Liberal Hypocrisy

[Scott]

[Alun]

[Nick_A]

[Scott]

[Nick_A]

[Juice]

I have only recently, since OB's ascension, concerned myself with liberal/progressive/leftist and/or secular ideologies. Having for most of my life believed them to be just fringe world views belatedly put to rest by Ronald Reagan, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the defeat of the Soviet Union. I thought its failures so obvious that any reasoning right minded person could shell it for the nut it realizes. Then along came Obama, right under my nose, and I had to confess that reality is a hard pill to swallow no matter how its sugar coated.

The truth is that progressivism, by any name, is a con game, hence the hypocrisy. This is noted in the attempts at over simplification of the most important concepts like origin of life and global warming. The former scientific dogmatism and the latter scientific socialism. Most notable is the measure of OB's intellect, except for the Sermon on the Mount or the Gettysburg Address, Obama gives a ten minute discourse on pie and calls it mind food. Insulting! And please don't conflate the idea that Obama talks to the camera so much that its difficult for him to find something erudite to say each time, since a smart person would wait until he came up with something important to say before turning on the teleprompter for inspiration.

Secularism is like gambling on a roulette wheel of moral and ethical values, not withstanding the probability that the wheel is rigged with human faults requiring foundational inferences in religious meanings to make them true, instead of the appearance of truth. Recognizing that religious freedom is the highest attribute of a free society and that such freedom should be promoted in the public forum as an assurance to all other freedoms should be the paramount calling of the true progressive secularist who calls for freedom. Instead what we have is a war on religion, particularly Judeo-Christian religions, which exposes the true nature of progressivism which is to deny and curtail freedoms and promote an anti-human agenda.

I found it more than telling how not only do progressives say as much as possible with as little meaning as possible but that they can actually be convinced that they never actually said anything to begin with, like our Homeland Security Director who first stated with emphasis that the system worked and the next morning chastised any Director who could believe that such a thing could be said by a Homeland Security Director. Hypocritical, or what?

Nick is on target in exposing what is certainly a world view entrenched in the prophesies of Orwell and Montesquieu to which right minded individuals should take head to recognize. I have no problem in admitting to encouraging an ideological rebellion based in a principled excisement of what amounts to an attack on humanity by the left stepped in the experimentation of the human soul and the realities of human existence and that purpose.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[Dewey]

Scott, Post #50 urges you to read a speech William Bennett made about what he called "spiritual acerbia". (It is, as you had to learn the hard way, really just called "acerbia". It became redundant when Bennett tried to make the subject into more than it really is.)

For a historical account of the subject, and to serve as a check on Bennett's factuality, I suggest you read an article by medieval scholar Ian Irving. You can find it on the Web under its title: Acedia, Tristitia, Ristitia. and Sloth: Early Christian Forerunners to Chronic Ennui"

Correction: The above references to "acerbia" should be to "acedia".

[Nick_A]

[Dewey]

Thanks, Nick. I did, of course, mispell the term. I have changed it to "acedia".

[Belinda]

Juice wrote

[Juice]

Belinda-Is any human capable of making moral and ethical declarative statements based on reason or consensus advocated through manmade rules and laws dependent on rewards and punishment? If moral and ethical clarity is instinctive then such implies an apriori objective basis implied by not fully actualized by secular reason which depends on religious foundational principles, also apriori, to lend moral and ethical values credence and substance.

Purely secular moral and ethical rational does not exist since it can and does change do to environmental influences and cultural necessities endemic to human faults and human irrationality so obviously telling in human history and character which by secular standards is used as the ruse of credibility in the fallibility of human actions. This is most evident in the progressive/leftist anti-human movements prevalent today. Not only does this belay common sense but also the inalienability of human existence in universal Truths, necessary as a guiding force to aid free will.

While the individual who basis his existence and actions on a higher authority than himself, through spiritual consciousness, has the ability to remain consistent in his moral and ethical understanding. Note the term understanding, which is not solely dependent on actions, but on the recognition of logical conclusions.

As intimated, secular rationals are steeped in material ideologies believing that human ingenuity is enough to control and form social, cultural and human characters apart from religious collaboration, which, as you admit, the secularist garners from religious philosophies. Secularism is the making of its own demise aptly characterized in Christian scripture. The logic of which being played out as we speak, the acceptance of which is just as telling as its nonacceptance.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[Dewey]

[Juice]

If we have to evaluate the value of modern American liberalism, not to be confused with Libertarianism, I would most liken it to "Screen door Political Diplomacy". We can formulate an ideal of this by examining the manipulations, and liberal administrations of New Yorks new, and old too, re-elected, or crowned Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Who is the only one who could get the job done one more time. One would think that a guy who wants to tell people how smart he is could have done so in his first term without the need to buy a third. Sure he's a Republican, but liberalism can infect any party, those darn screen doors.

Do liberals believe in free speech, sure as long as its behind cloistered doors, and you better have a licence.

Do liberals believe in a strong national security, sure as long as someone else is willing to die for it and only if they can protest against it.

Do liberals believe in the Constitution, sure as long as there is no difference between waving the flag and burning it.

Do liberals believe in limited government, sure as long as their is enough government to limit what you can and can't do.

Do liberals believe in freedom of the press, sure just wait until Internet II so the government can own what you say as well as what they can do to you for it.

Do liberals believe in separation of powers, sure as long as the locks work on the closed door policy decisions.

Do liberals believe in quality Health Care, sure as long as someone else pays for it and there are enough limits on the government to ensure enough government employees so that the lines aren't to long at the state run клиника.

Do liberals believe in Global Warming, sure as long as they have enough jets, at tax payer expense, to take them anywhere on the globe where it is warm which is far enough away from any encroaching snow storm or cold weather front, no matter what the manipulated DATA, by separation of powers, behind closed doors, says.

I thought I was happy knowing that I could feel guilty about the wrong things in this world until liberalism showed me how I could be happy about just about anything that makes me feel good no matter what anyone says or how wrong it is. The best thing about moral relativism is that its flexible, like a liquorish string, tastes the same no matter which end you start with. And if you want to share it with someone, each can take an end and meet in the middle. That way we can pretend to have had the same idea at the same time even if we started out with totally different ideas, which doesn't matter since it's all relative anyway and comes with a down payment on political favors(itism).

The limits of utilitarian reason are, when does one know when all the input is favorable to the outcome, particularly when the outcome is a desired expectation? Is this based on a possible negative emotional response or the outcome of another utilitarian reason? By any standard utilitarian reasoning is circular or worse of infinite causation.

Like depending on a screen door and wondering if anyone can see in, so you hang a curtain to be sure, while peeping through the seems at your neighbors glass door.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[Nick_A]

[Belinda]