Good World, Bad World?

I saw a Facebook post with a link to a recent blog about Red Skins Quarterback, Kirk Cousins. It contains a quote by Cousins about his reaction to teammate John McDonnell who has announced he is openly gay. I encourage you to check out the blog before reading my response:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/51136/kirk-cousins-on-the-gay-teammate-question

I like what Cousins said, but there are a number of things about Dan Graziano's blog that doesn't amount to much sense.

1st) Using Cousins thoughts as a spring board, Graziano suggests that, "human beings" should not be, "the ones who decide what's the right way and the wrong way for people to live their lives." I didn't detect any of that in Cousins remarks, but let's unpack Graziano's statement.

How is society supposed to hold itself together if "human beings" refuse to set guidelines about what is right and wrong? What is to keep society from melting down into a chaotic moral system where your "right" is my "wrong" and my "wrong" is your "right?" I don't see how Graziano can make this statement ultimately because of what he says at the end of his article.

2nd) Grazino concludes his ideas about a "good" moral society by stating, "You don't have to have been raised on the New Testament to think that'd be a pretty nice world in which to live."

But how does he justify his "good world" from what he believes is a "bad world?" He can't, because he is assuming that it is self evident. But it is only self evident, because our nation was born and raised on the New Testament. 

John Adams said this,  

"[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Our Constitution only works for a moral and religious people. If society breaks down, and is breaking down, into one where the people refuse to call out what is Right and Wrong, then the Constitution is no longer relevant.

Why is morality necessary for Constitutional relevance? Because, the Constitution was written under the assumption that religious and moral people would exist to carry on the dream of a society which affirms that, "All people are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Those words were written by those who not only read the New Testament, but agreed that it contained words to live by. It is from this understanding that the Constitution was born. That document still lives only because the moral and religious still remain!

If one takes out the New Testament, then one will misunderstand the Constitution, thereby tampering with the very foundations upon which the United States of America stands. Graziano only knows what a "good world" is because of how the New Testament has shaped it. He is blind to the fact that without it, this nation would have never survived past it's first 100 years of existence.

All this is to say that I think Cousins is doing a great job! Graziano is just confused as to why that is good!