1. TALLER DE ÉTICA
Grado 806
(Semana del 09 al 13 de Marzo)
(Trabajo de Clase)
1- (Luegoderealizarlalecturadeltextoacontinuaciónextraigatresconclusiones)
(Reflexión)1
FUNDADOR Y PRÓCER DOS VECES
por Carlos Rey
(Natalicio de Francisco del Rosario Sánchez)
Francisco del Rosario Sánchez nació en Santo Domingo el 9 de marzo de 1817, durante los últimos años del período
colonial conocido como la «España Boba».
No se sabe cuándo comenzó su relación con Juan Pablo Duarte, pero se cree que fue después de 1838 debido a que
Sánchez no figuró entre los fundadores de la sociedad secreta «La Trinitaria». Pero aquel joven mulato posteriormente
se hizo miembro de esa organización patriótica, se ganó la confianza de Duarte y pasó a ser el segundo jefe del
movimiento.
A mediados de 1843, perseguido por el General Charles Hérard, Sánchez se dirigió de Los Llanos a Santo Domingo,
cruzó a nado el río Ozama para avisar a Duarte, y logró evadir la persecución haciendo correr el rumor de que había
muerto a causa de una enfermedad repentina. Desde su escondite, donde asumió la dirección del movimiento
independentista como resultado del exilio de Duarte, Sánchez, con la colaboración de Matías Ramón Mella y Tomás de
Bobadilla, redactó el Manifiesto de Independencia, que se publicó el 16 de enero de 1844. De ahí que la noche del 24
de febrero los conspiradores lo eligieran Comandante de Armas con el rango de coronel, reconociendo así su jefatura
política y militar, y acordaran que Sánchez presidiera la Junta de Gobierno que había de dirigir los destinos de la
república naciente.
A las once de la noche del 27 de febrero, los revolucionarios se reunieron en la Puerta de la Misericordia, y desde allí
se lanzaron a ocupar el baluarte de El Conde. Fue así como en la madrugada del 28, Sánchez, de apenas veintisiete
años de edad, izó la bandera nacional al amparo del lema «¡Dios, Patria y Libertad!» El golpe se consumó rápida y
pacíficamente, pero una vez que se proclamó la independencia, se organizó la Junta Central Gubernativa en lugar del
Comité Insurreccional, se impusieron en la nueva Junta los representantes del sector social más influyente, y resultó
electo presidente Tomás de Bobadilla en lugar de Francisco del Rosario Sánchez.En junio de 1861, habiendo
proclamado unilateralmente el entonces presidente Pedro Santana la reincorporación de la República Dominicana a
España con la que los dominicanos renunciaban a su soberanía nacional, Sánchez, a pesar de encontrarse
gravemente enfermo, organizó una invasión por el territorio haitiano, pero finalmente cayó en una emboscada de las
fuerzas del gobierno, fue herido, tomado prisionero y condenado a muerte. Consagrado por la historia como fundador y
prócer de la República dos veces, murió fusilado el 4 de julio en el cementerio de San Juan de la Maguana.1
Gracias a Dios, cuya preeminencia Sánchez y sus compañeros trinitarios reconocieron en el lema nacional, todos
podemos disfrutar de la libertad por la que dio su vida aquel prócer dominicano. Es que a fin de que pudiéramos ser
verdaderamente libres, Dios invadió este mundo al enviar a su Hijo Jesucristo a que consumara pacíficamente nuestra
independencia del reino del Maligno.2 Cristo fue traicionado, tomado prisionero, herido y condenado a muerte. Murió
crucificado y fue sepultado como nuestro Prócer divino, pero resucitó y hoy está a la derecha del Padre como nuestro
Soberano victorioso, ofreciéndonos libertad espiritual y eterna a todos los que nos apropiemos de ella.
1
http://www.conciencia.net/?ID=2014sep29
2. 2- Análisis de texto
THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY UNDER ATTACK
EVERYWHERE2
For the past 100 years of so, the family unit in
America and Europe, in particular, has been under
constant attack. The attack has been coming from work
outside of the home, two parents having to work, the
school system that takes away authority of parents, and a
much more intrusive government that also takes away
the rights and powers of parents to control their children
and even their homes. Unemployment is very hard on
families, and there is plenty of that in Europe,
particularly.
