A McCain/Palin presidency will create a political consensus that denigrates and diminishes the family, making it well nigh impossible to convince future generations that they ought to sacrifice for the sake of their children.
The Scottish philosopher Tobias Smollett once said: "I think for my part one half of the nation is mad – and the other not very sound."
I wonder what he would have said if he had had the misfortune of witnessing the present fiasco-tragedy that is the 2008 presidential campaign?
Perhaps, like von Schiller, he would have exclaimed that "with stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain."
Never before have I witnessed such a wholesale sell-out of values and principles which, until the appointment of Palin, had been proclaimed the "sacred" foundations of conservative values and principles.
That hideous ideology of "isms" and "phobias" was the preserve of Liberal Fundamentalists. Yet, following the appointment of Palin, it is hard to find a Republican or Conservative commentary that does not band about accusations of sexism like confetti.
At a stroke, McCain has put the final nail in the coffin of the family. All those women who have put their principles into practice by devoting themselves to the upbringing of their children have had their noses rubbed in the dirt (many willingly). All their efforts to instill in their children the importance of sacrificing for the benefit of their children have had their efforts squandered. The new standard that has been raised proclaims "me first" – children can be sacrificed on the altar of their mother’s vanity and ego; they are happier to play the role of window dressing to their mother modeling her vanity!
When conservatives are hailing Palin as some kind of super-hero, how can any parents, especially if they support Palin, tell their own children that their primary obligation lies in bringing up their own children one day? Their children will treat such hypocritical instruction with the contempt it deserves.
Until now, it has been a conservative "truth" that many, even most, of the social problems in the world (including, or especially, teenage pregnancies) are due to children not having a mother at home – and I subscribe to that view. Rather than dispelling that conviction, Palin proves it.
But worse, having got herself pregnant, other teenagers will see that rather than being stigmatized, Bristol Palin is feted as some kind of Prima Donna. Bristol, and the boy who put her in that condition, are paraded on the world stage as though they were celebrities. And then there will be the offers of book deals, perhaps even a film!
I’d love to be a fly on the wall when some conservative Palin-supporting parents try to tell their children to be abstinent until they marry. "Why should we?" will come the retort, there is always redemption; perhaps even fame. "If it’s good enough for Bristol, then it’s good enough for me!"
I have already set out in my articles titled "The Ten Principles of Freedom" (see article 3, "The Purpose of Life") how and what obligations attach to men and women when they bring a human being into this world, and even those obligations that predate any union of a man and a women, so I won’t repeat them here other than to say that the obligations of those who bring a human life into the world are more fundamental than any other human obligations, and take precedence over all other human obligation. Principal amongst those obligations is the obligation to sacrifice our own egos and vanities for the benefit of our children.
So how, I wondered, could any right-thinking person professing "conservative values" support McCain/Palin? Remarkably, some are now proclaiming her a latter day Deborah – the "prophetess" – who persuades Barak – no, not that Barack – although then again perhaps it is that Barack – to slay the baddie Sisera (an early version of bin Laden perhaps?), who, in the end, is betrayed by one of his own by having a nail thrust into his temple. Sisera (bin Laden?) is then delivered up to Barack. That’s all in the book of Judges, by the way; Chapter 4.
So we now see that we can all support Palin, even though she is really the epitome of the modern day feminist and antithesis of conservative values, because she is a "prophetess." She is allowed to abandon her children; her teenage daughter’s pregnancy is something to be celebrated; she can groom her vanity and ego at the expense of her family; all because she is a "prophetess."
And, oh yes, she is pro-life. And if the reports are to be believed, she is a pro-lifer who believes there can be no exceptions, including rape.
Now I am also anti-abortion, but not of the fanatical, mindless variety. So let’s see what Palin actually said when the revelation about little Bristol emerged.
Sarah Palin and her husband issued a statement saying that they were "proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby . . ."
I see, so Bristol should have the choice of making a "decision" about her pregnancy yet, according to Sarah Palin, other women (including young girls) should not, even if they have been brutally raped?
And let me just venture for a moment to imagine what a twilight world of an absolute prohibition of abortion would look like – the sort of world Sarah Palin reportedly supports.
A bunch of scumbags break into a home in the middle of the night. They herd the husband, wife, and children into the sitting room at gun point. There, in front of the husband and children, each takes his turn to brutally rape the wife and mother. They scuttle off laughing and joking leaving the family traumatized and horribly violated – scarred for life.
The family is taken to hospital, and the wife and mother to the rape clinic. There, behold, stands a Palin look-alike with a little clipboard, designer glasses, and stern face. She is there to ensure that the genes from those scumbags, if any have impregnated one of the woman’s ovaries, are protected. The look-alike dishes out stern warnings to the woman not to do anything that may harm that scumbag’s genetic image that has been forced into her. Thereafter, on a weekly basis, the little Gestapo lady pitches up at the home of the family to ensure that no one is doing anything that may harm the scumbag’s genetic image that is developing into a mini-scumbag. Each time the women has morning sickness, she and her family are reminded of that traumatic night; each time the scumbag’s genetic image kicks in the mother’s womb, she and her family are reminded of that traumatic night.
If, perchance, the woman, due to the trauma of the rape and the harassment from the Palin look-alike, should miscarry, I then see her, and no doubt her husband, being prosecuted for manslaughter for not taking sufficient care to ensure the wellbeing of the scumbag’s genetic image. I can see husbands, wives, even children, taking their own lives to escape the hell that the likes of Palin would compel them to endure.
Given that Palin thought it wonderful that Bristol could make her own "decision" about what to do with the baby she conceived by consent, I doubt that she would welcome that kind of intrusion into the life of her daughter should such a terrible tragedy befall her – but, it seems, Palin judges it good enough for the rest of us. Oh yes, but I forgot – she’s a "prophetess." I wonder what that makes McCain?
But this prophetess thing is also perplexing. Since when do prophets, or even prophetesses, have some special exemption from The Law in order to proclaim The Law (because that is what prophets do)? I had this naive idea that God only chose certain people to proclaim His Law because of their scrupulous and exemplary observance of The Law.
The bottom-line is thus very simple, notwithstanding all this prophetess nonsense – Palin subscribes to conservative values in word only (if that), not deed, and sets an "example" that undermines the entire basis of conservatism – the family.
So for all those who have so eagerly discarded their "deeply held family values" in order to support Palin, and thus McCain, perhaps they should remember that a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for the demise of the family. It is that simple.
But this Palin hysteria has also manifested itself in another peculiar way – it has seen male feminists, Republican and Conservative male feminists, come crawling out of the woodwork. So now we witness the unedifying spectacle of these men, men of the limp-wristed wimp variety, proclaiming their admiration for "strong women." But women like Palin are not the real "strong women;" they are simply pathetic imitations of the worst aspects of what Nietzsche called "masculine stupidity."
