The View From 1776

-----------------
Liberals emphatically disagree with recent postings in which I asserted that every document of history demonstrates that morality has come always and exclusively from a society’s religion. 

Moral standards are, despite liberals’ contentions, the very essence of civilization itself. 

After all, to be civilized means that people living together, originally in a city state (hence the “civi” part of the word), had to have commonly accepted standards of conduct if any kind of civil order were to prevail.  If everyone did as he pleased, there would be no way to settle disputes other than by personal, and very frequent, combat in the streets.

That is, of course, the conditions brought about in our inner cities by liberals’ Great Society.  Drive-by shootings, gang wars among drug dealers, burglaries and muggings to feed drug habits were the stuff of everyday life at the zenith of liberal “progress” in the 1960s and 1970s.

But our secularized and socialized educational system teaches a phony version of history.  Liberals continue to assert the New York Times editorial board world-view that outrageous, “in your face” confrontational behavior, especially when directed at religious Jews or Christians, is to be encouraged. 

In the liberal-socialist theology, such conduct leads to the disintegration of Judeo-Christian morality and clears the way for the secular materialism of socialism.  This is what is described as “science” under the rubric of sociology and psychology.

A typical salvo was emailed today from a liberal reader:

*********

My moral standards arise from a simple human emotion: empathy.

That comes from within, not from without. Right-wing religious people seem to be so devoid of the emotion, though, it’s no wonder they can’t imagine a morality derived from anything other than an institution imposed from outside. Right-wing religious people often act suspicious of empathy, and accuse people who feel it as “bleeding-heart liberals.”

Pathetic, huh?
 
But there’s your answer. Morality derived from empathy requires no religion whatsoever, just a emotional connection to your fellow creatures.

***********

My response:

Thanks for your message. 

How much empathy do you have for unborn children?  You may not approve of abortion, but most liberals’ empathy for women lead them fervently to endorse what amounts to millions of human sacrifices on the altar of hedonistic self-indulgence.

How much empathy do you have for women (or men) used in unmarried sexual promiscuity then abandoned to deal with emotional heartbreak?  You may not approve of it, but most liberals believe such conduct to be applauded, because it breaks down thousands of years of moral traditions that are the very substance of civilization.

I have addressed the problems of societies as wholes, using the facts of history.

You are postulating that, because you fancy yourself to be moral, solely on the basis of you own ideas of empathy, without regard to what others may think of it, that such is sufficient for all of humanity. 

You are correct that your personal ideas of empathy require no external standards deriving from religion. 

But neither did Adolph Hitler’s empathy with the deutsche Volk that led him to exterminate the Jews. 

Visit MoveOff Network Members