You're not taking the long view, here. You're also not considering what other cultures the Aztecs were exposed to. Understand; a cultural living or dying out, only works on this scale, in reference to exposure to other cultures. If it's the only one on the block, there's nothing to cause it to fall over.

I notice you don't mention the Assyrians.
Regarding the long view, the US rose to dominance on the global scene after WWII. Our period at the top of the heap has lasted only about 60 years to this point. That is far shorter than either of the examples I cited or will cite here.
To the Aztecs and Assyrians I will add the Mongols, the Almohads, Spain (late 15th-17th centuries), France under the Louis (particularly the sun king) and the Medicis. It would be exceedingly difficult to argue that any of these were even approaching the most moral cultures of their day or even the most moral of their neighbors, yet they all were the dominant powers of their regions in their day.
A few other examples, in no particular order, that were not clearly morally superior to their neighbors yet dominated their regions in their day include the Mayans, the Incas, the Ottomans, the Holy Roman Empire, the Hans, the Chins, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Zulus.
Dominance is based on technological, military, and economic power not morality. Do you really think that the Soviets were the second closest to getting it right morally? Is China the second most moral nation today?
I think it is you who is not taking the long view here. You apparently only look to our current empire and the British Empire and conclude that since they can be argued to be among the most moral nations of their time that morality is the cause of their dominance. These are exceptions not the rule.
The US rise to power largely rests on the aftermath of WWII. Among other things the war ramped up our manufacturing ability while it decimated the manufacturing ability of all the previously viable competition.
While I love my country and think the values our country was founded upon are a reason for pride, our dominance in the world rests upon our economic and military might more than our morals.
A majority of the world's people find our invasion and subsequent action in Iraq to be morally repugnant yet they do little (outside of speeches) to stop us. Why do you think that is? Is it because we are morally superior or is it because they cannot afford to lose us as a trading partner?

But they only change, when the culture and its values are no longer taught as being the goal. As in this case.

As previously stated this complaint was made by Thomas Jefferson and in the 1950s and by all those in between. Our cultural values have shifted from well before we were a nation, throughout our life as a nation, and will continue to shift long after we cease to be a nation. Were our cultural values not taught at the inception of our nation? Were they not taught in the 1860s, 1920s, the 1940s, the 1950s or the 1960s? All times of radical shifts in our cultural values.

GA,
You should be writing for Whitehouse.org or blogs4brownback.

Now ... let's address the race angle. I've been reading some of the blogs out there, and I did have a chance to listen to some sports talk radio over the weekend. What I've read and heard is entirely predictable. Everyone is out to get Michael Vick because he's black. The whole investigation is racially based.

This isn't about race. It's about culture. Black urban culture, to be more precise. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that organized dogfighting has increased by well over 300% since 1992. In many cases the dogfighting takes place in conjunction with drug dealing. The director of the Capital Area Humane Society in Ohio told the Cincinnati Inquirer ""Dogfighting is a family event, often held in a large warehouse. Children watch and there can be concession stands at one end, gambling somewhere else, and over in this corner they'll be selling cocaine and crack."

I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you that dogfighting has been glorified in rap music. DMX and Snoop Dog have promoted the practice in their "music" videos.

Eileen Lou-Harrist wrote "In recent years, pit bull terriers have become a macho accessory in urban culture, where kids are attracted to the animals' reputation as inherently mean dogs. Add the hard-edged glamour of the dogfight—the gambling, drugs and weapons; the illegality; the 'fight 'til you die' credo—and dogfighting flourishes in places where cultivating a tough reputation is often paramount to survival." Now is Lou-Harrist describing any sort of a racial characteristic with those words? Hardly. She's describing a culture; urban street culture. Gangsta culture. So for all of you out there who will try to make this whole Michael Vick affair into a racial issue, put a sock in it. We're talking culture here, not race; a violent, immoral and cruel culture that promotes violence and disrespect for common decency and the law; a culture now vividly represented by Michael Vick.

As for:

Might does not indicate right in the small or large scale. The Aztecs, Assyrians are two examples of abhorrent cultures (also by the standards of their times and their neighbors) that dominated their regions for centuries and were defeated by external forces.

You're not taking the long view, here. You're also not considering what other cultures the Aztecs were exposed to. Understand; a cultural living or dying out, only works on this scale, in reference to exposure to other cultures. If it's the only one on the block, there's nothing to cause it to fall over.

