I have always enjoyed reading Dr. Melvyn Fein’s columns in the MDJ. They are dependably rich with insight, wisdom and right-thinking. With that in mind, I was surprised to see the title of Monday’s column, “Do we need a secular awakening?” A sort of guffaw escaped me — poignantly, of course.
There did indeed occur a large secular assertion. It’s now known as the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. Until then, America was most definitely a Christian Nation. Families were intact, television was viewable by the entire family and our presidents had no qualms about praying to and with the whole nation. FDR prayed many times to the nation for the preservation of the Christian religion. So did Churchill; frequently. It’s never mentioned now that they did. Colleges and universities were places students went to get higher education; not to become brainwashed into the mores of socialism.
The country now is in shambles culturally, spiritually, religiously and financially. “Progressivism” has had its way, but not across the board. In the areas of America led by conservatives, whether state, county or city, things are going quite well, given the reach liberalism has had on the national level. Areas run by libs are mostly bankrupt, run-down and crime-infested. Secularism simply doesn’t fulfill, satisfy or function well.
What the country needs desperately is a True Christian Awakening. It is Christianity that made America great; that made people from all over the world want to come here to live and prosper. But there is very little chance there ever will be another religious awakening here. Dr. Fein’s lefty colleagues in academia as well as the unspeakably vicious, banal, crude and decadent operators of the sadly popular “music,” TV and movies swarm to have succeeded in working the populace into a moral and mental torpor. The likes of which have not been seen since the Fall of Rome. The lazy and the ignorant have voted themselves, along with the rest of us, into a quasi-slavery that will increasingly become less quasi, and more de facto and de jure. One of our Founders said that our Constitution is designed for a moral people, and not suited for any other.
In the ’50s and ’60s, Western movies and TV shows were highly popular. Each one was a “morality play.” Good always triumphed over evil. Religion was portrayed always as a positive. A man’s word was his bond. Moral bravery and honor were shown often, and as such fortified the nation’s youth to aspire to uprightness.
Moral relativism has taken hold. Many churches, instead of upholding righteousness and condemning sin, have little by little, along with the ever-descending culture, “bent” their precepts and ideals so as to “accommodate” the “faithful,” and so they now actually reinforce the moral abyss.
I wish I could be more positive and hopeful, but the signs of the times don’t lend themselves to it.
However, “There is a place of quiet rest, near to the Heart of God.” If you can find it, you’ll be very glad you did!
Harry Hagan
west Cobb
Follow us on Twitter!
As I note below, Mr. Hagan is like a lot of older white guys who recall an America that never existed anywhere except on their TV screens.
The socialist Jews I spoke of are quite well known to most readers: Soros, Alinsky, The Frankfort School, Gramsci, NYT, Hollywood movers and shakers, etc. These people are highly organized; that's why I have no compunction in naming them. It's fine with you and them, of course, to call Christian Evangelicals (I'm not one, but avidly Christian) every insulting name in the book, right? Have you written to complain, e.g., to Bill Maher, for his evil and hateful diatribes against us?
Do I have to write how much I admire Jews such as Prager, Savage, Medved, Ben Stein, and Melvyn Fein, just to balance things out?
My biases? Because my thinking doesn't parallel yours my thoughts are biased? The things I write are my OPINIONS. Before you and your pals completely wreck the Constitution, I'm still entitled (you know that word, don't you?) to them.
Since you read the Hagan column with intent to debate, it is clear your mind was set to argue rather than to learn or agree before you even read it.
Then you chose to disparage the writer, Harry Hagan, rather than to enter your debate points.
Since you were going to debate Harry , that implies many things among which is that the country is not in shambles. If you have lived as long as Harry or I, you would not disagree with that.
Next, Harry's point or reference to the Cultural Revolution of the 60s is historical fact. You debate that?
Moral relativism is now rooted in our society--you debate that? Then, you do not read the daily news or, you are indeed converted to moral relativism and cannot recognize the changes and what kind of values you hold.
Full disclosure--I do not know Harry. I only know that I agree with what he writes to the MDJ.
Lastly, the fact you identify yourself as a hyphenated American of a specific ethnic group speaks volumes about your allegiance to our country and where your allegiance lies.
PS I further agree that our country needs a Christian awakening.
Is that the best you can do? Simply label someone else's thoughts as "an absolute load of garbage"? What in the world is a "bizarre lust"? Do tell, is that just more of your name calling or is that some new liberal progressive think?
Nice rant, but what is your point?
The entertainment you cite was escapism designed to sell cigarettes, not a reflection of the real America. Did you ever notice that Mayberry, North Carolina had no African-Americans?
Sorry, Harry, but that morally superior America you believe once existed is pure fantasy. What you call "relativism" many of the rest of us call reality.