Real strong women do not trot along with the feminist herd mentality; real strong women do not march behind feminist standards and banners proclaiming their vanity to be the highest ideal; real strong women do not succumb to peer pressure to imitate the worst and most primitive instincts of men; real strong women do not cower at the scorn the male-imitators pour upon them; real strong women do not abandon their independently thought out principles in the face of cowardly mockery; real strong women recognize the obligations that attach to them when they bring a human life into the world, and are not deterred by ridicule from the herd; real strong women do not succumb to their primitive instinct for pleasure just because the consensus dictates that sexual experimentation is somehow "liberating;" real strong women pay heed to the guilt they know they would feel by abandoning their children before they are ready to face life on their own – they do not latch onto studies in order to justify ignoring the inner voice that warns them against such neglect; real strong women do not feel humiliation in doing the most menial of tasks in order to ensure that their children are clean, comfortable, and secure; real strong women will one minute be changing a nappy, the next minute discussing Shakespeare’s The Tempest, and the next brushing up on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity for the next physics lesson; real strong women see no need to compete with their husbands – they know it would be an unfair contest – instead they have a measure of pity for their husbands whose qualities limit them to being breadwinners, and occasional dispensers of discipline; but real strong women will also recognize men’s weakness and susceptibility to serving their vanity at the expense of the family, so they will put their foot down when their husbands’ vanity wants that new sports car, or set of golf clubs, to impress their friends; real strong women also have pity for those women who think they can find some "fulfillment" in imitating “masculine stupidity,” but, as Kipling said, will make allowance for such stupidity, and even tolerate the taunts of the ignorant.
Real strong women do not find self-worth in the adulation and empty flattery of a boss, or client, or patient – their worth is deeply rooted in the knowledge that they are meeting their obligations towards their children. These women, these real women, these strong women, they are fiercely independent, not swayed or detracted by the vacuous currents of ignorance and vanity. These women, the real and strong women, are highly educated, often self-educated, and utterly devoted to their children, to their families, and to their principles. Not those principles taken ready-made off the rack by the ignorant imitators of “masculine stupidity,” but those principles that are a product of deep reflection and reasoned judgment.
And nothing detracts these really strong women for their destiny. These are the women who are the bulwark against the relentless onslaught against the family. These women are the last stand against civilization descending into a nightmare of depravity, decadence, and moral disintegration. These are the women who resolutely refuse to sacrifice their unique and wonderful qualities in order to imitate the worst indulgences and vanities of “masculine stupidity.” But these are not the women you will find childishly chanting “Sa-rah, Sa-rah” at some ridiculous political rally. These women don’t need logos; these women don’t need slogans; these women are not imitators, nor imitations – they are the real thing. They are women – and they celebrate their femininity by being women, not pathetically imitating men.
And Sarah Palin is not in their ranks; neither are those women who are falling all over themselves to worship at Palin’s feet. And let men remember that admiring a woman as a "strong woman" does not make such a woman strong – it only reveals your own pathetic weakness.
Finally, let me address Palin’s fiscal "qualities." Conservatives were beside themselves with hysterical jubilation when they discovered that Palin had put the governor’s luxury jet up for sale on Ebay. They became even more excited when Palin mentioned the "bridge to nowhere" – even though the taxpayers now have neither the bridge, nor the money for the bridge.
These "conservatives" think that so-called fiscal conservatism is something that can stand alone, free of any rational principles to inform its ideology. They simply fail to recognize that fiscal policy can only be the product of fundamental principles.
At least the Democrats understand this basic fact. They subscribe to the Utilitarian ethic of the "common good," or "the greatest happiness to the greatest number" as Bentham put it, and tailor their fiscal policy to bring about that objective. For them, high taxes are not an end in themselves, but a means to a higher ideal – the common good, or as the Constitution puts it, the “general Welfare of the United States,” or as the Declaration of Independence would have it, the “right to the pursuit of Happiness.”
So-called fiscal conservatives, who see the objective of low taxes as some sort of ethical objective in itself, are simply morally vacuous. Their ethic is greed, and passing on the other side of the road. To them, the “good Samaritan” is a dork, and the “rich man” can buy himself a place in heaven. In short, they are the antithesis of all Biblical teaching, and plain old commonsense.
If there is such a thing as conservatism, then it can only find meaning in fundamental principles which inform its ideology. I have set out those principles in my series of articles "The Ten Principles of Freedom," which principles also happen to reflect precisely the Ten Commandments – the Law of God.
So when we talk about issues like taxation, those issues must be founded in principles that give credence to the policy which flows from them. Otherwise they are just that – policies; policies without any substance – banging on the table.
I’d rather pay tax at a rate of 90% if I thought it would best serve the objective of restoring the family to the position of preeminence it deserves, than pay no tax and see those last vestiges of decency, morality, and honor – the mother bringing up and educating her own children – being destroyed.
So for me, better a short time of Obama – at least the less fortunate may get some measure of health care for the billions of wasted tax dollars (and perhaps some innocent children won’t die for lack of health care) – and wait until a true conservative comes along. A McCain/Palin presidency will create a political consensus that denigrates and diminishes the family, making it well nigh impossible to convince future generations that they ought to sacrifice for the sake of their children. And if I were to thus poke a little fun at those who claim that Palin is some kind of prophetess, well, perhaps she is a false prophetess? Think about that!
But alas, I expect that the gods are in for another vain struggle as conservatives fall all over each other to prostrate themselves at the feet of their newly discovered "prophetess."
In running the sleaziest campaign since South Carolina in 2000 and standing by completely debunked lies on national television, it's clear that John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.
I think you just cut off your nose to spite your face. Not that I disagree with all your statements, but 4 years of an Obama presidency in return for a Palin VICE-presidency is just silly. Just as silly as my vote for Richard Nixon, especialy the second time, and my vote for Ross Perot. All these are draws to an inside straight.
No, I'll most likly decide on Nov. 4th to vote for McCain because he and his advisors were smart enough to trump the feminists. I was for Barry Goldwater in 64 and we know how that worked out.
“ …how can any parents, especially if they support Palin, tell their own children that their primary obligation lies in bringing up their own children one day?”
*** What makes you think only women do, or should, care for their children? Why is a father automatically excused from this calculation, or considered irrelevant in this process? Why can’t Palin be the primary wage earner with her husband in a support role?
“Until now, it has been a conservative 'truth' that many, even most, of the social problems in the world (including, or especially, teenage pregnancies) are due to children not having a mother at home”
*** Actually, “conservatives” believe that it’s a two-parent family that’s the key (preferably of opposite sexes), not whether a mother works or not.
“I’d love to be a fly on the wall when some conservative Palin-supporting parents try to tell their children to be abstinent until they marry. ‘Why should we?’ will come the retort, there is always redemption; perhaps even fame. ‘If it’s good enough for Bristol, then it’s good enough for me!’"
*** This is a cartoon view of conservatism and how we feel about this issue. Joseph, you’re better than simply repeating media-driven stereotypes that reflect absolutely no understanding of how conservatives view important issues and respond accordingly. This analysis is not only wrong, it's insultingly silly.
Moreover, expressing a personal belief that all children are human beings regardless of their age or the way they were conceived id not the same thing as insisting that all people subscribe to this position. That’s what Liberals do. The proper venue for deciding abortion issues is the individual states as the Constitution intended, not the courts. Calling Roe v. Wade bad law and working to overturn it would not end abortion. It would return the matter to the proper venue where the people could actually decide this matter in the proper legislative venues.
One more thing. In focusing on a woman’s right to kill her developing child because it doesn’t meet some arbitrary, political compromise that assigns it “human status”, why do all the people who care so much about government not imposing “choices” on people care so little whether government kills innocent, defenseless human life? Why is that child so unimportant that it can be treated like a tumor instead of a child?
I find the attacks somewhat humorous on Gov. Palin by the "elite" media. They are so shallow in substance that it is really pitiful if this is all that they have. I realize that the press lives in the rarified air of the N.Y.-D.C.-Boston corridor and think the rest of the country is a bunch of dorks. Only they are enlightened enough to think for us. My advice to them would be to take a look at questions that conservative commentators have and to pose them to Obama with hard follow up questions. Until this is done they will be what they are now, irrelevant, and worse, with a total lack of respect.
"Principal amongst those obligations is the obligation to sacrifice our own egos and vanities for the benefit of our children."
Gosh you make it sound so appealing.
I more than agree with you on the abortion issue. Whether Bristol is going to actually influence other young girls actually doesn't require Palin to be on the winning side this November. I'm sure there are high-schoolers who are now forging ahead with their baby-making plans even as we speak.
I do agree with Phillip about fathers. Why is it that a mother is the only one who is castigated? I expect there are plenty of families in which both mom & dad have to hold down jobs in order to make ends meet. Of all the issues on which to attack Palin, the issue of her being the breadwinner of the family sure has to be one of the very weakest.
This piece is very long on name-calling and rhetorical brow-beating, but short on actual facts to link the evil villainess of the story to what she is being accused of. In the absence of an actual argument, the author has spent 5 tiring pages begging the question. "Sarah Palin is not a conservative because she is not a conservative". Hysteria indeed.
"she is really the epitome of the modern day feminist and antithesis of conservative values"
Really? Why? What qualities of the "modern day feminist" does she exhibit (aside from working outside the home – I'll spot you that one)? What policies does she support that are in agreement with the policies that the "modern day feminist" supports? Overwhelming us with adjectives does not create such a link. This rampbling rebuke of pussified men, masculinized women, "masculine stupidity" and anti-family conservative feminists (male and female), doesn't specifically have anything to do with conservatives, conservative values, conservative governing princples, and least of all Sarah Palin — the assumed topic of the article, in case anyone lost track (easy to do).
"Sarah Palin and her husband issued a statement saying that they were "proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby . . ."
I see, so Bristol should have the choice of making a "decision" about her pregnancy yet, according to Sarah Palin, other women (including young girls) should not, even if they have been brutally raped?"
How you can utter the word "mindless" and then type the preceding is really arresting. Regardless of what Sarah Palin believes, her daughter has a court-manded "decision" regarding the life of her unborn child – the Supreme Court rendered a decision in a rather high-profile case called "Roe versus Wade" that currently governs that issue. Note that her statement did not say "I believe my daughter, to the exclusion of other women, should have the decision to abort or not to abort her unborn child". She simply said she was proud of the choice her daughter made, regardless of whether she believes in principle that her daughter should have the decision to make or not.
On an interesting sidenote, I notice that you, unlike the ostensibly "mindless" Sarah Palin, support abortions in the case of rape and incest. Now, from a non-religious, or at least non-fundamentalist perspective, I can understand this line of reasoning. But given your seemingly ultra-fundamentalist, ultra-Biblical, ultra-universalist stances, I find this position rather "mindless", or at the very least hypocritical, myself. All the more so in light of the Catholic church's (of which you are a member, if I recall correctly?) position on the matter, which is wholly in agreement with that of the "mindless" governor. If we are to believe that every unborn child is fully human, and entitled, morally and ethically, to the rights of a human – including the right not to be murdered – how are we to conclude that children conceived in a particular manner are somehow less entitled to these rights? Are they less human becuase of the nature of their conception? If so, then what makes a child conceived in rape any different than any other undesired child – say, one conceived with a man the woman does not know, but consented to have sex with? Any amusing old-testament antecdotes you can share with us to clear up that seeming moral contradiction? Any metaphorical references to the names of modern day politicians?
"The bottom-line is thus very simple, notwithstanding all this prophetess nonsense – Palin subscribes to conservative values in word only (if that), not deed"
"Conservative values" as defined by…? Aside from not being at home barefoot and pregnant, is there anything that Palin has ACTUALLY done, said, or supported that you find at odds with conservative thinking? We may infer from your rantings that her support for low taxes, as well as her lack of support for abortion – both customarily thought of as pretty standard "conservative" positions – is "mindless", but heaven knows that is the most detail we are ever subjected to in reference to actual policies or positions that she holds (although we may also be certain that she is a poor mother who is possesed of "masculine stupidity", devoid of femininity, and may in fact have a set of male genitalia – all well-sourced "facts of the matter").
"remember that a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for the demise of the family. It is that simple."
And a vote for Obama? Did you know that Michelle works outside of the home? And that she and her husband support taxpayer-funded universal daycare and preschool so that mothers can abandon their children for their work? But hey, at least they aren't hypocrites – they proudly and consistently support the "right" to abortion, including late-term abortions and born-alive babies that survive an abortion attempt – under any and all circumstances. No longer will we have to live with the all-too-real danger of armed men storming the house, gang raping mommy in front of daddy and the kids, and impregnating her with vermin-seed. Yes, we can sleep with our principles intact with such a man in the white house. Whatever you do, don't you go and vote for the McCain-Palin — we can't have them destroying our families!