Culture values change over time and as we get older and the values of our culture shift around us it is easy to look back at the time of our youth when we were sheltered from the harsh realities of the world and see a better time and see the present as going to hell.

But they only change, when the culture and its values are no longer taught as being the goal. As in this case.

Dog fighting, cock fighting, bull fighting, and bear bating have only very recently in our culture been deemed repugnant. Boxing, wrestling, football, and ultimate fighting are all forms of unnecessary violence widely accepted in our culture. The major difference in these forms of unnecessary violence is choice and control. This, I think is the key.

As for how those lessons directly relate to the case in question, (Vick) I'd have to say it comes down to "what goes around, comes around".

How Buddhist of you.

As to the moral disintegration of our culture, that is a common complaint throughout history. It seems every generation thinks the succeeding generations are in moral decay. Today, the 50s, back to Thomas Jefferson and even Socrates have all said the same.
Culture values change over time and as we get older and the values of our culture shift around us it is easy to look back at the time of our youth when we were sheltered from the harsh realities of the world and see a better time and see the present as going to hell.
The time in American history that many on the Right hold out as the moral high point in our past is the 1950s. This was a time marred by rampant racism and sexism. Jews were reviled, African-American men could be beaten to death for looking at a white woman wrong etc etc. Coincidently many of these same people see our culture beginning its decline concurrent with equal rights movement and women's liberation.
There have been some negative changes since that time but many positive changes as well. Taken as a whole we are a freer people with greater equality of opportunity now than we were then and that is a very positive development that IMO outweighs any of the negative developments since that time. I think most anyone who wants a career and is not a middle class white Christian male would likely agree (and a good many of them would agree as well).

Some pretty abhorrent cultures have been tops for their time.

The point you seem to be missing is that such measurements are relative to each other. The other part of the problem with your assessment is the issue of long-term measurement. In other words these aberrant cultures of which you speak; how long did they last?

As to the nature of their fall, how many of them handed their rule over the others one time enemies who in their contempt and in their laziness they tried to absorb and forgot to fear? Or as the examples I brought earlier, paid lip service to the laws without understanding the vision of which they were founded? In short, how many of them became imoral, or amoral?

There... that last, you see, lies the problem I see us facing; we've tried to absorb antagonistic cultures, and if the reaction of the democrats to work current situation in the middle east is of any indication we have forgotten to fear them. In our efforts to be "multicultural" we have also become "amoral", for the two are inexorably connected.

As to the rest of it, I suppose "God given" is a useful description, though it tends to conflict, in this context, with the Biblically expressed idea of man as a manager of the earth and it's other inhabitants.

I think that more correctly, the answer to your question comes back down to culture, specifically, cultural memory. As in, the lessons learned over the centuries both in this culture and the preceding ones from which we descend... The lessons that we as a people, as a culture, have learned, over that time... The morality that sprung from those lessons, the purposes for which are not always clear to us, after all the millenia. Unfortunately, we as a people need to be reminded once in awhile that those morals are there for a purpose.

As for how those lessons directly relate to the case in question, (Vick) I'd have to say it comes down to "what goes around, comes around".

We as a culture, we as a people, have always drawn a distinction between necessary and unnecessary violence. Certainly, at least in our world view, arranging for Dogfighting, (Cockfighting, what have you) is by definition, unnecessary violence. To swipe a phrase... "no socially redeeming value". We (most of us) recognize that violence is often necessary. In wartime, as an example. Yet, violence outside those areas, is discouraged. Why?

Because, over the millennia, we, when added to the cultural memories of those who came before ours, have begun to recognize that violence, whether necessary or unnecessary, becomes a self feeding monster. Therefore, our morals state that unnecessary violence is immoral.

(Granted, we end up arguing back and forth over whether a particular violence is necessary, or not, and again, granted, these are all very general estate terms. )

I will however say, that the culture and the people who get it the closest are probably going to be the ones who prosper most greatly.

Some pretty abhorrent cultures have been tops for their time. I have various problems with some of your points after this, but that is not the topic at hand.

BTW when jazz was the music of the urban poor it had largely the same reputation rap now has. Remember the zoot suit riots?

