Customer Reviews

Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say It's Wrong

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

If you have a curiosity, an open mind, and a thirst for full and honest debate on the direction of American society, this is a thoughtful book you must read. It provides a quantitative understanding of the pervasive ability of legislatures and courts to negatively impact public behavior through public policy.

This book is a well written explanation of traditionalism and the role of traditionalism in shaping our nation's history. It chronicles how our founding fathers and the founding documents all relied heavily on the strong underpinnings of religous moral authority to shape our free society. This moral underpinning allowed the people to rule government instead of government ruling the people. It reminds us that religion played a major role in societal change. Religion gave the Reverend Martin Luther King the moral authority to lead Americans to demand an end to segregation.

The book clearly documents how secular progressive have systematically eliminated these underpinnings and reshaped society in their secular image. The result has been negative consequences for individuals, groups and society as a whole. It documents how they have stiffled the free speech of those who believe that the moral underpinnings of religion should play a role in public policy debate.

"Why We Whisper" is a well researched compilation of ideas and beliefs that led America to stray from the Foundation of American Government. This book will educate and enlighten Republicans, Democrats, and those looking for supported answers to the moral decay of our society. I cannot believe a Jim Demint is a politician - he sounds to honest.

The "opinion" by jg "saved" (maryland), as to why we should not buy this book, incorporates all the reasons the Marxists wish to silence us and stop us from even whispering. His Marxist view of God would force us to pay for his wish list of programs (his tithes, in his view), so he can feel like he did something for (he dared to say it) ---egad, be careful now---JESUS.

It seems to be the thing to do for Marxists to sit in their PJs in front of their PCs, bashing books that they have no intention of buying, so they can silence those for whom the Constitution gave the freedom of speech. This is why I am no longer one of them. The freedom of thought, speech, and disagreement is one of our most cherished rights, and they bend over backwards to silence all those with whom they disagree. Just for once, can any of you grow up and not review a book that you haven't read? Uhhhh yep, I thought not...

One of the best reads of the year. Recommended by Rush. Helps understand our declining culture and the high cost of a liberal agenda. Well researched & presented. Huge collection of information makes for a fairly slow read, but most worthy. Would have preferred a few clear Biblical links, although the principles are clear. Highly recommended.

A balanced, common sense, non-emotional, fact based book. A must read for anyone wishing to be properly informed.Why We Whisper: Restoring Our Right to Say It's Wrong

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.

This is one book every American should read. It's only about 200 pages but many of the current ills of our country are explained here. Give it a try. 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. This has corrupted our country. Read the book. Speak up. Protect our right to freedom of speech with everything you have. Without it we are America no more.

"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. Those fearful of this strategy are thus forewarned.
That stated, the book has content worth recommending to anyone. 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.
All the standard social conservative topics appear in random mishmashes of reportage and propaganda, alternately cogent and flawed, enervating and shallow, factual and irrational. The less familiar idea of "para-governmental" organizations is interesting, but too narrowly handled. 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. With repetitiousness kept light, the interludes of feigned objectivity feel like literary structure.
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. 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. 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. 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.
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. secularist. The issues are real, but the choice is false: most Americans look elsewhere for leadership and inspiration. 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).
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. A more honest title: "Why They Should Whisper Instead of Us."

Save your money.

If you are a like-minded conservative, you will find nothing new I suspect. The arguments, such as they are, tend to consist of one of two types. Quotes digested from other sources (and endnoted to a fare-thee-well). Or polemical argument, oh those evil secularists. 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. 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. The authors opine (page 38) "It is a stretch to call this statement a prayer or a religious activity." Huh? Looks to me that the authors are not even being true to their own beliefs 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. They extol a land in the 1950's where there was a Judeo-Christian heritage that was the basis of a well-ordered society. From that time I remember arguments about whether the Jews were condemned to a special hell for being responsible for crucifying Christ. 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. Catholics also were out of the question for members of my mainstream Protestant church.

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.

i did not read this book yet. i heard mr demint speak on npr and just had to reply. mr demint is right when he argues that we need god and faith back in american life. our society is largely devoid of values. but his rhetoric is absolutely off target and harmful. like many other people he has perverted jesus for his small-minded agenda. he represents a very destructive movement in america--people who have turned jesus into a weapon. they use god to attack other people. they are completely out of touch with the god that they claim to represent. jesus would never attack homosexuals or unwed mothers. jesus taught about love and tolerance and self-sacrifice. when jesus comes back he will attack the true enemies of his beloved children- racism, hatred, economic inequality, ignorance, love of money, hypocrisy, intolerance and alienation. mr demint talked about the cost of AIDS to society. he completely ignored the cost of greed and alcoholism and drug addiction and despair and poverty and hopelessness and prejudice and hatred in all of its forms. he conveniently ignores the cost of domestic abuse and the cost of parents hating their children and teachers being alienated from their students and all of the horrific things that are really destroying american society. to distill the divine teachings of a loving god into a philosophy that calls for attacks on homosexuals and unwed mothers is absolutely horrific, desperate and mis-guided. moreover, mr demint doesn't see the big picture. after the hellish presidency of george bush the american people are not buying this garbage anymore. most americans understand that "conservatives" and the "right" have stolen jesus and perverted him beyond recognition. we don't trust rush limbaugh and newt gingrich and ralph reed and tom delay and the many others who have been exposed as lying, hypocritical money-worshipers. we don't want another president who hides behind jesus and uses him as as a shield to deflect attention away from his greed and self-interest and crimes against humanity. mr demint and his followers need to rethink their philosophy. they are lost and they will not be able to change anything if they keep missing the point of jesus and the love that he represents. i pray that they will open their hearts to the truth that they cannot seem to comprehend. they have cloaked themselves in the martyrs' garb of a "people who need to whisper" when in fact they are the persecutors.