Some answers in life are complicated. Some aren’t. Here’s a quick guide to help understand the questions I’m most frequently asked.
1. Why are Liberals Liberal?
Conservatives have rules. There are rules for proper moral behavior, for the correct social and economic policies, even rules for being a “Good Conservative.” Not every conservative agrees with every conservative rule, however, and these “rules” are often the subject of vigorous debate. Paleocons debate neocons, neocons debate religious-based conservatives, religious-based conservatives debate secular conservatives, and so on, and so on. At the core of all this is the fact that to be a Conservative means that one adheres to a world view or philosophy that permits/encourages certain actions, while discouraging or inhibiting others.
By contrast, despite the fact that a number of different types of liberals exist (“looney,” “flaming,” “conspiratorial,” “completely insane,” etc.), there are no liberal rules. Every opinion is equally valid (except, of course, for conservative or other non-liberal opinions); therefore every action must be judged on its own terms and not by any universal standards. Unlike Conservatives, who exist only to tell other people what to do, Liberals are free spirits and original thinkers who are at one with the universe. They follow their own paths and come to their own conclusions about life — as long as these paths and conclusions do not deviate from what is validated by the words and actions of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, The Daily Kos, Moveon.org, People Magazine, or whatever the latest pronouncements are from Al Gore, Rosie O’Donnell, George Clooney, Charlie Sheen and Paris Hilton.
Of course, there do exist some liberals who are not looney (“George Bush really didn’t win the 2000 and/or 2004 election”), conspiratorial (“Karl Rove created the fake Bush draft-dodging documents to embarrass Dan Rather”), flaming (“animals are people too”), or completely insane “(the US attacked itself on 9/11”). These people will listen to other views before they dismiss them and follow their own heart, which is to say, their own feelings about a subject regardless of the evidence at hand. We recognize them by the blank stare we get after confronting them with a rational argument that refutes their position, or the phrase “yeah, well” (followed by silence) that sums up their verbal reply. It’s more important for them to be seen as being “nice” and open-minded, than to actually embrace the correct side of an issue.
Rather than call these people Liberals though, we should refer to them as they themselves wish to be called: Independents, or Moderates.
2. Why is there a double standard when commenting on a Liberal vs. Conservative act?
The answer to this question is a subset to the answer provided by question #1. Conservatives have rules. People who do not live up to 100% of their own rules, all the time in every situation imaginable, are hypocrites. If Conservative philosophy says that the nation’s laws should be obeyed, but an individual Conservative hires the neighborhood kid to cut his grass and doesn’t have the little tyke fill out a W2 or pay him social security, then Conservatism is a hypocritical philosophy. Therefore, we need to give amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens.
By contrast, it’s impossible to be a hypocrite if your political philosophy has no rules. So a Liberal was caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy as Edwin Edwards, the former Governor of Louisiana was fond of saying. So what? Liberals make no universal judgments about morality, so what’s the big deal? It a matter between the parties involved, and the state has no business sticking its nose in a person’s bedroom. Today, it could be a dead boy and a live girl, or a couple of dead boys and dead girls, or a ménage-a-dix with any combination boys and girls (dead or alive), and it’s still none of our business.
Hypocrisy only exists when the individual in question stands for something. It’s how a Democrat congressman actually having sex with a 16-year-old male intern becomes a champion for homosexual rights, and a Republican congressman sending suggestive text messages to an 18-year-old male ex-intern becomes a perverted, pedophiliac stalker. And it’s how a drunken, Liberal U.S. Senator can leave a young woman to drown in the back of his car and go on to prosper politically, while Mitt Romney’s basic humanity is being questioned for putting his dog in an open-air kennel on top of his car while taking a family trip thirty years ago. The dog made the trip just fine, unlike Mary Jo, but hey, that’s just a detail.
3. When will Liberals view the Right to Life as sacred?
When science discovers that one’s sexual orientation and/or predisposition toward liberal thought is genetically-based. Since Liberals have fewer babies than Conservatives (controlling for illegal immigration), and homosexuals have no babies other than those heterosexuals decide to bear, an entire new protected class of life will be “discovered.”
4. Is the world getting hotter, and is man responsible for it?
A Liberal needs no independent validation of the facts to arrive at a conclusion. Hotter, cooler, dryer, wetter — it’s all linked to global warming, and it’s all due to man’s influence.
The thought process that leads to such conclusions goes something like this. Consider this write-in question to Chaiyah’s Chronicle by M. Emily Cragg (July 1, 2002.) She couldn’t comprehend the thought that global warming might be due to the sun getting hotter, rather than be the result of human activity. “I don't see any MEANS for the sun's heat to INCREASE, offhand. I mean, usually, the car engine doesn't just SIT THERE and start itself up and get hot. So, what's the deal?”
For kindness sake, and to sleep better at night thinking that the next generation isn’t completely brain-dead, I’m going to assume that Ms. Cragg is an inquisitive nine-year-old child and not an education major six credits short of graduation. This way, when I point out that she’s comparing a man-made device to the nuclear furnace of a burning star, I won’t feel so bad when I get a blank stare in return — as if there’s some confusing point I’m trying to convey while deliberately not answering her question.
5. Why has the media decided that U.S. has lost the war in Iraq?
Because a Republican is in power. And not just any Republican, George W. Bush — who stole the 2000 election from its rightful winner, even after the media declared Gore the victor; and then went on to win re-election in 2004 despite the press telling us that he had no political support in the country. We simply can’t have an ignorant, unsanctioned, illegitimate Republican president doing anything right, from running the war to managing the economy. Forget what your lying eyes tell you about the stock market and other economic indicators, and the fact that former Iraqi militants are switching sides to join the Americans in their fight against Al Qaeda. The US is near economic collapse, and has lost the war in Iraq.
This media template is shared by Democrats, Liberals and tin-foil cap wearers everywhere. A decade after the war to end all wars ended (Bosnia), US troops are still engaged there in peacekeeping activities. More than a half-century after the last great world wide conflict (WWII), US troops are still stationed on Japanese and German territory. In fact, guerilla activity by displaced Nazis continued well after the fall of Berlin in 1945. But a couple years after a brutal regime was deposed in Iraq, and after a new government was created there that allowed people to actually select their leaders, and following an influx of foreign fighters who target innocent civilians, because Iraq is not as safe as Washington, DC the entire US military action is a monumental failure. Well, maybe not Washington, DC, but at least as safe as Detroit. Well, maybe not Detroit either, but you get the point. There are still people in Iraq (mostly non-Iraqis and former Saddam-supporters) who dislike us, so the US has failed and we need to withdraw before the 2008 election so Hillary can blame any future problems in the Middle East on the Republican decision to cut and run.
