Morality in Media & Republican Justices
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Greywolf
New member
First off, Bob's got it backwards. It's about treating animals more like people, not the other way around. Secondly, treating animals with a certain measure of respect isn't justification to act like animals by any stretch of the imagination.
The theory of evolution says nothing about how we should or shouldn't behave.
Granting women the same rights as men isn't the same as encouraging them to be promiscuous.
Which explains why public schools have those sex-ed classes that promote chastity, which if I recall correctly is pretty much in line with Christiandom's idea of sexual morality.
TheMindVillage
New member
Lord have mercy. At times I wonder if I am in a netherworld. Below are my responses to this bizarre attempt at the philosophical.
First some definitions to help us go about this argument in a more prudent manner:
1) Immorality: n 1: the quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct
(Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University)
2) \Lib"er*al\, n. One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems; a reformer
(Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)
Admittedly, the other side might choose the definition that points to liberalism as 'one that embraces licentiousness' but given the realities, we will throw this aside as we have no proof - only platitudes.
Using abortion as a springboard for this discussion allow me to move from here to a discussion of broader ideas and implications. From a liberal perspective, abortion is indeed a moral issue. For Liberals, it is an issue of Constitutional morality. For pro-life folks - it is an issue of religious morality and criminal behavior. Certainly a debate on abortion is a losing one. Good people can disagree. But, from the perspective of most liberal thinkers, abortion is a matter of choice because a lack of choosing what to do with one's own body (read: women) is a severe abridgement of personal, human rights.
Now, assuming that all human beings operated with the same upbringing, the same religious code and we lived in a country that mandated a uniform religious practice, abortion (and all the other issues) could in fact violate the moral code. But, in fact, we are a country that embraces many differing viewpoints and tolerates many religious/moral approaches to the issue of abortion. Moreover, the abortion debate falls short of discussing the STRUCTURAL implications in society. While all of us would LOVE to have young people resist sex and abstain the stark reality is that they will not. This falls on one's moral upbringing. Moreover, if we were to move to a pro-life legal position in this country, what would the safety nets be for all of these future presidents with mothers who have no support systems? Are we punishing the child for the irresponsibility of the mother and father? That doesn't sound very pro-life to me!
If in fact we go down the road that pro-choice (or if you prefer pro-abortion) advocates are labeled sexually deviant, then we must label those on the pro-life side as anti-abortion. Many on the pro-life side also embraced the war in Iraq, the death penalty, other forms of penal non-rehabilitative correctional systems, anti-welfare, anti-public school and supportive of the nascent form of capitalism (brutal and anti-life affirming in and of itself). These elements could be construed as NOT life affirming. Hence, we could go down the road and label such hypocrisy and deviance as situational morality - or call them anti-life. I prefer to say that good people disagree and that is the beauty of our country.
Broader Discussion and Implications
Any discussion of sexual deviance or immorality as attached to liberals must in fact be treaded carefully. In fact, one should recognize that no political belief or set of beliefs is all-encompassing or all correct. We could view Liberalism as one way of achieving a certain means to an end.
If we consider that public education is a way of achieving a way of meeting the needs of hundreds of thousands of children who would not have access to educational opportunity, avoid social deviance, and promote themselves to a higher social and spiritual standing, then in liberalism it has served its purpose. Admittedly, public education has failed in some respects - but the beauty of public education is the notion that it is in fact public. Those speaking out most against public education are typically those hold-overs who believe that total access to all segments of society means integrating our children with unseemly children. They then, by the beauty of our system, have the right to put their child in private school. The imposition of course is that one has to pay taxes for their share of the public schools - but this is a matter of choice. What alternatives, liberals ask, are there to public schools that don't in some way exclude millions of children. I would ask - what then are conservatives who loathe public schools advocating but an anti-life affirming platform. Is that fair? Perhaps not. Is it fair to paint with a broad, simpleton's brush that those in favor of public school are sexually deviant...absolutely not.
Next, let us consider that feminism is not ONE ideology. To identify ALL feminists in this way speaks to one's ignorance of the feminist movement itself. There are - YES - CHRISTIAN feminists who believe that women have a right to adhere to Biblical definitions defined for women from God. There are liberal feminists who believe that workplace equality is essential but fail to agree with the radical feminists who believe society must be overhauled. Within all of these factions, there are numerous groups - and even those that oppose public education and abortion!!!! So, complex ideologies and philosophical systems cannot be reduced to one simplistic statement or a perceived common denominator that is in fact false.
