It is difficult to respond with charity when "progressive" leftists show nothing but regressive disdain to their opponents.
There is a certain major journalist -- whom we shall refer to as "Mr. Z" for the sake of anonymity and my legal well-being -- whom I routinely challenge on his many false pro(re)gressive arguments. We have previously had an email exchange, while one of my numerous letters was published in his newspaper.
In Mr. Z's most recent tirade, he lambasts the pro-life agenda (whom he refers to under the misleading moniker of "anti-choice") for "not worrying about real babies" and "defending pseudo babies while not changing any diapers themselves." In what be one of the most ridiculous sentences in liberal journalistic history, Mr. Z writes:
"I, like most Americans, differentiate between actual, born-and-alive-in-the-real-world-now babies and the fertilized egg the size of the period at the end of this sentence that typically gets aborted."
This, my friends, is apparently what passes for a well-reasoned opinion piece these days. I could not resist a response. My first email to Mr. Z and his newspaper read:
It is interesting that Mr. Z would heap such derision on activists who care about the welfare of (in his own words) a "fertilized egg the size of a period." Mr. Z seems to forget that he also previously existed as a being no larger then the period which ends this sentence. Furthermore, when you deny an entire segment of our population its humanity, you find yourself on the very same intellectual slippery slope which has previously been used to justify the brutal murder of millions of other innocent "non-persons." I would think that a Jewish thinker would be more sensitive about making such unwarranted generalizations.
Much to my chagrin, Mr. Z replied quickly:
"Like the baby metaphor, the abortion-equals-holocaust line of thinking only really works if you already believe it. I could just as easily point out that the tendency of pro-lifers to force their religious scruples through law onto the unwilling smacks of the Spanish inquistiion. But that would be insensitive, though I'm not sure how somebody standing in the street with a five-foot photo of mangled fetuses can talk of "sensitivity." Thanks for writng."
You're more likely to get cohesive arguments out of a high-school debate team than the average liberal journalist, it seems. While I elected to ignore Mr. Z's blatant lack of knowledge regarding historical events like the Spanish Inquisition (which were just about as religious as another more-political-than-religious event, the Reformation), I couldn't resist another response:
"Thanks for your response. I will only briefly tackle what you wrote, in all charity and respect, simply because I can see that you have not thought this issue through. I will only itemize the list to make it clear, not in the intention of being condescending.
1.) The word "baby" is not a "metaphor," but rather only a label, albeit an emotional one. Yet one my continue to ask: when is it a baby? When it is wanted? Only after it is born? It is a terrible burden to define the beginning of our shared humanity.
2.) I never said "abortion = holocaust." I clearly said that it is a philosophical slippery slope to remove the rights of our shared humanity from any segment of the population. The Nazis thought that the mentally ill and elderly were "undesirables" whose life was a social burden; they also had no qualms regarding abortion. Slippery slopes being what they are, itt was not a far intellectual leap to label an entire nationality as sub-human. Consider what manner of rationalization it took to allow otherwise cultured and mannered men to slaughter thousands of men with their own bare hands.
3.) I never mention religion, nor are you fair to assume that I am religious. I've always said that atheists and secular humanists should be the most vehement pro-lifers. To the Judeo-Christian mentality, there is at least an afterlife. To the secular humanist, you are robbing a unique human creature of their only chance at existence. This is a terrible crime to commit in the name of social convenience.
4.) The people who stand in the streets with pictures of dismembered fetuses are simply trying to express the truth about the abortion procedure; it is a truth that demands an insensitive expression, as nothing else seems to get through.
-I appreciate your return email, and hope that you take these points under consideration. You are far too intelligent of a man to write the manner of article which was published in today's paper."
Predictably, Mr. Z never responded to this, as those who are grossly in error seldom wish to confront the glaring failings of their arguments. Yet his most recent column betrayed either further disdain for his readership, or perhaps the presence of an editor asking him to "tone it down a bit."
This most recent column, after the vicious anti-life attack, was about muffins.
Yes, "muffins." . . .