Excuse the few typos – I'm using a new browser with no inline spell check :D
Joseph, many of your articles make sense however this time you have fallen flat. First I know of few conservatives that attempt to force a family value of the wife staying in the home to raise children. The choice of Palin seems to be solid and has caused turmoil in both the Media and the Omessiah's campaign. From a pure political perspective that is a very positive development. Plus it guarantees significant comedic situations up to early November.
Regarding your taxation comment I do not agree and would take the step of finally retiring and removing myself from the workforce. If these types of decisions were taken by many of those despicable rich where would the jobs come from? Government? If the idle rich are not available to be taxed who pays?
The biggest threat of the Omessiah and his supporters is the move toward the mistaken belief that the USA is a democracy. As pointed out in the Federalist Papers democracy is a thing to be avoided not embraced.
So where do we go in an American election that you will be watching from your European vantige point? We select the lesser of two evils since Tancredo is not rnning.
Thank you all for your Comments.
I think the one Comment I do agree with is Mickey G. This certainly isn’t one of my better articles – I banged it out because I couldn’t stand any more of the Palin Hysteria – that’s the sort of stuff I expect from the Left.
Otherwise, reading some of the Comments here, I wondered whether I’d stumbled across the ‘Intellectually Challenged Liberal’.
Suddenly, ‘conservatives’ have become blind to gender differences – the bedrock of Liberal left thinking.
I wonder if I’m the only person left on this planet who still notices that woman have wombs, breasts, and such things, that are specifically designed, by nature or God, to equip them to look after their children. Let’s take breasts for example. Everyone knows that breast milk is the best thing for children. So if, as I happen to believe, a woman’s obligation is to provide what is best for the life she creates, then surely it is a breach of her obligations to run off to work 3 days after her baby is born, as Palin did, and leave the baby with some substitute. But it’s not just the milk that is important – it is the process of personally feeding as well.
Yes, some women do have to get a job because of economic considerations – and that is a shame. But to want to abandon a child you bring into this world because you get a kick out of going to a job (something I have always been perplexed by – I really don’t see the big deal in sitting in an office) is something very different.
Abandoning a child is simply neglect. Let me refer to that great child Guru who advocated this type of neglect to “broaden women’s lives.”
“Biddulph admits he started out as a believer in quality nursery care and the role it played in broadening women’s lives but says he has found the reality never matched the fantasy. ‘In fact it was often a disastrous disappointment’, he said. ‘The best nurseries struggled to meet the needs of very young children in a group setting [WOW! I could have told him that without even visiting one]. The worst were negligent, frightening and bleak – a nightmare of bewildered loneliness that was heartbreaking to watch’.”
Now that’s from a real liberal feminist man. But I don’t need some ‘child guru’ to tell me that he was an ignorant moron. It is obvious that children need their mothers – until they are grown up. If dumping a child into an environment that is “a nightmare of bewildered loneliness” is not neglect, then I wonder what is.
Finally, reading so much of these Comments that say what I thought were conservative values are not, after all, conservative values, I really see no difference between this ‘new feminist-based conservatism’ than Liberal Fundamentalism.
So there really is then no difference on ‘social issues’ between McCain and Obama, except when it comes to health care. And since the people in the US pay on average the same or more than Europeans in tax, why not get what the Europeans get – health care thrown in. At least the US may not then have an infant mortality rate that ranks with places like Poland, Estonia and Cuba – one of the worst in the developed world.
That’s from a Report titled “Measure of America”. Patrick Martin (www.globalresearch.ca), in an article reviewing the findings, says this: “The [reports] are the latest in a series of studies that depict a society – ravaged by poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, ill health and inequality – that is going backward. The sclerotic two-party system cannot provide any answer to the social disaster because it is a corrupt instrument of the financial aristocracy that is plundering the country to pile up ever-greater wealth for itself.”
I had sort of assumed that what I thought were conservative values (derived from the Ten Commandments) were the answer to this sort of “social disaster” – but it seems I was wrong – conservatives don’t seem to have any values – other than the abortion issue. And any they did have were obviously hypocritical – they were thrown out the window as soon as Palin made her debut.
But again, I don’t need a report to tell me that we have a “social disaster” on our hands. I just have to go and stand outside one of those institutions of neglect and see those pitiful children being dumped outside by their parents. The “social disaster” is directly linked to the fact that children no longer have a mother in the home. And much as people throw around accusations of sexism, the fact is clear – there are differences between men and women – I suggest that some of the men who haven’t noticed that fact take a look – although you will risk a law suit for sexual harassment, so be careful.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Joseph: Contrary to popular opinion, Conservatives do not categorize people — by sex, race, age, etc. That’s what Liberals do. We look instead at common value systems. We don't keep our women barefoot and pregnant, or treat them as inferior human beings because they sit when they pee instead of stand. We would have voted for Margaret Thatcher if she was an American, and won’t vote for Obama just because he’s a man.
I have no idea where you’ve formed your opinions about Conservatives, other than through Liberal stereotypes of our beliefs. But when you start with a faulty premise about what a Conservative “is”, then every conclusion you draw is equally flawed.
My guess is that you’ve somehow stumbled across some belief system a hyper-fundamentalist religious group holds, and concluded that this is what all Conservatives believe. Your analysis seems better suited to analyzing the political beliefs of Islamic fundamentalists than American Conservatives.
Joseph,
Trying to belittle men who disagree with you by calling them feminists and implying that they are homosexuals is no less a logical fallacy than begging the question. If you are going to make a serious argument, or respond to an argument, do so with an actual argument.
Principally, I don't think you'll find many people in disagreement with you that children need parents – and that means two parents, not just mommies. Where you're toddling off the reservation is when you base your entire premise on the idea that needing two parents, A) Means only needing a mother, and B) Means that women who work are not conservatives and do not represent conservative principles, simply because they work. Conservatism as a philosophy is about more than making sure women, to the exclusion of men, stay at home raising their kids. As a matter of practicality, voting for a woman who represents my views and works outside of the home is a lot better than voting for a man who represents none of my views simply because he is "entitled" to work outside of the home because he is a man.
I also feel compelled to mention the comical irony that you are berating others for "abandoning conservative principles" because they would consider voting for a woman while you advocate government-provided healthcare and bemoan "inequality". Small government, fiscal responsibility, and free market capitalism are all foundational "conservative" (as the term is used in America – technically those are "classically liberal" views) principles – as much, and probably more so, than ensuring that women have no role in government until after menopause. As long as we're have anatomy lessons, let me borrow a term from Phillip Jackson and recommend that you see about having that anal-cranial inversion corrected!
I see Phil, women who sacrifice for their children you describe like this: “We don't keep our women barefoot and pregnant, or treat them as inferior human beings because they sit when they pee instead of stand. We would have voted for Margaret Thatcher if she was an American.”
