RTWT - even though it COMPLETELY misses the point.
Turner creates a false dichotomy: religious versus secular voter.
Many religious people - myself and Bush included - are both deeply religious and committed secularists.
The true opposition is religious voter versus atheistic voter.
The true opposition is religious voter versus atheistic voter.
UPDATE: CORRECTION AMPLIFICATION = THE REAL DIVIDE IS UNIVERSALIST VOTER VERSUS RELATIVIST VOTER.
Here's why:
The fact is that democracy was founded by religious people, and this is because democracy is historically based on the first principal of Natural Law : that all humans are created equal and endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. The State does not grant or define these rights; UNIVERSAL Human Rights exist a priori.
Most of atheists - and ALL of cultural relativists and moral relativists - are opponents to any notion of Universal Human Rights because they believe that Human Rights can only be defined culturally/relatively.
Such a view provides no universal moral basis for democracy or democratic revolutions; such a view can ONLY explain revolutions as struggles between competing power bases.
Which is exactly how Marxists, and moral relativists and cultural relativists explain history. And I would include most of the Left; the Left has become overwhelmingly redefined by its relativism. This fact has been true since at least post-WW2, when post-modernism took root in the Left.
This post-modernist Leftist creed cannot offer a way to universally abolish slavery or sexual inequality, or racism, or genocide EXCEPT if-and-when there is CONSENSUS from all the world's nations and cultures - which is precisely why these relativists value multilateralism and the UN so highly: it is the only place where international/cross-cultural consensus can be reached, and for relativists cross-cultural consensus is the only means to temporal universality.
This is also why they have so often stood back and done nothing as genocide has been openly committed - they can't act if they can’t forge a consensus.
But true morality is NOT on based on polls; it is NOT relative; it is Universal; it holds that all homo sapiens are entitled to the same rights because we are literally and figuratively ONE FAMILY.
And in this family we should not tolerate it when our relatives are systematically denied their innate Human Rights. It is our duty to help our brothers and sisters.
This concept was enshrined as part of the UN Charter when the UN adopted the Declaration of Universal Human Rights - at the time a liberal notion embraced by all of the West.
Since then, it has become regarded by the Left as a neo-con notion - an attempt by the West to culturally hegemonize the world.
This shift occurred around the time that the Left realized that the working-class in the West would not lead the proletarian revolution (because of the enbourgeoisment - [their term] - of the working class - or so the Left claims), and that the revolution would be led by the Third World - especially the former colonies of the West.
This is why the Left (the hub of of atheistic, post-modernist, cultural morally relativist political ideology) aggrandizes any Third World dictator who opposes the USA or the West, and abhors only dictators who are pro-USA or pro-West. To the extent that OBL and Saddam and Zarqawi can be seen as anti-USA/anti-West, the Left embraces them.
The actual extremely low living standards and lack of basic human rights and liberties that our brothers and sisters have in totalitarian regimes doesn't matter to the Left as long as the regime is anti-USA or anti-West - like North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria - etc...
The Left in the USA is no different in this regard than the Left in continental Europe, and this is why they have such great affinity. They're against Natural Law; Natural Law is antithetical to their core beliefs.
The UK has a deep tradition of Natural Law and this is why they are natural allies of the USA. Ditto Israel.
Here's why:
The fact is that democracy was founded by religious people, and this is because democracy is historically based on the first principal of Natural Law : that all humans are created equal and endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights. The State does not grant or define these rights; UNIVERSAL Human Rights exist a priori.
Most of atheists - and ALL of cultural relativists and moral relativists - are opponents to any notion of Universal Human Rights because they believe that Human Rights can only be defined culturally/relatively.
Such a view provides no universal moral basis for democracy or democratic revolutions; such a view can ONLY explain revolutions as struggles between competing power bases.
Which is exactly how Marxists, and moral relativists and cultural relativists explain history. And I would include most of the Left; the Left has become overwhelmingly redefined by its relativism. This fact has been true since at least post-WW2, when post-modernism took root in the Left.
This post-modernist Leftist creed cannot offer a way to universally abolish slavery or sexual inequality, or racism, or genocide EXCEPT if-and-when there is CONSENSUS from all the world's nations and cultures - which is precisely why these relativists value multilateralism and the UN so highly: it is the only place where international/cross-cultural consensus can be reached, and for relativists cross-cultural consensus is the only means to temporal universality.
This is also why they have so often stood back and done nothing as genocide has been openly committed - they can't act if they can’t forge a consensus.
But true morality is NOT on based on polls; it is NOT relative; it is Universal; it holds that all homo sapiens are entitled to the same rights because we are literally and figuratively ONE FAMILY.
And in this family we should not tolerate it when our relatives are systematically denied their innate Human Rights. It is our duty to help our brothers and sisters.
This concept was enshrined as part of the UN Charter when the UN adopted the Declaration of Universal Human Rights - at the time a liberal notion embraced by all of the West.
Since then, it has become regarded by the Left as a neo-con notion - an attempt by the West to culturally hegemonize the world.
This shift occurred around the time that the Left realized that the working-class in the West would not lead the proletarian revolution (because of the enbourgeoisment - [their term] - of the working class - or so the Left claims), and that the revolution would be led by the Third World - especially the former colonies of the West.
This is why the Left (the hub of of atheistic, post-modernist, cultural morally relativist political ideology) aggrandizes any Third World dictator who opposes the USA or the West, and abhors only dictators who are pro-USA or pro-West. To the extent that OBL and Saddam and Zarqawi can be seen as anti-USA/anti-West, the Left embraces them.
The actual extremely low living standards and lack of basic human rights and liberties that our brothers and sisters have in totalitarian regimes doesn't matter to the Left as long as the regime is anti-USA or anti-West - like North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria - etc...
The Left in the USA is no different in this regard than the Left in continental Europe, and this is why they have such great affinity. They're against Natural Law; Natural Law is antithetical to their core beliefs.
The UK has a deep tradition of Natural Law and this is why they are natural allies of the USA. Ditto Israel.
1 comment:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/natural.html
Post a Comment