Posted on 09/08/2014 3:22:41 PM PDT by GreyFriar
One of the fundamental problems in our society is that we argue with one another from positions of moral parochialism: we assume that the other party shares our frames of reference. That may have been true in the earlier years of our nation, but I propose that this is no longer the case. Today, we argue from different and fundamentally incompatible moral codes and value systems. It is the dichotomy between the two that confuses our discourse and creates great dangers for our country.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
This is for all to read and consider regarding the attacks on morality today.
Anybody got a handle on what "conservative" means anymore? I used to think it meant those that loved America and the values of freedom America stood for. But as a lover of freedom (by definition freedom from government coercion), I often find myself at odds with so-called "conservatives."
The term "conservative" means "keeping the status quo." So in that sense, "conservative" may very well be a moving target since the "status quo" changes all the time.
For me, its John Locke classic liberalism rooted in a judeo-Christian world view.
Its not mere traditionalism, since that can mean anything.
The so-called “moral values” voters would be well served to focus on the seemingly endless theft/financial crimes that go on every single day in the government/political/corporate world, rather than the drugs or sexual related matters that seems to get them so worked up and animated.
(flame away, I don’t care)
Too bad the article is excerpted. It is well worth reading in order to gain a better understanding of how far Marxist theology has permeated religious organizations.
"We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate standard consists solely of one's own ego and desires."
Prophetic warning from Pope Benedict XVI
Catholic ping!
I don’t know if American Thinker has restrictions, thus I excerpted the first paragraph Hopefully folks will follow the link and read the entire article. It is a bit lengthy.
As far as I’m concerned, classic liberalism equals libertarianism (not the party). I mean it’s the same thing - comes from the same root word: “liberty.” At least in that sense, I think we’re in the same camp.
Both are an acknowledgement of the value of the individual, his rights and freedoms over the group and over government. The only reason I have to call myself a libertarian (small “l”) is because “liberal” has been hijacked by the tyrants. The classic liberal had to adopt the title “conservative”, but I have come to feel it is a problematic and ambiguous label and concept. So I, like Milton Friedman, call myself a libertarian Republican.
And its because of the problem you describe, the hijacking of terminology, that I refuse to refer to the left as “liberal”. Leftists, progressives (they like that term though they are anything but), socialists, communists, marxists, populists, fascists, statists, utopians, but never liberal.
I also never refer to their idiot shock troops as “anarchists”. Because they aren’t anarchists. They are just opposed to government they don’t run; they are certainly opposed to you governing yourself.
I sometimes like you refer to myself as a small “l” libertarian, or a constitutional conservative, but everyone knew what a “classic liberal” was until the last couple of decades. Now its an uphill climb I realize.
IMO, part of the reason for this confusion is spiritual (which is also the key to our recovery). You can map this transference of values directly to a world-wide gradual rejection of God ("God is dead", etc.) around the beginning of the 20th Century. Amazingly, this godless period beginning around the start of the 20th century period came after the period of the greatest evangelical spread of Christianity throughout the world (18th and 19th centuries). These two periods map exactly with the Philadelphia and Laodicean ages written about in the Bible (Revelation 3:7-22). I'm convinced we are in the last age, (the Laodicean age described in the Bible as an essentially godless age) and this MarxPRog is a vehicle to bring about the end of the age.
When labels overlap and conflict, great confusion arises...MarxProgs overlook human rights issues that do not support their moral narrative: Black-on-black killings, OK; white-on-black killings, anathema! Christian deaths in the Levant, OK; Palestinian deaths in Gaza, anathema-plus!
And here the mask is torn off enough to see who the author of this confusion and "MarxProg" doctrine really is: Satan himself.
Heads up, Mr. President! In both cases, it isn’t and never was about “stuff.”
But Mr. President and the rest of the MarxProg (AKA Fabian-Socialist Progressives) don't care because their doctrine and agenda is not about the truth but, as the author points out, "wealth and power."
Interestingly, the author ID's "putative" conservatives as "COOPS" (Champions of the Oppressed - AKA demagogues AKA do-gooders). I know they are Republicans but do these people really call themselves "conservatives?" Obviously the days are gone when a Republican automatically meant one was a "conservative" in the classic liberal meaning of the word.
I honestly believe we are coming to the place where the only people who are not confused are born-again Christians who stay reasonably close to Jesus. This whole "Progressive" thing is not based on the truth but on acquisition of power. If it is not based on the truth, then it is based on lies. Lies never work which is why this "Progressive" thing doesn't work as evidenced by the article's descriptions.
Lies always confuse. But the truth clarifies and gives peace. And Jesus declared He IS the truth (John 14:6) and his word, the Bible is truth (John 17:17), and His Spirit is truth (John 14:17). So those that know the truth (know Jesus Christ) have peace and freedom from confusion (John 8:32).
I think you’re aware of more than most. Awareness of the truth seems to be a rarer commodity these days.
IMO, that is central to the whole theme of the article: confusion of people because more and more are unable to tell the lie from the truth (as I discuss in post #10).
Thanks for posting the link to this excellent article.
Thanks for the ping!
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.