Had a Democrat been in power in 2001, and he/she decided to fight international terrorism, things would be different. According to the press, the war would have been swift, decisive, and 100% successful. Of course, the “war” would have consisted of lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in Afghanistan and then taking the whole matter to the UN, where we’d still be debating today whether sufficient courtroom-quality evidence exists to indict Osama Bin Laden. But even assuming that a modern-day Democrat thought the U.S. national interests were worth defending and launched an aggressive counterattack against terrorism and its supporters, there would be no Cindy Sheehan/Moveon.org-type opposition to this action. At best, we’d hear from a few Uberconservatives about Plato and Aristotle’s warnings against foreign entanglements, and then get on with the business of hunting down and killing, er, I mean arresting the bad guys — of course, all the while respecting their Constitutional rights against self-incrimination, as well as their right to a lawyer and speedy trial.
The Liberal/Democrat view of fighting the bad guys is the polar opposite of Conservative/Republicans. The Lib/Dems see Ahmed sitting in his Lazy-Boy dialing a cell phone (which is immune to government surveillance), calling in a threat to bomb Boston Harbor. The US then mobilizes its resources to defend against the attack. Ahmed then calls in a threat to poison the NYC subway system. Again the US jumps into action. Laughing hysterically, Ahmed phones in another threat to target downtown LA. This time our West Coast defenses are mobilized. In between all of this the Lib/Dem Department of Homeland Precautions is beefing up our port security (while simultaneously liberalizing US immigration policy), requiring big business to institute additional costly security measures (while making sure they don’t actually verify the legal status of the people working for them for fear of catching an illegal alien, and thus separating a husband or wife from their US born child), and just for good measure, throwing an excise tax on gasoline consumption to guard against global warming.
The Rep/Con approach is a little different. Track down where Ahmed lives, and while he is making a call put a bullet through his head. No more Ahmed. No more calls. End of problem.
Ha! And you wonder why we find ourselves in a war abroad and under assualt at home? It is your capitalist imperialism that has spread suffering to our brothers and sisters around the globe, using their misery to enrich yourself.
It is your intolerance, where your ideas are “right” and every one else’s are “wrong,” particularly your refusal to accept all ideas as equally valid, all religious beliefs and worldviews as inherently compatible.
I don’t blame the religion of peace for attacking us! You and your ilk brought it upon us and only the most insensitive among us, blinded by oil-fueled greed, could miss that fact.
Finally, you’re a homophobe as evidenced by even suggesting that a bed populated by either gender should even appear in the same sentence as the term “morality.” The very fact that you employ terms like “boys” and “girls” shows your insensitivity to our transgendered community who cannot be confined to such outmoded concepts as an M or F checkbox on a form. And you will no doubt further insult these misunderstood unfortunates by opposing legislation that would make it a federal crime to produce forms that do not recognize a plurality of definitions rather than just two discrete choices.
I dream of a world where we will all get along, but you, sir, and those of your kind, represent the biggest threat to that. We must be tolerant of all but the intolerant, which is why in my world, people like you would be jailed or executed.
Love,
A Liberal
Phil:
“…there are no liberal rules. Every opinion is equally valid…”
I have made this observation too, and have dubbed it “Newton’s Third Law of Social Studies”: For every opinion, there is an equal but opposite opinion.
I have a question that wasn’t addressed. Why do people who dogmatically hold opinions that are clearly left-wing, historically speaking, persist in calling themselves conservatives?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. That was just for old times sake. :-)
Dan: For the same reason people who claim only they know what a True Conservative is can’t resist labeling everyone who, in their warped opinion, isn’t one a “Marxist, neocon, genetically-inferior, white race hating, uneducated, undereducated, poorly-educated, Sicilian criminal, New Age Hippster, morally superior, politically-correct, thought-slavery promoter, Lockean, Mr. Right Think Enforcer, Official PC enforcer, lunatic exposing himself to a nubile woman.”
I couldn’t resist that one either, for old time’s sake.
Mr. Jackson:
Bravo sir. I always enjoy the liberals being properly mocked. I sum up the difference between liberals and conservatives this way: liberals, unlike conservatives, do not understand and/or appreciate the laws of nature, especially human nature. This explains so many things.
One point of difference: I do hope you come around to realizing that non-interventionism is the wiser way. More often than not it has proved to be counter-productive.
This is wonderful.
And I believe that the man who just posted
“I dream of a world where we will all get along, but you, sir, and those of your kind, represent the biggest threat to that. We must be tolerant of all but the intolerant, which is why in my world, people like you would be jailed or executed. ”
Is too far gone to the left in his ‘dreamland’ disneyland of a world. Besides, doesn’t the statement ‘tolerant of all but the intolerant’ seem more like a dictatorship statement than his “lets love eachother” attitude…
Liberius — I appreciate your kind remarks. But, I am a committed interventionist when I believe an action is in our national interest. It does produce counter-productive results at times, but then again, the same thing can be said about inaction. I’m afraid we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Take care, Phil
“I am a committed interventionist when I believe an action is in our national interest.”
Is all that is required our “national interests?” No threat is necessary?
If some other country has a “national interest” in what is going on in America, would that justify them intervening here?
Here is a good article that gets at both the interventionism thing and the whole nomenclature thing.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11226
Worth a read when you get the time, Phil.
Steve Sabin:
“It is your capitalist imperialism that has spread suffering to our brothers and sisters around the globe, using their misery to enrich yourself.”
Nothing is more enduring that the idea that someone became rich by making others poor. Economics is not a zero-sum activity. If it were, the average living standard would never have gone up. As proof that it is not, I encourage you to examine a society in which individuals start out equal. It can be done through a very interesting article “Economic Organization of a Prisoner Of War Camp” by R.A. Radford that can be found at http://webster.commnet.edu/faculty/~jascot/poweconomics.htm .
“In this reading R. A. Radford, an observant inmate of a German prisoner of war camp during World War II, provides us with invaluable insights about the evolution and operation of a market system. Here we observe in miniature a price system having the same general characteristics, encountering the same problems and disturbances, and performing essentially the same functions as the infinitely more complex price system of modern capitalistic societies….Everyone receives a roughly equal share of essentials; it is by [free] trade that individual preferences are given expression and comfort increased.” [Emphasis added]
So, when the Red Cross packages were distributed at the beginning of the month, every prisoner started out equal. It was through the voluntary free trade among prisoners that not only the individuals were made better off, but the overall well-being of the prisoner “society.” The Marxist, such as yourself, would look at this and see the “injustice” of one prisoner having, say, two candy bars and another having none, never mind that this result was their preferences. It would have to be through coercive (to be polite) force that they be made equal because it would be completely against their wills. In order for Leftism to succeed (if you can call it that), you have to take away peoples’ rights.
