Posted on 11/17/2004 9:23:28 AM PST by kirkrg
Bookmarked, this one is a keeper.
Additionally there is moral culture which is changing on a daily basis in our country, in the future there will be no Christmas, because Christmas offends certain ethnic groups. Preserving the culture of the United States is a moral priority. Live in the United States and take its economic advantages one should adopt the culture and language.
This is way too much in an overly personalized "them vs. us" confrontational mode. Assuming for a minute that his description of Kidman's movie is accurate, how many people have actually seen and liked it? And if we substitute some other, better-known "envelope pushing" movie for it, how accurate is the assumption that people either like the movie or support "In God We Trust" but not both or neither? Why not both? Or neither? Are people heavily into movies always the same as committed secularists? Aren't some film aficionados rather indifferent to politics? Might some actually like having the existing motto on our coins?
Secular savants believe that SUVs constitute a greater threat than MTV, that minuscule increases in air pollution merit more vilification than a gang of corporate pimps who've been corrupting children for more than two decades.
Kerry country is SUV country, at least if you're talking about affluent liberal East Coast suburbs and the Kerry-Heinz household. But why is it necessarily one or the other? Plenty of Kerry voters drive SUV's and worry about MTV. That in itself doesn't make them good or bad people. And some Bush voters have no love for either mass culture or massive personal transport. Indeed, some young Bush supporters probably have much familiarity with Music Television in all its atrociousness than is good for them.
They believe that secondhand smoke is more deadly than sexual promiscuity, that politics trumps personal morality and that political correctness provides absolution for chronic narcissism.
Up to a point, yes, but in questions like environmental pollution, purely personal morality may not be enough. And Kirk does seem to be doing substantially what he attacks in liberal elitists: he's raising a political banner and arguing that it makes him a better person. He's claiming greater virtue because he cares about what's really important. It's likely that he is closer to what is really important, at least in words. But it's deeds and achievements that count more, and so often they're harder to accomplish than speeches and poses, and less visible to outsiders.
Pornography and promiscuity are wrong, but it's a mistake to try to turn morality into a political party or faction, whether it's done by liberal environmentalists or conservative anti-elitists. Much of what's moral comes through conversation and self-examination, rather than from throwing down a provocative gauntlet at the opposing party.
Politicizing virtue, and saying that the right or good in some areas matters because it suits one's political outlook and doesn't matter in other things because they belong to the "other side" is usually the end of real virtue, whoever does it. So yes, if someone tells you that caring about whales or Kyoto makes them superior, they're wrong, but beware since personal morality and chronic narcissism aren't fixed properties of right or left.
Absolutley, there is no moral obligation on the majority not to offend minorities, and nothing says that the minority has a right not to be offended. The society used to handle these offenses on a personal level, "do you mind if I smoke" and group pledges of alligence were all acceptable. To those offended, "Get over it" is the best policy. We need a severe cutback in laws designed to force political correctness and impeachment of judges who enforce such cr*p. What holidays are celebrated in the classroom are up to the teachers, and what is sung at the school winter assembly should be up to the music department. People with different religious ideas should go to religious private schools or agree to let programs go on without objection. The society needs a lot of tea thrown in the harbor.
I've got a newspaper article from four years ago with the title, "How To Be A Good Liberal" along with practically every one of these points, word-for-word. I really hope there isn't some sort of plagiarism occuring here.
I'll dig it out a box downstairs and type it here for comparison.
~ Blue Jays ~
THANK GOD, I'M A DOLT!
Dear Blue Jays,
I assure you that there was no plagiarism--having
taught ethics at a prep school for 20 years and
possessing a Divinity Degree from Emory Univ.
Of course, nowadays those bits of evidence are
hardly dispositive. Seriously, you ought to be
more careful about suggesting slurs--why don't you
get the article FIRST before asserting possible
plagiarism.
Honestly,
Richard Kirk
I didn't even notice your screen name of "kirkrg" and the name "Richard G. Kirk" on the byline of the story. I simply thought I was passing an observation to a third-party fellow FReeper about a published article. It wasn't meant to be a insult. My mind used to be like a steel trap!
Well, now that I've gotten the shoe polish out of my mouth and I'm speaking directly with the columnist, I clearly owe you my sincere apology.
I'll send you the article about which I speak by FReepmail and you'll get a laugh out of it. For all I know, you could have authored that one as well. Again, sorry.
~ Blue Jays ~
Blue Jays is obviously an honest guy and
should be absolved of any possible presumption.
(The real author!)
Hannity: "Thank you GOD!"
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.