dueler88
The Left is going ape-nuts about “Bush’s domestic spying.” For some reason, this wasn’t an issue, and likely wouldn’t be an issue now, with a Democrat in the White House. Why?
Somehow the Left has gotten the impression that Republicans, and especially Bushitler, secretly want to oppress anybody that doesn't agree with them. It’s as if Republicans want nothing more than to spy on everybody that isn’t like them and find a way to ostracize and/or oppress those people for being different.
Take gay marriage, for example. Based upon the rhetoric, you’d think that Republicans want to wiretap, round up and send to the gas chamber all homosexuals. Please allow me to set the record straight.
I don’t have a problem with gay marriage: if your church will perform the ceremony, that's just fine with me - you have the freedom to do that. If you want me to bless said union, monetarily or otherwise, then you'd better look somewhere else because it is of no value to me, nor do I believe it is of value to so society. I will only bless it in as much as I wish for you to be happy. Heterosexual marriage, however, does have value to me and society. More often than not, those marriages result in offspring. Children need a stable home environment to grow in to well-adjusted adults. Mind you, I have many gay and lesbian friends and think very fondly of them. And I’m pretty sure that my opinion here reflects the basics of how most conservatives feel about it.
An individual’s negative evaluation of another person’s life choices does not immediately lead to the desire to eliminate that choice or the person that makes that choice.
I submit to you that because many conservatives come from a system of belief/faith we feel strongly that it is our right to believe and act according to our own conscience, and we will oppose anybody that prevents us from doing so. Individual conscience and belief is the basis of our thinking. From that basis must come the idea that everybody else is also free to think and act according to their own conscience. We don’t, however, expect others to bless or support our choices unless their consciences compel them to.
I further submit to you that the antithesis of individual conscience, rooted in socialist nihilism, is what the Left bases its actions and policies upon. I use the word policy in place of belief because policy is used in the context of applying rules to a group, whereas belief at its core applies to an individual. Therefore I have to think that it is much more likely for a Leftist to oppress a population than a conservative, simply because conservatives apply the (seemingly oxymoronic) universal rule of individual self-determination.
If I’m communicating with a foreign power (nation-state, religious group, etc.) that intends to do harm to American citizens, I would fully expect that the
There is a yawning chasm between 1. disagreement with individual choices and 2. acting to prevent willful acts of treason. Listening to the Democrats, you’d think a single step separates the former from the latter.
Update 1/03/06
If we are to believe Mark Steyn (HT: Wretchard), nihilist socialism will not die as a result of overthrow by an oppressed populace, but for want of “civilizational confidence.” In nihilist socialism, culture and ethics (faith?), shared or otherwise, are without value. Nothing much matters other than what the government can give you today. If you have nothing to live for but the present, and don't value yourself or your culture, why bother to take steps to continue their existence, i.e. procreate and teach the next generation that they have value?
The future belongs to people that decide they actually want one. Much of the West is deciding that, since their society is not perfect (HT: Major Mike), it is not worth preserving.
No comments:
Post a Comment