Now that really is the most ridiculous and pathetic statement I have ever read. Is that really what you think women do who stay at home to look after their children?
Perhaps you should also do a little research on Thatcher (as you should have done when you claimed that Aristotle thought the world was flat). Her greatest regret was that she didn’t spend the time with her children they needed. Now her son Mark, after getting involved in a coup attempt in Africa, has a criminal record, is divorced, and can’t even visit his children in the US because of his criminal record. Yes, Thatcher was right – she realized that her primary obligation should have been to her children. Britain would have survived quite fine without her – her son clearly didn’t.
But let me return to your utterly ridiculous portrayal of mothers who actually meet their obligations towards their children, and give an example.
Since this woman doesn’t need to massage her vanity by having her name mentioned, let me call her Katie. Katie got a degree from one of the two most prestigious universities in Britain. She then qualified as a lawyer and worked in one of the top legal firms in the City of London – with branches in most important cities in the Far East, Europe and the US.
But when it came to having children, she understood that her obligations lay absolutely to the life she helped create, and understood that she was the only person who could be that child’s mother. She understood that she was simply a little cog in a big world in her ‘job’ – but that she was everything to the life she created.
As Lehman Brothers so aptly demonstrates, we are all absolutely dispensable to company, boss, clients, voters, and everything else – including, or perhaps especially, a president. The only thing that is not dispensable is the mother who gives birth to a child. Even the father is dispensable.
It simply beggars belief that you could think that admiring the qualities that women have to bring new life into this world, and nourish, cherish, and educate that life, is somehow insulting. To describe these women who recognize their obligations towards the life they create, and recognize that they are the only people on the planet who are equipped and gifted with the qualities to ensure that that life receives the attention and care it needs, as “barefoot and pregnant” “inferior human beings because they sit when they pee instead of stand” is simply the height of stupidity and ignorance.
Let me say this (to adapt Tom Horn), the likes of Palin are not women enough to kiss the likes of Katie’s butt even if they stood on their husbands’ shoulders.
I won’t address any more of the Comments since, as Obama might say, they are simply more of the same – and I don’t even like Obama – he just makes McCain and Palin look like hypocritical idiots.
The only other Comment I want to straighten out is from Patrick Mulligan who thinks that I am Catholic (I think it was you Patrick, but if not, my apologies).
I simply have no idea how you could have got that impression – I suggest you read some of my articles.
I can tell you emphatically that I am not Catholic – neither am I Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, and especially not Evangelical – if that is a separate sect. Neither, for the record, am I Jewish, Moslem, Hindu or Buddhist. And if that doesn’t cover it – then I am not one of those others either.
And for those who do subscribe to these religions without applying the greatest gift God has bestowed on us, our reason, I suggest you reflect and pray on these statements:
“Therefore when thou doest alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee … that [you] may have the glory of men. Verily I say unto you, [you have your] reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.” [Matthew 5:2-3]
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues [churches] and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.” [Matthew 6:5]
But at least all this Palin worship has taught me something – the vast majority of conservatives, to adapt Palin’s favorite talking point, simply talk the talk, but can’t walk the walk – they’re hypocrites. Quite a revelation from someone who, until now, regarded himself as conservative.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
To Joe:
Perhaps we should keep all women out of the workplace so they could nurture their children in your way. This is as silly as some of your blowing off the accomplishments of women over the ages. By not being "religious" you can opt out the idea that some women are placed in circumstances by God, and perhaps not by their own vanity. You need to rethink your position.
“I see Phil, women who sacrifice for their children you describe like this: “We don't keep our women barefoot and pregnant, or treat them as inferior human beings because they sit when they pee instead of stand. … Now that really is the most ridiculous and pathetic statement I have ever read. Is that really what you think women do who stay at home to look after their children?”
*** No Joseph. It’s a reaction to the silliness of the world you proposed: “I wonder if I’m the only person left on this planet who still notices that woman have wombs, breasts, and such things, that are specifically designed, by nature or God, to equip them to look after their children. … So if, as I happen to believe, a woman’s obligation is to provide what is best for the life she creates, then surely it is a breach of her obligations to run off to work 3 days after her baby is born, as Palin did, and leave the baby with some substitute. … [T]o want to abandon a child you bring into this world because you get a kick out of going to a job (something I have always been perplexed by – I really don’t see the big deal in sitting in an office) is something very different.”
Note: That “substitute”, by the way, was the baby’s father.
No one is insulting women who choose to stay home and care for their child. What I and others are doing is NOT insulting women who return to work after giving birth. As the father of a child that I raised jointly with my wife, it’s possible to provide love and care for that child through both parents, not only the mother.
As for this focus you have on breast milk, well, twenty five years ago they had devices that allowed this milk to be expressed and refrigerated for later use that day. Perhaps things are not as advanced overseas.
You are the one who wants to assign gender-specific roles to all women because they have breasts, and you are the one who thinks this is what defines conservatism, and thus you are the one that concludes that we are all hypocrites because we don’t accept your premise and interpret the Bible exactly as you do.
As for Thatcher, if you really want to make the case that her son has a criminal record because she was PM, go for it. Al Gore’s wife didn’t work, but his son was convicted of DUI. How is this possible? Joe Biden’s second wife raised his kids for him, and he’s about to go on trial. How is that possible? Hillary Clinton was an attorney while her daughter was growing up, but somehow Chelsea Clinton has managed to stay out of jail … as has my daughter.
By the way, regarding your observation that “The only thing that is not dispensable is the mother who gives birth to a child. Even the father is dispensable,” If you really believed this, then the best raised and emotionally developed children will come from single mothers on welfare.
You’ve created a world for “Conservative principles” that consists of only what you define conservatism to be, and have overlayed your own interpretation of biblical commands and biological imperatives on this world, and branded everyone who acts differently than you insist a hypocrite, or worst.
You’ve started with a conclusion and worked backwards to prove it. This isn’t analysis. It’s propaganda.
hvance – religion and God are not the same thing. That, in fact, is a central message in the Scriptures – read the Prophets some time.
Nurturing children is not a question of my way – its the right way – whether bestowed by God or by nature.
I simply have no idea what you are talking about when you say "blowing off the accomplishments of women over the ages." Its about nonsensical as the rest of your comment.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Phil, as I have already said, your comment is simple more of the same.
On Thatcher, I am not making the point – she made it. Research, Phil, research.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
I must not have had enough breast milk when I was a child — thus my inability to comprehend.
Rest assured, though. I’ve tried very hard to make up for that deficiency in my adult years. Fortunately, the wife has been more than cooperative.
