New Book coming out..dunno when, but...

[Husky23]

It's called ACLU vs. America

Here's and excerpt:

To understand the worldwide ideological battle - especially the one between America itself - one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightest worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values.

One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship law. They put their faith in law-both national and international. For most of the Left, “Is it legal?” is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong….

To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to morality…

And why is the Left so enamored by law?

First, the Left, which is largely secular, regards morality no as absolute, but as relative. This inevitability leads to moral confusion, and no one likes to be morally confused. So instead of moral absolutes, the left holds legal absolutes. “Legal” for the Left is what “moral” is for the Right. The religious have a belief in a God-based moral law, and the Left believes in man-made law as the moral law.

Second, whereas they cannot change God’s laws, those on the Left can and do make many of society’s laws. In fact the Left is intoxicated with law-making. It gives them the power to mold society just as Judeo-Christian values did in the past. Unless one understands that the leftist ideals function as a religion, one cannot understand the Left.

Laws are the Left’s vehicles to earthly salvation. Virtually all human problems have a legal solution. Some men harass women? Pass laws banning virtually every flirtatious action a man might engage in vis-a-vis a woman. Flood legislatures with laws preventing the creation of a “hostile work environment.” Whereas the religious world has always worked to teach men how to act toward women, the secular world, lacking these religious values, passes laws to control men.

In fact, since it lacks the self-control apparatus that is a major part of religion, the Left passes more and more laws to control people. That is why there is a direct link between the decline in Judeo-Christian religion and the increase in governmental laws controlling human behavior.

Of course, the more laws that are passed, the less liberty society enjoys. But to the Left, which elevates any number of values above liberty-e.g. compassion, equality, fairness- this presents little problem.

All this helps to explain the Left’s preoccupation with controlling courts; passing laws; producing, enriching and empowering lawyers; filing lawsuits; and naming judges. Laws and the makers of laws will produce heaven on earth. And that is why the Left hates the America….(that) says morality is higher than man-made law.


What think?

[101ABN]

husky23 said:

It's called ACLU vs. America

Here's and excerpt:

To understand the worldwide ideological battle - especially the one between America itself - one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightest worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values.

One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship law. They put their faith in law-both national and international. For most of the Left, “Is it legal?” is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong….

To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to morality…

And why is the Left so enamored by law?

First, the Left, which is largely secular, regards morality no as absolute, but as relative. This inevitability leads to moral confusion, and no one likes to be morally confused. So instead of moral absolutes, the left holds legal absolutes. “Legal” for the Left is what “moral” is for the Right. The religious have a belief in a God-based moral law, and the Left believes in man-made law as the moral law.

Second, whereas they cannot change God’s laws, those on the Left can and do make many of society’s laws. In fact the Left is intoxicated with law-making. It gives them the power to mold society just as Judeo-Christian values did in the past. Unless one understands that the leftist ideals function as a religion, one cannot understand the Left.

Laws are the Left’s vehicles to earthly salvation. Virtually all human problems have a legal solution. Some men harass women? Pass laws banning virtually every flirtatious action a man might engage in vis-a-vis a woman. Flood legislatures with laws preventing the creation of a “hostile work environment.” Whereas the religious world has always worked to teach men how to act toward women, the secular world, lacking these religious values, passes laws to control men.

In fact, since it lacks the self-control apparatus that is a major part of religion, the Left passes more and more laws to control people. That is why there is a direct link between the decline in Judeo-Christian religion and the increase in governmental laws controlling human behavior.

Of course, the more laws that are passed, the less liberty society enjoys. But to the Left, which elevates any number of values above liberty-e.g. compassion, equality, fairness- this presents little problem.

All this helps to explain the Left’s preoccupation with controlling courts; passing laws; producing, enriching and empowering lawyers; filing lawsuits; and naming judges. Laws and the makers of laws will produce heaven on earth. And that is why the Left hates the America….(that) says morality is higher than man-made law.


