j8ear

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?

erion

What a closed minded pile of crap.

I was fully intending to respond to this point by point, but as I approached the end of the post I became more and more disgusted.

What it comes down to is that, in America, people don't have to abide by anyone's particular brand of moral correctness. If I want to live and worship as a Christian, I can certainly do that. However, I don't have the right to impose my definitions of morality on anyone else against their will. If I choose to worship my cat and obey her mental commands, I can do that as well, as long as I don't force anyone else to do otherwise.

What is being perceived as a swing to the left is really just a modern reading of constitutional law. As we move toward a more enlightened (in terms of knowledge and understanding) society, it becomes clear to most people that the Christian Moral standard which underlies many laws in the united states must be re-interpreted for a modern age. This may involve, for the time being, explicitly defining rights for certain minorities (homosexuals and bisexuals, minority religions) that older interpretations of the law would have allowed to be excluded, but only until it becomes an accepted norm that all people should be able to speak, act, worship, conduct business, live, and love as they choose, so long as it doesn't involve economic, mental or bodily harm to another individual.

This article accuses the "State Church of the Left" of trying to force its agenda on others, but what modern civil rights and environmental law is really doing is moving people away from the idea that the law is only meant to protect people who think and believe and act the same way that an ever-shrinking, ever-more-vocal minority believes is acceptable.

Limiting rights to certain groups based on any number of factors limits the potential of humanity to reach its full potential.

Macheath

As a 3rd year uni student, I'm really damn sick of ideologues who don't use footnotes. Or even worse, they use footnotes that aren't really footnotes. Claytons footnotes, ersatz footnotes.

Like footnote 1 - how about Stevie gives us a run down on the estates who suffer under this liberal oppression?

Or footnote 2 - well, we either have to take his word for it or do our own damn research.

Let's put the word "public" in cute inverted commas cos every good citizen knows what that equals. COMMUNISM.

Guess what - Farrell wrote a book.

NewsMax calls it “An inspirational story about one woman’s lonely journey through bitterness, hate and despair to faith, love and hope; one boy’s voyage through panic and peril to sympathy and service; one drunk-driver’s arduous ascent through uselessness and justice to redemption and mercy and one father’s inspired insight and influence pointing the way, but can he walk the walk? Destined to be a timeless classic, Dark Rose will touch the heart and brings hope to all who read it.”

If you hurry, you can get it with Ann Coulters "Treason" for $31.12 at Amazon.com.

Yes, I know this post is well deserved character assasination and snide sniping. I'll leave the "analysis" to some other "commie" who isn't drunk.

lurkette

Hey, j8ear! Glad we didn't scare you off. Welcome back to the fray!

Up till this point the guy's just been blustering. But here I'd say he has a point, witness our late discussion in the Canadian printshop thread. I'll fess up - I do think that modern liberalism (I refuse to capitalize it) has a higher moral perspective than "the people." For the most part I trust people to take care of themselves, but I don't trust people to think in larger moral terms than "I believe X so it must be true, and everyone else should behave accordingly" nor do I believe most people have the capacity or the willingness to consider complex issues in terms of their systemic and long-term consequences.

Where liberalism fails, in my book, is in not fessing up to this! We pretend to be all relativistic and that keeps us from taking a stand and defending our views based not on touchy-feely principles but on moral precepts such as equality, compassion, long-term survivability, and hard scientific facts. (I have to say I part ways with liberalism where its beliefs aren't held up by the facts. I guess the problem is there aren't a lot of "facts" out there to guide policy, so I lean one way and you lean another way till the facts come in.)

Quote:

"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.

Fungi? Fruit flies? Huh? And the whole "unborn baby" thing is a philosophical issue. Is it a baby while it's still a blastocyst? At 3 months? As an individual egg and sperm, before fertilization? Argue all you want, it's shifting terrain.

Quote:

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.

That's right. If an individual's actions are going to have long-term negative consequences on an entire species (such as an endangered one), and that individual refuses to exercise proper stewardship over his or her land and refuses to accept responsibility for more than just his or her own welfare, then yes, they should not have the right to do with their land as they see fit.

Quote:

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.