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
John Lennon and Bags Full of Dead Babies
It is no secret that many people in our culture today would like to create a new society without religion. Specifically, many would like to relegate Christianity to the trash-heap of historical memory, to be no more significant than the religions which came before it.
One of the most popular expressions of this worldview came in the famous John Lennon song, Imagine. The song begins by discouraging religious thinking:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
It proceeds with a rather utopian wish:
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Of course Lennon never thought about what a world without objective standards (and the possibility of spiritual justice) looked like. It never occurred to him that -- rather than creating a hippy utopia -- a world without ultimate consequences would eventually lead to moral anarchy.
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
No greed or hunger
And no religion too
John never tells us how a world without coherent structures of government could feed billions of people. Nor could a state of political anarchy support healthcare, welfare for the poor, or education. As to "greed," it is a real human tendency, and will persist with us until the end of time. Finally, once he's done pulling out every structure we need to survive, John takes away our religion as well.
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Yes -- clearly, a society with no governments to preserve the peace and provide for the economic structures necessary for human development -- along with a total lack of objective moral standards -- would lead to a peaceful utopian paradise. It seems that our only problem would be finding enough flowers to plait into billions of shaggy heads of hair.
Clearly I have a great disdain for this song -- yet when you consider the colossal social damage it has caused, so should you! John Lennon wrote the anthem for the new irreligious culture, and it has echoed mindlessly through the unrefined intellects of millions. This song should come free with every Hitchens or Davis atheism book sold; It could be a fitting background piece to the now famous atheist bus sign (picture, left.)
Yet it is no secret what such a pagan culture would look like, as there remain many parts of the world where Christianity has not become a dominant part of the cultural fabric. In recent world news, we hear of bags of dead babies being dumped into a river in China, or video games glorifying rape in Japan. It is not surprising that the majority of major human rights violations in our world take place in countries where the Christian ethos is not present.
With all of the major imperfections, hypocrisies, and potential troubles of organized religion, there remains the singular advantage of having an objective source of morality. These ideas -- observed in the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes of Christ -- provide an immutable standard for morality while establishing the universal love of human dignity. This objective standard allowed for the creation of the United States of America. "In God we Trust" is not a political option, but rather the source of American freedom and success.
Before the Judeo-Christian worldview, there was no objective for human dignity.
So before you rush to embrace a secular view of the world, think of the grave injustices which have always followed on the heel of pagan regimes such as Nazism, or atheist regimes such as the Soviet Union. Think of the terrible world of ancient Rome, or the modern human rights travesties in China.
The pagan world was -- and remains -- a dark and terrible place. It is a place where goodness and common decency only exist until somebody stronger takes them away from you. Even those who choose not to follow a Judeo-Christian religion should be grateful that this worldview founded a new society where intellectual and religious freedom is tolerated. Your freedom not to believe is a property of the dominant belief -- if you lose the Christian culture, you will also eventually lose your freedom.
After all, do you think football is brutal? You should read about what passed for typical weekend entertainment in the pagan superdome, otherwise known as the Roman Colosseum.
Yet another reason to show a healthy disdain for all the fruitful "thinking" that went on in the 1960's...
One of the most popular expressions of this worldview came in the famous John Lennon song, Imagine. The song begins by discouraging religious thinking:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
It proceeds with a rather utopian wish:
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Of course Lennon never thought about what a world without objective standards (and the possibility of spiritual justice) looked like. It never occurred to him that -- rather than creating a hippy utopia -- a world without ultimate consequences would eventually lead to moral anarchy.
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
No greed or hunger
And no religion too
John never tells us how a world without coherent structures of government could feed billions of people. Nor could a state of political anarchy support healthcare, welfare for the poor, or education. As to "greed," it is a real human tendency, and will persist with us until the end of time. Finally, once he's done pulling out every structure we need to survive, John takes away our religion as well.
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Yes -- clearly, a society with no governments to preserve the peace and provide for the economic structures necessary for human development -- along with a total lack of objective moral standards -- would lead to a peaceful utopian paradise. It seems that our only problem would be finding enough flowers to plait into billions of shaggy heads of hair.
