The Morals of Liberalism

2006-12-19
By

John F. Kennedy’s assistant, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in an article in the “Partisan Review” in 1947, gave an insight into the morals of liberalism. He said that liberalism …

…dispensed with the absurd Christian myths of sin and damnation and believed that what shortcomings man might have were to be redeemed, not by Jesus on the cross, but by the benevolent unfolding of history. Tolerance, free inquiry, and technology, operating in the framework of human perfectibility, would in the end create a heaven on earth, a goal accounted much, more sensible and wholesome than a heaven in heaven.

Liberal standards of morality, as enumerated by Schlesinger in 1947 [a truly Marxist/Leninist outlook], were reiterated by another high government official in 1962. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizational Affairs, Harlan Cleveland, on a TV interview said:

… we find in trying to figure out what to do next, that general codes of ethics, prescriptions that is to say, that have been written down by someone else, by our church, by our parents, or the books we read, or scripture, that these general prescriptions really aren’t useful in deciding what to do next.

William Penn warned early Americans of the pitfalls in such a policy. He said:

The nation which refuses to be governed by God will surely be governed by tyrants.

2 views

  • Lurk

    PARADOX! Morals and Liberalism cannot be said in the same sentence without a strong roll of the eyes or severing the toungue that is placed so
    strongly in the cheek!

    Without the recognition of an external authority to deliver morals, there can be no morals. When morals are derived from within, they are as changing as the circumstances within which one stands.

    Morals are God’s laws. Without a law giver, there are no laws. Today I think that 55 is a properly safe speed limit, much to the chagrin of that jerk behind me flashing his lights and leaning on the horn. Tomorrow I may decide that 70 just won’t cut it and I’ll have to shove that other fool into the ditch. With no law giver, I’m as right as anyone. That is why there is no law without government and no morality without God.

  • thurston861

    I thought that was Frankin who said that.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/steve-farrell/ Steve Farrell

    Thanks to both – though I must say, liberalism is a moral outlook, a corrupt, contradictory, disordered one, but a moral perspective nonetheless. All laws, whether good or evil, find their justification by appealing to the moral side of man – so don’t let them say “You can’t legislate morality.” They do it all the time – such as “the ends justify the means,” that is, the poor need our help, and the solution is, the forced redistribution of the wealth.

    This is a moral appeal – yet, the trouble is, they wish to take care of the downtrodden by setting up a system that violates the commandment “thou shalt not steal,” and by encouraging in the hearts of the poor, a spirit that violates “thou shalt not covet,” and well, one which fails to encourage service that voluntarily flows from the heart.

    Well then, that’s why they say the Bible is no good, and a bunch of bunk – for it exposes their plan as immoral – which in turn alerts the population to suspect their motives, such as this one: “It’s all about the love of power, not the love of neighbor.” And this one, “There is no morality, except this: that which furthers the cause of the revolution, THAT is moral.”

  • jjtaup

    Steve, the title says it all. Liberalism is (in addition to being a mental disorder) an absolutist morality. And the more absolute a philosophy is, the less distinct from the cosmic background radiation it appears to those who hold it.

    How do you argue with a C++ programmer who has spent his entire adolesence and adult life immersed in the confines of well-defined linear structures and binary logic that all variables set to null is not necessarily the baseline state? From his perspective, such an assertion is nonsense. Everything is WYSIWYG.

    But the key word is “perspective.” There is no universally, “perspective-free,” null-and-void baseline. And the attempts of liberalism to dig, dig, dig until the primitive superstition of God is expunged, is a path into hell. It is deeply frightening that this path is infinite, and too many can never or will never recognize they are on it. I do believe in eternal damnation.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/steve-farrell/ Steve Farrell

    jjtaup: Good insights.

  • Lurk

    moral – 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
    amoral/b> – 1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

    …though I must say, liberalism is a moral outlook … and again, I must disagree. Morality must be defined in order to be moral. If the definition comes from within, then morality is as shifting as the moment. What defines right and wrong? Is it wrong to decapitate those with whome you disagree? Who says so? If you say yes, and I say no, one of us will lose his head over it. Who will be right and who will be wrong? Further, who will decide who is right and who is wrong? If come from within, then I get to decide and thus, I’m right and you are dead.

    This is the crux of the religious problem. Multiple definitions of right and wrong as delivered from on high. But, when there is no on high, what is delivered? Who has delivered? Who will judge?

    If God is not, it matters not.

    How do you argue with a C++ programmer who has spent his entire adolesence and adult life immersed in the confines of well-defined linear structures and binary logic that all variables set to null is not necessarily the baseline state?
    From the perspective of logic, using years of experience programming in C++ and C before that and even beyond into the inflexible layers of hard wires, ICs, transistors and electronic circuits.