You might also consider how many Islamic bombers sport American vaccination scars put there (probably free) when they were children. I hadn’t heard that any Muslims societies developed any cures for diseases for, “It is Allah’s will that people suffer.” The fact of the matter is that if America had never existed, humanity would have destroyed itself long ago.
“It is your intolerance, where your ideas are ‘right’ and every one else’s are ‘wrong,’ particularly your refusal to accept all ideas as equally valid, all religious beliefs and worldviews as inherently compatible.”
Where is the proof that all ideas are equally valid? If they were, why do liberals fight so hard to block conservative nominees to the courts? Why do they fight so hard to win elections?
As far as incompatibility is concerned, Western democracy is incompatible with Islam because in Islam there is no separation of church and state. There is only one law: Islamic Law that regulates every aspect of life. There also is no concept of individual rights. In fact, there is serious doubt that there is even a concept of the individual; there is only the society. Perhaps this is one reason Islam and Leftism are so cozy.
“I don’t blame the religion of peace for attacking us!”
Statements just like this were heard from America’s Left all during the Cold War, and one with less moral certitude would be hard to find. If Islam is the “religion of peace,” how did it spread from Medina to the gates of Vienna, across North Africa, and into the Iberian Peninsula to rule much of Europe for 400 years? By “peaceful” Muslims knocking on doors? By “peaceful” immams preaching on street corners? How did the “religion of peace” develop the concept of the dhimmi? You might say that Christians practiced violence too, but not only would that argument be dodging the issue, but they had to contradict their founder to do so, whereas Muslims had only to emulate theirs.
“You and your ilk brought it upon us and only the most insensitive among us, blinded by oil-fueled greed, could miss that fact.”
How sensitive is sensitive enough? What kind of insensitivity do you have to ignore over 169,000,000 corpses http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM that resulted from the failed idea of Leftism? What kind of insensitivity do you have to ignore the fact that in the last 200 years there has not been a war between stable democracies, but there have been 198 wars between non-democracies, and 155 wars between democracies and non-democracies? When you look at the record http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.1.GIF , the problem is obviously the nature and existence of non-democracies.
“Finally, you’re a homophobe …”
Ah, the ad hominems. No rational argument, so just hurl insults. I repeat: how sensitive is sensitive enough?
“…in my world, people like you would be jailed or executed.”
If all ideas are equally valid, then consider the idea that in my world people like you would be jailed or executed before they piled up another 169,000,000 corpses.
Dan — as I told you before, I won’t practice medicine if you promise not to pretend to understand politics and political analysis. I have absolutely no interest in carrying on a discussion with you or any other uber-ideologue who still owes me answers to questions I asked 9 months ago, can’t form an original thought without pointing to a website, or relies on labels as a substitute for genuine analysis. Someone else may wish to go through this worthless exercise, but I see no more value in this discussion than I do in carrying on a discussion with Harry.
Now take two leeches and call me in the morning.
#8, otherwise known as tucking your tail between your legs and running and/or taking your ball and going home.
I’ll give you credit though, you know when your bested and when to quit.
But your credentialism is a bit tiresome, seeing as how you admitted at one point that you really didn’t know much about neo-conservatism, and despite your PhD in political science from an elite university, didn’t even grasp the fundamental left/right distinction. (I think maybe you grasp it now after us unlearned paleos schooled you.) In addition you repeatedly conflated paleos and white nationalists, wrongly attributed quotes, and couldn’t tell that certain characters were obviously role playing and spoofing you. (Unless knighted people who go by Sir really do post at IC.)
And I find the accusation that I don’t have any original thoughts quite rich, coming from someone who is a pitch perfect reciter of GOP/Conservative Movement talking points. I’m the one who is breaking ranks from the dominant thoughts of the day, but I have no original thoughts?
But what do I know? I’m just a simple doctor “pretending” to understand politics and political analysis.
I try to be nice. Why the hostility?
Make that three leeches.
Sedonaman,
Steve Sabin was just being facetious. Don’t you recall that he is our friend formerly know as nevadamistermom who wrote the essay below?
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/02/12/how-i-became-a-liberal-in-12-seconds-2/
Before everyone jumps on poor Mr. Sabin, you should know that he is the author of another satirical piece in the IC archives “How I Became a Liberal in 12 Seconds”. Apparently his mind-meld with liberal thought in this comment section was as effective at representing their somewhat bizarre point of view as he was regarding the other topic he took on.
All,
As I wrote to Phil offline, and will repeat here, the catch-22 with trying to pose as a liberal by being satirical is that nobody can tell the difference between intentionally trying to be “over-the-top” absurd and outragous – and genuinely held liberal beliefs.
That is a sobering commentary in and of itself.
I must confess that I am but a neophyte at this. If you want some examples from a truly gifted satirist, surf on over to to the editorials on http://www.townhall.com and look for any postings by “Loyal Democrat” or “Loyal Muslim.”
Sedonaman: gotcha!
I’ve been studying under some great professors at the University of Vermont.
[rimshot]
Mr. Jackson:
Of course I would agree with you that we Americans ought to pursue our national interests. The question is, are we really doing that through interventionism? Yes, reasonable minds can differ but I’m convinced it hurts more than it helps. The only thing we know for sure is that we are spending a lot of money and making a lot of enemies. Whatever friends we make in the process are often the type to turn on us later down the road. I offer the following examples:
1) Our entry into WWI only cost us American lives and money. It ultimately led to the creation of Israel, Iraq, and the Soviet Union.
2) Our entry in WWII in Europe cost us American lives and money. The French and Jews are ungrateful and Stalin (the biggest devil of them all) was the biggest beneficiary of our intervention.
3) In the early-mid 1940s we helped train Ho Chi Minh’s army in Vietnam and U.S. Army medic, Paul Hoagland, actually saved Minh’s life with quinine and sulfa drugs when he was near death with dysentery and malaria. Needless to say, this turned out to be counter-productive.
4) We intervened in Iran and have been paying the price for almost 30 years now.
5) We aided and supplied Saddam Hussein against Iran after Iran turned on us. Then, of course, Saddam turned on us.
6) We intervened on the side of Muslims in Afghanistan against the Soviets. We intervened with Desert Shield to protect the Wahhabi gov’t of Saudi Arabia against the secular Saddam. On paper, Osama bin Laden should have loved us but instead he gave us 9-11.
