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?
Yes. Political correctness. THAT is the point of pc. To create a vast amorphous instantly adjustable “morality” violation of which is loathed and feared.
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.
Since the founding of the US, its people have created a division between the ideas of ethics and morality, as was wanted by the founding fathers.
As background, since time immemorial, national leaders claimed that they were anointed, sanctified, and placed in office by God or “the gods”, thus to object to their laws and dictates was an affront, not just to them, but “to heaven” as well.
So our founding fathers did something radical. While they admired and honored God, they were very clear that our constitution and laws are written *by men*, and so could be changed again by men, without offending God.
But, they also were very concerned that anti-religious radicals would run away with the idea, so very carefully enacted the “endowed by the Creator”, “natural rights” of the Bill of Rights. Specifically out of the realm of man made changes.
This handled the God-man dichotomy, but it left unsettled the “equality of different religions”.
Over time, this resulted in the distinction of ethics and morality in the common mind.
Ethics is seen by the public as adherence to the written law, so that more or less, a politician who claimed to be ethical could be evaluated by the public as to whether he actually was, or not.
However, a claim of morality by a politician only muddies the water, because the question remains, “Whose morality?” That is, morality is *sectarian*. The morality of a Methodist, a Baptist, a Catholic, a Mormon, a Jew, etc., etc. vary a LOT. Because, in effect, morality is obedience to the “laws of heaven”, not mankind.
What is certain is that an atheist, of whatever stripe, has no claim to morality *at all*, though they may claim to be ethical. But the essence of morality is that it is *not* self created, subjective or changeable by the individual, which atheists almost have to insist it is.
While an atheist might live a life that to others appears moral doesn’t matter. It just means they have greater self control. Nothing *guarantees* that they act morally. They could be grotesque, like the Clintons; but they are not, nor have they ever been, moral.
The best indicator of amorality or immorality is socialism, because it is inherently atheistic, elevating man, in their minds, to take the place of God. So a socialist is never a moral person.
Bookmarked for later