What think?

Good so far. Who's the author? Anyone I know?

[jaber1]

What think?

In a word - Stereotypical

In another - Crass thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=crass - or more properly perhaps, Coarse [same link]

I sincerely hope that you have a first-rate editor go through this before attempting publication anywhere than on some Internet blog.

Let me take the first paragraph and elucidate:

"To understand the worldwide ideological battle - especially the one between America itself - one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightest worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values."

worldwide ideological battle:
This opening phrase supposedly sets the scope of the discussion leading the reader to believe that the author has some interesting knowledge to impart about global ideologies.

Alas, the subsequent diatribe makes no attempt whatsoever to display any such knowledge - interesting or otherwise - thereby leaving the reader to conclude that this is nothing more than another example of a typical 'delusion of grandeur' expression one has come to expect from a present-day American writer.

between America itself:
The word 'between' requires at least TWO objects but only one is presented and even emphasised as being singular by the word 'itself'.

What is the reader to conclude? That "America" is schizophrenic or suffering from some other multiple personality disorder, or that the author has yet to learn elementary English?

The word 'within' rather than 'between' would be more relevant and less embarrassing.

must:
MUST? Imperative? Another expression of the grandiose? The word 'should' conveys the same intention in a more acceptable manner.

vast:
Hyperbole? If this word were removed would the sentence, and the idea conveyed therein, be diminished in any way?
The subsequent paragraphs fail to justify its use.

leftist and rightest:
Confusion! Which of these two is misspelled? If neither, then is this nothing more than a very clear indicator of the author's personal bent?

worldviews:
There is that 'world' word again.

Might I suggest the following:
"To understand the apparent ideological battle within America one should understand, initially, the differences between 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' views on secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values."

Does this not bring the opening paragraph fully within the ambit of the title "ACLU vs America" and lead more naturally into what follows?

Add the 2 cents to my bill.

[Husky23]

Jerome,

I realize these days "stereotypical" is utilized with a negative connotation, but that never-the-less does not make it a false presumption, accusation, or false reality.

Just my thoughts - and I'll call your 2 cents and raise a nickel.

[jaber1]

husky23 said:

Jerome,

I realize these days "stereotypical" is utilized with a negative connotation, but that never-the-less does not make it a false presumption, accusation, or false reality.

Just my thoughts - and I'll call your 2 cents and raise a nickel.

Husky, 'stereotypical' was used factually; Crass/coarse was the negative assessment.

Factually? Well, you will have heard of Left-wingers who are religious - try Tony Blair [New Labour]; Charles Kennedy [Liberal Democrats]; probably most if not all the Senate Democrats; Al Sharpton and congregation; Jesse Jackson and congregation; etc., etc.
As for secular Right-wingers - your are reading one

Hence, the portrayal of near exclusivity in the excerpt - Right=religious - is a false presumption and definitely a false reality.

There is no accusation being made by the author. He/she presents this as a fact, a given - which it clearly is not.
Of course, were he/she to present some authoritative statistics on this I may stand corrected.

Not wishing to get too bogged down for my nickel, I would ask one thing: Now that the 'Right' has almost exclusive law-making power in America, how many laws are they preparing to repeal? Roe v Wade is fairly obvious but what others?

I would put to you 'NONE' while at the same time promulgating many more, including ones that seek to severely restrict or to override individual's rights supposedly to curb 'immoral' behaviour - Patriot Act and Jessica's Law come immediately to mind.

Other words that came to mind were 'sanctimonious' or 'holier than thou' but that would have assumed that the author was even aware that the view from outside its borders - looking into the U.S. - is that that country no longer holds anything close to the 'highground' on any matter of 'moral' value.
Perhaps that is why the author stayed firmly in home territory.