7) We intervened in favor of the Muslims in the Balkans against the Christians. We still have many troops there. Where is the Muslim love for us?
Mr. Jackson, all of these things were quite contrary to our national interests. Think of the value of the American lives lost. Think of our general fund’s national debt of $9,000,000,000,000! And what have we really gained by it? How did those things make America better off?
God has blessed us with a Christian Anglo-majority, the Atlantic and the Pacific. Too bad we don’t have the wisdom to simply avoid the hell in so much of the world. Let’s bring our troops home and focus on preserving our borders, language, culture, and finances. It may not be too late.
Steve Sabin:
There’s a pair of cowboy boots in my reply above to you. I challenge you to find them.
Sedonaman: I’m not familiar with the term “pair of cowboy boots” when referring to some type of hidden message. I’m afraid you’ll have to spell it out for me.
Steve Sabin:
I rest my case.
Liberius
I appreciate your feelings on this issue, and I respect the fact that you’ve always conducted yourself honestly and professionally when I’ve read your comments in other posts.
I’ve written a lot on these issues in previous essays, so I won’t re-state the arguments I made again. I’d only point out that when you say things like “Our entry into WWI only cost us American lives and money. It ultimately led to the creation of Israel, Iraq, and the Soviet Union,” you are giving an opinion rather than analyzing the action strategically. Your linear, cause-effect conclusions don’t even begin to address the reasons why the US did what it did, or fully account for the actual consequences of WWI (or any of the other events you cite). Just to be frank, if you really want to make the assertion you have, you’d need to carry forward the social, economic, and political consequences of WWI, WWII, etc. ending differently had the US not participated, and do this on a global basis.
There’s a tendency to view the world through an abstract political or philosophical prism that downplays, or even discounts entirely, the real world pressures that influence government policy. Have a look at Graham Allison’s “Essence of Decision”, for example, and you’ll see how difficult it is to understand what forces were really in play during the Cuban Missile crisis. If we can’t really “know” the reality of this event, we surely can’t make the sweeping statements you have about the causes and consequences of a world war.
You and I are dealing with a different understanding of world events that derives from a different foundation upon which we make our judgments, so like I said earlier, I’m not going to try to convince you of my position but rather leave the discussion as I said. Unfortunately — and this is NOT a comment directed at you, but a general observation about continuing to debate radically different positions — what I’ve found when we get to an impasse like this in the comment section is a tendency for people to state their positions and argue endlessly, rather than ask legitimate questions seeking legitimate answers. Either their hubris, or ideology, or at times basic lack of competence does not allow them to engage in a real conversation.
Why I believe what I believe is pretty clear from the bulk of my essays. This is an issue that I see very differently from the way you’ve described it, so let me respect the fact that you define the national interest in a different way than I do, and leave it at that.
Have a good Fourth of July.
Regards, Phil
And here I was worried that someone would read my initial post and say “Nice try…but lame. Next time, try to make the satire a little less transparent.”
Guess I was *too* successful.
So I’ll say it again: does anyone else find it scary that it is almost impossible to differentiate between genuine liberal philosophy and a deliberate attempt to be over the top?
Sedonaman, hope I haven’t lost a cyberfriend. I always enjoy reading your posts. They make me think. I can’t promise I won’t use satire in the future, but I’ll try to make it more obvious. However, that’s harder than it looks, as I found out in the course of these postings.
Steve Sabin:
Thank you for your kind words.
Phil (or anyone else):
Thank you. Indeed I did have a good 4th. I hope you did as well. I commemorated the day by riding my bicycle to Mt. Vernon, the home of the man who told America to beware of “foreign entanglements”.
I will be the first to admit that history is a thousand times more complicated than most people realize. However, you should not assume that I have not analyzed the strategic reasons behind our involvement in WWI and the other wars I mentioned. For what its worth, I have a B.A. in history and as a practicing attorney for 16 years I’m quite aware of the complexities involved in determining holistic truth as to past events generally. But of course, this forum forces me to be succinct. And I’ll remind you that Winston Churchill (whose knowledge of WWI cannot be surpassed) was quoted as saying in 1936:
“America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all of these ‘isms’ wouldn’t today be sweeping the continent and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other lives.”
http://www.etherzone.com/2006/cron092006.shtml
My post was an invitation to debate the matter with you or anyone else who disagreed with its basic premise. I had hoped that any contrarian would attempt to zero in on the strongest point or points contesting mine. Once focused on the root of our differences we could then have a more substantive and worthwhile discussion. I wasn’t a participant in your previous exchanges on the matter and I’m not sure if your previous sparring partner(s) advanced the same ideas that I would have.
One thing I would like to know, have you (or any readers) processed the alleged Jewish angle in regards to the cause of our involvement in WWI? I find this article fascinating: http://desip.igc.org/OriginsOfBalfour.html
“If America had stayed out of the war, all of these ‘isms’ wouldn’t today be sweeping the continent … “
On this point alone I couldn’t disagree more. Marxism/socialism/anarchism were well under way in Europe prior to WWI. WWI sped the rise of communism in Russia, but did not cause communism to happen. You can’t make a convincing claim that these ‘isms’ would not have arisen in Europe except for WWI. The industrial revolution gave rise to many of these alternative political philosophies, particularly Marxism and anarchism. Kropotkin, Gramsci, just to name two, were helping push these movements along with rest of the Das Kapital crowd. By WWI the Communist Manifesto had been around for over 60 years!
To say “had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism … “ is illogical and a-historical. Granted I’m relying on a 30 year memory of my Russian history studies, but I do remember the disastrous internal political consequences resulting from the Russo-Japanese war, not to mention the 1905 Russian Revolution which helped kick off the kind of destabilization that made the collapse of the Tzarist regime inevitable. Russian feudal autocracy was incapable of adapting to the times, and their whole social structure was rotting from within. If they didn’t collapse from their own weight, they were ripe to be carved up by their more powerful neighbors.
Germany helped kick start the 1917 Russian Revolution to take Russia out of the war, which they would have done anyway with or without the US entry into WWI. [Of course this is just conjecture on my part, but it’s no more or less accurate than your conjecture. I contend that without the US troops and aid there was no reason for Germany to negotiate an end to the war. They could have won, so contrary to your conjecture they would have kept on fighting.]
The first new Russian regime was a liberal democrat one — which couldn’t hold on to power and was eventually overthrown by the commies. None of this required the introduction of US troops into WWI to make it happen. In fact, if anything, the US tried to aid the Whites in their battle with the Reds and wasn’t successful. Take this US involvement away and the Kerensky government collapses even more quickly, or maybe never gets into power at all. They clearly had no indigenous base of support, nor the political will to act as brutally as the communists to hold the power they seize.