To Joe:
Sadly some must be led by the hand, you are one. By acknowledging that God is our Creator, by definition, a religion is present. And oh yeah, your opinion of nurturing children being the right way, which I agree with, appoints you as the judge, jury and executioner. That is scary when someone thinks that he alone is the truth. And last but not least of your weak dismissals, "blowing off the accomplishments of women of the ages", may I mention Curie, Joan of Arc, Catherine, Mary, Cleopatra, just to name a few. Perhaps you should be introduced to Google before your comments.
I won’t waste any more of my time dealing with the ridiculous Feminist-regurgitated claptrap that is pouring out in the various comments here.
I will say this however. The reason I started my article with the quotes I did was precisely because I did expect this sort of feminist denigration of women who have the sense and courage to meet their obligations towards the life they bring into this world (and in case you didn’t know Phil, there is a difference between a woman’s methods of doing her ablutions, and bringing a human life into existence).
Anyway, let me remind readers of those quotes. “With stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain” – so I won’t try to do what the god’s are incapable of doing. That quote I put in specifically for the ‘new feminist conservative movement’.
The other quote, that ‘half the nation is mad, and the other not very sound’, applies to both conservatives and liberals – republicans and democrats. In case any one was wondering, the mad half are the Republicans/conservatives – the Democrats/liberals are the not very sound lot.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
I'm still working on trying to make up for lost breast feeding so I don't end up trying to overthrow some African country like Margo's kid did.
“Half the nation is mad, and the other is not very sound”
Well that begs the question of whom your message is intended to reach? Maybe it is Cardozo The Parrot?
hvance, I just couldn’t resist responding to your last Comment.
I don’t need to Google all this. For example, we have taken our children to see where Joan of Arc was put to the stake in Rouen (that’s in France, by the way). There’s an excellent restaurant overlooking the spot – wonderful seafood. I can’t remember the name, but you can’t miss it – it’s on two stories.
That aside, you obviously seem to think that ‘civilization’ is built on a few people rather than the values and morality of ordinary people.
The mess we are in is precisely as a result of people simply following blindly what a bunch of idiot politicians and ‘opinion makers’ tell them.
As Schweitzer said, “The modern man is lost in the mass in a way which is without precedent in history, and this is perhaps the most characteristic trait in him. His diminished concern about his own nature makes him as it is susceptible, to an extent that is almost pathological, to the views which society and its organs of expression have put, ready made, into circulation.” That’s from The Decay and Restoration of Civilization. If Schweitzer saw the Palin hysteria currently gripping the masses, I think he would left out the “almost” before the word “pathological,” and perhaps left out the “Restoration” part of the title.
But getting back to Thatcher, I thought a mention of her daughter’s thoughts may be instructive:
“She (Carol) has made it clear that when it comes to mothering, Margaret Thatcher makes the Queen look like Maw Broon. When her mother recently complained that her children were absent from her life, Carol retorted that: "A mother cannot reasonably expect her grown-up children to boomerang back, gushing cosiness and make up for lost time. Absentee mum, then Gran in overdrive is not an equation that balances".
As you may know, Carol didn’t have children because she wanted a job and recognized women can’t do both – it’s one or the other. I have the highest regard for her integrity and plain commonsense.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
A woman can't have a job and children? So the stork brought my daughter?
Platitudes aren't policies, any more than anecdotes are universal facts. Nor does one person’s assumptions about conservatism makes it the one and only “True Conservatism”. Seems like we’ve been through this before with the “race matters” crowd. Now, it’s “sex matters”.
Phil, as I’ve just pointed out in my response to your Comment on my “Ten Commandments” article (copied below for ease of reference by other readers), you really don’t get it, do you?
Here’s the response:
“Really Phil, don’t you get it?
You don’t have to subscribe to a religion to read the Scriptures – that in fact is the entire basis of the Reformation.
Are you really trying to say that only those who subscribe to one religion or another are entitled to form an opinion on what the Scriptures say and mean. If that is your position, then all religions are illegitimate because they are someone’s ‘belief’ in what the Scriptures say, and, according to you, they had no ‘right’ to do that.
But why don’t you answer the question Phil – are you saying that the moral code (the Ten Commandments, God’s Law) which the Scriptures say was handed down directly by God is somehow superseded by some special revelation directly to you?
Or are you saying that the God revealed in the Scriptures is not in fact the real God – but that you know who that real god is, and that he has revealed exclusively to you his Universal Moral Code, or as you like to say, his UMC?
I really do think it is time you clarified these issues rather than make snide remarks.”
My point is really very simple – women can’t have both. Even animals don’t abandon their children before they are ready to fend for themselves.
I wondered how long it would take you to throw in the ‘racism’ thing – your previous Comments have held out the bait. And I notice that you always introduce this “policies” thing when you are put on the spot.
Why don’t you devote your next Comment or article to explaining how God got it so wrong when He gave us the Ten Commandments rather than your vastly superior UMC – Universal Moral Code. We could then at least have something resembling a sensible discussion.
I wait in animated expectation!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Sigh:
As I answered you before, I agree there is a difference between God and religion, which I've stated repeatedly and you apparently agree with in at least one of your comments:
“If there is a God-given universal moral code, then the Ten Commandments are it” Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | September 16, 2008
“Religion and God are not the same thing.” Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | September 16, 2008
The Ten Commandments come from religion. The UMC is shared by everyone, and doesn't have to be taught.
If you're going to critique my work, at least read it. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/
On the other hand, when you make your points, try saying the same thing to different audiences, instead of separating God and religion at one point, and then saying God and religion are the same thing at another point. You can't have it both ways.
Some excerpts from my previous writings on this subject:
“My central position is that a Universal Moral Code (a) exists, (b) can be expressed in principle as “it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life,”1 and (c) from this general statement, we can give specific, universal examples about the content of the moral code. I used the violent rape and murder of a five-year-old child to illustrate both harm and pure innocence,2 and to demonstrate the universal moral repulsion this act brings to people regardless of where they live, or when they lived. It is as true today anywhere in the world as it was a thousand years ago, and will be a thousand years in the future.
