The Pen is mightier than the sword, but the Pen must sometimes move the sword against corruption if the corrupt are not moved by the pen.. An idea without an implementer is useless. "The Rulers do not carry the sword in vain"Rom 13:4

Friday, May 24, 2013

Morals, Reason and Revelation... and LaciGreen ..and death threats...and...

If we rely only on our 'reason' for our morals, we might end up in the confused, diverse place that the enlightenment philosophers and general public went after they jettisoned the assured guidance of 'The Church'.. I am no fan of massive organized religion as it was and still is under the Catholic structure, but I absolutely know that apart from 'revealed' truth, we have only 'opinion' to work from.  We also know, I believe, that 10 people will have 10 opinions about various moral issues.

During the enlightenment period, there were some 50 different understandings of what 'Enlightenment' was... for Descartes it was that all physics and geometry and even social relations could be reduced to an algebraic  formula.   For Rousseau it was that he could speak about how to educate a child to perfection, while at the same time fathering 4 children out of wedlock and abandoning them, along with him working as a gigolo for a time.   For Marx it became "Eternal class war". For Robispierre it became "Kill them..kill all those counter revolutionaries" who could be recognized by such miniscule things as having the name "Louis" (which was the deposed king's name)  For Neitzche it became the 'will to power'  and many others with many views.

In short....confusion reigned.  Mill said it best when in 'On Liberty' he described how one generation or group cannot fathom how another generation or group could think differently to itself.

Enter..."Revelation".   and I mean Christian revelation.  We have  the unattainable standard of the Sermon on the Mount..(spoken in a language form called "exaggerated contrast") and the clear exhortations of Paul in his letters.  In short the sum total of Christian 'law' so to speak was this..
i) Love God with all your heart.
ii) Love your neighbour as yourself.

Translate those principles into all civil law and you will without question have a vey civil and robust society.

PROBLEM  Now we must face the problem that the enlightenment faced.. it was presupposed on the idea that all people, when using the same facts and the same reason, would reach the same conclusions.  Nah.. didn't, is not, and will never happen.  Even if we accepted the Christian morality as our standard, we are then confronted with individuals and groups who wish to behave differently and use their own moral compass.  This could apply to a Union leader who believes 'his members' should be paid far in excess of the relative value of their work and education simply because he can extort such pay from the community with the threat of say...shutting down major power stations. (ETU).. or.. it could be the homosexuals who want the law changed to accomodate their sexual orientation., or it could be the Muslims who want Sharia law, or the Sikhs who want an exemption from having to wear protective helmets or being exempted from concealed weapons laws for their Kirpan (dagger)  due to their religious requirements.

You cannot please all the people all the time, and trying to would be futile.  The best approach is to focus on some kind of unifying goal and try to include as many of our citizens as possible.  Due to the militancy of some groups and individuals, political leaders would need to be harsh in some cases and decisive in ways that would appear to the outsider to be unjust according to those outsiders own values. (such as a socialist government in France or "progressive" politicians in America).

In short there is no 'way' that will always appeal to all people..so it comes down to highly motivated people to stand up and stand their ground in the face of contrary opinion, and have the genuine best interests of the community at heart.    Would such a society be a 'tolerant' society? Would it be 'inclusive'?  Aah.. important questions.. Let me give you the secular answer first...before giving mine.
Voltaire affirmed that traditional religious views should not be tolerated and this especially applied to Judaism which he blamed for 'blighting' the world with 'Christianity'. But Herbert Macuse, that god of the Left and progressive politics summed it up best in his 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance" where he said:
THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.

Now..I'm quite happy to take Marcuse at his own words, but.. I take the line of applying his standard to the 'present' permissive progressive social engineering which must no longer be tolerated, in the interests of our survival.  At the time Marcuse wrote that essay, it was the transition from the values of 'Father knows best' to cite a TV sitcom and various others which had true family values. Marcuse called instead for a polymorphous perversity in his book "Eros and Civilization" (1955) Well.. I am quite comfortable with absolutely rejecting that sleazy, slimy, degrading view of humanity and  society!  I will not tolerate it for a moment.    If he can come onto he academic scene from his Frankfurt School Marxist background in Germany and take to our society with a wrecking ball, and lead us only to a trainwreck of degradation and disintegration.. I think no one should be surprised if someone like myself comes along and disables the wrecking ball and removes the sabotage barriers on the train tracks.

WHO is LACIGREEN?  She is an internet personality/youtube vlogger who promotes a rampant and intolerant Christ-aphobic, progressive agenda of self righteous debauchery thinly disguised as "Educational videos" which happen to be about.... sex.  Wow.. I didn't see that coming... what's the saying? "Sex sells"... she preaches about a number of things and goes into gross detail about the mechnical intricasies of intercourse and sexual orienation..that any person could find good advice about from a GP.  Green is vehemently anti religious and is not content to have her own beliefs but is insistent on being an ideological jihadi against those with faith.  She attacks people of faith and faith itself in the most insidious and intolerant manner... well no surprise that she annoyed some transvestite on Tumblr to the point where she suddenly found  "incoming" communications that were delivered to her apartment that showed pictures OF the apartment..and now, she is cringing and cowered under her bed in fear of having her 'face smashed in' to quote the offending email.

With that in mind...and without the slightest hint of apology....  "this  is my own response..not to 'her' but to the issue of society as a whole."

For some worthwhile background information, I continue to
advise readers to view these two important documentaries.

"The century of the self"

"The history of political correctness"

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please make comments here. Vulgarity or namecalling will not survive the moderator. Reasoned argument alone will survive.