Any way you slice it the Russian government falls and communism comes into power. And from this base, communism can be “exported” to Germany, which will give impetus for the rise of a Hitler-like opposition. (Remember, Hitler support wasn’t just among the disaffected lower classes, but some of the powers that be thought he could help control the rabble).
So, without the US in WWI we still get communism in Europe, which may in fact have been more powerful than it actually was with an even weaker Britain and France who may have been defeated or subjugated by Germany, leading to anther great war where even more US involvement would have been necessary to keep a check on the worldwide spread of communism/fascism/Nazism which, left unchecked, would eventually make its way to our shores.
This is why I am reluctant to engage in these massive hypothetical re-writes of history, because in the end it’s mostly philosophically-inspired BS. I can’t prove a word of what I say any more than you can. People who view the world through one ideological template will see things one way; others will not. This makes it difficult enough to discuss contemporary policy choices. It makes it nearly impossible to re-state the past in as cut and dry fashion as you (and Winston allegedly) did.
Speaking of Churchill and BS, the quote you cited is a fraud, which is another reason I won’t engage in these types of discussions except to illustrate, as I did here, why it’s all a waste of time. From Wikipedia:
Published as having been made in an interview with William Griffen, editor of New York Enquirer (August 1936) In a sworn statement before Congress in 1939 Griffen affirmed Churchill had said this. Congressional Record (1939-10-21) vol. 84. p. 686. In 1942, Churchill admitted having had the 1936 interview but disavowed having made the statement (The New York Times, 1942-10-22. p. 13).
If that’s your definition, then there aren’t any conservatives left! Seriously, who are you defending?
For weeks we’ve had every conservative in the country falling all over themselves trying to see who could be more dishonest in their justification for allowing a convicted felon go free, and now we have irrefutable proof that conservatives believe that the ‘rules’ apply to everyone but themselves.
As with Nixon’s firing of Cox, Bush’s action has put in succinct terms that everyone can understand just how corrupt conservatism has become.
If you are such a moral guy, who cares about the Constitution and the rule of law, how come you aren’t screaming from the rooftops at how ‘un-conservative’ this bunch of crooks are?
While I’m at it, for a ‘political scholar’ who parades his intellect about so, you sure suck at analysis. Is this really what you think liberals believe? That we ‘form (our) own opinions’ as long as they don’t deviate from the NYT, etc etc? Or are you trying to be ‘funny’? It’s ‘funny’ how all your ‘funny’ observations hew to the same ‘funny’ comments you conservatives always make (“Liberals are on the side of the terrorists! Ha ha.”). So, for your edification:
1. Why are Liberals Liberal?
Education. When confronted with a problem, liberals are capable of assessing facts, laid out with evidence, and then formulating a plan of action to address that problem that actually has a chance of success.
Conservatives believe that if it’s in the Bible, was written or said by or about Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan or Hewh Hewitt, then it MUST be true, regardless. Liberals have noted several inconsistencies in these sources, and hope to do better.
2. Why is there a double standard when commenting on a Liberal vs. Conservative act?
Because although conservatives have ‘rules,’ and love ‘rules,’ quote ‘rules’ and eat, sleep and piss ‘rules,’ when it comes right down to it, they don’t believe the rules apply to themselves (see Libby, Scooter). What conservatives really love are ‘Rulers.’ The real double standard is the fact that conservatives go on about freedom and the Constitution, but in their secret heart of hearts, what they really want is a King.
3. When will Liberals view the Right to Life as sacred?
When conservatives stop starting wars.
To be less pithy, Mr Jackson really gets my dander up here because, as usual, he totally ignores the real reasons most liberals (and moderates) are pro-choice and instead inserts his intellectually dishonest version. Liberals understand the moral dimensions of the abortion question, and believe that the Mother, not the State, has domain over her body, and that she and she alone should make her medical decisions. Conservatives do not (see Schiavo, Terry)
5. Why has the media decided that U.S. has lost the war in Iraq?
I’m not sure they have, and Mr Jackson doesn’t provide any evidence. If they have, I suspect it’s because, despite meeting the objectives stated in the AUMF, we’re still there 5 years later. Maybe it would help if anyone knew what ‘victory’ was, so at least we’d have a metric for evaluation.
More shocking is Mr Jacksons (I almost wrote Hackson) response, repudiating even the respect for the Constitution I had attributed earlier. You go Phil! I mean who needs the Constitution, habeas corpus, civilized norms, laws…. you know, RULES, when you can just “put a bullet through his head?”
What was that about respect for human life again?
Phil (or anyone else):
First, how can you possibly not want to engage in this type of discussion? What is more important than assessing the utility of our involvement in foreign wars? Our boys are dying now! We are presently spending ourselves into “uncharted territory” according to the director of OMB! What better way of assessing the value of such hegemony than by analyzing its history? Also, what is more intellectually stimulating and fun than playing the game of “what if”?
Second, you should not so boldly claim that Churchill’s quote is a “fraud” and “BS”. I previously researched the quote and I am quite aware that Churchill vehemently denied saying it (which is why I wrote that he was “quoted as saying…”). Indeed, it may be untrue but I suspect that Mr. Greffin’s Congressional testimony was true and Churchill had to deny it for political reasons. It sounds to me something Churchill would indeed say, off the cuff in a candid moment.
Third, even if Churchill did not say it, the quote poses a profound argument that apparently was taken seriously enough to become the subject of the Congressional Record. Obviously, there were considerable people who agreed with the ideas or at least worried that it MIGHT be true. And, while you make some reasonable points in contention of the argument, you still dismiss it too quickly.
Fourth, you keep saying “your contention” but I never said I completely agreed with everything that Churchill said in the quote. The primary point of supplying the quote was to illustrate how your criticism of my last post could apply to anyone. Yes, there was some overlap in my view and the alleged Churchill quote but I never claimed to adopt it in full. Looking back, I see where I erred slightly in my wording in that I meant to only say that the USSR was a by-product of WWI as a way of illustrating the disaster of the war generally. Our entry into the war may indeed have had the affect as quoted but I need not go that far.
Fifth, my real contention is much more simple and easy to defend, to wit: our participation in WWI (and other wars) cost us American lives and money but we received no benefit from it (or at least not enough to justify the war). In short, our interventionist foreign policies have not been worth it.
