Replies

When you hear about "the Culture War" know that this is what its all about.
Its a war of competing ideas and worldviews. One one side you have people who believe in living by a devinely inspired moral absolutes, or at the very least, they believe that following such a moral code represents the best way to avoid chaos and instability.

One the other side, you have people who insist that morality is simply a personal decision. Any attempt to enfore it is viewed as oppression.

Quite simply many liberals believe that efforts to adhere to and enforce behavorial rights and wrongs is simply the powerful in society attempting to force their views and judgements on the "victims" of society, rather than what it is: an attempt to maintain standards that have evolved and survived throughout human civilization and which produce a quality life.

Lets set the record straight. Morality is not defined by individual choice. Long before anyone was talking about "The Culture War" I had made that point in "The Thirty Five undeniable truths of life. Number 32 to be exact.

To understand what that means, lets examine a real-life example of one little skirmish in the ongoing Culture War. Singer Ice T records an album with one song clearly condoning, if not advocating the killing of cops, and another glorifying the violent sexual abuse of women. When other artists, music executives, and media wizards see nothing wrong with that, alarm bells go off.

The average person recognizes a problem. But anyone who dares to criticize the record or suggest that standards should be imposed is ridiculed and called an intolerant bigot.

Lets face it, there are things in life that every decent person with common sense knows are wrong. There are things almost everybody understands are right.

Most people have been raised and imbued with a sense of right and wrong. Some choose to reject those standards. Other simply never learn them early in life. But at some level, almost everyone, with the exception by definition of the criminally insane, recognizes right from wrong.

When liberals hurl epithets at you because you have pointed out the obvous error of their ways, just know that you have hit a nerve.

If you criticize their behavior and they call you a pig, a bigot, or a fascist, their consciences must be giving them problems; or else they acquired their liberal values by rote and without comprehension.

They claim to have a monopoly on the market of open-mindedness and tolerance, but in truth are often extremely closed-minded and intolerant.

Liberals love to knock down standards because to do so empowers them. Take the case of Leonard Jeffries, the chairman of City College of New York's black-studies department.

For years Mr Jeffries served in this job while he launched outrageous attacks against Jews and other groups of white people. He did it both in the classroom and outside the university setting.

He became such an embarrassment to City College that when part of a racist- anti semitic speech made by him was reprinted in the New York Post, school officials fired him.

Though Mr Jeffries successfully sued the college for his wrongful termination, a more important question remains: How did he get hired in the first place? And how did he survive in his position for twenty years? The reason we have hate-mongers like Jeffries in key positions is because of declining standards.

One of the reasons you abolish standards is so you can never say someone is doing a bad job. Without a standard by which to measure one's performance, one cannot under perform.

This is a way to build a powerful teaching union, and liberal political power on campus or in a government agency or in some other institution. Lots of people like Jeffries were hired after the 1960's simply to appease the mob mentality that was demanding more minority control over institutions of higher learning.

Why are these issues so important? Why are they worth fighting for? Because if there are no ultimate standards of behavior that descend from God, and if morality is merely an individual choice, then life itself has lost its greater meaning.

Its no big deal for you to take a gun to school and shoot some kid over a dispute about a leather jacket or a pair of sneakers. That is precisely what an overly permissive, excessively tolerant, nothing is wrong attitude leads to.

Of course liberals will argue that these actions can be laid at the foot of socioeconomic inequities, or poverty. However, The Great Depression caused a level of poverty unknown to exist in America today, and yet I have been unable to find any accounts of crime waves sweeping our large cities. In fact, I can't find reliable information that even documents a noticeable increase in crime during the Great Depression. Let the liberals chew on that.

Regardless of what you call them, they don't see the connection- or pretend to see the connection. So anyone who publicly expressed concern for decency in our society invites assault. Any expression of concern for solid values is mocked and ridiculed.

The thought that there should be standards of behavior and accountability in all walks of life is portrayed as absurd. Why do they react that way? They take the offensive because deep down they know they're wrong. They know they're engaging in activity that is base. In many cases, they are simply hedonists.