Pressure from Anti-Christian groups such as gay rights
advocates and even some women’s advocate groups has
also forced the passage of laws that discourage marriage.
The growth of the welfare system is another anti-family
factor. These systems often contain incentives to have
children out of wedlock, for example, in order to collect
more money from the government.
Asia has much less of these pressures, but they are
growing on a daily basis. Communism, for example,
practiced still today in Russia, China, and other large
nations, has a devastating effect on the family. Also, Asia
has other problems, such as a traditional hierarchical
male-dominated culture that may seem to support the
family, but really is very hard on women, and impedes
the development of deep love between men and women
among the population. Other nations, such as those in
the Middle East, insist on rules and regulations that are
so rigid and strict that they may hold society together,
but they stop love from developing because the roles of
man and wife are too rigidly defined.
The Muslim world has some serious family problems.
Here the family unit is strong, but in some homes the
male dominates and the women are treated so badly that
they cannot love their husbands and children correctly. I
hope someday soon this will stop.
Some of the best family units are found among the
Jewish families and some of the Asian cultures, such as
the Chinese and Koreans. Even here, however, divorce
rates are rising and the traditional family is under attack.
THE NEED TO RESTORE THE INTEGRITY OF
THE FAMILY
The above leads us to the need to clarify, correct
and realize the importance of the traditional family unit
and restore it legally, culturally, socially, and in every
other way as well. This is also a goal of nutritional
balancing science. It must begin with each person
understanding the need for very high-quality
relationships, and then acting at all levels of society to
push for a more family-friendly society. The kind of
reforms needed in society include:
1. Legislative action and tax reform to encourage
marriage. This means that married couples should have
tax advantages, which is not true today. Often it is the
opposite. Also laws must clearly define marriage as the
relationship between one many and one woman. All
2
http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/FAMILIES.htm
other arrangements of living and sexuality must not be
given equal recognition or equal treatment under the law.
It also means that polygamy must be banned altogether.
It does not matter if all members of a polygamous
community like the arrangement. It does not work well
and it is usually a cult. For more on this topic, read Cults
and Terror Societies on this site.
Tax credits should be given for having children, but only
if a couple is married and filing jointly. Society should
not be giving tax credits to single parent households of
the same magnitude, as it encourages promiscuity and
single-parent households. I know this is a difficult area,
but it is important to strengthen and protect traditional
marriage.
2. Legislative action and tax reform to strengthen
families. Here are examples of laws and tax
arrangements that favor the family unit in society:
Smaller government favors families. This is because
power in society is always shared between individuals
and their families, and the government. The more power
and scope of the government, the less power and scope
the family will have. Laws that should be abolished to
assist the family are all laws that allow schools to give out
condoms and birth control pills without parental
consent, and all laws that allow minor children to obtain
abortions and even driver’s licenses without parental
consent. Some states claim they can vaccinate children
without parental consent, and some allow medical
treatment without parental consent. All these laws
destroy the integrity and strength of the family unit and
ought to be repealed.
I realize that repealing these laws will permit some abuse
by uncaring or unthinking parents. However, this is
better than an across-the-board rule that damages the
family, which is still the best hope for children in the
entire world. Government welfare agencies do not do a
good job, overall, and I would not expect them to do so.
They are too distant and too “professional” to care deeply
enough about the children.
Similarly, judges and juries should not have the right to
remove minor children from the home unless the abuse is
obvious and severe.
Low taxes strongly favor the family unit and family
integrity. Much higher taxes for everyone today is
forcing two parents to work outside of the home and to
send children to government or private daycare centers
and pre-schools. This is horrendous for families. While
in some nations, the poor and even middle classes do not
pay income taxes, they pay for taxes that are hidden in
every product and service that they buy. This is the case
especially in America and Europe where corporate taxes
are high. These are hidden taxes on all products that can
account for up to half the cost of the product such as a
car, food, clothing, building materials and other
necessities.