The closest you came to addressing the real issue is when you opined that our failure to have put Germany down in WWI would have necessitated an even greater involvement in the future to contain communism/fascism/Nazism which, left unchecked, “would eventually make its way to our shores.” But sir, most historians agree that Nazism would not have arisen had it not been for the extraordinarily punitive measures under the Versailles Treaty which probably would not have been enabled without our entry into the war in the first place. Also, the cold war where communism became hazardous to us was also a by-product of the Nazi invasion of the USSR.
I strongly doubt that concerns about our own security justified our entry. But please consider this: both paths (entry or non-entry in war) involve security concerns and you never know for sure which path will lead to the most harm. If we were wise, we would measure the problem this way: On one side of the scale we have an extremely speculative and theoretical possibility that trouble will come to our shores in years to come if we do not make war now. On the other side of the scale we know that if we cross the sea and enter the war now we will immediately have huge loss of life and huge expenditures of money without any guarantee that we will be better off in the future EVEN ASSUMING WE WIN THE WAR. In other words, it is the possibility of future harm vs. the certainty of present harm. The wiser policy is to stand aside and let the foreigners fight their own wars. There are other, wiser ways to promote our sense of justice.
The truth is that the worse problems that came to our shores came as a result of our weak immigration policy and I’m not just talking about current events. This brings me to the other issue I raised which you did not address. Have you considered the Jewish angle mentioned above?
Chasm:
“…how come you aren’t screaming from the rooftops at how ‘un-conservative’ this bunch of crooks are?”
Dr. Jackson is just taking advantage of his recent conversion to being a liberal Democrat. He explains it in Chapter 8 of his “Looney Liberal Chronicles” http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/the-looney-liberal-chronicles-chapter-8
Don’t forget that I converted to Islam too (“Democrats Hate Little Children: Allah be Praised”), so I am beyond criticism in any venue.
Phillip Bin-Ellis Jackson
Liberius:
You can’t start out by saying that “And I’ll remind you that Winston Churchill (whose knowledge of WWI cannot be surpassed)…”, and when I show you that he denied saying it (which means that he didn’t believe it), say that “even if Churchill did not say it, the quote poses a profound argument that apparently was taken seriously enough to become the subject of the Congressional Record.”
The quote is neither profound, nor historically accurate as I pointed out. And if you’re hanging your hat on the fact that it must reflect reality anyway because some clown testified before Congress and said it (despite Churchill’s denial), then there’s really no common ground for us to talk. People lie in their testimony before Congress all the time.
I’ve dealt with the subject matter you raised many times before, so what I believe is spelled out in some detail. Others may want to add to this discussion, but I’d just be repeating myself, which as I said earlier is not the most productive to explore an issue where little common ground exists. So no hard feelings, but I’ll leave it to other to continue the discussion in this comment section if they want to.
Besides, I’m having too much fun watching Chasm do his best Vermont Lib imitation and substitute personal attacks for anything remotely interesting to say. I just want to be sure that Steve Sabin isn’t having more fun with us by adopting another liberal personae. His last one was very convincing, and this Chasm screed is pretty funny too (in a sad sort of way).
You just can’t make this stuff up — or, I guess maybe you really can? That’s the trouble with a liberal who comes to the defense of liberalism. You can’t always tell when it’s real, or when it’s a parody.
(And I managed to get my point across without once calling Chasm a hack, saying that he “sucks”, or disputing his education, etc.).
Chasm:
What is a liberal’s basis for condemning anything as immoral? Liberals have been telling society for some time now that no one’s moral standards are better than anyone else’s, that everyone’s is equally valid. Ergo, you might believe that hypocrisy and double standards are morally repugnant, but that’s just your personal belief. Suppose Dr. Jackson believes otherwise. Why aren’t his personal beliefs just as valid as yours? Please do not be judgmental in your response.
Sedona: Chasm is actually operating in the proper liberal mode. You forgot what I said. “Every opinion is equally valid (except, of course, for conservative or other non-liberal opinions) …”
I’m very surprised that Chasm has not sent me a personal note of support for the unassailable logic I demonstrated in post #1. But, apparently it wasn’t enough, so here goes…
———————————————-
Mr. Jackson, your hypocrisy is nothing short of astonishing. You’ll devote 50,000 words to a moral and intellectual condemnation of abortion, yet you support the concept of a “just war” as well as the concept of self-defense if your life, or that of an innocent, was threatened by a criminal. And, you arrogantly believe the state has the right to take a life under the guise of “protecting” or “punishing” others. Yes, there have been a recent bevy of studies purportedly showing that capital punishment does deter crime and actually saves lives, but that’s a purely pragmatic argument that cannot possibly justify the barbarism of due process followed by a painless injection. As liberals, we are the ones who truly value life – with the reasonable caveat that the life must exist outside the womb, something that never fails to confound the simpleton conservative mind.
You actually try to distinguish between acts of aggression such as war and capital punishment and those motivated by a mother’s convenience – all while keeping a straight face. Conservatives like yourself are laughable. Their self-righteous claims to protect one category of life while not protecting all categories of life is dyslexic and arbitrary. They rush to defend the Terri Schiavos and the “unborn” of the world, yet call for the deaths of criminals and those who would do us harm. Can you spell “inconsistent?”
On the other hand, we liberals make no such claims to be bound by rigid consistency. We take great pride in our ability to judge each situation by its merits – by not moralizing on the choices of others, by not being tied down to monolithic mores that apply to all people and all situations. However, as I pointed out in post #1, there are two that are sacred and inviolate: freedom of choice and its derivative, tolerance of all points of view as equally valid (with the obvious exception of conservatism).
Human choice is sacred and transcends all. But you dyslexic conservatives just can’t handle a world in which others can exercise their own free will, can you? It just goads you endlessly that people might want to have consequence-free sex, that people would prefer to dispose of a piece of embryonic tissue rather than destroy their own lives caring for a child that is neither wanted nor loved.
As liberals, we understand that killing is a complex, highly individual, highly personal choice that is between a woman and her physician. We understand that the reasons for taking life at this stage of development are complex, but ultimately far more enlightened and compassionate than filling a world with the unwanted and inconvenient.
It takes one truly progressed in intellect and compassion to see that taking innocent life is necessary for the betterment of society and to preserve something even more precious than life: a woman’s right to choose.
Steve … you are starting to scare me. This last mind meld with liberal logic is absolutely perfect!
Steve: Indeed, that was amusing.
Phil (or anyone else): I definitely regret using the alleged Churchill quote for two reasons: 1) it was disclaimed and 2) it allowed you to ignore my real argument. Too bad no one else will challenge my assertions. I guess I’ll have to call it a victory for non-intervention and move on to the next debate.
Liberals think we don’t “get it”…that our minds are too narrow to comprehend their logic and their arguments. If nothing else, I hope my parody proves that we do understand their tortured logic and can easily parrot their talking points. Will we ever “get it?” No, because there is nothing to get.
It is a bankrupt ideology that folds back on itself repeatedly like a computer program full of endless loops.
It glibly sees no inherent contradictions in its beliefs.
It has few absolutes, save that of “tolerance,” and its caveat: intolerance of the intolerant.
It requires very little critical thinking skills, as it is an engine fueled primarily by public opinion and emotion and polls and trends.
It is masteful in its double-speak: “Progressive” means regressive. “Choice” means death. “Tolerance” means rudderless. “Freedom” means anarchy. And “is” means … a word that needs further clarification.
Sorry about post #35 being dominated by italics. I just discovered that we could use HTML operands and must have forgotten the little “stop ital” operator. As a result, nearly the whole thing showed up in italics.
For the full surround-sound liberal experience, perhaps future satire should be done in ALL CAPS? Or at minimum, it should use multiple punctiation such as !!! and ??? to make its points. Liberal use (pun intended) of profanity is also essential.
I’m refining my skills. DailyKos, here I come.
Oh, and let’s not forget that you conservatives are quick to point out that the Bible distinguishes between killing and murder, and that the 10 commandments prohibit murder, and not killing.
These are simply semantics cited by people grasping at straws to try and cover up their inconsistencies.
We liberals have progressed to a far more enlightened view of love than that espoused in the Bible. By carefully choosing those passages that we know to be true (versus the thousands that cannot possibly be taken literally because, after all, they contradict our views), we can not only demonstrate that every world religion including Christianity actually supports our ideology, but that God Himself/Herself is/are indeed a liberal.
Sadly, the Bible’s true liberal message has been suppressed through the millenia by the conservatives in each era. In their unquenchable demand for more and more power, this peaceful handbook on self-accepance and tolerance has been twisted into little more than a way to scare people into alignment with conservative dogma.
Whether God actually exists is a highly individual decision and indeed, rather inconsequential. What is important is not whether He/She exists, but rather the value of belief itself. As long as the belief bestows each adherent with a sense of inner acceptance and self-worth, it is equally valid to any other belief. The measure of validity cannot be an unproven “God” … it can only be the way that it makes each person feel. In the realm of spirituality, therefore, all roads really do lead to Rome.
That is why, as liberals, we are equally comfortable celebrating catholic mass as we are kneeling in a mosque or lighting incense in a a Buddhist shrine or celebrating the Divine Goddess with purple-clad feminists. The object of the belief is irrelevant. All that matters is belief itself.
This is progressivism at its finest. We really can all get along, but for the intolerant dogma of conservatives like Jackson.
Affectionately,
A Liberal
okok I get the joke, and if you really want to kick me away so badly, I will just come by for a little laugh now and then.
Now, to answer the only real question
“What is a liberal’s basis for condemning anything as immoral?”
Whether or not it helps people.
Contrary to your drummed up responses, we are for the most part an idealistic bunch and wish to help people live free, fulfilled and happy lives. We should have much in common with Christians and conservatives.
But, you see, morality doesn’t come from a deity. They aren’t picked off tablets like hors ‘oderves, they are the hard won rules of survival. Individual morality, however learned, is the recognition of our responsibilities to each other in a society in order to keep that society alive. To forgo morality is to undermine society itself, a decent into the abyss, of this I am sure we all agree.
But for us liberals, the tests to morality that the recent era has put us too are far greater than the ones you see. Where you fear magical sky-man retribution against a society that permits men to love men, or gives women domain of their lives and sex – we fear actual societal demise due to a collapse of our education systems and the tragic squandering of our great nation’s considerable resources – natural, economic and human.
Liberals are actually more pro family than conservatives. Liberals believe that families are the foundation of society, and that a society of strong families will be strong, and thus, moral. Liberals want babies too! We just prefer that they have families. To that end we support gay marriage, so couples of all kinds can have the economic advantages that our society gives to families. And we support each individual woman’s right to decide for herself when and with whom she will start her family.
Liberals understand that the reason family life in America is in such a state is not because we as a society has transgressed the arbitrary dictum of the Hebrew Yaweh, but because of one thing: money. Strong families need money, and a secure future to build upon. In fact, liberals see America as one big family. That really is the root of the Roosevelt tradition – that we as a nation are a family and we owe it to our brothers to help them find the American dream.
So, to wrap it up before I spin off in another tangent, as a liberal, what I condem as immoral are things that go against life, and the survival of people, families, and society. Things like war, persecution, needless poverty, corruption and incompetence in government, dishonesty and dishonor.
What I value as moral are those things that I can trust to help me survive – respect, honor and honesty in word and deed, and a sense that one knows how close to the jungle we are save a little civility.
What would it take for any of you to admit that you intentionally mis-state the distinction between understanding morality as having both subjective and objective components, with believing “everything is moral depending on the day?”
Abortion, of course, fits the bill in imaginary discussions like this one because it’s really the only visceral moral decision most of us will ever encounter. Not being a nation of warriors, we don’t really confront the moral dimension of the individual soldiers involved in conflict, and most actual moral decisions that the average citizen may make probably are bureaucratic in nature – whether to cheat on taxes, for instance, or whether to contemplate the environmental dimension when purchasing a car. So, for actual women most especially, this moral dilemma becomes the visceral rack to hang our philosophic hats on.
As I hinted in my last post, I like to emphasize the idea that morality, ultimately, is a function of survival. The reason we can argue about the mutability of morals over time, is because, duh, they have mutated over time. Your obsession over the idea that morals are quote unquote subjective is, I admit, true – although I’d argue the consequences of that acknowledgment is nowhere near as destructive as the denial of it.
Now, you guys like to point to the Bible as an authority on morality, and in many ways I’d agree. For one, the Torah is nothing if not a survival manual for Jews. Keep the traditions, marry in the faith, treat insiders better than outsiders – go to war even, if it threatens the tribe. If the power of morals lie in their ability to help the survival of the family, the tribe, a nation, then the Bible is truly a moral authority, one that has guided many families and many people.
That’s not even a sideways swipe, but a truth. And looking at morality thru the perspective of survival even gives you a mighty brick of an argument – for abortion truly is a violation of the survival of the fetus.
But that is only the first layer, because for sure the survival of the mother can be a factor – but also the survival of her family, because what if, for instance, having this particular child would threaten her ability to provide for rest of her family? So many little ‘circumstances’ we could cite here that we liberals love to obsess over as proof that morality is relative. And society, of course, has to have a perspective. Is it more moral to be a society that mandates abortion or one which forces childbirth? Golly gee, I’d hate to be part of a society that has to make either horrid choice, yet you seem intent on forcing us to have a discussion regarding the latter, as tho it were more noble or preferable than China’s.
