Our conversation happened in the wake of another *mass* shooting that had recently gone down. In the wake of it, there was another outpouring of anti-gun hysteria. He felt it was just another example of blaming something that really had nothing to do with the issue. He pointed back to the 1980s when people blamed music, and to the 1990s when *violent* video games were to blame for all of society's ills. Given the amount of legally owned weapons in the U.S. (some 200 million, according to reports), and the fact that most gun incidents are perpetrated by criminals, not law abiding citizens, he felt this was just the scapegoat du jour. I happened to agree with him.
Our conversation then moved towards determining what the problem was, and we came up with a solution: we have simply lost our moral bearings. We didn't delve in to specifics, mostly because I deflected the conversation away from it, but it seemed a truth too large to ignore. When a people have no moral compass, the only thing that matters is what they feel is most important in the moment. Often, that is themselves. "Generation me", as a friend of mine has dubbed it.
There could be many moments in our nation's history that would point to a loss of our moral compass, but for me, there is one moment that is so horrendous, I think it's as good of a starting point as any. That date is January 22nd, 1973. For those who are aware, that is the day that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in Roe v. Wade, a decision that forever changed the landscape of the United States.
There are a couple of legal problems with Roe. First, it took an activist Court to state that abortion would be allowed as the law of the land. In order to do this, they had to completely invent clauses of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the text of which reads:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.They used 'due process' to come up with 'privacy' which was then translated in to 'murder of unborn children'. To say the least, the original intent was not Honored, nor could any reasonable person infer that such a right is given, unlike the cases of using the 14th amendment to confer citizenship on to so-called *anchor babies*. The amendment was part of the "Reconstruction amendments" (13 - 15), the original intent of which was to protect the rights of newly freed black, male slaves. And also, in fine print "kill all the babies". It was probably written in invisible ink, which is why it took all the way until 1973 for a decision to be reached.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Notwithstanding the Court abusing their Constitutional powers, a second problem exists with the decision, and that is how it is has been interpreted through the years. The Court's intent had been to write a decision that was narrowly focused. Whether they failed to do so, or whether is has simply been misinterpreted during the ensuing 43 years, I don't know. It also doesn't matter. The net result is that it was made alright in the eyes of the legal system to murder unborn children.
How could there not be a loss of a country's moral compass once such a decision has been rendered?
Others may argue that we lost our way prior to that point, and still others may say it came at a later date. It doesn't matter at this point, we've clearly lost our way, and until we regain our moral compass, we could write enough laws to fill the entire Library of Alexendria, and we can't hope to gain back our footing. We may have already gone past the point of no return, and our Nation could be in the midst of its death throes.