This is why corporate tax rates should be zero. Tax
income, tax consumption, or tax imports and exports, but
do not tax in hidden ways such as corporate taxes that no
one can see and that are regressive, meaning they harm
the poor much more than they harm the wealthy because
the poor must spend a lot more of their income on
necessities, while the rich can easily afford the taxes on
goods and services such as electricity, etc.
3. Laws that permit, encourage and even pay one parent to
stay at home with children and teach them favor the
family strongly. Parents should be discouraged from
both working outside the home, and young children
should be at home. If a parent does not want to raise a
child at home, he or she should not become a parent. It
is that simple.
Home schooling favors the family unit. In the same vein,
home schooling must be encouraged, not attacked, as it is
in many nations, including the United States of America.
Home schooling is the ideal, and should not be
considered a deviant or religious or unusual concept. It
is far better, according to statistics, than any school
situation. Home schooling parents should not have to
pay school taxes, for example, and perhaps should be
compensated so that a parent can stay home and teach
rather than have to take a job outside the home and send
the child to public or private schools.
No death taxes favor the family. Death taxes are also
called estate taxes. They do not allow some families to
pass on their wealth to their children, or anyone else.
Instead, the government takes a large portion of their
money, even though they have already paid taxes on that
income. Families should be permitted to pass on their
wealth, as it is theirs and they often worked hard for it.
The government has no right to it, having already taxed it
once or perhaps twice.
Tort reform strongly favors families and employment. It
is important that if one is truly injured, that one can sue
for damages. However, the situation in America, in
particular, but also in Europe in which attorneys are able
to sue basically innocent people for all sorts of frivolous
reasons places great strain and a huge financial burden
on everyone. It raises the price of all goods and services,
frightens away many businesses and keeps good products
off the market. It also supports a class of parasitic
attorneys who make good money often by ruining other
people’s lives.
There are simple answers for this problem, but the trial
lawyers lobby, and their political allies - the Democratic
party - has so far prevented them from being
implemented, especially in the United States. The
solutions include:
1. Simplify legal proceedings so that people do not need
attorneys to represent them and can handle simple cases
themselves. This is certainly possible, but judges and
attorneys don’t like the idea. It is similar to learning how
to take care of your health, which the doctor’s don’t like.
Court proceedings, rules of evidence, rules of discovery,
motions, and so on can be made simpler.
2. The loser in a suit should pay all court and attorney
fees. This is the system in Great Britain and some other
nations. It can stop some frivolous lawsuits, especially in
the health care area, but also in product safety.
3. Attorneys must not be allowed to disqualify jurors at
their whim. The only reason to disqualify a juror should
be a direct conflict of interest, perhaps. The current
system today allows sharp attorneys to get rid of
potential jurors whom they sense they cannot manipulate
or influence. This should not be the way the jury system
works and it makes a mockery of the jury system.
4. It may be necessary to place a cap on damages. This is
more complex, especially in a class action lawsuit but
sometimes juries are talked into awarding far too much
money for damages because attorneys take a percentage
for themselves.
A capitalist economic system, with controls to prevent
corporate raiding and cheating, tends to favor families,
while socialism is usually even more corrupt and it
destroys families. It does this because the government
gains so much power that the family becomes secondary
to government, which becomes the nanny, the provider,
the police force and everything else. This must be taught
and the reasons for it thoroughly understood in society.
The basic reason is that a large, powerful government
always competes for power with the family, so it is
inherently inimical to the family.
In contrast, a weak government allows the family unit to
have more power over itself and over society. It is not an
accident that the weakest families occur in communist
and socialist nations, while the strongest are found in the
capitalist nations.
Private and not socialized, nationalized or “universal”
health care helps the family unit. Caring for one’s health
and that of the children are extremely important issues
that are best handled within families. This is because
they have to do with diet, lifestyle, thinking patterns and
other personal habits that are learned and practiced in
families.
In general, when people are forced into a governmental
system, the family loses a lot of power and control over
this important area of life. If the government system
were perfect, it would not be so bad. However, all
governmental systems are more costly, the dietary
recommendations are often poor, bureaucrats are distant
and don’t care as much for people as private doctoring
arrangements, and waste and corruption are worse. Also,
just turning over control of this vital area of life is a bad
idea.