“Because of this, I further contend that the UMC is not a product of shared education, societal influences, or the result of human genetics, but rather is a value judgment that is ingrained into every human being as a constituent part of them at the moment of conception. It is “instinctive” in the way it reveals itself. But the content of the value(s) it expresses is not due to simple “instinct.” [These values come directly from God, instilled at the moment of conception] …”
“[Regarding a religion’s attempt to define God]. Maybe we got it right by calling him Jesus or Jehovah, and maybe we didn’t. And maybe our description of God’s ‘physical’ or ‘psychological’ attributes are accurate, or maybe they aren’t. But all this is irrelevant to the fundamental question of does God exist? Whatever we humans think about God doesn’t define whether God exists or not. God is that which created the universe. … Therefore, discussing God and the nature of God-given morality is not the same thing as discussing one religion’s understanding of God, and the tenets and rules they create to express those beliefs.” …
“A God-imposed morality, which occurs by way of man’s attempt to directly access God’s mind, is by definition imperfect. Even if we accept that some religious teaching are divinely inspired, divine inspiration is not the same thing as totally, completely, unmitigatedly correct. Thus the phrase “divinely inspired” instead of simply “divine.” However, when God gives us a common moral code directly at the moment of conception it requires no human intervention to transport this code, other than the simple act of conception. Thus a God-instilled morality possesses none of these problems.” …
“Morality exists independent of what men want to define as moral or immoral. In fact, the more men try to define morality through common consensus (i.e. it’s okay to abort a baby at 19 weeks, but a crime at 20 weeks), or through a personalized interpretation of “God’s commandments” (i.e. Islamo-fascist rationalizations), the less likely we are to be dealing with an inherently moral issue than a self-serving rationalization, or a religious or secular flight of fancy.” …
What men offer as moral principles in keeping with the tenets of their faith is not the same thing as a God-given universal moral code, as I explained at length in my original essay.
Morality is not what you believe personally, or what you glean from culture or society, or what a particular religion teaches about morals and values. Religion may reflect the basic concepts of morality, as well as urge individuals to make proper moral choices, but it does not provide the content of that morality any more than society, culture, or an individual does.
. . .
“[Confusing religious teachings with the universal moral code often leads to tragic consequences]. What has allowed elective abortion to supplant slavery as a national indignation is a combination of the factors I addressed [previously] — self-interest, rationalization, hidden agendas — but something else too. Those who took the “moral high ground” in sparking this debate had their own set of vested interests and hidden agendas. Beginning with prayer in public schools and other public institutions, they took key provisions of the Declaration of Independence and substituted their own religious preferences for “God” so that paying homage to “Jesus,” not following a God-given moral code, became the focus of their efforts.
“Because of this approach, moral Relativists were able to seize the debate and frame their core issues in a deceitful way. Since Religion A claims to speak for God, and the Constitution forbids the state to establish an official religion, then both Religion A and the God it speaks for must be completely removed from the secular world. This logic prevailed because the Constitution is not the Declaration of Independence, and drawing inspiration and support from God is not the same thing as making laws that reflect God’s rules as expressed by a particular religion. It didn’t matter if what Christians believed perfectly matched 95% of the beliefs of every other religion. The Constitution, though inspired by God-given rights, was still man’s law. And man’s law did not permit the establishment of an official state religion.
“By hijacking God and linking Him to a battle to promote their values, not only did the Christian community lose their fight, it allowed the notion of “God” — the basis for their claim — to be wiped out with it. This then led to an even more determined fight to infuse “politics with religion.” Relativists became even more relative to prevent their opponent’s success, and as the Relativists carried the fight to its relativistic extreme, atrocities like abortion on demand became the law of the land.
“This, ultimately, explains why a concept like abortion could take hold and flourish in a society that condemns human rights abuses, and even passes laws against cruelty to animals, but it will allow a healthy 20-year-old developing child to be killed without the same level of due process it demands for suspected mass murders and captured terrorists.
“So yes, people who substitute their own judgments about morality, whether they take them from their religious teachings or pull them out of thin air, are no more automatically speaking about the substance and content of a universal moral code than Plato, Aristotle, David Hume, Joe Shlobtnik, or any Is-Ought, Game-Theorist, Prisoner Dilemma chess player is.”
***
There’s much more to explain this line of thought in my original essay. Agree or disagree with my observations and conclusions, but don’t put up a cartoon version of what I said and pretend you’re responding to my position.
hvance, just one more thing before I retire.
When I saw your Comment about Google I asked one of my boys for their thoughts. He reminded me of our visit to Rouen. He of course knew about Currie and Cleopatra, but simply laughed when I asked him to tell me about Mary and Catherine. Which Mary, and which Catherine? He asked. He wouldn’t waste his time googling them – no surprise there!
Perhaps you should take your own advice and Google those names – although I can tell you that Catherine of Aragon is an interesting one.
Otherwise, what I said about the masses remains the same.
Phil, yes, I've seen all that before, and it changes nothing. The whole thought process is seriously defective. It's simply "interpretation". Answer the question! Did God get it wrong with the Ten Commandments?
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
I love point by point refutations to my work, the same as I do for others.
To Joe:
It seems as though I am talking to an unarmed man. Oh yeah, I guess I had better explain that comment, unarmed from an educated point of view.
To Joe:
Gee Joe, could there be more than one great woman named Mary & Catherine? Once again I will suggest Google, give it a try.
hvance: Good luck. This is the guy who keeps asking “Did God get it wrong with the Ten Commandments?”
Leaving aside the question of (a) whether God only speaks directly to Jews and no one else (after all Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and other religions weren’t there when the tablets were created), and (b) whether all translations of Hebrew are 100% accurate (culturally as well as literally), and (c) why God would directly talk to Moses but then allow confusion about such matters as “thou shall not kill” vs. “thou shall not murder” — after all, if these are words literally spoken by God, there should be no debate), might it be something simple as recognizing that religion is man’s way to connect with God, and not God’s imposition of morality on man?
My view is (as expressed above) is that a God-imposed morality, which occurs by way of man’s attempt to directly access God’s mind, is by definition imperfect. Even if we accept that some religious teaching are divinely inspired, divine inspiration is not the same thing as totally, completely, unmitigatedly correct. Thus the phrase “divinely inspired” instead of simply “divine.”
However, when God gives us a common moral code directly at the moment of conception it requires no human intervention to transport this code, other than the simple act of conception. Thus a God-instilled morality possesses none of these problems.
Discussing God and the nature of God-given morality is not the same thing as discussing one religion’s understanding of God, and the tenets and rules they create to express those beliefs. Religion may reflect the basic concepts of morality, as well as urge individuals to make proper moral choices, but it does not provide the content of that morality any more than society, culture, or an individual does. What men offer as moral principles in keeping with the tenets of their faith is not the same thing as a God-given universal moral code.
Agree or disagree with my proposition, but don’t insult our collective intelligence by summarizing the above as “Did God get it wrong with the Ten Commandments?” If that’s the only way Joseph is able to grasp the concept of God and religion, then there’s not really much more to discuss.
It's the way it is: God created perfect yet imperfect creatures, namely us. We spend our lives seeking to become more perfect, which is to say in conformance with his principles.
And no, it does not tell us completely what that perfect morality is. That's for each and every one of us to determine for ourselves. All the Ten Commandments informs us of are the goals. The journey is ours alone.
