>Now, on "liberalism". Frankly, my impression is -- and please do not take offense -- that you have formed your conception of liberalism from, shall we say, "unfriendly" third sources. You certainly don't appear to have dipped into any of the standard histories of liberalism.<
I have read a great deal on liberalism, but my concern is with current American liberalism, the brand that has codified into law the wholesale destruction of millions of human beings, and that desires to codify the establishment of homosexuals as a protected class of people. I am not interested in debating which historical figure deserve to be called liberal or conservative, or the technical/historical definitions of the word liberal. When historical and political context is taken into account, the term can mean different things. Arguably, JFK was conservative and Lincoln liberal. Again, my concern is with current American liberalism, the purveyors of abortion, homosexuality and other moral depravity.
>In any event, liberalism is not a totalitarian ideology. (It is derived from the word "liber" -- free -- after all.)<
This is a mere technical issue. American liberalism is indeed a totalitarian ideology. It aims to use law to force others into its own politically correct mold. Our schools and universities today reek with liberal totalitarianism. Our federal government and even many of our businesses with their notorious required "sensitivity training sessions", now are being infiltrated by liberal totalitarian doctrine. Arguably religious conservatism aims to use the law to further its agenda also. But I think religious conservatives merely use the law and the democratic system in the attempt to, as they say, "fight fire with fire."
>You will not find all [liberals] supporting all the policies that you think are an integral part of the "liberal agenda." Without elaborating on that point any further, let me say that although I consider myself a "liberal", I do not support sucking the brains out of babies. I have reservations about euthanasia. Although I fully support full civil rights for homosexuals, I do not see why they want -- or need -- homosexual marriage. And so forth. Even on these touchstone issues, there is less disagreement between you and at least this particular liberal than you assume.<
I am perhaps encouraged sir, and will consider revisiting my opinion of American liberals, perhaps reclassifying the less rabid amongst them to a group unsoiled by the stench of their more death and depravity promoting comrades.
>It does seem true that in deciding socio-political matters, I would look more to Reason as a guide, while you might look more to God. But that is natural; Liberalism, after all, was the child of the Enlightenment.<
I look to reason as much as any reasonable man, but as a philosophical theist have sense enough to know that reason has its limits. There is but one law governing this universe, and that law is Might makes Right. The thing is terribly frightful when left in man's hands, and those who worship at Reason's alter are wont to do just this.
>Anyway, the basic point I wish to make is this. Many self-described conservatives (who also have a wide range of views) set up a straw man: The Liberal. And they ascribe to this Liberal a certain set of views, a complete ideology. Then they attack it. Many self-described Liberals do the same: they too set up a straw man, ascribe to it a complete ideology, and then attack it.<
Agreed. Nevertheless there are issues that for me will automatically place a man in the "liberal" camp. I use the term not to erect an easily defeated straw man, but as a matter of convenience. The term is ultimately subjective, and as such I use it as a focusing mechanism designed expressly to attack the ideological set that I detest. I leave it to the minds of others to increase and decrease the severity of my ire, this, on the basis of how closely a man holds to the issues that I consider reprehensible. Perhaps here I expect too much, but any reasonable person should be successful in the effort.
>It is very easy to demolish a straw man. It is much harder, but a lot more rewarding, I think, for people to discuss a single real issue that divides them, to try to understand the other side's point of view, to see whether consensus or compromise can, or cannot be, reached on that particular issue. And then on to the next one. All IMO, of course.<
How I wish it were possible, but what you ask is quite unreasonable. I cannot in good conscience and on principle compromise or develop consensus with anyone who approves of the systematic destruction of children, or who desires to elevate homosexual depravity to acceptability. I cannot compromise with anyone who would force me to pay for "art" that directly insults my own identity, the very core of my existence. Think the thing through sir. The liberals want their art, they want me to pay for it and they have used it to repeatedly assault my identity. When I have complained that I do not want to participate in this process, they then have claimed I was unreasonable, and then pressed on to by law possess the power to offend me in the same way. You suggest I compromise? Dear me, sir. I nearly desire to go to war over this lunacy, and were the circumstances right, I dare say I would.
Liberals tend to look only at the here and now, and it is rare that I find any in possession of enough grey matter to think in terms even of the next generation. (Indeed they are bent on having the country pay for the killing of the next generation) So my position will no doubt sound quite unreasonable to the liberal. I think in terms of heritage and legacy. It is to expect too much to expect liberals to even think.
To me there are worse things than death, and there are things for which I believe it is worth dying. I am raising a handful of extraordinary men here in my home. The time will come (for me all too soon) when they will leave me to choose mates and themselves produce children. They will depend upon all that they are to continue the heritage I have for so very much of my natural life sacrificed to give them. My doing as you say would be to deny that effort, the roots of which span over thousands of years. To in any way embrace homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia and the horde of other poisonous doctrines of the left, would to me be tantamount to suicide. I want to live, and when my opponents threaten to force me by law to promote what I believe is antithetical to my life and legacy, my tendency is to fight and win at all cost. It is a struggle for me, as my Christian faith commands I relinquish my life to God, trusting Him to exact His revenge in due time, this, despite the destruction promised me by my enemies.
So then I allow the law to force me to support such things as "Piss Christ" and federally funded infanticide. Soon it will try and force me directly, to rent my homes to homosexuals. I will eventually be commanded directly, to support the partners of homosexuals who may be in my company, since I support the spouses of other of my employees. These things I find so reprehensible that when the command comes, I simply will defy it. I cannot obey it because it forces me directly, to reject flatly what I know to be right and good. I cannot compromise because my identity is being assaulted with each advance of the liberal agenda. If this seems unreasonable to you, then I am not a bit surprised. |
