Compromise vs Moral Relativism

Monday, November 27, 2006

Compromise vs Moral Relativism

Between the Constitution as written and the liberal paradigm, no compromise is possible.  Every concession to liberal policies entails sacrificing individual political liberty.

 

When people share common principles, compromise is possible.  But when the founding principles of society, expressed in the Constitution, are attacked by liberal moral relativists bent upon destroying those principles, acceding to their demands is, not compromise, but surrender.For that reason, demands by liberal media and by voters that Congress compromise and “get something done” are really demands that we continue slowly to dismantle the Constitution.  The analogy is to heat yourself in the winter by tearing your house down, piece by piece, to burn in the fireplace.

The Constitution created a government of limited power for a religious and moral people.  Political power was to be curbed by citizens’ God-given, inalienable, natural-law individual rights to life, liberty, and private property.  As the English Glorious Revolution of 1689 established, when a ruler arbitrarily contravenes those rights, he has broken the social compact and thereby forfeited his right to rule.

The paradigm of American liberal-progressive-socialists, in diametric contrast, is an authoritarian government that has both the right and the duty to determine how people should live their lives and even what thoughts are to be permitted expression in education and public forums.  In the government envisioned by liberals, the “public good,” as defined by liberals, always trumps individual rights.

In this liberal paradigm, political-state planners are the source of economic and social well-being.  The welfare state is thought to be essential, because private individuals and private businesses are, according to liberal theory, incapable of doing the job.

Liberals are atheists or agnostics (or people who, in ignorance, believe themselves to be Christians) who believe that Judeo-Christian religious beliefs should be eliminated from government and education.  Many liberals insist that the First Amendment’s ban on establishing an official religion means that the United States should be free from spiritual religion altogether.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., our first socialist Supreme Court member, wrote that morality should play no role in the law.  This, despite Tocqueville’s observation in 1832 that Christianity was the most influential single factor in America’s uniquely successful republican democracy.

At the same time that individual political liberties are steadily curtailed, liberalism advocates no-holds-barred personal hedonism.  Liberals want an amoral society that accepts, even welcomes, foul language, flouting social custom, abortion, sexual promiscuity, same-sex marriage, and an endless list of things designed to corrode and erode the social compact upon which the Constitution was based.  Imposing hedonism, usually by judicial fiat, is a curtailment of individual political liberty.

Compromise with liberals thus necessitates accepting moral relativism, the idea that there are no timeless, religious or philosophical principles of morality flowing from the relationship between humans and God, the Creator of the universe.  One might as well say the 2 + 2 = 4 applies as a principle only when that answer serves the interests of the observer.

Historically, political societies that abandoned their early core beliefs and pursued the course of moral relativism thereafter fell victim to outside aggressors or slowly declined in economic well-being.  Not content with that inevitability, liberals want to accelerate the process by subordinating the Constitution to so-called international law and a world government under the UN.

Truth vs Moral Relativism

Truth vs Moral Relativism

The liberal media denounce Pope Benedict’s adherence to Biblical and historical truth as rigidity.  They want pragmatism and flexibility, which amounts to moral relativism.

Read More…

function showHide(entryID, entryLink, htmlObj, type) { if (type == “comments”) { extTextDivID = (‘comText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘comLink’ + (entryID)); } else { extTextDivID = (‘extText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘extLink’ + (entryID)); } if( document.getElementById ) { if( document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display ) { if( entryLink != 0 ) { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “block”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “none”; htmlObj.blur(); } else { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “block”; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } }
Pope Benedict and Christianity stand accused of “divisiveness.”

Liberals, along with Muslims, denounced the Pope last September when he spoke at the University of Regensburg.  The New York Times demanded an apology for his lack of sensitivity.

What exactly had he done?

As reported in a VOA News article by Sabina Castelfranco, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of Islam and violence. At a morning mass, he rejected the use of God’s name to justify hatred and fanaticism. In a theological address to academics at Regensburg University, the pope spoke of the relationship between faith and reason and Islam’s holy war, Jihad. Historically, he said, spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable and therefore, ungodly.

