Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Modern Liberalism: The State Church of the Left

j8ear · 07-22-2003, 11:14 AM

Never heard of the Washington Dispatch, but the tone of this article sure seems hardcore Christian right wingish. I found it interesting none-the-less.

Anyone have any comments or thoughts?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
link here: http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6162.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern Liberalism: The State Church of the Left
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by Steve Farrell
Jul 21, 2003

One of the most controversial and confusing of all issues for many is, just what is the proper role of religion and morality in public life?

In search of the right answer, today, we are compelled to conclude that there "is a famine in the land" - with nearly all sides of the debate muddled up to their necks in poor history, poor politics, poor reasoning, and all too often, poor religion—having nothing better to offer than a multifaceted deliberation where few seem to know where religion and morality are appropriate and where they are not.

The unspoken consensus, though few will admit it, goes something like this: "It is appropriate to inject religion and morality into political debate and into public policy just so long as the moral slant parallels my moral view of the universe, and it is highly inappropriate if it does not."

One popular point of contention on the issue, Modern Liberalism, favors the relative ethics of Humanism and Socialism sprinkled creatively with Judeo-Christian teachings. Its cardinal dogma is that "the ends justify the means," or in other words, "anything goes, just so long as the political goals of the revolution are served."

It is a flexible creed which turns a blind eye to any dilemma of conscience that a constant round of moral reversals ought to cause, one which fights against all religious involvement in public life, while aggressively campaigning for a broader and broader interpretation of just what is public—yet one which applauds any decidedly liberal professor of religion, insuring that just such ministers are honored with Noble Peace Prizes, idolized with public statues, glorified by children by way of public school mandates, and held true to the faith throughout their lifetime via obligatory cultural awareness seminars for all adult “public” employees.

Recognizing the religious nature of most human beings as a fact, while publicly denouncing the same as “mere speculation,” the creed of liberalism employs other strategic uses of religion such as placing a constant parade of victims before our eyes, hoping that the moral sensitivities every human possesses might be misdirected into seeing a logical link between the Biblical invitation to "love thy neighbor as thy self" and the Marxian mandate to "rob from the rich to give to the poor."

Further, while this creed has banned our forefathers' Judeo-Christian based teachings from the classroom, it has mandated (in many places) the teaching of the religious traditions of indigenous peoples who, consistent with the creed of Modern Liberalism, view property and natural resources in terms of collective ownership.

The truth is, Modern Liberalism does not oppose moral law; rather it haughtily believes that it has a fresher, higher, smarter moral perspective than that contrived by the rough and puerile rabble. Thus, the advocates of this creed feel compelled to share it, to order it, to mandate it—and with the power of the state behind them, they have met with great success in decreeing their religion throughout the land. Among this creed's leading precepts, we find the following moral peculiarities, among many others:

1. Unborn babies do not possess the inalienable right to life; but fungi, fruit flies and convicted murderers do.
2. Ranchers and farmers do not have the right to control, develop and utilize their private property as they please; but rodents, predators and desert tortoises do.
3. Business owners who have put blood, sweat, tears and a great deal of financial risk into engendering an enterprise, do not possess the right to manage their employees creatively, as per their best interest; but distant bureaucrats do.
4. Religious fundamentalists, heterosexuals, capitalists and white males do not have the moral right to equality before the law; but hedonists, gays, socialists and minorities of every stripe do.
5. Since the advocates of this creed believe in arbitrary law and in the Hitlerian principle of collective guilt: gun manufacturers, gun dealers and parents who legally produce, sell or own private firearms do not have the right to leniency and protection before the law for crimes committed with those weapons (by others); but criminals who choose to misuse those same weapons do.
6. The children of industrious and intelligent parents who have labored a lifetime to provide property, finances, employment and education for their family members do not have the right to be eligible upon their parent’s death to inherit what is rightfully theirs; but unrelated children of indolent and ignorant parents do. (1)
7. Finally, because this creed defends the utilitarian moral position that the good of the group and the rights of the group always exceed the good of the individual and the rights of the individual—except when the curators of this creed say that they don't—its proponents are fully in favor of the state being fully in charge of every businessman's social responsibility, every school teacher's curriculum and every parent's children, and the state being fully trusted and fully the dictator of every fine point of moral conduct (except deviant conduct, which must be protected at all costs)—and thus in favor of the state on the one hand and hedonism on the other being fully worshipped.

That is, traditional Christians and Jews do not have the right to worship as they please; but Humanists, Statists and Communists do. (2)

This is the ideology of Modern Liberalism, what some call dysfunctional morality, what others call Statism, and what the communists at the UN call “civil society.” It is today’s state church, the heavy-handed religion of the left; and the fact that roughly 50 percent of all America worship before this alter of state, begging for free food, unjust privileges and endless moral accommodations, stands as a sad testimony of the pathetic state of religion, morality and education in the United States today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
1. Via inheritance taxes and wealth redistribution.
2. The liberals added to this privileged list, let us never forget, Islamic Fundamentalists, who were granted special prayer privileges on school property during public school hours by the liberal school establishment in several cities, post 9-11, as an apparent display of liberalism’s “blessed tolerance” for anyone who would in the name of God, attack America. What could be more inspired and acceptable than that?