The Morals of Liberalism

2006-12-19
By

John F. Kennedy’s assistant, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in an article in the “Partisan Review” in 1947, gave an insight into the morals of liberalism. He said that liberalism …

…dispensed with the absurd Christian myths of sin and damnation and believed that what shortcomings man might have were to be redeemed, not by Jesus on the cross, but by the benevolent unfolding of history. Tolerance, free inquiry, and technology, operating in the framework of human perfectibility, would in the end create a heaven on earth, a goal accounted much, more sensible and wholesome than a heaven in heaven.

Liberal standards of morality, as enumerated by Schlesinger in 1947 [a truly Marxist/Leninist outlook], were reiterated by another high government official in 1962. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizational Affairs, Harlan Cleveland, on a TV interview said:

… we find in trying to figure out what to do next, that general codes of ethics, prescriptions that is to say, that have been written down by someone else, by our church, by our parents, or the books we read, or scripture, that these general prescriptions really aren’t useful in deciding what to do next.

William Penn warned early Americans of the pitfalls in such a policy. He said:

The nation which refuses to be governed by God will surely be governed by tyrants.

6 views

  • Lurk

    PARADOX! Morals and Liberalism cannot be said in the same sentence without a strong roll of the eyes or severing the toungue that is placed so
    strongly in the cheek!

    Without the recognition of an external authority to deliver morals, there can be no morals. When morals are derived from within, they are as changing as the circumstances within which one stands.

    Morals are God’s laws. Without a law giver, there are no laws. Today I think that 55 is a properly safe speed limit, much to the chagrin of that jerk behind me flashing his lights and leaning on the horn. Tomorrow I may decide that 70 just won’t cut it and I’ll have to shove that other fool into the ditch. With no law giver, I’m as right as anyone. That is why there is no law without government and no morality without God.

  • Lurk

    PARADOX! Morals and Liberalism cannot be said in the same sentence without a strong roll of the eyes or severing the toungue that is placed so
    strongly in the cheek!

    Without the recognition of an external authority to deliver morals, there can be no morals. When morals are derived from within, they are as changing as the circumstances within which one stands.

    Morals are God’s laws. Without a law giver, there are no laws. Today I think that 55 is a properly safe speed limit, much to the chagrin of that jerk behind me flashing his lights and leaning on the horn. Tomorrow I may decide that 70 just won’t cut it and I’ll have to shove that other fool into the ditch. With no law giver, I’m as right as anyone. That is why there is no law without government and no morality without God.

  • Lurk

    PARADOX! Morals and Liberalism cannot be said in the same sentence without a strong roll of the eyes or severing the toungue that is placed so
    strongly in the cheek!

    Without the recognition of an external authority to deliver morals, there can be no morals. When morals are derived from within, they are as changing as the circumstances within which one stands.

    Morals are God’s laws. Without a law giver, there are no laws. Today I think that 55 is a properly safe speed limit, much to the chagrin of that jerk behind me flashing his lights and leaning on the horn. Tomorrow I may decide that 70 just won’t cut it and I’ll have to shove that other fool into the ditch. With no law giver, I’m as right as anyone. That is why there is no law without government and no morality without God.

  • thurston861

    I thought that was Frankin who said that.

  • thurston861

    I thought that was Frankin who said that.

  • thurston861

    I thought that was Frankin who said that.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/steve-farrell/ Steve Farrell

    Thanks to both – though I must say, liberalism is a moral outlook, a corrupt, contradictory, disordered one, but a moral perspective nonetheless. All laws, whether good or evil, find their justification by appealing to the moral side of man – so don’t let them say “You can’t legislate morality.” They do it all the time – such as “the ends justify the means,” that is, the poor need our help, and the solution is, the forced redistribution of the wealth.

    This is a moral appeal – yet, the trouble is, they wish to take care of the downtrodden by setting up a system that violates the commandment “thou shalt not steal,” and by encouraging in the hearts of the poor, a spirit that violates “thou shalt not covet,” and well, one which fails to encourage service that voluntarily flows from the heart.

    Well then, that’s why they say the Bible is no good, and a bunch of bunk – for it exposes their plan as immoral – which in turn alerts the population to suspect their motives, such as this one: “It’s all about the love of power, not the love of neighbor.” And this one, “There is no morality, except this: that which furthers the cause of the revolution, THAT is moral.”

  • jjtaup

    Steve, the title says it all. Liberalism is (in addition to being a mental disorder) an absolutist morality. And the more absolute a philosophy is, the less distinct from the cosmic background radiation it appears to those who hold it.

    How do you argue with a C++ programmer who has spent his entire adolesence and adult life immersed in the confines of well-defined linear structures and binary logic that all variables set to null is not necessarily the baseline state? From his perspective, such an assertion is nonsense. Everything is WYSIWYG.

    But the key word is “perspective.” There is no universally, “perspective-free,” null-and-void baseline. And the attempts of liberalism to dig, dig, dig until the primitive superstition of God is expunged, is a path into hell. It is deeply frightening that this path is infinite, and too many can never or will never recognize they are on it. I do believe in eternal damnation.