They won't accept any limits on personal behavior whatsoever. Thats what freedom means to them: no responsibility, no consequences, for anything. Its whatever feels good.

That is the underlying dimension of most of the aberrant going on in America today.

Liberalism is the political ideology that adds legitimacy and credence to these aberrant behaviors. It says "People have been victimized and oppressed in America and they are forced to act his way"

The things that once offended us don't anymore. The things that we used to find repugnant are now accepted.

Let me tell you, folks you don't want to live in a society in which the great majority of the people believe that ultimately they are accountable to an authority higher than the state. That is a recipe for national disaster.

How many times have you heard the hackeyed slogan "You can't legislate morality"? Liberals have twisted the intended meaning of this phrase to suit their purposes. It has been misused so often that the incorrect meaning is now accepted as the norm.

The phrase was originally adopted by conservatives of the sixties, such as Barry Goldwater, to describe the reality that people's attitudes, predjudices, character, and integrity cannot be altered by well meaning legislation.

For example this society can and did outlaw discrimination based on race. With the civil rights laws of the sixties-and fortified those laws with remedial enforcement mechanisms. Although the law did and does prevent acts of discrimination, it does not change the hearts of people. Though we have less racial discrimination, we don't have one less racist as a result of those laws.

The feel good generation of me-first liberals co-opted the phrase and use it as a credo to legitmize their advocacy of unlimited freedom without responsibility. Thus, when arguing in favor of abortion on demand, for instance, they chant reflexively..."You can't legislate morality"

Mere superficial analysis reveals the folly of their reasoning. Of course society can, and indeed it is morally imperative that it does legislate morality--if by that it is meant that the law proscribes certain immoral behavior.

In fact that is what our entire system of criminal law is--the codification of societal restrictions on human behavior that is accepted as being immoral. Our traditional criminal laws prohibiting murder, and other violent acts against persons or property, for example, are laws prohibiting, certain acts coupled with criminal intent.

These laws do not seek to change to personal morality of those who violate them, rather they seek to prevent the proscribed acts and punish the actors for their wrongs.

Interestingly it has been liberals through the years who have sought to use the criminal justice system for the purpose of rehabilitating the wrongdoers. So don't fall for this notion that society cannot enforce moral codes because of the misunderstood slogan "You can't legislate morality"

This may help.

There are necessary “societal rules” and there is “religious-based morality.” Although both are historically intertwined – the common prohibitions that survival-based “morals” teach citizens is the foundation of all successful societies. For example, it is a universal fact that societies who fail to prohibit their citizens killing of their own offspring fail to survive and prosper. Look around, with the exception of abortion, no society fails to prohibit the killing of children. This is an example of “morals” based on survival instinct. I.e., necessary “rules” of society dictated by our species instinct to survive. There are many other such examples of basic “morals” that can be found in virtually every “religion-based moral” in history.

This is a difficult concept to grasp, but I will attempt to clarify it. All societies require “rules” to survive, function and prosper. Long-term religions traditionally incorporate the “rules” of society - codified and enforced as “morals.” Amongst those are the “morals” such as “no member of the society may assault, murder, rob, or defraud another member of the society.” Thus, “religion-based morality” more often than not is the codification of the “historically-based rules” necessary to the survival of the society.

Now expect an opponent to point out the non-survival-based societal “morals” of most religions. They have a legitimate point. Organized Religions are man-made entities. Like other man-made entities, they generally promote their own survival and prosperity. They also contain people in positions within the religious entities who have personal agendas they promote via their influential position as societies’ morality teachers. Accordingly, a significant amount of “religion-based morality” is actually self-serving rules for promoting the survival of the religion and the individuals operating the religion. However, this does not negate the fact that the basic rules for society survival are found within most “religious-based morality” teachings.

Nonetheless, “religious-based morality” is preferred over societal enforcement of “rules.” The reason is common sense. In the former, the motivation to comply with society’s behavior requirements is internally driven and constant. However, for the latter, to effect the necessary behavior restrictions requires the external use of society’s police presence to enforce the basic “rules.”