See your nickel; raise $10.00

[Husky23]

Jerome,

Upon your clarification; ‘Stereotypical’ may have been used factually by you, but initially that was not my perception, rather a disingenuous slight of your opinion of this snapshot. Without dissecting the grammar, spelling and/or sentence structure and, of course, quickly concluding the cruelty to which Americans have razed the Queens English, it is possible the author will present their case with resounding examples to support their claim, whether globally factual or personally true. After all this is just a foretaste of his/her book.

Even so, it can be quite factually stated that the old adage “Perception is reality” rings true. For not all too long ago all the significant nations of the world perceived Saddam had a developing WMD program, a perception of which he even foolishly reinforced. Furthermore, a coalition was formed and ousted him for that very perception, among other unruly violations, of course.

While a nickel isn’t worth getting bogged down for, a currently, $10.07 pot is adding a slight amount of justification. For that allow me to illuminate my position over the table somewhat. Without citing specifics I can identify with the authors position, I fear the hard religious right nearly as much as the fringe left. I am certainly no advocate of a theocracy, even a Christian one. Equally so I am no advocate of “law” dictated by the government as our God. Laws change. If ALL morality is based on the sinful nature of man, and human law sways with the wind – a God of law is ever changing, as is; what is morally right and wrong. Leading to more and more confusion, disorientation, dissatisfaction, lost and loneliness – like a ship without a rudder. Secularism for sure, but a implementing a never changing foundation of simple moral codes based upon something higher than mans fickle notions.

See your $10 spot and raise you £10

Hey, I’d be interested in you results here, if you’re up to it:

www.worldviewweekend.com/test/register.php

Ya, I know, you gotta register, but I’ve only received like 2 e-mails from them in months.

[jaber1]

Husky, you are raising some good points here - along with your ten quid - and they deserve my undivided attention for longer than time permits today.

Unfortunately, I am travelling again for a week so I have diarised to get back to you on my return next Wednesday.

Cheers. Catch U L8R.

[jaber1]

Re: New Book coming out..dunno when, but...
« Reply #5 on Aug 31, 2005, 5:16pm »

Jerome,

Upon your clarification; ‘Stereotypical’ may have been used factually by you, but initially that was not my perception, rather a disingenuous slight of your opinion of this snapshot. Without dissecting the grammar, spelling and/or sentence structure and, of course, quickly concluding the cruelty to which Americans have razed the Queens English, it is possible the author will present their case with resounding examples to support their claim, whether globally factual or personally true. After all this is just a foretaste of his/her book.

I sincerely hope so, as I also hope that the writer will return to the other nodes of the Bayesian tree he/she developed that are not covered in the 'snapshot' provided rather than attempt, for an entire book, to simply remain in the morass of 'American left vs right' diatribe and 'America hate-speech' into which he/she descended so rapidly. Unfortunately, from the intended title I think that my hope will be unfulfilled - but you can keep us all apprised, I am sure. Do you happen to have the Table of Contents as a start?

Even so, it can be quite factually stated that the old adage “Perception is reality” rings true. For not all too long ago all the significant nations of the world perceived Saddam had a developing WMD program, a perception of which he even foolishly reinforced. Furthermore, a coalition was formed and ousted him for that very perception, among other unruly violations, of course.

Seeking the etymology of the phrase 'Perception is reality' on the Internet revealed its prevalent use in marketing - or consumerism chicanery to be more precise - so, in that context, I will not attempt to gainsay your opinion even though I do not think that you intended to convey that seemingly commonplace usage.

I will, however, say that I have a vague recollection of the same or very similar expression being used many years ago but the complete phrase that I recollect was along the lines of "Perception is reality in the mind of the believer." I guess that today we would express this idea with something like 'Preaching to the converted'.

Given the general readership of this board, I would submit that that also would be apt and therefore not attempt to refute the 'truth' of either the content of the excerpt nor your illustrative examples in the minds of that readership.