Yet it is no secret what such a pagan culture would look like, as there remain many parts of the world where Christianity has not become a dominant part of the cultural fabric. In recent world news, we hear of bags of dead babies being dumped into a river in China, or video games glorifying rape in Japan. It is not surprising that the majority of major human rights violations in our world take place in countries where the Christian ethos is not present.
With all of the major imperfections, hypocrisies, and potential troubles of organized religion, there remains the singular advantage of having an objective source of morality. These ideas -- observed in the Ten Commandments or the Beatitudes of Christ -- provide an immutable standard for morality while establishing the universal love of human dignity. This objective standard allowed for the creation of the United States of America. "In God we Trust" is not a political option, but rather the source of American freedom and success.
Before the Judeo-Christian worldview, there was no objective for human dignity.
So before you rush to embrace a secular view of the world, think of the grave injustices which have always followed on the heel of pagan regimes such as Nazism, or atheist regimes such as the Soviet Union. Think of the terrible world of ancient Rome, or the modern human rights travesties in China.
After all, do you think football is brutal? You should read about what passed for typical weekend entertainment in the pagan superdome, otherwise known as the Roman Colosseum.
Yet another reason to show a healthy disdain for all the fruitful "thinking" that went on in the 1960's...
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
God as the Practical Answer
Life with God is the easiest and most practical choice that man can make...
Thomas Paine wrote that "Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."
Yet freedom, once earned, presents a quandary. Is it possible that modern man has too many choices? Furthermore, is it possible that he does not have the necessary spiritual formation to help him sort through the dizzying myriad of possibility before him?
Yet as elegant and clear as this idea is, so many modern men either ignore or outright reject their God. I recently came across the blog of a former student, now blissfully wandering the world and glorifying hedonism. Confusing old thoughts and values with recent hippy social disasters, he blissfully sums up his worldview with a quote from the American poet and author, Charles Bukowski:
“I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”
One would have to labor greatly to cram so much idiocy into such a short paragraph. Little wonder that Bukowski led such a shallow and narcissistic life, exemplifying the utilitarian and anti-humanistic despair that his type of "un-religion" was designed to breed. I say "designed" because the above quote from Bukowski -- and other world-views similar to his -- are not a modern invention. They come from a far deeper malice and a far more clever deceiver than the average hippy could hope to contend with. Notice that in Bukowski's own prose, "god" is spelled with a small 'g,' while "Death" becomes a capitalized personality. Notice the appeal to un-education, as such a worldview requires a mind easily deceived. Notice the appeal to anti-religion, as such a world-view needs an unformed soul to corrupt. These are not coincidences, considering the spiritual root of such a phrase, as well as the moribund destiny of anybody who would follow such a thought to its inevitable conclusion.
God, in the end, is the impractical practicality. Belief in him is the only sensible answer. It brings sense to our lives by giving us understanding of our world. It explains suffering, giving us a way to use this inevitable pain in a redemptive fashion. It puts history into an understandable perspective. It gives us rules by which to live, while presenting an ideal by which no rules will be necessary. It frees human love to be an infinite gesture.
In short, it provides freedom. He who seeks to be free must seek to "do as he ought." In asking what we "ought," there is only one sure place to gain an answer. There is no alternative path but the role of the aimless wanderer, and he is sure to get nowhere...
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Simple Arguments Against Socialism
When I am feeling especially strong of heart, I will occasionally listen to liberal talk radio. Upon turning the dial to a local Chicago liberal station, I was immediately assaulted by a man outlining a strategy to further advance the cause of socialism in America, as well as how to continue our deep trend of spending with a turn towards more progressive ideals.
I say that I must be "strong of heart" to listen to such things, because it is always painful to listen to otherwise intelligent adults discuss political theories which history has shown us to be destructive paths. Progressivism and Socialism are linked at the hip, because the first (when followed directly) will inevitably lead to the other. Yet there are simple arguments to remember for the next time you encounter a utopian-eyed progressive:
1.) Where big government and socialism are concerned, it is imperative to remember that any government which is strong enough to give you everything that you need is also powerful enough to take it all away.