This so distressed Muslims that they were driven to murder Catholic nuns and priests and to destroy Christian churches to prove that Islam is not a religion of violence.

Now, with the Pope’s forthcoming journey to Turkey for discussions with Islamic mullahs, the media have another opportunity to chastise Christians.  The Wall Street Journal, in its edition of November 25, 2006, spotlights the Pope’s forthrightness in a front-page, feature article by Gabriel Kahn and Stacy Meichtry. 

The Journal article’s headline is A Tumultuous World Tests a Rigid Pope: Inside the Vatican, Benedict’s intellect and style intimidate. How will they play outside the Church?  Confronting Muslim anger. If you are an online Journal subscriber, read the article here.

The reporters observe disapprovingly, Nineteen months after being selected pope, Benedict is transforming the Vatican with a different style and a different stance. Beneath his blunt words and rigid style lies a profound divergence from John Paul’s buoyant optimism. Pope Benedict believes that the Roman Catholic Church must stand apart from the world of today rather than embrace it.  ….. For Benedict, the modern age is defined by growing secularism in the West and the rise of religious fanaticism most everywhere else. In order to fulfill its mission, he believes, the Church needs to shun both forces. Benedict is “pessimistic about the compatibility of the Church and the modern world,” says Mr. Spaemann.

…. Benedict’s emphasis on tradition risks alienating a broad cross-section of Catholics who argue the Church needs to become more accessible to maintain its increasingly diverse flock.

Many people mistakenly assume that, because the Journal’s editorial staff is conservative, the Journal’s news staff are similarly aligned.  This front page article is a good example, both of the Journal’s liberal slant on news coverage, and of present-day moral relativism in action.

Implicit in the article is the viewpoint that there is no such thing as truth, no such thing as right or wrong.  The writers have absorbed the relativistic view inculcated in today’s colleges and universities that flexibility and pragmatism, other names for moral relativism, ought to be the sole criteria for belief and action.  Adherence to the truth is characterized as impractical rigidity.

Flexibility and pragmatism were the watchwords of John Dewey, the 20th century’s most influential liberal-socialist-progressive.  The doctrine of Pragmatism which he popularized was that Darwin’s evolutionary hypothesis had proved everything to be continually changing and evolving.  Thus there can be no such thing as permanent moral truth from God, rooted in human nature, because there is no such thing as fixed human nature.  Pragmatism, instead, teaches that there are only actions that get you what you want, or fail to do so, in changing circumstances; the end justifies the means.

In the vein of Dewey’s philosophical pragmatism, the Journal reporters simply assume that the goal of Christian churches ought to be maximizing their membership by reaching a doctrinal compromise that would alienate the fewest people.  It seems not to have occurred to them that a Christian church has no purpose other than preaching the New Testament Gospel as written.  Without that, there is no Christian church.

Flexibility and pragmatism are the hallmarks of a society that no longer believes in itself, because it has lost touch with the traditions that brought the society into being and enabled it to survive against outside aggressors.  They are the hallmarks of societies in political decline.

Flexibility and pragmatism, as Professor James Q. Wilson wrote in astonishment, led his students to reject the judgment that Hitler’s National Socialism and his Holocaust were evil, because those students had been taught that right and wrong are unscientific value judgments.

If Pope Benedict’s allegiance to Biblical Truth alienates a broad cross-section of the Church’s diverse flock, the logical conclusion is both that the alienated portion of the flock is not truly Christian, and that some Catholic priests have drifted into heretical doctrine and taught falsehood to their parishioners.  Unfortunately, the same is true of the Protestant denominations, as well.

Compromises on Jesus’s teachings, Sunday morning entertainment, and feel-good messages are not Christianity.  Preaching the Bible’s truth is the only way to bring individuals into a fruitful relationship with God and the only way to maintain the integrity of Christianity. 