Even the HMO or PPO system in the USA, which is based
on private insurance but herds people into groups with
little choice in health care, is not good for family integrity
and strength. This is just one reason why Obamacare, for
example, in the USA, will not work and must be repealed
at once before it further bankrupts the USA, which it is
doing and with no good results. It is just socialism, and
that is harmful for families, as explained above.
Freedom, in general, is wonderful for the family.
Repression in society works against families. Freedoms
of religion, of speech, of assembly, the right to bear arms
and all the freedoms that some nations permit are helpful
for the family as they weaken governmental power and
encourage responsibility and power to be centered in the
family. Denying the people freedom weakens the family
in all cases.
Traditional religions and, in general, religious freedom
tend to favor the family unit. However, too much
repression in the religion harms families by several
means. Repressing women, for example, leads to anger
and hatred of women for men and for the religious
leaders. Also, if the family roles are so rigidly defined,
some will rebel and avoid families altogether. They also,
of course, may just leave the religion, but this is not
always possible, as with Islam.
As these legal and other changes occur, and only when
they occur, we can expect to see great improvements and
restoration of our societies. They will be safer, more
sane, healthier, with far more emphasis on spiritual
values and the dignity of each individual soul. All will be
happier and life will be far more worthwhile and
enjoyable for women, in particular, for our children, and
for everyone.
4. Easy divorce laws have mixed effects upon families. On
one hand, they make it easy for a selfish parent to
basically abandon their children or “steal” them from a
partner. They may also leave a former partner stranded
without financial support at all, or very little.
On the other hand, very strict divorce laws that existed in
the past kept families together where there was physical
or emotional abuse, or just terrible unhappiness. This is
not ideal for families, either.
Many people say that the traditional family is dead, as
evidenced by the high divorce rates in the Western world,
in particular. However, they forget that although the
divorce rate is high, the remarriage rate is also very high.
In other words, many people do not want to be single.
They just want to be with the right type of person. If they
are not, then they are more likely today than in the past
to split up and move on to what is often, though not
always, a better marriage the second time around.
When children are involved, the situation is more
complex. Children need a stable home and they need
love – plenty of it. So it is more complicated. Here one
must use good judgment and try to avoid selfishness.
Selfishness is often the problem and the reason that a
couple does not blend and heal one another.
Laws favoring easy abortions probably harm families.
This is an ongoing debate in the USA, though not much
in Europe. ALL abortions terminate a life, and some
women suffer psychological damage from abortions, even
if they are not fully aware of it. I particularly dislike the
Planned Parenthood approach, often, in which young
women are just told they can get their abortion right
away, no one needs to know about it, and that is all there
is to it.
However, those who favor abortions rightly point out that
women perhaps should have more control over their
reproductive abilities, especially in case of rape, incest,
and all conditions in which the health and well-being of
the mother or even the father is at stake. So I suspect
this issue will be debated for many years.
I believe anti-abortion laws are there to protect women in
many cases, and this is how they should be “sold” or
promoted. They help women avoid psychological
damage that comes with abortions, they help prevent
infections and other problems of abortions, and they help
the family in many cases, which helps women the most.
If the family does not want another child, then put it up
for adoption.
Encouraging monogamous man-woman
relationships is by far best for the family. Sadly, this is
not what is taught in schools today. Politically correct
teachers often stress that alternatives to the traditional
family are just as good as the traditional one man-one
woman relationship. I believe this is a lie in most cases,
for many reasons.
I believe there exist certain differences between men and
women that are often subtle, but very real. Living
together, they tend to balance one another, help one
another, heal one another, and love one another better
than any other type of arrangement. This does not mean
that in a few cases a different type of relationship is best,
but I am speaking in general terms of what seems to work
best for the great majority of people in our world.
I strongly believe that if this were not so, we would
see around the world plenty of societies in which
marriage is not supported or practiced much, and instead
we would see much more of other living arrangements.
But we do not see this very much among the thousands of
human societies of every race and religion. This is not an
indictment of other ways to live socially, just an
observation. For this reason, I want to suggest that laws
should protect, proclaim, educate and demand that the
young are taught this truth, and nothing else.
