The progressive liberal left and the idea of relativism represent the useful idiots of our day.
They set the stage for a tyrant to come along and rule them all with an iron fist.
That’s what history teaches us...and if it continues, history will repeat.
If you haven’t read this book already, READ THIS BOOK NOW!
Well, asap. ;^)
Read the book over 20 years ago. Bookmarked for later reference. Thanks for the post.
When I was in college, my liberal professor (excuse the redundancy) announced that we could do a report on ANY contemporary social studies book we wanted. I told him I wanted to report on this one and he almost had a stroke. At first he was about to refuse, but after I pressed the issue somewhat, he grudgingly gave in.
Secular humanism states that there are no divine absolutes so there are no absolute standards of right and wrong, which leads to subjectivism, which leads to ethical relativism, situation ethics, cultural relativism, new morality, experimental lifestyles, moral equivalency, and permissive morality.
Postmodernism states that there is no universal objective truth. No one knows what is right or best for another adult.There is only the truth of the particular group one belongs to, which leads to cultural and social relativism.
Christian ethics in based on moral absolutes based on God's character or moral decree, which is the final standard.
Bookmark
bookmark
bfl
Atlas is shrugging as we speak! Who is John Galt?
Just recently, arguably because of a very poorly thought out thread this guy started over on Hannity, I realized something about the recent to-do in Charlotte and North Carolina, as well as elsewhere.
No matter what those pushing for self definition of “gender” may claim, or may even believe,in their struggle for some new “equality” what they are really, really doing is removing and possible chance for recourse from — and we must be blunt here for not many men are worried about being ogled or what have you my gals in men’s restrooms — women who do not want men in their bathrooms.
By this I mean that prior to the current push for getting guys who think they’re gals into women’s restrooms, as happened in Charlotte, if a woman was in a restroom (set aside for members of her sex) discovered a man was present she could even demand that he be removed.
She had recourse to do something about him being there.
This is because a woman’s restroom was set aside for people whose sex was female (just as a men’s restroom is for those whose sex is “male”) and by offering it as an accommodation for that purpose the provider actually undertook the obligation to ensure that what was promised was what was given.
Under regulations or policies like that adopted by Charlotte though the promise was upended, and anyone who identifies themselves accordingly may go on in. The legitimization of self-identified “gender” is incompatible with persons having a restroom set aside for those of their own sex and being able to demand the removal of intruders not of the sex, which is to say, pople of the opposite sex.
Now the poorly thought out thread I mentioned compared the State law to making guns illegal.
I pointed out how his OP did not hold up; also, I came up with a more accurate point of comparison.
Statutes like the one adopted by Charlotte, which honor “gender”, are like laws that require retreat rather than permit self defense.
If, for example, a woman does not want men in her bathroom the only way she may expect that is if she retreats, if she ceases to use public restrooms where a confused guy may wander in at any time (at least in theory).
She has no recourse to defend that space for those of her sex.
But statutes like those adopted by the State of North Carolina are like stand your ground laws: they restore or ensure the recourse of people to demand those not of the sex for which the bathroom is set aside be removed.
Such laws were not even necessary till the wacky left started insisting that self-identification is all that matter sand likewise pushing that view on everyone else.
Closing of the American Mind, a very sad book...
As the article says, the students of that time are now in charge and they think truth is relative. Imagine what they think of words. And agreements and contracts.
So I don’t think Article V is any solution.
Kirsten Powers’ “The Silencing” also addresses this quite well.
.
Closed to truth and decency, but open to trash, lies and evil. And if continued, the end of America.
The reason you put off reading “Closing of the American Mind” for so long, that it is insufferably dull; nearly impossible, to read. It is the most important sleep-inducing treatise I have ever read. It sat on my bedside table and it took me months to wade through it.
Am I missing something?
I thought the idea behind moral relativism is that whatever the ‘group’ thinks is moral, is moral.
Am I getting that right?
“Thus, the great Leftist opening is actually a great closing. Values are relative. Create whatever lifestyle you wish. “
Unless that lifestyle:
- Can be perceived as denying blacks rights
- Contributes to their perception of global warming
- Doesn’t approve of the gay lifestyle
- Thinks Israel should exist
- Believes in a smaller, less powerful central government
According to today’s Left, you shouldn’t be allowed to create a lifestyle based around these values (among others).