Our column last week discussed the hit piece from the New York Times on newly elected U.S. Representative Myra Flores (sic), a Republican from Texas who won a long-held Democrat seat in a special election. The Times emphasized her campaign theme – God, Family, Country – as a negative. It is a sad commentary to label these values as “far right.” Let’s break down the three components to understand why these values really do matter.
Doesn’t the Times understand that faith in a supreme being was the formative principle of our founding fathers. Ben Franklin wanted the Great Seal of the United States to include Moses standing at the parted Red Sea. As Moses led his people to the promised land, Franklin and the other founders saw this new project as a new promised land. America has 28 cities named after Jerusalem, which makes the connection quite clear. And even if there is no divine hand in writing the Bible, it is still the social contract that allows individual freedom to prevail. The Bible offers fidelity to a higher power rather than to the reigning monarch or dictator. But to the left this is a bad thing. If not for the values represented in the Bible, why is it wrong to steal, murder and all other harms that both civil law and the Bible reject. Values must come from somewhere and Myra Flores and most Americans’ values come from this higher authority.
The organizing principal of society is the family. Society has a vested interest in nurturing families and helping them become a bedrock institution. Without families society as we know it will cease to exist. As man/woman pair off and form a family, categorically, this is the only form of relationship that can create families. So it is the responsibility of society to preserve itself and family is the only way, categorically, it can do so. So much societal trauma and disorder are the result of the lack of a family structure, with in many cases no fathers at home, while single mothers often confront issues related to drugs and instability.
A family unit usually fosters mutual support which can overcome so many of the failures and problems that hurt so many in the society. This does not mean a single mother cannot create a nurturing family unit. And when there is no option, it is up to society to support the single mothers so the children can have a shot at a decent life. But so many of today’s problems come from the breakdown of the family structure. And what Myra understands is that being part of a family with the love of your child and the love received back as a parent is arguably the highest form of human satisfaction that exists.
Country is important too and is third on Myra’s list. The country we live in should create an infrastructure that allows people to prosper in a chosen occupation, to have free time for enjoyment, to establish educational facilities, to provide support to those in difficult positions, but mostly to leave the citizens free to live their lives.
But to the New York Times country – the State – comes first and if a priority at all, family comes second. There is no third leg to their stool. Country means a paternalistic government that will provide for all your needs, as determined by the benevolent all-knowing rulers. Myra is portrayed as heartless for not saying that her top priorities are taking care of the poor and oppressed. Government as seen by the New York Times should be able to control its citizens’ lives. It should be the source of the values we live under. If government says we must defer and pay homage to the LGBTQ lifestyle then we must act accordingly at the risk of being called a homophobe. If the government tells you a person with XY chromosomes is a woman we must accept that as fact, or be canceled. If the government tells you it is good to recognize same sex marriages you must obey or be harassed They never explain why society should offer its benefits to these arrangements. We assume Myra understands why there is no gain to society, only a drain by this recognition.
So my fellow citizens, I ask you, what government do you want to live under. Myra’s values, God – Family – Country, or the nihilism of the New York Times.
You another mad Marxist?
Don’t just disengage from the conversation. Please explain what it is that bothers you and why.
I would think a tolerant person would want to engage in civil banter. When we only visit echo chambers, what do you learn?
You can subscribe yourself easily. An opinion that is written is causing you to unsubscribe, you are not a tolerant person then. Have a blessed day!
My dad taught me the same values:
God, family and country. That was 70 years ago, and while I still hold those values, it’s clear that others do not. 👵🏻🥲. Makes me sad.
People need to look up the word tolerant. It means to put up with, not to accept. If you claim to be “tolerant” that’s not saying much is it?
Another mad Marxist? Who’s the freaking Marxist here? You people on the left are Marxists!
Why don’t you complete the hyperbole and call everybody that doesn’t agree with you Nazis?
“Progressive” is a sick joke! More like regressive.
By the way, who decided that the democrats are the blue party when everyone knows they are actually the RED party?
Let’s call a spade a spade and if you think that’s a racial reference, who’s the racist?
It’s possible Mr. Sanchez is unaware that the founders of the US based the US Constitution on principles of Reason, not anything related to God or “divine right”. When Hamilton was leaving the Constitutional Convention after he signed the Constitution, a woman asked him why the founders hadn’t included God in the Constitution, and he quipped, “We forgot.”
Franklin indeed wanted an appeal to God. But in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson refers to the God of Nature, not the Christian god. After 1,300 years of theocratic totalitarianism and witch hunts and pointless “Christian” wars, the founders tried something different: civil government–where morals are matters of community agreement, not theocratic dictate. Thomas Hobbes, one of the political philosophers who suggested the concept of the social contract pointedly urged the Pope to leave temporal matters alone–in his famous book “Leviathan”. Locke’s First Treatise Of Government ridicules the idea of “divine right” and reliance on the Bible for one’s sense of government. Voltaire? He laughed at Christianity. Paine did as well. Jefferson even rewrote the New Testament–but eliminated all the superstitious miracles.
People are free to use Biblical names for the cities they found. Of course they are.
As for the NYTimes being “nihilistic”, take another look. The idea that any entity not specifically in line with one’s beliefs has got to believe in nothing is a red herring.