To do otherwise would be the equivalent of instructing Marine Corps volunteers in boot camp that Semper Fidelis is the motto of the Corps, but it isn’t necessary always to be faithful to your buddies in combat and to fight for each other if you have a different opinion or just don’t feel comfortable with the history and traditions of the Corps.

The path we’re on

 Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:41 AM ” A man does what is right no matter the consequences or who stands against him.”
                                                                                        -me

The enemies are numerous: Islamists, mutlicituralists, moral relativists, socialist, communists, homosexual advocates, ACLU, the list goes on and on. Reading a newspaper or watching television news is enough to drive a person over the edge. Everyday there appears a new enemy. Raising children and running a family becomes harder and harder when battling against the constant specious barrage that the world puts against you. “God, Country, and Family” is now considered a euphemism. The modern view has determined that God either doesn’t exist or he’s to busy with other issues to worry about us.  Country is only in ones mind, its a fascistic, capitalistic, xenophobic idea that deserves to die. Family is in the process of losing any definition or meaning whatsoever.

Islamists are advancing through propaganda, money, and violence. Multiculturalist and moral relativists are on the verge of destroying Europe and are making inwards in America. Socialists and Communists are siding with both the latter in hopes of eventually winning out. Homosexual advocates are trying to redefine normal with the help of the ACLU. There are no longer any inalienable rights given by God. All rights are mandated and controlled by man. No longer is opportunity the catalyst for advancement it is equal outcome. Everyone, no matter their education or work ethic, should have the same outcome in life. Make a bad decision, no problem. File a lawsuit and you can have what the other guy has. Does anybody else realize that this is an evil act? It doesn’t get the press of a Saddam or Ahmadinejad, but this is an everyday occurrence in the US. This is what is bringing us down internally. Why work hard when you can file suit?

This isn’t the bullet in the head it’s a cancer. Undetected, it grows slowly poisoning and disabling the body as it works it’s way towards the heart. The body realizes something is happening and it throws all kinds of inaffective self defense at it. None of it works. Refusing to truthfully recognize this cancer is allowing it to spread. This refusal will prevent the radical treatment needed  to kill it.

There is nothing in our country that couldn’t be righted by the return of the family. Father. Mother, and children. My guess is that if you wanted to find out how our country got into the ideological split, as well as the decrease in “smarts”, look no further back than when mother went to work. Tow income households sped up the economy and ripped the family apart. Divorce became acceptable and single mothers were their own community. The feminizing of the men and the growing independence of women metastasized into our problems today. Yes there are a lot of college degreed individuals running around. However, this doesn’t correlate to a smarter or better society. Children lacking a foundation become adults that get toppled in the wind.

Our society is commiting suicide. What used to make America strong has been scoffed at and put in the closet. It’s considered an embarrassment to accept ones frailties or failures and make the best you can. No longer is it honorable to raise your children with the discipline to overcome their own shortcomings and to utilize their talents. If a parent tries to prevent a child from performing the same mistakes they did it is purely hypocritical. Punishment for a wrong doing that the parent may have done as a child is considered wrong. This creates wishy-washy parents and undisciplined children with no shot to truly succeed in the world.

Honor, courage, and duty are ideas that have no place in our new world. They are relegated to old fashioned curmudgeons who spend their time living in the past. Men who fought wars in defense of America. Men and women who protested unequal treatment based on skin color or gender. These ideas are archaic and belong only in history books where they can be distorted and ridiculed.

This attitude prevails throughout our society from our schools to our athletics to our movies. Is there any wonder why CEO’s and politicians are found to be lacking in any moral character? Is there any wonder why children walk into schools and commit murder? This lack of morals and principles can be found as the basis for all of our country’s ill’s. In every situation there is a right and a wrong approach. With the growth of relativism neither approach is wrong. Bad is good and good doesn’t matter. Quite the future we leave for our children