2.) Every socialist experiment of the past 100 years has either collapsed (the Soviet Union) or resulted in a deeply oppressive system (China.)
3.) While also not desirable, brutal Theocracies are actually more humane than Socialist Systems: the over 90 million dead victims of 20th century Socialism bear witness to this.
4.) Economically speaking, Socialism only works until you've run out of other people's money.
5.) Socialism inevitably leads to intellectual and artistic repression: when you study the legacy of eastern-European socialism, you see that it had a knack for squelching genius and promoting mediocrity. Those who truly believe in intellectual freedom must promote the conservative line.
6.) It is true that certain socialist constructs in American work. The Police, Military, and Fire Departments are admirable institutions. But more complex systems requiring intellectual fluidity quickly stagnate. Look at our inability to create a globally competitive education system. Or take NASA, which has moved at a snail's pace ever since her initial innovations. Finally look at DMV's, Toll Roads, Social Security, and the nightmare system of Medicare, and you have ample reason to not let the entire country "progress" in such a direction.
7.) Liberals are quick to point out that there are other quasi-socialist experiments which are working well, and they are right to do so. Yet they never give you the details: These countries tend to have smaller populations (like Canada), and generally depend on innovation and protection from larger and more economically conservative neighbors (like the USA.)
8.) Modern economies are groupings of hundreds of thousands of complex sub-categories, such as agriculture and education and industry. Taken alone, any one of these systems is far too complex to be regulated by a central authority. In socialist Europe, agricultural yield often rotted away or was distributed incorrectly. An example of this was veritable breadbasket of Poland, which -- forced to work under a Soviet system -- would become incapable of feeding her people during any crisis, this despite being an enviable agricultural population.
There are hundreds of more arguments, but these are a good start. How any person or group of people can promote such a ridiculous ideology -- in the face of contrary evidence and the bloody witness of history -- is only evidence of a talent for self-delusion. Capitalism is indeed a flawed system prone to greed and corruption. Yet when mixed with democracy and a healthy press, it is also the only system capable of rapid reform and self-policing.
There are times for progress. Yet when the progress is towards an abyss, regress becomes the only sane option.
I say that I must be "strong of heart" to listen to such things, because it is always painful to listen to otherwise intelligent adults discuss political theories which history has shown us to be destructive paths. Progressivism and Socialism are linked at the hip, because the first (when followed directly) will inevitably lead to the other. Yet there are simple arguments to remember for the next time you encounter a utopian-eyed progressive:
1.) Where big government and socialism are concerned, it is imperative to remember that any government which is strong enough to give you everything that you need is also powerful enough to take it all away. 2.) Every socialist experiment of the past 100 years has either collapsed (the Soviet Union) or resulted in a deeply oppressive system (China.)
3.) While also not desirable, brutal Theocracies are actually more humane than Socialist Systems: the over 90 million dead victims of 20th century Socialism bear witness to this.
4.) Economically speaking, Socialism only works until you've run out of other people's money.
5.) Socialism inevitably leads to intellectual and artistic repression: when you study the legacy of eastern-European socialism, you see that it had a knack for squelching genius and promoting mediocrity. Those who truly believe in intellectual freedom must promote the conservative line.
6.) It is true that certain socialist constructs in American work. The Police, Military, and Fire Departments are admirable institutions. But more complex systems requiring intellectual fluidity quickly stagnate. Look at our inability to create a globally competitive education system. Or take NASA, which has moved at a snail's pace ever since her initial innovations. Finally look at DMV's, Toll Roads, Social Security, and the nightmare system of Medicare, and you have ample reason to not let the entire country "progress" in such a direction.
7.) Liberals are quick to point out that there are other quasi-socialist experiments which are working well, and they are right to do so. Yet they never give you the details: These countries tend to have smaller populations (like Canada), and generally depend on innovation and protection from larger and more economically conservative neighbors (like the USA.)
