The Era of Incivility

Image result for civility

T.L. Davis has written an article concerning the error or civility that I suggest you read. He makes excellent points that would be hard to argue against based on his premise that a civil war is coming with the left. I agree that it is impossible to have a civil discourse with someone whose ideology and/or indoctrination supersedes your right to free speech under the 1st Amendment. How did the “United” States become so uncivil. Or should I ask “How did the the United States become so divided”? The question to be answered is how we respond to their failure of civility.

The answer is simple and our founding fathers warned us about domestic enemies and how to treat them.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” 
― Samuel Adams

The oath of office finalized during the War of Northern Aggression added enemies, foreign and domestic:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

I believe George Washington understood the issue of domestic enemies (and their root cause) better than most people today as he warned in his farewell address:

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

So what are the consequences of a House Divided? Jesus told us in Mark 3:23-29:

So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

What did civility mean in the time of our founding fathers? Here are the as copied by George Washington composed by French Jesuits. Rule number 56:

Associate yourself with Men of good Quality if you Esteem your own Reputation; for ‘is better to be alone than in bad Company.

How many men do you know that would be classified as “good Quality”? And that is the problem that the colonies faced in 1775 when some of the founding fathers would not support a revolution because the people did not have the public virtue to govern themselves. What changed their minds in the short course of only one year? The people in the colonies came together for a greater purpose.

What is public virtue? That question is the foundation of the beginning of the end of the Republic because it should not even need to be asked. Everyone was taught and understood public virtue in the past:

a necessary condition for the existence of a republican government, whether democratic or aristocratic, is that the people in whom supreme power is lodged possess the quality of “ public virtue,” meaning that they are motivated by a desire to achieve the public good.

John Adams gives us the answer to why public virtue was erased from our schools and our culture:

Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.

It is easy to see the lack of virtue on both sides. So let me propose an alternate division. Instead of submitting to the different labels used to divide us, let us use the proper division: good vs. evil. This greatly simplifies the upcoming war and the choosing of sides. But more importantly, it simplifies the consequences.

If I am correct, the paradigm of right vs. left is false. What if there is only one party now that is united with their own agenda and is using useful idiots to misdirect us? Does it matter? If we lose our civility to win the “war”, we will never restore the Republic. And that is what evil wants. I have no advice other than for you to understand that Judgment should be foremost in your mind whenever a choice presents itself.

David DeGerolamo

Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Civil Unrest, Domestic Enemies, Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Era of Incivility

  1. Average Joe says:

    “If I am correct, the paradigm of right vs. left is false”

    I find no room for ambiguity regarding the discussion at hand. It is good vs evil, right vs, wrong, satan vs God’s followers. In this war, which has been raging for millennium, one keeps his civility by his focus on the word of God which is the cause for which we fight. As long as His word is on our minds, in our hearts, and on our lips, our humanity, or civility if you prefer, is well preserved.

    Mr. Davis is astute and succinct in his assessment. Are we not taught to refrain from casting pearls before swine? Shall we do so and be trampled under foot? I pray God forbid it and let us be encouraged by the knowledge our efforts in His service shall not be in vain.

    I recently came across a statement that struck me as true in regards to our political situation. It was recently and unknowing confirmed by a local politician who again, in a short private conversation, expressed his pride in the art of compromise. The statement read as follows…

    “Compromise is surrender on the installment plan.”

    Y’all have a nice day.

    • a follower says:

      Almost daily we see them put ‘political party’ above the people, above the nation. They first consider themselves, their position, their job, their status.
      We the people, many of us also do this in the face of right vs. wrong.

  2. Bruce Allen Wineman says:

    I have pondered this issue for some time now. I like this description very much. I, along with my brother, have discussed it and the result is that what we see is, ultimately, a “spectator’s sport”. That does not mean we are peripheral to the major discussion. Our “microphone” is very small. We are less able to speak against the issue than to participate. That said, the declaring this process as “good vs. evil” is the best way to define because it simplifies what is said and addresses it for most all of us “humans”. This seems to put even more pressure on our “Leaders” but that is the responsibility that goes with their taking on that place in the grand scheme of things. I believe in God and know there are some that profess to not do so but this set of terms will not further ‘divide’ us but help all that care to address the issue. I will participate in what ever violent response that might be forced to survive but believe that the engagement of “Good People” will prevail if they choose to participate. Thank you for a clear and straight forward presentation of a very decisive and difficult issue.

Leave a Reply