PDA

View Full Version : Liberal Feelings vs. Judeo-Christian Values



ELVIS
11-29-2005, 01:01 AM
By Dennis Prager (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_22_05_DP.html)

http://buzz.blogspot.com/media/red_vs_blue.gif

With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by God, the Bible and religion, great numbers -- in Western Europe, the great majority -- have looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.

For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions today, those guidelines are . feelings. With the ascendancy of leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian religion, personal feelings have supplanted universal standards. In fact, feelings are the major unifying characteristic among contemporary liberal positions.

Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe.

The entire edifice of moral relativism, a foundation of leftist ideology, is built on the notion of feelings deciding right and wrong. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The animals-and-humans-are-equivalent movement is based entirely on feelings. People see chickens killed and lobsters boiled, feel for the animals, and shortly thereafter abandon thought completely, and equate chicken and lobster suffering to that of a person under the same circumstances.

The unprecedented support of liberals for radically redefining the basic institution of society, marriage and the family is another a product of feelings -- sympathy for homosexuals. Thinking through the effects of such a radical redefinition on society and its children is not a liberal concern.

The "self-esteem movement" -- now conceded to have been a great producer of mediocrity and narcissism -- was entirely a liberal invention based on feelings for kids.

The liberal preoccupation with whether America is loved or hated is also entirely feelings-based. The Left wants to be loved; the conservative wants to do what is right and deems world opinion fickle at best and immoral at worst.

Sexual harassment laws have created a feelings-industrial complex. The entire concept of "hostile work environment" is feelings based. If one woman resents a swimsuit calendar on a co-worker's desk, laws have now been passed whose sole purpose is to protect her from having uncomfortable feelings.

For liberals, the entire worth of the human fetus is determined by the mother's feelings. If she feels the nascent human life she is carrying is worth nothing, it is worth nothing. If she feels it is infinitely precious, it is infinitely precious.

Almost everything is affected by liberal feelings. For example, liberal opposition to calling a Christmas party by its rightful name is based on liberals' concern that non-Christians will feel bad. And for those liberals, nothing else matters -- not the legitimate desire of the vast majority of Americans to celebrate their holiday, let alone the narcissism of those non-Christians "offended" by a Christmas party.

And why do liberals continue to endorse race-based affirmative action at universities despite the mounting evidence that it hurts blacks more than it helps? Again, a major reason is feelings -- sympathy for blacks and the historic racism African-Americans have endured.

Very often, liberals are far more concerned with purity of motive than with moral results. That's why so many liberals still oppose the liberation of Iraq -- so what if Iraqis risk their lives to vote? It's George W. Bush's motives that liberals care about, not spreading liberty in the Arab world.

Elevating motives above results is a significant part of liberalism. What matters is believing that one is well intentioned -- that one cares for the poor, hates racism, loathes inequality and loves peace. Bi-lingual education hurts Latino children. But as a compassionate person -- and "compassionate" is the self-definition of most liberals -- that is not the liberal's real concern. His concern is with an immigrant child's uncomfortable feelings when first immersed in English.

Reliance on feelings in determining one's political and social positions is the major reason young people tend to have liberal/left positions -- they feel passionately but do not have the maturity to question those passions. It is also one reason women, especially single women, are more liberal than men -- it is women's nature to rely on emotions when making decisions. (For those unused to anything but adulation directed at the female of the human species, let me make it clear that men, too, cannot rely on their nature, which leans toward settling differences through raw physical power. Both sexes have a lot of self-correcting to do.)

To be fair, feelings also play a major role in many conservatives' beliefs. Patriotism is largely a feeling; religious faith is filled with emotion, and religion has too often been dictated by emotion. But far more conservative positions are based on "What is right?" rather than on "How do I feel?" That is why a religious woman who is pregnant but does not wish to be is far less likely to have an abortion than a secular woman in the same circumstances. Her values are higher than her feelings. And that, in a nutshell, is what our culture war is about -- Judeo-Christian values versus liberal/leftist feelings.



:elvis:

FORD
11-29-2005, 01:12 AM
Jesus Christ is a liberal. Dennis Prager is a traitorous Likud blowing bastard.

I know who's side I'm on.

ELVIS
11-29-2005, 01:36 AM
Dude, your tired responses are beyond predictable...

I apologize for this thread not being as interesting to you as your "conservative idiot" bullshit...

Now go back, read the article, and try to comment without using your usual name calling talking points...


:elvis:

DeadOrAlive
11-29-2005, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Dude, your tired responses are beyond predictable...

I apologize for this thread not being as interesting to you as your "conservative idiot" bullshit...

Now go back, read the article, and try to comment without using your usual name calling talking points...


:elvis:

HAHAHAH BEAUTIFUL!!! Short, sweet, and right to the point. Roth on brother.

ELVIS
11-29-2005, 01:57 AM
:D

Cathedral
11-29-2005, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Jesus Christ is a liberal. Dennis Prager is a traitorous Likud blowing bastard.

I know who's side I'm on.

JESUS CHRIST WAS NOT A LIBERAL!

If anything he was "considered" a Radical.
but what he truly is, is the Son of God and our Savior.

What Jesus represented to THIS nation was evident in what the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. and i'm sorry if it comes as a shock to you, but the roots this country was founded on in that document have been liberally twisted and warped beyond anything Jesus was about.

You don't know Jesus Christ, Ford, and it's my "feeling" that he doesn't know YOU either.