8.) Modern economies are groupings of hundreds of thousands of complex sub-categories, such as agriculture and education and industry. Taken alone, any one of these systems is far too complex to be regulated by a central authority. In socialist Europe, agricultural yield often rotted away or was distributed incorrectly. An example of this was veritable breadbasket of Poland, which -- forced to work under a Soviet system -- would become incapable of feeding her people during any crisis, this despite being an enviable agricultural population.
There are hundreds of more arguments, but these are a good start. How any person or group of people can promote such a ridiculous ideology -- in the face of contrary evidence and the bloody witness of history -- is only evidence of a talent for self-delusion. Capitalism is indeed a flawed system prone to greed and corruption. Yet when mixed with democracy and a healthy press, it is also the only system capable of rapid reform and self-policing.
There are times for progress. Yet when the progress is towards an abyss, regress becomes the only sane option.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
How to deal with the Progressive Monster:A Profile in Courage.
To my friends in the silent majority: you need not be afraid. Watching Gianna Jessen -- the survivor of a saline abortion -- stare down a room of liberal Australian policy-makers and deliver the unapologetic truth has struck a deep chord within me, and I hope and pray it has affected you as well. (I am including the clips below, for those who have not watched them yet.)
How cowardly we can be, blanching as lunatics dismantle Western society before our very eyes! How utterly ineffectual in offering -- or even bothering to learn -- the very simple answers to the so-called "big" questions which pro(re)gressives hurl our way.
Sure, the heat can be intense when the lefties get riled at us: after all, they believe that they are fighting for equality and righteousness and freedom. It can be especially fiery on social-networking sites dominated by young people. After all, modern relativistic liberalism (a far cry from the positive works of classical liberalism) is an intellectual disease which runs especially deep in the young, while thankfully only being chronic in rare cases. Still, the abuse is never pleasant. There is real and frightening anger there, as happens whenever a lost person comes to the terrifying precipice of truth. Simply witness the recent tirade of Perez Hilton against Miss California; the vitriol was beyond telling (and far from rare in such extremist circles.)
Yet we have merely to open our eyes to perceive the truth of such matters. In my time, my friends and I have taken serious heat and criticism for being a pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-religious kinds of people.
In others words, we've endured abuse because we don't believe that a modern culture should be able to dismember babies or burn them alive simply out of convenience. We've endured scandal because we believe that marriage is sacred and that sex is not trivial. We've been called foolish because we can't believe in the utterly mathematical improbability that all of existence is somehow a random occurrence. And we've been called bigots because we believe that truth is an absolute, rather than a simple matter of opinion. In other words, we've endured pain for believing in the very tenets which built Western society and made it great.
Seen from such higher ground, these fierce criticisms lose most of their power. The roaring masses become about as frightening as a lost flock of sheep, bleating in their confusion.
Just look at Ms. Jessen, smirking confidently at them all. If there is fear there, I don't see it. In her unapologetic witness to her own pain -- and her unflinching witness to truth -- she becomes a mirror for all of our broken society to gaze painfully into. She is the reflection of our brokenness, and the vision of a better way forward. Look at Miss California, accepting the violent tirade of Mr. "Hilton" like a patient mother enduring the temper-tantrum of a small child. In the end, he is no more threatening than that.
Be it nicely or with fire, we must not hesitate to speak the truth and defend the defenseless. Keeping our silence, we may serve our own peace, but we do not serve the world in the way which is expected of us. Just listen to Ms. Jessen's appeal to the men in our world, and you have my thoughts on the matter.
How cowardly we can be, blanching as lunatics dismantle Western society before our very eyes! How utterly ineffectual in offering -- or even bothering to learn -- the very simple answers to the so-called "big" questions which pro(re)gressives hurl our way.
Sure, the heat can be intense when the lefties get riled at us: after all, they believe that they are fighting for equality and righteousness and freedom. It can be especially fiery on social-networking sites dominated by young people. After all, modern relativistic liberalism (a far cry from the positive works of classical liberalism) is an intellectual disease which runs especially deep in the young, while thankfully only being chronic in rare cases. Still, the abuse is never pleasant. There is real and frightening anger there, as happens whenever a lost person comes to the terrifying precipice of truth. Simply witness the recent tirade of Perez Hilton against Miss California; the vitriol was beyond telling (and far from rare in such extremist circles.)
Yet we have merely to open our eyes to perceive the truth of such matters. In my time, my friends and I have taken serious heat and criticism for being a pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-religious kinds of people.
In others words, we've endured abuse because we don't believe that a modern culture should be able to dismember babies or burn them alive simply out of convenience. We've endured scandal because we believe that marriage is sacred and that sex is not trivial. We've been called foolish because we can't believe in the utterly mathematical improbability that all of existence is somehow a random occurrence. And we've been called bigots because we believe that truth is an absolute, rather than a simple matter of opinion. In other words, we've endured pain for believing in the very tenets which built Western society and made it great.
Seen from such higher ground, these fierce criticisms lose most of their power. The roaring masses become about as frightening as a lost flock of sheep, bleating in their confusion.
Just look at Ms. Jessen, smirking confidently at them all. If there is fear there, I don't see it. In her unapologetic witness to her own pain -- and her unflinching witness to truth -- she becomes a mirror for all of our broken society to gaze painfully into. She is the reflection of our brokenness, and the vision of a better way forward. Look at Miss California, accepting the violent tirade of Mr. "Hilton" like a patient mother enduring the temper-tantrum of a small child. In the end, he is no more threatening than that.
Be it nicely or with fire, we must not hesitate to speak the truth and defend the defenseless. Keeping our silence, we may serve our own peace, but we do not serve the world in the way which is expected of us. Just listen to Ms. Jessen's appeal to the men in our world, and you have my thoughts on the matter.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Left-Wing Agenda Erasing our History
Can you erase history to justify an agenda?
Today, I am profoundly frightened. You see, generally, when you mention anything about a "left-wing agenda," you're brushed off as a loony conspiracy theorist. Yet it's all around us. A few weeks back, a friend in Poland tipped me off to an amazing story which I have since sat on, wondering if the American or even the English press would pick up on it.
Nope.
So here it is: The new Oxford Junior Dictionary no longer has references for words like "monk," "chapel," "bishop," or "nun." When this incredible bout of anti-Christian censorship was discovered, a representative countered by citing things such a "dropping Church attendance in the UK."
Mind you, I'm not surprised. I'm fully aware of the leftist agenda, and I know that it's a short step between historical revision, legal acceptance, and the future financial ruin of Churches one day being sued for "hate speech" or something of the like. It's a slow and steady progression, an agenda which has been codified and in motion since the 1960's.
Open your eyes.
Today, I am profoundly frightened. You see, generally, when you mention anything about a "left-wing agenda," you're brushed off as a loony conspiracy theorist. Yet it's all around us. A few weeks back, a friend in Poland tipped me off to an amazing story which I have since sat on, wondering if the American or even the English press would pick up on it.
Nope.
So here it is: The new Oxford Junior Dictionary no longer has references for words like "monk," "chapel," "bishop," or "nun." When this incredible bout of anti-Christian censorship was discovered, a representative countered by citing things such a "dropping Church attendance in the UK."
Mind you, I'm not surprised. I'm fully aware of the leftist agenda, and I know that it's a short step between historical revision, legal acceptance, and the future financial ruin of Churches one day being sued for "hate speech" or something of the like. It's a slow and steady progression, an agenda which has been codified and in motion since the 1960's.
Open your eyes.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
"Shall we reinstate Slavery, then?"
***The following is an excerpt from a recent debate between two prominent politicians. Congressman Smith is a noted liberal, while Senator James is a prominent Secular Humanist.***
Congressman Smith: "Shall we reinstate slavery, then? Is that really what you're suggesting?"
Senator James: "Absolutely! It's my distinct opinion, Congressman Smith, that abolitionism inflicts upon my rights as an American consumer. After all, if you don't want slaves, then don't own one!"
CS: "Well, that's purely ridiculous. You are actually seeking to enslave other human beings? You have no right to do that to other people!"
SJ: "Their being "people," Mr. Smith, and therefore afforded Constitutional rights, is merely your opinion. Despite the outward appearances and biological viability, I tend to believe them to be no more than animals."
CS: "But how can you say that? Just look at them! They're human!"
SJ: "It's no more than your opinion vs. mine, and America provides us both with the right to our opinion, does it not?"
CS: "That's ludicrous!"
SJ: "No more, sir, than your position on abortion."
CS: "Well, that's a hot topic of great debate. Women must have a choice."
SJ: "And I want my choice of slaves, then. If you choose to parse and label humanity for your own convenience, than I shall do the same."
Moderator: "Clearly we have reached the limit of this topic. Let's move on to sexual ethics. Senator James, you've been accused of pedophilia for your alleged involvement with a seventeen year old girl. How do you plead?"
SJ: "Well, sir, first of all, there was no intercourse involved.. And if there was, what of it? She's as adult a girl as I've known, intellectually stronger than most women I know."
CS: "I can't believe my ears. First you argue in favor of slavery, and now for pedophilia?"
SJ: "Why is it pedophilia? She is a sexually viable woman, mature enough to make her own decisions. If two such consenting adults decide to be together, what business is it of yours?"
CS: "But she's not an adult! She's only seventeen!"
JS: "Now you're quibbling with legal labels, sir. Such a law is a gross generalization, and cannot apply to all young women. After all, great kings and nobles of the past have had wives who were barely old enough to qualify as teenagers!"
CS: "But that is not our American standard! We know better than to do such things! It's simply wrong!"
SJ: "Stay out of my bedroom, Congressman."
CS: "What you are doing is clearly wrong, and such thinking is very dangerous."
SJ: "Oh really, Congressman? What about natural law? What about God's implied viewpoint on the issue?"
CS: "Such things do not concern me, Senator James. I'm merely concerned about upholding the law."
SJ: "As am I, Congressman. In this case, I call your laws subjective and immoral. I feel that if the social standard be the only one, then your beliefs are infringing upon my beliefs. The Constitution urges me to oppose immoral leadership!"
CS: "Yet what you are doing continues to be illegal."
SJ: "If you choose to apply subjective labels to what is -- or is not -- carnally acceptable in this nation, then I will do the same. I hereby propose an amendment to redefine marriage as being possible between a man and a woman as young as fifteen. In doing so, I not only liberate young women, but follow in the tradition of our ancestors. I also challenge the dominant hegemony, who I feel wrongly assert their sexual morality upon the rest of us!"
CS: "That's absurd!"
SJ: "Is it, Congressman? How about your own husband in Massachusetts? How is such an alternative lifestyle legally possible?"
CS: "That is unfair. We are two consenting adults, living a peaceful and agreeable life together. It is our right to do so."
SJ: "Well, then you and I disagree on the legal meaning of the word "marriage." In which case, I would also like to disagree on the legal meaning of the word "adult," as so many States already do. I will take my seventeen year-old mistress to Georgia, where we shall be legally bound, despite your bigoted and heterophobic protests."
CS: "You're bordering on the ludicrous, Senator James."
SJ: "Am I? I've only used your own logic and beliefs under a different pretense... If your way of looking at the world is the correct one, then it makes no difference that we disagree, even on such fundamental issues..."
***
I of course in no way support slavery or pedophilia, but have merely tried to make a point that so many otherwise intelligent people seem so unwilling to grasp: there ARE objective standards to consider when human rights come into play. They are the objective standards of the natural law invoked by the very same document that justified American Independence. If morality is merely a social dictate, then anything can ultimately become legal if enough people support it.
There is a reason that the opening statement by Senator James is absurd, and it has nothing to do with your personal opinion.
Yet, looking at it a second time, the entire debate is absurd, because it merely hinges on opinions and legal quibbling. America has worked, up until now, because our laws and viewpoints had a deeper source. We abandon the source at our peril, risking that the above discussion become a political reality...
Congressman Smith: "Shall we reinstate slavery, then? Is that really what you're suggesting?"
Senator James: "Absolutely! It's my distinct opinion, Congressman Smith, that abolitionism inflicts upon my rights as an American consumer. After all, if you don't want slaves, then don't own one!"