I really dislike being informed what that destination is, and that I am failing it. I KNOW I am failing it. That's the Human condition.
It's the telling me I am imperfect that's a problem to me, because usually those telling me this are themselves imperfect; but they have convinced themselves that they, and only they, "know" the proper path to that perfection.
Joseph,
Please accept my apologies: I stand corrected on your religious affiliation. Which was nothing more than a side thought anyway – the actual point, which you outrightly refused to acknowledge or address, was the seeming moral contradiction of supporting abortion for certain babies conceived under particular circumstances. A point that becomes more and more relevant as you continually insist that there is a universal morality, divorced from any particular religion. If it is universally immoral to kill "fetuses", "babies", "tissue masses", whatever your preferred terminology is (and why else would there be any reason for preventing abortion in the first place?), it should be immoral regardless of the circumstances surrounding the way in which the fetus/baby/tissue mass was originally created. This point is not meant to sidetrack from your original topic (which I guess was – HEY YOU INSANE FEMINIST PUSSIFIED HOMOSEXUAL WACKBAGS, YOU'RE HYSTERICAL), but reflects on your assessment of Sarah Palin as "mindless" for supporting the universal application of a (universal) moral principle (that it is wrong to kill fetuses/babies/tissue masses). It illustrates the thinking present throughout the entire article that "Sarah Palin is a woman; Sarah Palin works; therefore Sarah Palin is not a conservative; therefore Sarah Palin is wrong; therefore Sarah Palin is not a conservative". To "prove" this "logic" you plugged in two policy positions – support for low taxes and lack of support for abortion. Problem is, both positions you picked are pretty typical mainline conservative positions, and one of them relates directly to your argument that morality is universal! In order to believe that a support for low taxes or a lack of support for abortion is not conservative, one must already have accepted the premise that Sarah Palin is not a conservative, and therefore no position that Sarah Palin supports can be conservative. This is so egregious an example of the "begging the question" logical fallacy that it could almost have come from a definition of the term in a critical thinking textbook.
I can certainly understand why you would not want to address my actual comment, and instead focus the discussion on trivialities like your denominational affiliation, Joan of Arc, the Ten Commandments (my Bible must be missing pages or something – I missed the one that commanded women not to involve themselves in politics or leadership while they have children), the Thatcher family, and the sexual and philosophical orientation of those who disagree with you. It should hardly come as a surprise when one logical fallacy follows another (for those keeping track, that would be the "red herring" and "ad hominem" to follow up the "begging the question"). But, as I'll note for a third and final time, it still isn't a substitute for an actual argument. If at some point in the future you come up with an actual argument, don't hesitate to post it – this is a group that respects intellectually honest and logically consistent debate… on those rare occasions when we actually see it :)
Once again, thank you all for taking the time to read this article and make Comments on it. I do hope to get round to responding to the more sensible Comments in the near future.
I have just been a little busy chaining women to the kitchen sink, “barefoot and pregnant”, for having the audacity to “sit when they pee instead of stand”. [Quotes courtesy of Philip Ellis Jackson]
It’s what we more “primitive” folk here in Europe do.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Joseph: Actually, I’m still working on making up for all that lost breast-feeding time from my youth so I don’t get the urge like Thatcher’s kid to overthrow some African country. Besides, the maid does the dishes.
The interesting thing to all of us about your original essay, as well as the vitriol of your responses to those who dared disagree with your dictates about conservatism, is the thin-skinned nature of your debate. You cannot accept any questioning of your position without taking it as a personal attack, and you can’t respond to any specific challenges other than to dismiss them with blanket statements.
If you want to put your ideas out for discussion, don’t be afraid to debate them. I’ve had two people (Jim Carmine and Raymond Ingles) formally debate my ideas about a UMC. I didn’t tell Jim he was a phony conservative, or belittle Raymond’s religious beliefs to dismiss his objections. Rather, I went point by point through their objections in an adult manner. We may still disagree about certain points, but the debate has allowed each of us to fully clarify our views on this matter. And from that clarity a lot of good conversation has taken place.
This kind of debate isn’t possible when someone makes categorical value judgments about our belief systems and refuses to engage in debate about the objections raised to your theories. So save the sanctimony for someone who cares, because all it does is invite the ridicule you’ve richly deserved.
I have now wasted a bit of time looking over the various Comments, and they are all ‘more of the same’ verbiage – assuming that those who have produced this verbiage better understand the meaning of that word that their new heroine Sarah Palin. Yet, ironically, Palin’s categorization of McCain’s policies as “verbiage” (her Hannity interview) perfectly describes pretty much every utterance that comes out of McCain’s mouth.
All I can say in response to all this “verbiage” is that von Schiller grossly underestimated the “struggle” which the god’s face.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Phil, since you like to cross-reference Comments from my Ten Commandments article to this, I though it might be instructive to the readers to copy my last response from that article. Here it is:
“Phil, your last Comment is as silly as your first article I responded to.
You make fabulous pronouncements about things which you really know nothing about. Your latest is that ‘religion gave rise to the Ten Commandments’. I’ll deal with that momentarily.
Our first encounter occurred because you claimed that Aristotle thought the world was flat. That was patently false, and clearly demonstrated that you knew nothing about Aristotle even though you were happy to attribute to him false thoughts.
When I offered you a way out (because of your poor grammatical construction), by giving you the opportunity to retract, you claimed that you meant that the people at the time of Aristotle thought the world was flat. Of course, you could provide no evidence of that either – you simply throw out these factually ridiculous statements without ever checking anything. I demonstrated that you were wrong about that as well.
In between then and now, you have made so many similar gaffs, and arguments that don’t even meet the fundamental requirements of logical argument, that I decided to refrain from correcting you – until the verbiage you produced in response to this and my Palin argument.
Now let me return to your latest gaff – that religion gave rise to the Ten Commandments. That statement simply demonstrates that you haven’t even read the first two books of the Scriptures, let alone understood them.
Before the Ten Commandments, there was only the Jewish People, not the Jewish religion. The Jewish religion rests squarely on The LAW (derived from the Ten Commandments). So how on earth can you claim that the ‘religion’ preceded the basis of the religion’?
Phil, all this simply demonstrates that you base everything you say, and all your arguments, on assuming that your opinion of this or that must render it true – from Aristotle, to your latest ridiculous statement about the Ten Commandments. Your ‘philosophy’ is simply ‘because Phil ‘thinks’ this or that, it must be true’.
With that, I hope this is the last time I will have to deal with your fantasies!”
I trust that deals with your last Comment.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Joseph: We can only hope that von Schiller and god will accept our apology for wasting your time.