  • jjtaup

    Steve, the title says it all. Liberalism is (in addition to being a mental disorder) an absolutist morality. And the more absolute a philosophy is, the less distinct from the cosmic background radiation it appears to those who hold it.

    How do you argue with a C++ programmer who has spent his entire adolesence and adult life immersed in the confines of well-defined linear structures and binary logic that all variables set to null is not necessarily the baseline state? From his perspective, such an assertion is nonsense. Everything is WYSIWYG.

    But the key word is “perspective.” There is no universally, “perspective-free,” null-and-void baseline. And the attempts of liberalism to dig, dig, dig until the primitive superstition of God is expunged, is a path into hell. It is deeply frightening that this path is infinite, and too many can never or will never recognize they are on it. I do believe in eternal damnation.

  • jjtaup

    Steve, the title says it all. Liberalism is (in addition to being a mental disorder) an absolutist morality. And the more absolute a philosophy is, the less distinct from the cosmic background radiation it appears to those who hold it.

    How do you argue with a C++ programmer who has spent his entire adolesence and adult life immersed in the confines of well-defined linear structures and binary logic that all variables set to null is not necessarily the baseline state? From his perspective, such an assertion is nonsense. Everything is WYSIWYG.

    But the key word is “perspective.” There is no universally, “perspective-free,” null-and-void baseline. And the attempts of liberalism to dig, dig, dig until the primitive superstition of God is expunged, is a path into hell. It is deeply frightening that this path is infinite, and too many can never or will never recognize they are on it. I do believe in eternal damnation.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/steve-farrell/ Steve Farrell

    jjtaup: Good insights.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/steve-farrell/ Steve Farrell

    jjtaup: Good insights.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/steve-farrell/ Steve Farrell

    jjtaup: Good insights.

  • Lurk

    moral – 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
    amoral/b> – 1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

    …though I must say, liberalism is a moral outlook … and again, I must disagree. Morality must be defined in order to be moral. If the definition comes from within, then morality is as shifting as the moment. What defines right and wrong? Is it wrong to decapitate those with whome you disagree? Who says so? If you say yes, and I say no, one of us will lose his head over it. Who will be right and who will be wrong? Further, who will decide who is right and who is wrong? If come from within, then I get to decide and thus, I’m right and you are dead.

    This is the crux of the religious problem. Multiple definitions of right and wrong as delivered from on high. But, when there is no on high, what is delivered? Who has delivered? Who will judge?

    If God is not, it matters not.

    How do you argue with a C++ programmer who has spent his entire adolesence and adult life immersed in the confines of well-defined linear structures and binary logic that all variables set to null is not necessarily the baseline state?
    From the perspective of logic, using years of experience programming in C++ and C before that and even beyond into the inflexible layers of hard wires, ICs, transistors and electronic circuits.

  • Lurk

    moral – 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
    amoral/b> – 1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

    …though I must say, liberalism is a moral outlook … and again, I must disagree. Morality must be defined in order to be moral. If the definition comes from within, then morality is as shifting as the moment. What defines right and wrong? Is it wrong to decapitate those with whome you disagree? Who says so? If you say yes, and I say no, one of us will lose his head over it. Who will be right and who will be wrong? Further, who will decide who is right and who is wrong? If come from within, then I get to decide and thus, I’m right and you are dead.

    This is the crux of the religious problem. Multiple definitions of right and wrong as delivered from on high. But, when there is no on high, what is delivered? Who has delivered? Who will judge?

    If God is not, it matters not.

    How do you argue with a C++ programmer who has spent his entire adolesence and adult life immersed in the confines of well-defined linear structures and binary logic that all variables set to null is not necessarily the baseline state?
    From the perspective of logic, using years of experience programming in C++ and C before that and even beyond into the inflexible layers of hard wires, ICs, transistors and electronic circuits.

  • Lurk

    moral – 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
    amoral/b> – 1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

    …though I must say, liberalism is a moral outlook … and again, I must disagree. Morality must be defined in order to be moral. If the definition comes from within, then morality is as shifting as the moment. What defines right and wrong? Is it wrong to decapitate those with whome you disagree? Who says so? If you say yes, and I say no, one of us will lose his head over it. Who will be right and who will be wrong? Further, who will decide who is right and who is wrong? If come from within, then I get to decide and thus, I’m right and you are dead.

    This is the crux of the religious problem. Multiple definitions of right and wrong as delivered from on high. But, when there is no on high, what is delivered? Who has delivered? Who will judge?

    If God is not, it matters not.

    How do you argue with a C++ programmer who has spent his entire adolesence and adult life immersed in the confines of well-defined linear structures and binary logic that all variables set to null is not necessarily the baseline state?
    From the perspective of logic, using years of experience programming in C++ and C before that and even beyond into the inflexible layers of hard wires, ICs, transistors and electronic circuits.






Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise