Moral Relativists view truth as an oozing, fluid idea. What was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow. Feelings determine morality. Truth is an evolving entity, much like the Constitution of the United States in their eyes. The self-esteem movement is a reflection of the impact moral relativism has had on our culture. Moral absolutism produces guilt when we do something wrong. Guilt is bad. On the other hand, moral relativism allows us to rationalize away such unpleasantness, which makes us happy. Happiness is good. Therefore, feelings ultimately define morality for the Relativist. Self-esteem is the name of the game. For moral absolutists, it is just the opposite … More…
By Tom Quiner
Step back with me.
Let us look at the big picture.
These are strange times. The Left thinks we are nuts. We on the Right think they are nuts.
A personal story: A fellow parishioner from my church put up a post on her Facebook page with a link to an article where Mitt Romney said, as president, he would try to get rid of Planned Parenthood.
The parishioner’s response? “Another reason to vote for Obama.”
This comment comes from a Catholic running for public office as a Democrat. Her philosophy: anyone against Planned Parenthood is against the Democratic Party.
By the way, she is a lovely person, other than this benign notion of Planned Parenthood.
She and I represent the disconnect in America.
How can people who are so similar in so many ways see the world so differently?
It’s complicated. But I think it comes down to this question: who are the oppressors?
You’ve watched two highly visible and opposing movements emerge in recent history: the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street (OWS).
Both are concerned with oppression, but view the oppressors through different lenses.
Tea Partiers view Big Government as the oppressors. Tea Partiers rail against Constitutional overreach by the government. They oppose expansion of entitlement programs, because they know we just can’t afford them. They feel oppressed by a government that reaches deeper and deeper into their lives … and pocketbooks … with the corresponding diminishment of personal freedom.
The OWSers view productive people (“the rich”) as their oppressors. They loath Wall Street. Government is the solution. Government must reach deeper into the lives of everyone to right the ship, but they should only reach deeper in the pocketbooks of the productive. Curtailment of freedom is fine, as long as the playing field is leveled through redistribution of wealth.
Who are the oppressors?
The Left reveres Planned Parenthood as an agent for “liberating” women’s bodys, the fulfillment of the feminist manifesto, “Our Bodies Ourselves,” written some 40 years ago. The oppressors? Men. The Catholic Church. Anyone who is pro-life, since they infringe on a woman’s “freedom” to discard inconvenient children.
The Left very much views the pre-born as their oppressors and fights ferociously to strip them of any human rights. They use their very powerful clout not just to defeat the pre-born politically, but to indiscriminately destroy “their bodies, themselves.”
The Right reviles Planned Parenthood as the oppressor of not only the human beings they destroy in the womb, but as the oppressors of women themselves. How does Planned Parenthood oppress women? According to the Right, PP seduces them into committing an atrocity against their own flesh and blood, all on the altar of profits (PP’s, that is). These seduced and discarded women bear the psychic scars of their actions for the rest of their lives.
Who are the oppressors?
This question may help us to understand President Obama better. The title of his book, “Dreams from My Father,” reveals his late father’s influence. Mr. Obama writes how he wept at his father’s grave, “the pain I felt was my father’s pain. My questions were my brothers’ questions, their struggle, my birthright.”
Who was his father? A man from Kenya who fought colonialism. In other words, he was an anti-colonialist who fought British domination of his country.
Anti-colonialism is the strongest force in Africa, Asia, and South America in the past one-hundred years, according to author and president of The Kings College in New York, Dinesh D’Souza. Mr. D’Souza knows something about this having grown up in India with a father who was also an anti-colonialist.
This anti-colonialism is a root cause of anti-American feelings around the world. Why? Because the philosophy divides the world into two camps: the oppressed and the oppressor. The West is the oppressor. The West, goes the thinking of the anti-colonialist, is rich on the backs of the rest of the world’s poor.
The senior Obama, writing in the East Africa Journal in 1965, said the solution to dismantling the power structure of the oppressor was confiscatory tax rates of up to one-hundred percent.
President Obama embraced America’s equivalent to the anti-colonialists as his mentors, men like the terrorist Bill Ayers and anti-America preacher, Jeremiah Wright. Mr. Obama’s dreams, according to the title of his book, came “from” his father, the anti-colonialist, the fighter of Kenya’s oppressors, the West. His father’s struggle is his “birthright” suggests the president’s book.