Next, welfare is always a prime target of conservatives who fail to understand that welfare is no longer what it once was. There is also a cognitive dissonance that occurs. Welfare costs us much less than the hundreds of billions spent on corporate welfare. Some of you might sigh, but the reality is that we have spent more in the Enron bailout, the Savings and Loan scandal of the 80s and numerous other corporate entities than we have paid out for welfare in its totality. Certainly, welfare needs reformed - and GUESS WHAT?! It has been. Welfare is a safety net for all Americans. In this economy, as well as in any recession, welfare serves to get people over the hump. It has been abused - no doubt. But the Cadillac mamas and systemic abuses referenced as wasteful are no different than the pork spending or corporate handouts. ALL of it needs reformed. Good-minded people of all political persuasions recognize that. But eradication of a system that is designed to help our fellow man get on his or her feet is not one based in sexual deviance. Consider that numerous white, formerly middle-class folks that have made use of welfare to get back on track. In fact, governmental usage statistics point out this population is by far THE Largest user of welfare services. Ironic isn't it? Is it sexually deviant? I am not convinced that it is any more sexually deviant than the Baptist minister who claims he is saving people from pornography by watching it in the church basement to determine content. I am not convinced that liberalism is any more sexually deviant than the Jimmy Swaggarts, the Bakers, the Bob Livingstons, the Henry Hydes or 'conservative' politicians from Oregon known to grope women in Congressional elevators. I am not convinced that liberalism is any more sexually deviant than the priests of catholic churches who engaged in child sex crimes.
You see the argument made is a slippery one. It can go both ways. And, honestly, I would rather discuss the issues related to liberal reforms - the successes and failures - in contrast to conservative positions.
First some definitions to help us go about this argument in a more prudent manner:
1) Immorality: n 1: the quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct
(Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University)
2) \Lib"er*al\, n. One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems; a reformer
(Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)
Admittedly, the other side might choose the definition that points to liberalism as 'one that embraces licentiousness' but given the realities, we will throw this aside as we have no proof - only platitudes.
Using abortion as a springboard for this discussion allow me to move from here to a discussion of broader ideas and implications. From a liberal perspective, abortion is indeed a moral issue. For Liberals, it is an issue of Constitutional morality. For pro-life folks - it is an issue of religious morality and criminal behavior. Certainly a debate on abortion is a losing one. Good people can disagree. But, from the perspective of most liberal thinkers, abortion is a matter of choice because a lack of choosing what to do with one's own body (read: women) is a severe abridgement of personal, human rights.
Now, assuming that all human beings operated with the same upbringing, the same religious code and we lived in a country that mandated a uniform religious practice, abortion (and all the other issues) could in fact violate the moral code. But, in fact, we are a country that embraces many differing viewpoints and tolerates many religious/moral approaches to the issue of abortion. Moreover, the abortion debate falls short of discussing the STRUCTURAL implications in society. While all of us would LOVE to have young people resist sex and abstain the stark reality is that they will not. This falls on one's moral upbringing. Moreover, if we were to move to a pro-life legal position in this country, what would the safety nets be for all of these future presidents with mothers who have no support systems? Are we punishing the child for the irresponsibility of the mother and father? That doesn't sound very pro-life to me!
If in fact we go down the road that pro-choice (or if you prefer pro-abortion) advocates are labeled sexually deviant, then we must label those on the pro-life side as anti-abortion. Many on the pro-life side also embraced the war in Iraq, the death penalty, other forms of penal non-rehabilitative correctional systems, anti-welfare, anti-public school and supportive of the nascent form of capitalism (brutal and anti-life affirming in and of itself). These elements could be construed as NOT life affirming. Hence, we could go down the road and label such hypocrisy and deviance as situational morality - or call them anti-life. I prefer to say that good people disagree and that is the beauty of our country.
