Posted on 09/24/2013 7:33:55 PM PDT by massmike
Heirs of the Terror, the French left are at it again.
The socialist government of Francois Hollande will shortly be posting a set of 15 secular principles in all 55,000 French public schools. Article 9 thereof states: "Secularism implies the rejection of all violence and all discrimination, guarantees equality between girls and boys. There is a separation of the private and public sphere." Which usually means: The public sphere can interfere with the private sphere, but not the reverse.
Militant secularism has a long and distinguished history of rejecting violence – from the French Revolution to the Bolshevik Revolution to Maoism and Pol Pot. "Respect for the other" must be why secularists habitually use tax dollars to force believers to finance abortion, contraception and gay indoctrination. What would Thomas Jefferson say about that? He said it. "To compel a man to furnish sums of money for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."
The secular principles also reiterate the ban on "ostentatious religious symbols" in French schools. Taken literally, that means the flag of the World War II French resistance, whose centerpiece is the Cross of Lorraine, could not be displayed in the nation's schools. Ironically, the principles are being promulgated in part to combat galloping Islamism. Trying to counter militant Islam with militant secularism is like trying to contain Nazism, circa 1930, with afternoon teas.
The Europeans are taking inclusion to truly dizzying heights. The Swiss government has announced a competition to replace its national anthem, which currently includes references to God, prayer, mountains and sunshine – thus excluding atheists, agnostics, valleys and cloudy weather.
While all of this was going on, the European Union, meeting in Brussels, tentatively adopted a constitution long in the making. In defiance of two thousand years of history, the document includes no mention of that force more responsible than any other for shaping the continent over the past two millennia – Christianity.
When a third of its member nations – most from the still Christian East, led by Poland – objected to the document, the EU commission president said that part of the constitution could not be altered. If secularism is based on reason, as its proponents claim, why do they so often resort to the-debate's-closed to answer arguments?
In Europe, the secularist war on faith is over 200 years old, dating back to the murder of clergy during the Reign of Terror and setting up a Goddess of Reason in Notre Dame de Paris. The American left is a relative newcomer, but no less enthusiastic.
Ah yes, the French. Can the “National Razor” be far behind?
Sounds like they are promoting a new, cult religion to me. God has 10 commandments, they will outdo him with 15.
During the 2012 democrat convention, they openly heckled and booed any mention of God, even to the point the announcer appeared surprised, (that is to say, surprised they would so blatantly reveal their heathen pagan ideals to the general public without the MSM providing covering)
I was reminded of Psalm 2:
“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” Psalm 2:1-3
“During the 2012 democrat convention, they openly heckled and booed any mention of God...”
To explain this strange hostility, maybe it would help to understand what it means to be a Democrat.
The “Democratic Party” like all other forms of socialism derives its ideas from the French Revolution. The main theme is economic equality. Since people differ vastly from one another in terms of ability, skills, industriousness, etc, economic equality can be achieved only by government coercion, which requires that the government must have the power to redistribute wealth from productive hard working people to Democrats.
The main concern with American Conservatives on the other hand, is conserving our tradition of individual liberty, which denies the individual the luxury of relying on all powerful government, and requires that he seek wealth and happiness by acquiring productive skills and putting them to use through his own excruciating efforts.
Being cursed with the lonely burden of self reliance, the only one the conservative could even conceive of lending him a helping hand is God. The liberal, on the other hand, is troubled by persistent rumors that God only helps those who help themselves. Therefore, he has no use for Him. But he does have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Obama, the Lotto ... But what if they don’t come through? The alternative is unthinkable. He might even have to leave Baltimore and get a real job or something. Life is tough for the true unbeliever.
Excellent post.
So few people seem to recognize that the American principle of legal and social human equality, as put into effect by the American Revolution, was taken a bridge too far by the French Revolution, which attempted to add economic equality to the mix.
Attempting to implement this of course, requires the abolition of all other forms of equality. And then it still fails. Much of history over the last 200 years has been the inability of people to recognize that legal and social equality can be put into practice, albeit imperfectly, while economic equality simply cannot.
To be fair, I should add that human legal and social equality was proclaimed as a goal by the American Revolution, but has of course still not been perfectly implemented.
I sometimes think much of the confusion in this regard is based on the two definitions of “fairness,” both of which are valid.
One definition is that fairness = equal shares, the other that fairness = compensation in proportion to contribution.
Socialism goes with definition A, capitalism with definition B. So when they talk about fairness, they’re talking right past each other.
bump
“One definition is that fairness = equal shares, the other that fairness = compensation in proportion to contribution.”
In either case, the word “fairness” is subjective. Who decides how much a person should be paid for his goods or his work ? If it’s set forcibly by a government authority or a thug with a baseball bat, no sane person outside of the government would consider that “fair”. As for the “free market”, if ten people are stranded on a desert island and one of them has the only remaining can of beans, the highest bidder probably wouldn’t consider the price he had to pay very fair.
A government that takes it upon themselves to legislate fairness must necessarily be ready to forcibly take from one constituency to give to another. By definition, fair or not fair, that’s not a free country.
Or, freedom isn’t fair.
In such a situation, there is no market, because the item in question is quite literally beyond price.
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.