Who are the oppressors?
Whether they live in Des Moines or Kenya, the two sides just can’t agree,
By Tom Quiner
What is a principle?
It is an essential truth upon which other truths are based.
Former U.S. Senator and Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, embraced a principle that human life begins at conception. He was clear and unequivocal:
“It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply.”
In 1987, he wrote to a constituent the following:
“During my 11 years in congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding for abortions. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to furthering this goal.”
Al Gore’s essential truth was clear: abortion kills a human being.
The late Senator Edward Kennedy was even more eloquent in his defense of human life at its earliest stages:
“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is
my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.”
What separates man from the animals? It is the ability to love. Senator Kennedy recognized that man is made in God’s image. What is God? Why God is an eternal exchange of love, says Pope Benedict XVI. Ted Kennedy acknowledged the right to life on the basis that every human being, from her or his conception, has the right to love. After all, God IS love.
Mr. Kennedy’s support for the rights of the preborn was grounded in the longstanding tradition of American liberalism to watch out for the little guy, as powerfully confirmed with these words of compassion:
“I share the confidence of those who feel that America is working to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who cannot protect themselves. I also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society’s problems — an inadequate welfare system, unsatisfactory job training programs, and insufficient financial support for all its citizens. When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”
Mssrs. Gore and Kennedy were joined in their commitment to life by other stalwarts of the Democratic Party.
Former Congressman and presidential candidate, Richard Gephardt, was crystal clear in his support of the principle that human life begins at conception in these words from 1984:
“Life is the division of human cells, a process that begins with conception…. The [Supreme Court’s abortion] ruling was unjust, and it is incumbent on the Congress to correct the injustice. I have always been supportive of pro-life legislation. I intend to remain steadfast on this issue…. I believe that the life of the unborn should be protected at all costs.”
The Reverend Jesse Jackson, a man of God and former Democratic candidate for president, compared abortion to slavery:
“There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life … that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.”
Mr. Jackson’s point is compelling. With soaring rhetoric, he extrapolated that unchecked abortion rights could create a “hell right here on earth” …
“What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the
life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.”
Even former President Bill Clinton, voiced his opposition to abortion in these remarks in 1986 when he was Governor of Arkansas:
“I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong.”
Mr. Clinton’s remarks were revealing, though. You’ll notice that he wasn’t opposed to abortion based on an essential truth. Rather, he opposed it because enough voters thought it was wrong.
Mr. Clinton revealed the true principle of his party. They weren’t truly concerned with the little guy. They were concerned about votes. They wanted power. They had their finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing, and when it shifted direction, they abandoned their essential truth and embraced another. And so each of the men quoted above not only changed their mind on this subject, they became vocal supporters of unfettered abortion rights.
This wasn’t a little issue like, say, the minimum wage. This was a life and death issue. And one by one, the party of the little guy abandoned their essential principle to win votes from a powerful and growing constituency, liberal, anti life feminists.
For years, Democrats tried to straddle this issue in their Platform by calling for abortions to be “safe, legal, and rare.” But by 2008 and the arrival of Barack Obama, they dropped the charade. Their Platform, which expresses their current essential truths, is clear:
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
Not only do they view abortion as a fundamental right, they have set the stage for taxpayers to fund their newest essential truth, regardless of the religious sensibilities of the electorate.
The Democratic Party now says that the essential truth they so fervently embraced yesterday was wrong, that they have discovered a new essential truth in abortion.
Who knows what they will believe in tomorrow? Anything is possible for a party that believes Truth is fluid.
In the meantime, 54 million Americans are dead because of their abandonment of their principle and hell has come to earth.
Telemed abortion allows Planned Parenthood doctors to be more productive and profitable. A single doctor can administer a larger quantity of abortions throughout the state without the expense of traveling to remote locations. More…
By Tom Quiner
Quiner’s Diner is taking a much-appreciated vacation in Arkansas, so we won’t be posting as often as usual this week.
The photo above is the view I have from the deck on my cabin . I have a tall stack of books next to me, as this is very much a reading vacation for my wife and I.