CS: "Well, that's purely ridiculous. You are actually seeking to enslave other human beings? You have no right to do that to other people!"
SJ: "Their being "people," Mr. Smith, and therefore afforded Constitutional rights, is merely your opinion. Despite the outward appearances and biological viability, I tend to believe them to be no more than animals."
CS: "But how can you say that? Just look at them! They're human!"
SJ: "It's no more than your opinion vs. mine, and America provides us both with the right to our opinion, does it not?"
CS: "That's ludicrous!"
SJ: "No more, sir, than your position on abortion."
CS: "Well, that's a hot topic of great debate. Women must have a choice."
SJ: "And I want my choice of slaves, then. If you choose to parse and label humanity for your own convenience, than I shall do the same."
Moderator: "Clearly we have reached the limit of this topic. Let's move on to sexual ethics. Senator James, you've been accused of pedophilia for your alleged involvement with a seventeen year old girl. How do you plead?"
SJ: "Well, sir, first of all, there was no intercourse involved.. And if there was, what of it? She's as adult a girl as I've known, intellectually stronger than most women I know."
CS: "I can't believe my ears. First you argue in favor of slavery, and now for pedophilia?"
SJ: "Why is it pedophilia? She is a sexually viable woman, mature enough to make her own decisions. If two such consenting adults decide to be together, what business is it of yours?"
CS: "But she's not an adult! She's only seventeen!"
JS: "Now you're quibbling with legal labels, sir. Such a law is a gross generalization, and cannot apply to all young women. After all, great kings and nobles of the past have had wives who were barely old enough to qualify as teenagers!"
CS: "But that is not our American standard! We know better than to do such things! It's simply wrong!"
SJ: "Stay out of my bedroom, Congressman."
CS: "What you are doing is clearly wrong, and such thinking is very dangerous."
SJ: "Oh really, Congressman? What about natural law? What about God's implied viewpoint on the issue?"
CS: "Such things do not concern me, Senator James. I'm merely concerned about upholding the law."
SJ: "As am I, Congressman. In this case, I call your laws subjective and immoral. I feel that if the social standard be the only one, then your beliefs are infringing upon my beliefs. The Constitution urges me to oppose immoral leadership!"
CS: "Yet what you are doing continues to be illegal."
SJ: "If you choose to apply subjective labels to what is -- or is not -- carnally acceptable in this nation, then I will do the same. I hereby propose an amendment to redefine marriage as being possible between a man and a woman as young as fifteen. In doing so, I not only liberate young women, but follow in the tradition of our ancestors. I also challenge the dominant hegemony, who I feel wrongly assert their sexual morality upon the rest of us!"
CS: "That's absurd!"
SJ: "Is it, Congressman? How about your own husband in Massachusetts? How is such an alternative lifestyle legally possible?"
CS: "That is unfair. We are two consenting adults, living a peaceful and agreeable life together. It is our right to do so."
SJ: "Well, then you and I disagree on the legal meaning of the word "marriage." In which case, I would also like to disagree on the legal meaning of the word "adult," as so many States already do. I will take my seventeen year-old mistress to Georgia, where we shall be legally bound, despite your bigoted and heterophobic protests."
CS: "You're bordering on the ludicrous, Senator James."
SJ: "Am I? I've only used your own logic and beliefs under a different pretense... If your way of looking at the world is the correct one, then it makes no difference that we disagree, even on such fundamental issues..."
***
I of course in no way support slavery or pedophilia, but have merely tried to make a point that so many otherwise intelligent people seem so unwilling to grasp: there ARE objective standards to consider when human rights come into play. They are the objective standards of the natural law invoked by the very same document that justified American Independence. If morality is merely a social dictate, then anything can ultimately become legal if enough people support it.
There is a reason that the opening statement by Senator James is absurd, and it has nothing to do with your personal opinion.
Yet, looking at it a second time, the entire debate is absurd, because it merely hinges on opinions and legal quibbling. America has worked, up until now, because our laws and viewpoints had a deeper source. We abandon the source at our peril, risking that the above discussion become a political reality...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