Broader Discussion and Implications
Any discussion of sexual deviance or immorality as attached to liberals must in fact be treaded carefully. In fact, one should recognize that no political belief or set of beliefs is all-encompassing or all correct. We could view Liberalism as one way of achieving a certain means to an end.
If we consider that public education is a way of achieving a way of meeting the needs of hundreds of thousands of children who would not have access to educational opportunity, avoid social deviance, and promote themselves to a higher social and spiritual standing, then in liberalism it has served its purpose. Admittedly, public education has failed in some respects - but the beauty of public education is the notion that it is in fact public. Those speaking out most against public education are typically those hold-overs who believe that total access to all segments of society means integrating our children with unseemly children. They then, by the beauty of our system, have the right to put their child in private school. The imposition of course is that one has to pay taxes for their share of the public schools - but this is a matter of choice. What alternatives, liberals ask, are there to public schools that don't in some way exclude millions of children. I would ask - what then are conservatives who loathe public schools advocating but an anti-life affirming platform. Is that fair? Perhaps not. Is it fair to paint with a broad, simpleton's brush that those in favor of public school are sexually deviant...absolutely not.
Next, let us consider that feminism is not ONE ideology. To identify ALL feminists in this way speaks to one's ignorance of the feminist movement itself. There are - YES - CHRISTIAN feminists who believe that women have a right to adhere to Biblical definitions defined for women from God. There are liberal feminists who believe that workplace equality is essential but fail to agree with the radical feminists who believe society must be overhauled. Within all of these factions, there are numerous groups - and even those that oppose public education and abortion!!!! So, complex ideologies and philosophical systems cannot be reduced to one simplistic statement or a perceived common denominator that is in fact false.
Next, welfare is always a prime target of conservatives who fail to understand that welfare is no longer what it once was. There is also a cognitive dissonance that occurs. Welfare costs us much less than the hundreds of billions spent on corporate welfare. Some of you might sigh, but the reality is that we have spent more in the Enron bailout, the Savings and Loan scandal of the 80s and numerous other corporate entities than we have paid out for welfare in its totality. Certainly, welfare needs reformed - and GUESS WHAT?! It has been. Welfare is a safety net for all Americans. In this economy, as well as in any recession, welfare serves to get people over the hump. It has been abused - no doubt. But the Cadillac mamas and systemic abuses referenced as wasteful are no different than the pork spending or corporate handouts. ALL of it needs reformed. Good-minded people of all political persuasions recognize that. But eradication of a system that is designed to help our fellow man get on his or her feet is not one based in sexual deviance. Consider that numerous white, formerly middle-class folks that have made use of welfare to get back on track. In fact, governmental usage statistics point out this population is by far THE Largest user of welfare services. Ironic isn't it? Is it sexually deviant? I am not convinced that it is any more sexually deviant than the Baptist minister who claims he is saving people from pornography by watching it in the church basement to determine content. I am not convinced that liberalism is any more sexually deviant than the Jimmy Swaggarts, the Bakers, the Bob Livingstons, the Henry Hydes or 'conservative' politicians from Oregon known to grope women in Congressional elevators. I am not convinced that liberalism is any more sexually deviant than the priests of catholic churches who engaged in child sex crimes.
You see the argument made is a slippery one. It can go both ways. And, honestly, I would rather discuss the issues related to liberal reforms - the successes and failures - in contrast to conservative positions.
Last edited:
TheMindVillage
New member
Boy -
Boy -
I guess people can't handle it when someone backs their argument up with facts and thought ;-).
I am curious why the lack of response.
Boy -
I guess people can't handle it when someone backs their argument up with facts and thought ;-).
I am curious why the lack of response.
TheMindVillage
New member
Oh well
Oh well
LOL - it was a reasoned attempt at discussion.
It's too bad that you decide to engage in that approach as opposed to a principled dialogue (uh...methought this was what this board was all about?!?!) Is this an example of private, homeschool education at work in your life? My goodness...God never asked us to be close-minded...or did he? Perhaps I missed that part where he said he only listened to people who were nasty, conservative, listened solely to talk radio for the truth, and believe in only derision.
Anyhow, enjoy your conservativist one-liners and nastiness.
I hope there are those interested in talking through the issues...
I still love ya anyway pal ;-)
In Christ,
Oh well
LOL - it was a reasoned attempt at discussion.
