Julie

The shakers that challenge the status quo, and threaten the power of governments in other countries are very often idolized by Americans to the extent that Americans support them, and in some cases, fight wars and overthrow their Governments for them.

In retrospect, when one of these shakers have a difference of opinion with our Government, they are looked upon as "traitors." Is this hypocrisy,

The hell it is. You're assuming that there's no right and wrong. That this traitor to a democratic state is the same as a democratic freedom fighter. It's not a matter of perspective. The facts determine who is a traitor and who is justifiability opposing oppression.

Originally Posted by Julie

American isn't worth fighting for? It is Iraq that is the country that she feels isn't worth fighting for.

You're wrong. Read the context.

Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor according to the German constitution, his party was given the majority of seats in the parliament by popular vote and the parliament regularly renewed every four years the "enabling act", giving him absolute power over Germany.
Popular sentiment in Germany was vastly in favour of the war, at least until things didn't head definitely South.

Based on the above, I'm wondering if we should consider von Stauffenberg and all the other "July 20th" conspirators as traitors or rather patriots.
They were trying to kill the lawful Commander in Chief, to whom they had sworn their loyalty, and surrender to those countries Germany was at war with.

If we dismiss the obviuos argument "Hitler was evil" and instead only resort to the rule of the Law, we might get to conclusions that apparently go against common sense, or at least my personal version of it.

Disclaimer:
By no means I'm comparing Hitler and Nazi Germany to Bush and the present situation. I'm just pointing out a very extreme situation showing how sometimes it might be difficult to define who the traitors are and who's fighting for his/her country's best interests.
Perhaps only looking at events from a safe distance in time we are able to see clearly (and sometimes not even then).

thesaint: I think you've made a very good point.

Leader: The American people fight for the Constitution that protects them and it's country. The Constitution, in my opinion, is being butchered by the Patriot Act. This causes lower morale, as well as dissention, among Americans, of which you can not say there is a right or a wrong to it, since it is emotional feelings of people.

At present, you have the President now tinkering with the Posse Comitatus Act. That reflects America's traditional distrust of using standing armies to enforce order at home, a distrust that's well-justified. Soldiers are not trained as police officers, and putting them in a civilian law enforcement role can result in serious collateral damage to American life and liberty.

The Bush administration may be smaller, and obviously the infrastructure is weaker, but turning into a more controlling federal government. Does this dissention mean I am a traitor? NO it doesn't.