You still have not answered why you think animal cruelty is wrong. To say that it is because of morals does not say why it is immoral. To say that it is a cultural value does not say why it should be a cultural value. For instance, do you think these animals have a right (God given or otherwise) to not be abused as Steve seems to? Or are you more in agreement with Michael?

You still have not answered why you think animal cruelty is wrong.

Actually, I think I have. Again:"What Stephen raises in his original post, is a question of moral values. IMV, he's right to do so.

Allow me to further clarify my position by means of quoting something nice edit my own place... I do this because I want you to get the full impact of my feeling, here.

A long jail term is fully justified.

Further; a total loss of endorsement income is in order.

Any company not removing Vick has an endorser of their product, should pay the price of that connection.

That, by the way includes the NFL, and the Atlanta Falcons. Useless Toady is telling us that The Falcons face an “incredibly difficult decision’ with Vick.

“It’s an incredibly difficult decision for the team,” said NYU professor Robert Boland, who teaches sports law. Boland is an active sports agent and also has worked in the past on an animal crimes task force in New York.

“The broader issue in sports is the bad behavior of players and its impact on fans and sponsors,” Boland said. “Teams just don’t know what to do with it.

If they really think it’s that difficult, it’s probably because the NFL and the ownership aren’t tremendously principled people. To such an individual, the choice here would be a no brainer. s it is, and as the article points out, Vick sells merchandise, Vick sells tickets. Or, at least, he did until this news came out.

If we were dealing with principled people, Vick would be removed from the team before the echo dies. If that means that the Falcons are out of playoff contention before the season even starts, so much the better. That’s part of the price you pay when you take on such people. of course if you were principled, you wouldn’t be taking on such people.that his removal from the team hasn’t happened yet, suggests to me that principle, and the owners acting on same, isn’t in the cards.

I will guarantee you, that Vick won’t be selling as much merchandise, he will decidedly NOT be selling as many tickets, if he is still with the team. It’s my judgment at that the fans are more principled than the owners, in this case. And they certainly will not, and should not, be happy with the Falcons franchise if they decide to hang on to this Mongrel mutt. I hope I’m wrong, I hope they’re letting him go, but the bottom line is I don’t think they will.

For too many years, we have seen too many NFL players getting away with antisocial, and downright criminal behavior. It’s about time we started reversing that trend, and I can’t think of a better place to start them with Michael Vick.

OK, I hope that makes things a little clearer for you. But let's go little deeper into the reasoning behind this anger. You accuse me of being a moral relativist. That charge is true but only to a degree.

Usually the charge of being a moral relativism means that I approve of the morality of other cultures, including that which allows Mr. Vick's activity, or, at perhaps another extreme, makes arrangements for suicide bombers to fight your war for you. Clearly, I disapprove of such, and I do so on moral grounds, which in turn are extensions of the values of the culture. I do, however, recognize that the cultural ground is what such matters are argued on.

I make that distinction for the simple reason that we need to identify the field on which this battle will be fought, or we will lose it, in absentia. we cannot argue such matters as Dogfighting on law, alone, as this case indicates clearly. We must deal with this on a morality basis.

Now;

Are their moral absolutes? I would answer in the affirmative, however, I do not think us intelligent enough to claim a lock on their definition. I will however say, that the culture and the people who get it the closest are probably going to be the ones who prosper most greatly. At the moment, that would be America, though along with and in parallel to, our moral decline, that situation is starting to change. At least at one time, comparatively speaking, we were the closest to that absolute. These days, however, with so many it has become something of a joke to even bring up the word 'morality'.... Much less the attempt to define or implement it.

I, for one, believe the American culture at its base to be superior of the majority of the rest of those in the rest of the world. I am convinced that as a result of our culture being better, our nation has prospered like no other in history. I am willing to hold it so , both in discussions with my children, and with visitors from other lands, and incidentally people I run into on the net.

That said, there are a number of Americans who are not so willing in those areas. Who, alas!, do not hold American culture so high. one example would be the eurocentrics that tend to inhabit both our coastlines, east and west. They also tend to inhabit our newsrooms and power places of higher learning, in greater numbers than we find in the whole of America. The results of the positioning of these people, is that American culture has not been instilled. It is to the point now, several generations on, where our own children do not recognize American culture as such , except in the most superficial way, despite their having lived here all their lives.