It's too bad that you decide to engage in that approach as opposed to a principled dialogue (uh...methought this was what this board was all about?!?!) Is this an example of private, homeschool education at work in your life? My goodness...God never asked us to be close-minded...or did he? Perhaps I missed that part where he said he only listened to people who were nasty, conservative, listened solely to talk radio for the truth, and believe in only derision.
Anyhow, enjoy your conservativist one-liners and nastiness.
I hope there are those interested in talking through the issues...
I still love ya anyway pal ;-)
In Christ,
Here's another definition of liberal that I think you would agree with.
Liberal:Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views.
The problem for liberal "Christians" is that the traditional views and attitudes they are "not limited" to were established by the authority of God!
Liberal:Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views.
The problem for liberal "Christians" is that the traditional views and attitudes they are "not limited" to were established by the authority of God!
Last edited:
TheMindVillage
New member
THERE WE GO!
THERE WE GO!
Some discussion! Let me think about that...I appreciate you coming around and making some substantive commentary! I mean that sincerely.
THERE WE GO!
Some discussion! Let me think about that...I appreciate you coming around and making some substantive commentary! I mean that sincerely.
TheMindVillage
New member
Liberal Christianity, true, believes that less adherence to doctrine is essential. But, to somehow imply that this makes liberal Christians in defiance pf the authority of God relies on the premise that the Bible is in fact the unerring word of God and that those who claim to be fundamentally allied with God are the only right-thinking people. Most people (in my opinion) would admit that the Bible in fact is the essential instruction manual for good, Christian living. Yet, the notion that somehow the Bible is infallible leaves no room for human error - and indeed humans wrote the sixty six books of God. There are in fact errors at some level that prove to be biases of the time and present issues related from that particular author's viewpoint.
The truth and beauty of God, in Jesus Christ, is the personal relationships we build; the seeking of truth and wisdom from God; and the acknowledgement that in fact we are human - we are fallible - and that we must in fact pray for guidance and present ourselves humbly. Certainly, we can believe in certain political and religious pathways that assist us in our moral framework, but we need not be so dogmatic that the potential of other Christian views must be discarded.
I admit my own guilt in this area. My own frustration with fundamentalism is a prime example. But, where most of us differ is the fact that I am willing to work through my own biases and see the other sides and entertain the possibility I COULD BE wrong. I then rely on my prayerful relationship with Christ Jesus to guide me in my thinking and to make sure most of all my arguments are rooted in love. And, yes at times I fail.
Thus, Bob Enyart seems to me not so intent on prayerful thought and contemplation - but rather a willful, mean-spirited adherence to a dogmatism that reinforces his need to be prejudicial and hurtful. As a liberal, and as a God-fearing man who loves his family and community deeply, I take offense at the implication that in some way, shape or form I am sexually deviant because I believe in the power of liberalism and also in Christ to uplift the human condition. I am also willing to admit that not all people believe this as a means to an end. However, for me I cannot fathom a world in which I hold so sternly to Biblical truths that I miss the overarching themes and messages that God is conveying to me. I cannot fathom a God that condones "emissaries" who believe in saying "God hates fags" or that non-Christians are worth less than those "born again". I cannot fathom, in fact NEITHER CAN THE BIBLE, a God that scorns the poor as lazy and unworthy of society.
No, I have no corner on the truth. I simply believe that - as a liberal Christian - the struggle for the truth, the journey - is essential.
I am, thus, open to your viewpoints but also respectfully take issue with the fact the somehow I have turned my back on the authority of God. I am a thinking Christian who believes in the sanctity of the human spirit as God envisioned.
Last edited:
Yes
Yes I am aware that is what you would infer
unless ,as I believe, God inspired the writers to understanding that surpased there biases
unless there are some things that are ,in fact, true
get to know him you may change your mind
so when God passed judgment on the wicked in the OT as well as the NT did he distroy them in love
You are infering too much again
Do you know anyone with such a position
It is interesting how all these "morality" issues raised by Enyart do revolve around sex. What about morality issues dealing with poverty, with waging a war based on faulty information by a President who never makes mistakes. There are other "morality" issues.
This guy remains a nasty, nasty man.
This guy remains a nasty, nasty man.
- Status