I'm not sure what this guy's referring to here, but to some extent the same reply above applies here: just because someone has put blood, sweat etc into a business doesn't mean they are going to act in the best interests of their employees. Yeah, yeah, if they don't treat their employees well then they'll leave, which would be bad for the business. That's fine in a healthy economy, or where the work force has transferrable skills. I'd say many business owners, particularly large business owners, CEOs, etc., cannot be trusted to put the interests of the worker (in terms of labor relations) or of society in general (in terms of environmental policies) ahead of the profits of an elite few.

Quote:

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.

Oh that's just bullshit. How do religious fundamentalists, heterosexuals, etc. not have the right to equality before the law? Blatant rhetoric. He's just pissed that he can't discriminate against people he doesn't like.

Quote:

5. Since the advocates of this creed believe in arbitrary law and in the Hitlerian principle of collective guilt:

Blatant rhetoric, and shame on him - is his argument so weak that he has to drag out Hitler? Want me to drag out the KKK and we'll call it even?

Quote:

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.

Well here I have to agree with him. Lawsuits against gun manufacturers are pretty stupid.

Quote:

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)

First, "poor" does not equal "indolent and ignorant". Second, the children of the wealthy didn't earn that money any more than I did, so why are they entitled to it? Third, shouldn't at least some of that money go back to support the society that enabled the person to get rich in the first place? And lastly, at least in many situations the person got rich through exploitation and dishonest practice (read the biographies of Rockefeller and Carnegie) and why shouldn't it go to help some of the people on the bottom rungs? Which of poor Ken Lay's 10 houses are his kids going to inherit?

Quote:

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.

Here he loses me. I get the broad point but...hedonism?

Quote:

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

Again, bullshit. Nobody's preventing "traditional" Christians and Jews from worshiping as they please, just from mandating that it be public practice for everyone.

Quote:

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.”

Quote:

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.

How does he figure 50%? What the hell is he talking about?

Sounds like someone doesn't like the taste of secularism and woke up on the wrong side of the bed in the morning.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Charlatan

Agreed!

The problem here is that many industries have done away with specialized labour (i.e. a position in a factory, retail shop, fast food restaurant can be filled by any unskilled person). Without the need to spend a lot of time and money training new employees employers are free to exploit their labour with little worry about replacing them...

I am torn over this... many independant farms are being screwed with this. When the parents die the children are frequently in a position where they must sell of chunks of their land in order to pay the inheritance taxes. Ultimately this reduction of their land makes their farms less profitable. This has allowed two major things to happen: 1) Corporate farms have expanded allowing them to put a further squeeze to the profit magins 2) Further expansion of urban/suburban sprawl - something I see as bad but really should be debated elsewhere.

As for Lurkettes other comments... I agree BUT it is a matter of degrees. When my father died I was left what amounted to $80,000. After taxes that was $40,000. A bit of a pisser. As I saw it, he already paid taxes on that income. I can see how it is easy to get upset over those who have billions but it is essentially the same thing...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

The_Dude

nice one lurkette.


and i dont think the guy knows what "modern liberalism" (if there is such a thing) is all 'bout.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

TioTaco

Fools... the problem with liberalism is not it's beliefs but in it's pressing of those beliefs on Americans without just cause. I've yet to hear a liberal make a valid, statistically or factually based point. They just complain and make a show of their moral righteousness until everyone thinks if they don't go along with it they're a bad person.

Phaenx

Ba-zing. I like this guy for his ability to bring it to said groups grill.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

Zeld2.0

One could say the same for any of the *other* side.

So whats the point of trying anyways.

Charlatan

Examples please.

And then convince me that the same does not occur on the Right...

This is not a problem with Liberalism per se... it is a problem with people who shoot their mouths off without thinking it through. BOTH ends of the political spectrum have made valid points. As someone who tends to be a lot more "liberal" I personally feel that conpassion for my fellow human being is more important than lining my pockets with money (among other things).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Lebell

-The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994
-Gun Control in general
-The church behind my old house that tried to put in a food bank even though there were already several in the area (but they lied about it).


And just because you mentioned the Right:

-Homosexuality and the 'downfall of western civilization'
-Abortion

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Charlatan

Thank you... some quick examples from both sides of the coin.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

debaser

Fixed.

__________________