07-22-2003, 11:14 AM	#1 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Modern Liberalism: The State Church of the Left Never heard of the Washington Dispatch, but the tone of this article sure seems hardcore Christian right wingish. I found it interesting none-the-less. Anyone have any comments or thoughts? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ link here: http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6162.shtml ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Modern Liberalism: The State Church of the Left -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exclusive commentary by Steve Farrell Jul 21, 2003 One of the most controversial and confusing of all issues for many is, just what is the proper role of religion and morality in public life? In search of the right answer, today, we are compelled to conclude that there "is a famine in the land" - with nearly all sides of the debate muddled up to their necks in poor history, poor politics, poor reasoning, and all too often, poor religion—having nothing better to offer than a multifaceted deliberation where few seem to know where religion and morality are appropriate and where they are not. The unspoken consensus, though few will admit it, goes something like this: "It is appropriate to inject religion and morality into political debate and into public policy just so long as the moral slant parallels my moral view of the universe, and it is highly inappropriate if it does not." One popular point of contention on the issue, Modern Liberalism, favors the relative ethics of Humanism and Socialism sprinkled creatively with Judeo-Christian teachings. Its cardinal dogma is that "the ends justify the means," or in other words, "anything goes, just so long as the political goals of the revolution are served." It is a flexible creed which turns a blind eye to any dilemma of conscience that a constant round of moral reversals ought to cause, one which fights against all religious involvement in public life, while aggressively campaigning for a broader and broader interpretation of just what is public—yet one which applauds any decidedly liberal professor of religion, insuring that just such ministers are honored with Noble Peace Prizes, idolized with public statues, glorified by children by way of public school mandates, and held true to the faith throughout their lifetime via obligatory cultural awareness seminars for all adult “public” employees. Recognizing the religious nature of most human beings as a fact, while publicly denouncing the same as “mere speculation,” the creed of liberalism employs other strategic uses of religion such as placing a constant parade of victims before our eyes, hoping that the moral sensitivities every human possesses might be misdirected into seeing a logical link between the Biblical invitation to "love thy neighbor as thy self" and the Marxian mandate to "rob from the rich to give to the poor." Further, while this creed has banned our forefathers' Judeo-Christian based teachings from the classroom, it has mandated (in many places) the teaching of the religious traditions of indigenous peoples who, consistent with the creed of Modern Liberalism, view property and natural resources in terms of collective ownership. The truth is, Modern Liberalism does not oppose moral law; rather it haughtily believes that it has a fresher, higher, smarter moral perspective than that contrived by the rough and puerile rabble. Thus, the advocates of this creed feel compelled to share it, to order it, to mandate it—and with the power of the state behind them, they have met with great success in decreeing their religion throughout the land. Among this creed's leading precepts, we find the following moral peculiarities, among many others: 1. Unborn babies do not possess the inalienable right to life; but fungi, fruit flies and convicted murderers do. 2. Ranchers and farmers do not have the right to control, develop and utilize their private property as they please; but rodents, predators and desert tortoises do. 3. Business owners who have put blood, sweat, tears and a great deal of financial risk into engendering an enterprise, do not possess the right to manage their employees creatively, as per their best interest; but distant bureaucrats do. 4. Religious fundamentalists, heterosexuals, capitalists and white males do not have the moral right to equality before the law; but hedonists, gays, socialists and minorities of every stripe do. 5. Since the advocates of this creed believe in arbitrary law and in the Hitlerian principle of collective guilt: gun manufacturers, gun dealers and parents who legally produce, sell or own private firearms do not have the right to leniency and protection before the law for crimes committed with those weapons (by others); but criminals who choose to misuse those same weapons do. 6. The children of industrious and intelligent parents who have labored a lifetime to provide property, finances, employment and education for their family members do not have the right to be eligible upon their parent’s death to inherit what is rightfully theirs; but unrelated children of indolent and ignorant parents do. (1) 7. Finally, because this creed defends the utilitarian moral position that the good of the group and the rights of the group always exceed the good of the individual and the rights of the individual—except when the curators of this creed say that they don't—its proponents are fully in favor of the state being fully in charge of every businessman's social responsibility, every school teacher's curriculum and every parent's children, and the state being fully trusted and fully the dictator of every fine point of moral conduct (except deviant conduct, which must be protected at all costs)—and thus in favor of the state on the one hand and hedonism on the other being fully worshipped. That is, traditional Christians and Jews do not have the right to worship as they please; but Humanists, Statists and Communists do. (2) This is the ideology of Modern Liberalism, what some call dysfunctional morality, what others call Statism, and what the communists at the UN call “civil society.” It is today’s state church, the heavy-handed religion of the left; and the fact that roughly 50 percent of all America worship before this alter of state, begging for free food, unjust privileges and endless moral accommodations, stands as a sad testimony of the pathetic state of religion, morality and education in the United States today. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes 1. Via inheritance taxes and wealth redistribution. 2. The liberals added to this privileged list, let us never forget, Islamic Fundamentalists, who were granted special prayer privileges on school property during public school hours by the liberal school establishment in several cities, post 9-11, as an apparent display of liberalism’s “blessed tolerance” for anyone who would in the name of God, attack America. What could be more inspired and acceptable than that?