As an aside, of the more than 200,000 'hits' obtained by the search engine [of which I admit to parsing no more than 50] I did find some interesting observations in Dean's World from April 2003:
www.deanesmay.com/archives/001200.html

While a nickel isn’t worth getting bogged down for, a currently, $10.07 pot is adding a slight amount of justification. For that allow me to illuminate my position over the table somewhat. Without citing specifics I can identify with the authors position, I fear the hard religious right nearly as much as the fringe left. I am certainly no advocate of a theocracy, even a Christian one. Equally so I am no advocate of “law” dictated by the government as our God. Laws change. If ALL morality is based on the sinful nature of man, and human law sways with the wind – a God of law is ever changing, as is; what is morally right and wrong. Leading to more and more confusion, disorientation, dissatisfaction, lost and loneliness – like a ship without a rudder. Secularism for sure, but a implementing a never changing foundation of simple moral codes based upon something higher than mans fickle notions.

While I share your negative opinion of extremism at either end of both the political and religious spectra, I find your notion of "a never-changing foundation of simple moral codes" intriguing - I agree with the idea but I think a small qualification may be called for. Well, small in words but large in import.

Let me illustrate what I mean with possibly the simplest of recognised simple moral codes: The Ten Commandments. I refer you to what I think is a good, fairly objective overview of the extent of disparity in human beliefs - more than mere fickle notions - on just these ten statements, or rather - more to the point of our discussion - Commandments 5 through 10 that relate to human interaction rather than interaction with the Deity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

The qualification I would suggest would be "implementing a never changing foundation of simple moral codes for oneself ..."

I don't want to drag this illustration too far off topic, and certainly not into the plethora of potential derivative topics, but at some point in my mid- to late-20's I developed my own 'simple moral code' to live by as far as I am able, constrained only by a necessity for protection of myself and/or members of my family, namely, not to lie, cheat or steal.
Further, I inculcated this in my children by applying corporal punishment [three stripes on the backside] only for infringements of these three values, administered in my office after discussion and obtaining their agreement of how their behaviour was an infringement that warranted the befitting punishment. They were always allowed to plead their case, and sometimes they won when the full story was given and attested.

Why develop my own code beyond those revealed in the Old and New Testaments? Simply because I was dissatisfied with the dogma of my family 'church' and, after much reading and discussion with people of other faiths, found no more satisfaction in any alternate dogma or liturgy. My belief in the Power of God was constant and unequivocal, but the incessant marketing and insistent claims as to 'their truth' as well as on 'my' soul by mere mortals was intolerable.

See your $10 spot and raise you £10

I think you have your ten pounds worth above [about US$18.38 today] making the pot US$28.45 to me. I'll see your $18.38 and round the pot off to $70.00 by raising $23.17.

By my estimate, I have one covered and two open Aces to your one open King, so what will you be dealt for your third?

Hey, I’d be interested in you results here, if you’re up to it:

www.worldviewweekend.com/test/register.php

Ya, I know, you gotta register, but I’ve only received like 2 e-mails from them in months.

Ha, ha ... I would probably fare worse than this chap.
www.newpantagruel.com/issues/1.3/christian_college_professor_fl.php
Initially, the title caught my eye but I found his arguments lucid, illuminating and very readable to the extent that I found the test to be unnecessary

I had a vague memory of Pantagruel from my schooldays so I looked it up and found some 477,000 hits! But again, Wikipedia put things succinctly into perspective:
"The Ending
The epic journey ends with Pantagruel producing a large shit, perhaps the ultimate commentary on the subjects of politics and religion which the books satirize."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantagruel

[Husky23]

Jerome,

It's been a hell of a week, with no respite insight. I've reviewed briefly, interesting. Nice. Allow me to scounge up change and/or convert what's on hand and I'll be back.

[jaber1]

husky23 said:

Jerome,

It's been a hell of a week, with no respite insight. I've reviewed briefly, interesting. Nice. Allow me to scounge up change and/or convert what's on hand and I'll be back.

No worries, Husky. The thread is going to stay right here and I will be travelling again soon. Take your time. Keep well.