Posted on 09/18/2016 5:00:26 AM PDT by NYer
Former Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is a socialist. So were Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and a host of other charming fellows. But Sanders makes a distinction, he stresses that he’s a “democratic socialist.” You see, Bernie needs some criterion to separate the good socialists, like him, from the moral monsters.
Bernie likes to make grand pronouncements about morality; what’s moral and what’s immoral. Bernie thinks “acting on climate change a moral obligation.” Bernie thinks that it is immoral as well as unjust that our government doesn’t provide healthcare for all; after all, all those socialist European nations provide it. He thinks America’s level of “income inequality is immoral,” not to mention “grotesque.” Sanders even had the chutzpah to go to the Vatican to preach about the “immorality of unfettered capitalism.” One might conclude that if Sanders is against it, then it’s got to be immoral.
Not all that long ago, the American left would call out anyone who dared to make a “value judgment.” Back then there was no right and wrong; “moral relativism” was all the rage. But now the Left hurls moral accusations with abandon. So here’s a question for them: Does America have an “official” morality?
Has the American federal government instituted a morality? If so, where did they get this “government morality”? We have laws against murder, rape, and theft, but it’s not really necessary that lawmakers cleave to any ethical system in order to pass such laws. There are many immoral things that are perfectly legal in America; e.g. you can choose to waste your life, and government won’t stop you.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Being progressive, liberal, is first and foremost eschewing morality. The primary reason for being progressive is to be able to shed morality
Precisely!
Catholic ping.
Our official morality used to be the 10 Commandments. Is there even one of the 10 that we still obey?
If we've broken one, we've broken them all. None of us is able to obey them. Hence the need for a Savior.
I'm supposing that to the left, the "official" morality is anything that Donald Trump isn't.
Yes. Political correctness. THAT is the point of pc. To create a vast amorphous instantly adjustable “morality” violation of which is loathed and feared.
[Our official morality used to be the 10 Commandments. Is there even one of the 10 that we still obey?]
There’s a remnant who do. Praying for revival to come to AMERICA. 2 CHRONICLES 7:13-14
13 At times I might shut up the heavens so that no rain falls, or command grasshoppers to devour your crops, or send plagues among you. 14 Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land.
PC morality is not morality at all. It is merely authoritarian rule making. PC morality is oligarchic. That is, it serves the needs of those in power. Environmentalism is a good example of (oligarchic) PC morality. It grants special authority to those in power to control aspects of economic culture and personal liberty. Since only these wise leaders know what is best for the environment their edicts have the power of religious persuasion by a priesthood.
How come they all wanna save the whales?
I think John Adams said it best:
John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
You may find this and other related quotations at:
John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
To answer the question: She is making a secular/”social justice” man made morality of those who reject the morality of Christianity and Judaism. She is invoking the “morality” of “if it feels good, do it.”
-—How come they all wanna save the whales?-—
It’s quite simple actually. It boils down to self esteem.
The primary motivation is to enhance self esteem. That can be accomplished in spades “by making a difference”. Although there is little a new york city 22 year old woman can do to actually save whales (that don’t really need saving in the first place) she can give some money, wear a T shirt, wear a save the whales ribbon or bracelet or lapel pin. She can read articles and be a part of the effort. In NYC she might even go to a seminar and rub breasts with others of her kind.
She can have a whale erupting from the ocean as her tablet screen saver thus constantly reminding herself of her own goodness and thus strengthening her self esteem
All of the above contributes to her self esteem even though no actual whale is involved
Brilliant!
No, it is to raise yourself to the point that YOU are the one declaring what is moral and what is not.
You are like God.
Hmmm that sounds familiar for some reason.
Does America have an official morality?
Yes. It’s pro birth control, leading to pro abortion
Causing all kinds of confusion and trouble not the least of which is running
a prez candidate who is so flawed most don’t dream of the extent of it. That’s when she can stand up
The rest of America allows this official morality. More or less.
Excellent question. . .and to answer, let me quote the father of American leftist political science, Dr. Frank Goodnow, from a speech given in 1916.
In it he says, “In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe as primarily a member of society and, secondarily, as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, NOT BY HIS CREATOR, but rather, by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority. In view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus, to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.
Now let's break this statement down. . because in this one paragraph Goodnow reveals what the Left's justification will be in the coming decades as Progressives struggle to "transform" the American form of governance.
He opens the paragraph with the announcement that Europe, rather than the Founders, should be our proper focus because in Europe "man is regarded now as primarily a member of society and SECONDARILY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL!" In contrast, the Founders emphasized that the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God gave the individual a legal standing "equal to the powers of the earth." With one sentence, Goodnow introduces the notion that the individual, and thus individual rights, could be subject to the higher interests of "society." The next sentence builds on his assault against endowed natural rights.
"The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, NOT BY HIS CREATOR, but RATHER, by the society to which he belongs." Get that? Society. .NOT God. . are the source of our rights. He goes on "What they are (your rights) is TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY." You see? The Founders said our rights are endowed by God and that fact is NOT something that must be determined by any other authority of the earth. . .because THAT FACT IS SELF-EVIDENT!!
Now the real poison comes out. His next phrase: "in view of the needs of that society." Whose view?. . . this is the real question. . .who will be authorized to determine for us what society's needs are? Goodnow concludes by emphasizing again that "Social expediency, rather than NATURAL RIGHT, is thus, to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action."
In other words, it will be the nameless, faceless, "experts". . .unelected and unanswerable to the People. . .who will assess what is "sustainable," what is "unsustainable" and will impose, by force, their own regulations, i.e. their "morality" of what constitutes social expediency. Thus, your "sphere of individual freedom" is to be restricted in accordance.. .which is, yes, what a Warden of a penitentiary does.
That's what Progressives mean whenever they cite what is "moral."
Hillary named the Left's deadly sins, when she characterized the Deplorables : "Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic", etc.
The power of words... pushed by liberal elites' in the media assisted by the psychobabble elites of the APA (93% democrat).
Republicans need to come up with competing words... words that imply mental illness for anyone who's 'gun phobic' or afraid of traditional families... or heterophobic... or a new word for a person who feels people from other cultures or races are superior in all ways (global inferiority complex)... Joh N. Hall should look into it.
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.