It is also a thinking time.
I can barely pick up a cell phone signal and have difficulty accessing the internet, so I’m not very up to date on what is happening in the world the last four days.
Nonetheless, I’ve been thinking about the riots in London before I left.
Great Britain has erected a social-welfare structure that is the envy of American liberals. And yet their populace rages.
The mindset of democratic socialism is “what’s in it for me?”
The same dynamic is at work in America. A great war wages in America over the size and scope of government. The Party in power has expanded government dramatically, some would say precipitously.
If it weren’t for the restraint of the Party out of power, our government would quickly expand to the size of Great Britain.
Is this a healthy thing?
Like Britain, we are breeding a generation being raised in broken homes. As Peggy Noonan said in her column last week:
“Some of these young people come from brokenness, shallowness and terror, and are bringing those things into the world with them. Here are some statistics of what someone last week called a new lost generation. In 2009, the last year for which census data are available, there were 74 million children under 18. Of that number, 20 million live in single-parent families, often with only an overwhelmed mother or a beleaguered grandmother. Over 700,000 children under 18 have been the subject of reports of abuse. More than a quarter million are foster children. “
What characterizes this generation? A warped value system, and my generation deserves some of the blame. What is this value system? It is this:
“My individual freedom supercedes yours’.”
“My desires mandate new rights.”
“Children can and should be sacrificed at the altar of my wants and needs.”
What is lost in all of this is the value of self-sacrifice.
Someone asked if this were 1939 and the Germans attacked and Britain had to go to war to survive, could the current crop of tattooed, rioting thugs save the Queen?
Does anyone really think they’d have a chance? They know nothing of sacrifice. They loathe sacrifice.
America isn’t much better. We have aborted 53 million American babies since Roe v Wade. If we can’t muster self-sacrifice for our kids, what on earth will we sacrifice for?
Ultimately, the real battle in America, and even throughout the world, is over religion. Here in America, two dominant religions are waging a great war with each other: Christianity and Secular Humanism.
Christianity puts God at the center of our lives.
Secular humanism puts the individual first.
Christianity reveals that truth is absolute. Secular humanism insists that truth is relative,
Christ is God to the Christian.
Mother Earth is God to the secular humanist.
Marriage is all about the potential of creation to the Christian.
Marriage is all about desires, whatever they may be, to the secular humanist.
Secular humanism is winning with the assistance, I’m ashamed to say, of Catholic politicians like Tom Harkin, Kathleen Sibelius, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and the late Ted Kennedy.
Each of these politicians have publicly staked out adversarial positions to their Church’s core convictions. Their work in the public arena is systematically establishing Secular Humanism as a state religion, complete with a new set of sacraments.
The “right” to an abortion replaces baptism as a sacrament.
The “right” to marry someone of the same gender corrupts the Christian sacrament of marriage.
This battle makes me think of a similar religious battle that took place in Poland beginning in 1945. What were the competing religions? Communism and Catholicism.
I’m reading George Weigel’s new book, “The End and the Beginning” about Pope John Paul II’s battle with communism. Weigel states:
“Among the enemies of Soviet communism, real and imagined, none was more feared by the KGB and its predecessors than the Catholic Church, which was regarded as a prime ideological enemy …”
Christianity is very much viewed as a prime ideological enemy to the secular humanists, wouldn’t you say?
“There was a ruthlessness about the communist persecution of Catholicism that was fed by a deeply ingrained paranoia – which in turn may have reflected the fact that Marxism-Leninism was itself a quasi-religious system (if of an ultra mundane sort), complete with a doctrine, a theory of morality, an idea of salvation, a concept of the “last things,” and a martyrology.”
What does this mean, according to Weigel?
“Communism and Catholicism could not peacefully coexist. In a confrontation extending over the medium and long haul of history, someone was going to win and someone was going to lose.”
In 1989, God gloriously won as Communism crumbled.
The viciousness and effectiveness of Secular Humanist’s attacks on Catholics, Baptists, and Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians has been a wake-up call to the Christian world.
The war over American values continues.
In light of the social pathology permeating America, pathology which is a direct by-product of the religion called Secular Humanism, give me Christianity.
Where does Secular Humanism lead us? Simply look to London for the answer.