The good news is that you still have time to repent and stop blaspheming with this garbage you post, especially with your two other alias's.
I cannot even believe you of all people, with your vast knowledge of the bible, would even think some of the things you submit here.

FORD
11-29-2005, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by DeadOrAlive
HAHAHAH BEAUTIFUL!!! Short, sweet, and right to the point. Roth on brother.

Come back and argue when you grow some pubes and have lived in the real world, you snot nosed little wanna be.

FORD
11-29-2005, 02:28 AM
The author of this article is a Likudist neocon "Jew". He doesn't have the slightest fucking idea who Jesus Christ is, he certainly knows nothing of Christ's teachings or morality and I doubt the bastard has ever read the gospels. And that's not even because he's Jewish, but because he's a right wing fascist pig.

Nobody who knows the teachings of Jesus Christ would argue anything remotely resmbling "morality" in defending Bush's sickening illegal and IMMORAL invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I know the teachings of Jesus Christ. I live by the teachings of Jesus Christ. Some days better than others, I'll admit. But unlike Him, I never claimed to be perfect.

Jesus said "turn the other cheek". How does that translate into "Bomb the shit out of countries who hath done nothing to you"?

Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". How does that translate into mercenary treasonous "contractors" openly shooting civilians on the streets of Baghdad?

TELL ME HOW THE FUCK YOU WOULD JUSTIFY THIS........
http://portland.indymedia.org/icon/2003/04/257244.jpg
.... IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST!!

ELVIS
11-29-2005, 03:59 AM
Why in the HELL do you respond to every FUCKING thread with GEORGE FUCKING BUSH and his ILLEGAL WAR ??

A person can't even have a discussion with you because you answer everything with BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE !!

Even on a rock topic, you manage to mention BCE or George Bush...

C'MON DAVE GIVE US A FUCKING BREAK !!

And on this particular article, you can't get past the name of the author...

There are valid points of discussion in this article, have you read it, even ??


C'mon dude, lighten up once and awhile...;)


:elvis:

Big Train
11-29-2005, 04:01 AM
Listen, I like Prager (at times), he has some interesting points. Here I think he has a semantics problem.

His argument is really Religion vs. Non-Religion, which he has thusly labeled Conservative vs. Liberal. I think that is incorrect.

Not all liberals are anti traditional religion and not all conservatives are religious at all. Why waste your time breaking it down along those lines?

Some of his points are right (animal rights), but gay rights is retarded. I don't "Feel Sympathy" or sorry for two gays who want to be together, I feel it is their RIGHT to do as they please on their trip through this world. Thats all that matters. What is right or wrong is between them and the man upstairs. Any Christian ought to know that...

He is trying to take one points and weave a tapestry with it and I just don't buy it.

FORD
11-29-2005, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Why in the HELL do you respond to every FUCKING thread with GEORGE FUCKING BUSH and his ILLEGAL WAR ??

A person can't even have a discussion with you because you answer everything with BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE BCE !!

Even on a rock topic, you manage to mention BCE or George Bush...

The purpose of this article was to paint the right wing neocon agenda, including the illegal, immorral invasion and occupation of Iraq as "moral" and "Christian" when it is neither.


And on this particular article, you can't get past the name of the author...

There are valid points of discussion in this article, have you read it, even ??


C'mon dude, lighten up once and awhile...;)

Traitors like Prager and his Likud/PNAC bosses are threatening the very existence of America as we have known it. How exactly am I supposed to "lighten up" about that?

FORD
11-29-2005, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Big Train
Listen, I like Prager (at times), he has some interesting points. Here I think he has a semantics problem.

His argument is really Religion vs. Non-Religion, which he has thusly labeled Conservative vs. Liberal. I think that is incorrect.

Not all liberals are anti traditional religion and not all conservatives are religious at all. Why waste your time breaking it down along those lines?

Some of his points are right (animal rights), but gay rights is retarded. I don't "Feel Sympathy" or sorry for two gays who want to be together, I feel it is their RIGHT to do as they please on their trip through this world. Thats all that matters. What is right or wrong is between them and the man upstairs. Any Christian ought to know that...

He is trying to take one points and weave a tapestry with it and I just don't buy it.

Not a bad response.....for a conservative ;)

ELVIS
11-29-2005, 04:28 AM
At least he responded to the actual article...

Warham
11-29-2005, 06:56 AM
Jesus Christ wasn't a liberal. Liberals believe in abortion on demand. Jesus would NEVER instruct on of his flock to take a trip down to the abortion clinic. Period.

PHOENIX
11-29-2005, 01:12 PM
Americans Vs Americans.

What else is new?

scamper
11-29-2005, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Traitors like Prager and his Likud/PNAC bosses are threatening the very existence of America as we have known it.

Left wing nut jobs are threatening the very existence of America as we have known it by bleeding to the minority when this country was built on the wishes of the majority.

Right wing nut jobs are threatening the very existence of America as we have known it by using paranoia to steal our freedom.

But then again if there were no left or right what would we argue about?

scamper
11-29-2005, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by PHOENIX
Americans Vs Americans.

What else is new?

Americans Vs Everybody

Until they need help...

Cathedral
11-29-2005, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by scamper
Americans Vs Everybody

Until they need help...

There is a lot of truth to this statement, but unfortunately if we are divided we aren't much help to anyone, especially ourselves.