All this is one major reason why the teaching of history... specifically, American history, is of such vital import. How else, after all, are such values to be passed down?

One of the reasons for this cultural disconnect,, particularly as regards American blacks, for example, is that we have allowed them... nay, forced them into their own subculture, by means of the welfare state... a subculture with its own values, many of which run afoul of that of the majority.

To give you an idea of the effects of the cultural value not having been taught:

Back in July of 2003, the university of central Florida released a study that examined arrest and detention rates for blacks in the Orange county area... that would be Orlando. at the time of the study blacks only made up 18% of the Orange county population, yet they accounted for 40% of all arrests, and on the order of 55 to 60% of the jail population.

And the first charge that came up , as regards the difference, was poverty. But, no, the fact is that young white males living at the same poverty levels is young blacks do not commit crimes to the same extent according to the study. So, we take it one step further and we charge racism. Yet, that doesn't explain for the location of the crimes involved, which has it happened were in areas of higher black population percentages.

This study, as accurate picture is it paints, is however not seminal. We've been hearing this kind of report for decades, and done nothing. We've let ourselves get tired up with charges of racism, instead. As I said on this very blog about a year back, and others over the lastv7 years, It's not race, it's the culture.

The difference as I'm sure you know I'm leaning here, is the culture. we're talking about a culture that embraces violence and crime has a way of life.

Another example, I take to be Michael Vick. that he was operating outside of the cultures values, is plain to see. Is also plain to see that he had no moral problems with the activity he undertook.. At least until such time as the authorities showed up at the door.

Finally, let's take music... not as a 'value of the music' argument, but rather as a fuzzy indicator... let's speak to Rap music, certainly a part of the subculture we're talking about here (From my own blog a few years back):

Can anyone come up with big name Jazz acts having this kind of reputation? Bigtime Rock acts? When's the last time we heard of a knife fight at the Philharmonic? I don't recall anything like this at the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville in all the years that's been running, do you? I've been unable to find records of anything of the like happening down at the theatre district in Branson, MO. I haven't seen anything like this on the Gospel Music circuits, or the Modern Christian music circles, either. Ya know, at some point, someone's going to figure out that there's a rather well-established pattern, here. And no, this is not a 'racial profiling' thing. This is a 'rap profile' thing, and it's getting as predictable as the outcome of tossing a can of gasoline on a campfire.

I certainly could offer other examples, and I suppose that were I to do so, I would receive less flock from those who would call me a racist, but I think that would get over a long, and I've already taken up plenty of James' bandwidth here.
The points are making, however, are not racial, but rather, cultural. Let's just bridge that gap by saying these are some of the larger sore thumbs we've been dealing with.

And yet, very shortly, if I don't miss my guess by much, we're going to find ourselves inundated with other people who do not share our basic values, a situation that the British and the French and the Danish and to a lesser extent, the Canadians are already finding themselves in. And does anyone really think that the battle over immigration with Mexico isn't about cultural values?

All this stuff has been sitting on the back burner for quite some time now, and this case with Vick has brought them all out to the front burner, if only temporarily. Vick will likley get off with a short jail term, (Highly public) and a few thousand hours of community service, ad he'll likely be back on the field this year... and nobody will have learned anything, except that money, particulary the large kind of money that sports figures make, gets federal prosecutors off your butt, like nothing else.

And our culture is further erroded.

I've said it often enough in the past, and I will say it here. Government, when it was first invented, was invented by the culture to provide a mechanism to reinforce the culture. The different kinds of governments that we've seen around the world, are in direct response to the different kinds of cultures that they supported. On that basis I submit that the government's first duty is to nurture and project that culture. Governments failing in that responsibility, will not stand for long.

It will be interesting to see how our government response to this breach of cultural values. I find myself interested, but frankly, not very hopeful about it.

Where is your evidence for this?

Exactly what I said; Vick, whatever else he is, is not a complete idiot. He knew what he was doing was illegal. But the morality hadn't been taught him...

However... it must be understood that moral values are an extension of the culture, and outside of the culture mean very little at all.

So you are a moral relativist.

So, why, then? It's because we pay lip service to the laws, these days, and the laws alone... without installing the vision of the culture that is behind them.

Where is your evidence for this?

You still have not answered why you think animal cruelty is wrong.