|
Protect our right to freedom of speech with everything you have. Read the book.
It's only about 200 pages but many of the current ills of our country are explained here. Give it a try.
This is one book every American should read. This has corrupted our country.
Not the fastest read because there are tons of facts and details but the message is clear - we need to stand up for our values and bring back ethics in our classrooms and boardrooms. In trying to "be nice" to everyone, our lawmakers and judiciary have taken away our morals - making it okay to behave badly.
Speak up. Without it we are America no more.
A fantastic book on the freedom of speech and how a loss of morals has become detrimental to our society; not only on a personal level but as a whole. I highly recomend this book to anyone.
Those fearful of this strategy are thus forewarned. The historical plasticity of moral and natural law, with the tendency to conform to contemporary sentiment, circumstance and convenience, and change in general, is overlooked by Woodward and DeMint even as they introduce politicized considerations as newly minted moral law. Freedom of speech, ostensibly the central theme, is the most effective argument of the book (read this section first, instead of the rather indulgent introduction), but the actual main event is traditionalist vs. Fortunately, Woodward and DeMint don't go much further into science than to give the literary stink eye to anyone who might question the orthodoxy of Intelligent Design. All the standard social conservative topics appear in random mishmashes of reportage and propaganda, alternately cogent and flawed, enervating and shallow, factual and irrational. Despite a devotion to coded name calling, the observational narrative is compelling (those on the other side of the aisle will have to drop a bagful of preconceptions to appreciate its flow).
The conclusions, skewed toward political correctness and ideological purity, are often unconvincing and generally not well thought out, tend to shift blame and confuse cause and effect; but whether viewed as righteous dogma or a shower of hubristic debris, the delineation of values, their assigned cost/benefit scale, and the utter freedom from objectivity make for an intermittently entertaining read. Obviously, the book is not geared toward persuading ideologues of whichever stripe to seriously reconsider their positions. "Why We Whisper" is meant to rally support around a generalized conservative religio-political agenda, one that seeks to gain control by limiting federal oversight and overpowering local opposition. Since neither camp is yet willing to remove politicking from the search for answers, the book's importance becomes its vivid, particular account of various and general social decays (apparently, we all need reminding). Forays into history, sociology and science add little to the text, there being no evidence that either author possesses the kind of scholarship that brings depth to these subjects. Dubbing themselves traditionalists, the authors offer pages on their own victimization at the hands of secularists, prefaced by a single clause reducing traditionalist histories, such as slavery, to "blemishes." Statistics are read politically, which doesn't automatically support or negate them: the financial effects of single parenthood seem clear, while numbers can't explain the obligatory animus toward gays. Be aware: "Why We Whisper" is a partisan election year political tract, one essentially identifying Republicans with God, and Democrats with childhood obesity, among other things.
Wavering stylistically between fluid testimonial, and clotted, graceless pamphleteering, the tone is sourly condescending, sprayed with the lack of respect commonplace in current political discourse, but over-arched by a tight, sunless layer of atmosphere. That stated, the book has content worth recommending to anyone. secularist. The less familiar idea of "para-governmental" organizations is interesting, but too narrowly handled. With repetitiousness kept light, the interludes of feigned objectivity feel like literary structure. The issues are real, but the choice is false: most Americans look elsewhere for leadership and inspiration. A more honest title: "Why They Should Whisper Instead of Us."
Well researched & presented. One of the best reads of the year. Huge collection of information makes for a fairly slow read, but most worthy. Recommended by Rush. Helps understand our declining culture and the high cost of a liberal agenda. Would have preferred a few clear Biblical links, although the principles are clear. Highly recommended.
The authors opine (page 38) "It is a stretch to call this statement a prayer or a religious activity." Huh. Or polemical argument, oh those evil secularists. If you are a like-minded conservative, you will find nothing new I suspect. They extol a land in the 1950's where there was a Judeo-Christian heritage that was the basis of a well-ordered society.
Quotes digested from other sources (and endnoted to a fare-thee-well). Save your money. Looks to me that the authors are not even being true to their own beliefs here. Catholics also were out of the question for members of my mainstream Protestant church. You've seen this before.If you are, like me, not a like-minded conservative, but interested in learning more of the conservative arguments, you will find little of use here.
They're really arguing that this isn't a statement in support of some particular sect, but to call this statement non-religious is noncredible.A last general observation is that the authors seem to have hailed from a different world than the one I grew up in. Full disclosure statement -- I've not completed the book yet -- I will finish it -- if my opinion changes by the end of the book, I'll update this, but that seems to be about as likely as the Rockies repeating this year. The arguments, such as they are, tend to consist of one of two types. From that time I remember arguments about whether the Jews were condemned to a special hell for being responsible for crucifying Christ. Conclusions are generally stated without supporting explanation.One example.
The authors (page 37) state that the Supreme Court ruled against a school board that required every class to start each day with the words "Almighty God we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." Okay. Intermarriage in the church I grew up in did not mean whether whites could or should marry blacks -- unthinkable -- but whether it was possible for a Methodist to successfully wed a Presbyterian.
|