NONONO! you scream. It’s ALL ABOUT THAT BABY and that LIFE which is so important.
And I’m here to tell you that, actually, things are different than they were back in the day of Jonah and his whale. For one, we really did go thru the so-called sexual revolution, conservative nightmare of all nightmares, and women really did tell the men that after six thousand years of this shit, they aren’t going to take it any more. For another, there are many pressing problems which actually do threaten us – on every level from individual all the way up to country and planet. The answers to these questions really do amount to doing good or evil because the repercussions will determine the quality of life for generations to come.
Sorry for you to hear, I know, but who has sex with who, and whether or not they conceive, birth and raise a child is not one of them. Abortion is not a civic moral issue because the survival of the state, or even the village, is not at stake. The only people inside that little moral bubble are the mother, the fetus, and her family. And in America, anyway, privacy means that’s where it stays.
It’s not that I don’t see that an abortion is taking a life, and not that I’d not have my own moral quandary should I be in the vicinity of such a decision – but that as a civil libertarian and liberal, I don’t see the compelling societal need for injecting this lame ass diatribe into a personal moral matter.
Chasm: “morality” is not what one religion or another says it is. It doesn’t come from human consensus, education, society, genetics, or thinking good thoughts. And it isn’t the product of Supreme Court decisions.
Have a look in the IC archives at “What Kind of Car would Jesus Drive to take his Girlfriend to an Abortion Clinic?”, or wait a couple of days and you’ll see this issue debated again on this website when I respond to an upcoming article that tries (and fails) to support your relativistic point of view.
That is, of course, presuming that you actually care about the issue, instead of just ranting about a subject to promote your political point of view, which is another hallmark of classic contemporary liberal thought.
Phil:
“You forgot what I said. ‘Every opinion is equally valid (except, of course, for conservative or other non-liberal opinions) …’”
I was just giving him the benefit.
Chasm:
If morality is relative, what is it relative to?
It seems to me that the big issue is to avoid war or draw a line in the sand and kick butt when someone crosses it. The liberals tend to think that it is possible to never draw a line and all can be worked out with talk and understanding. This comes from their success in changing America incrementally to the left over the last forty years. Well, some parts of America. What they do not understand is the world is not America. Ideas are not debated like they are here. I sometimes think that liberals believe an acceptable option for war is to be last in line at the gas chamber.
It does all come down to choice. Liberals believe that all life is equal and we should all sacrifice ourselves for that belief. I believe that all life is not equal. My family and country and the basis for our laws is a step higher than most of the worlds. Liberals think that any law from a foreign country is equal to our own. Again I believe that they are not equal. So I choose to believe that over the last 200 years our nation has done a better job than the rest of the world in making laws for us to live by.
Now if people in a different country stand up and shout “death to America” I take them at their word. I choose however to accept their word and then to plan their destruction instead of my own. Liberals will fly to the other country and stand hand in hand waiting for the first wave of bombers. Well, at least the serious ones.
So do we not bomb because of these liberals? I guess it comes down to if you believe that they are Americans or people of the world. I tend to think they are people of the world.
fbaginski:
“What they do not understand is the world is not America.”
This was agrivated by the elimination of the universal military draft. Its elimination allowed a liberals to avoid being sent overseas and getting exposed to how the rest of the world views life, and being converted to conservatives.
Sedonaman hit the nail on the head with as few words as I’ve ever seen trashing the relativist ideology. Just three simple words:
“Relative to WHAT?”
In Chasm’s world, mankind’s survival is apparently the litmus test for everything. Thus, after millennia of hard-won lessons, then and only then, one is able to finally conclude that “murder is wrong.”
It is barely worth responding to Chasm because there are thousands of examples that could be given regarding societal mores that have nothing whatsoever to do with survival of the species:
- Why is incest wrong, even when between two consenting adults?
- Why is torture wrong, even if we have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is guilty and is going to be executed?
- Why don’t we cannibalize the dead instead of burying or cremating? Isn’t this wasteful?
- Why, instead of aborting that baby for the betterment of society (because after all, it isn’t wanted), don’t we pay the mother to bring it to term so then we can harvest its organs after a few years to save some lives and conduct medical research?
- Why don’t we end children’s life after birth if they become unwanted? Isn’t birth a somewhat arbitrary boundary upon which to decide life is suddenly sacred? If a child suddenly becomes unwanted sometime after birth, and is destined to a life of abuse and neglect, why not a painless injection at that time?
Relativists are never forced to really answer the hard questions because they can always jump on the slippery slope of whatever society at that moment will tolerate. It gives a whole new meaning to the favorite word in their lexicon: tolerance.
You guys are going to love the upcoming debate I’m having on this subject with a guy who thinks that my view of a God-given morality is completely wrong. The point-counterpoint essays should be out sometime this week. Phil
Phil, Steve, et al :
If all ideas are indeed equal, as liberals claim, then why should we accept theirs?
For me, the “man isn’t the measure of all things” argument isn’t as much a religious argument, as it is a logical argument. At some point, without an external reference point, you simply cannot make any statements about … anything. Anyone who has studied physics understand this. Motion is a relative concept. So is mass. So is time. So for anything to have meaning, we must have a fixed reference point against which we agree to measure all else.
I think this is what Phil has tried to argue in his “What Kind of Car…” essay. I have tried to studiously avoid bringing religion into this discussion. My comments in post #40 may have appeared to be religious, but my point was in trying to show the fallacy of suggesting that belief is the only thing that matters, not the object of the belief. There must be some fixed reference point against which morality is measured, or else it really has no meaning other than a social contract that evolves over time. Morality thus becomes little more than a bell curve that shifts over time.
I have never found this “it doesn’t matter what you believe in, as long as you are sincere” approach to work in the physical realm. I can sincerely believe in something contradictory to gravity, but I do so at my own peril the next time I visit the Grand Canyon. Personally, I have always viewed morality in the same way: a statement of what “is” rather than arbitrary laws handed down by a fickle deity. Morality is to our spirit what Newton’s Laws are to our body.
Ultimately, however, the reason relativism is embraced and absolutism is rejected always comes down to a religious argument. No matter how articulate and reasoned, no matter how airtight and inescapable the logic, relativists have a common thread at their core: refusal to believe in God. So, they must try to make sense out of a world in which they have already decided there is no God. Every shred of evidence, no matter how compelling, is always weighed by them in light of their over-arching assumption: There is no God; ergo, there can be no absolute standard against which all else is measured.