I can understand Leonard Pitts, jr's confusion concerning what ought to be described as a liberal, a person who wants to fix what is wrong in society, usually through gvt activism. And efforts at demonizing such an individual, just for wanting such gvt activism in the first place. At the same time, if this is a morality argument, that being a "conservative" is both righteous and Godly; to date, I fail to find anything righteous or Godly about being a so-called "conservative."
Reminds me years ago, visiting various message boards, including one for "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Seems there was a particularly hostile poster who treated the Second Commandment as uttered by Christ, to love your neighbor as yourself as some kind of a liberalism that was dangerous, naive, and of course totally unacceptable. A biblical commandment as found in the New Testament and this poster was telling me 1. Just how ignorant the poster was about his/her bible and 2. Morality arguments that somehow did not translate into practicing what one preaches. In even earlier years, I saw a remarkable whine from a letter writer to the Press who described precisely Secular Humanism and was wondering why I did not apply such "secular humanistic" standards to her and people who thought like her. In short, long before Mr. Pitts finally caught wind of this, this strange identification of what it means to be "conservative," I was getting the general drift of how much you owe me, it is all about me, me first; before projecting that social or individual failing onto other people. Of course, "liberals."
Only by reading these posts on message boards, written letters and even published editorials could I finally come to the conclusions that I now have of radical — New Left or Old Left. You see, both style of radicals tend to go off the deep end. They are narrow minded, obsessed with their agendas, they do not take into consideration other opinions, the fact that people may indeed disagree with them, that their agendas may in fact cause more harm than good. They may be passionate, but they are hardly compassionate. And the gvt should be there for me, me, me... the causes I support. And both types of radicals certainly do engage in social engineering, I don't like the fact that this society is racist... Gvt pass a law. I don't like the idea of legal abortion... Gvt pass a law. Illegal immigrants should ultimately have the same rights as legal Americans... Gvt pass a law. I don't think gays should marry... Gvt pass a law. And on, and on, and on. Since both types of radicals insist on gvt running amok, who is the conservative? And since none of the radicals think in terms of morality but rather in power plays. Can I be the special interest that gvt is most inclined to support never mind what it does, tax wise, etc. to my neighbor, who is effectively the liberal? And both the new left and the old left have touted being "agents of change." But of course, they want "change" to be spear headed by some kind of activist gvt acting on behalf of their special interests and social agendas. And any number of letters to the Coeur d'Alene Press that whined about too much gvt, but then in another breath in another letter, what gvt wasn't doing to support my passionate cause and how we must elect so and so to guarantee that gvt is activist on my behalf. Or gvt wasn't "Christian." Define? So we must take it back for Christians. When was the last time fellah, that you took a good long look at the U.S. Constitution? The U.S. Constitution is biblically based? The bible pushed any number of theocratic gvts. God created the form of gvt that we have now: as found in the Old Testament where God basically is written as the law giver, the supreme ruler and the judge. Don't ask me how anyone could revise a totalitarian argument into a "democratic state." Any king can be argued to be the law giver, the supreme ruler and the judge. But the society that he governs is decidedly not democratic. Only radicals could be persuaded into not thinking before they write or otherwise opinionate. And take at face value what any scumbag taking on a man of the cloth persona feeds them.
On the other hand, a liberal would have cause to think and a conservative would have cause to question.
As Pitts put it, a conservative would be suspicious of change. A conservative would support minimalist gvt. Which is not what we have now with the current crop of radicals posing as "conservatives." And the liberal? Well the liberal would be the guy who wants to fix what is broken, and a truly acknowledged liberal, Senator Barack H. Obama is running for the presidency. But is Senator John McCain a "conservative?" beyond pushing for low taxes at a time of record deficits and wanting to keep a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future? Or is he wandering into dangerous radical territory by walking lock step with GW on any number of his current domestic and foreign policies? The Gods only know that if I had to select between a radical and a liberal, the liberal would be the first to get my vote. Given the fact that there are no conservatives in the race at this time. Even Senator McCain pushes a gvt is an answer for everything, to include a "gas tax holiday." And then whines at Obama for also having a good gvt approach in domestic policies. Get my point?
When Pitts wrote his republished to the Spokesman-Review editorial, it invovled a shooting that left 2 dead and a number of victims wounded. The gunman said that he couldn't get a job and that he hated gays and liberals. Yeah? What an excuse to disobey thou shalt not murder. The lib-lefties and the gays made me do it! As Pitts saw it, the self-proclaimed "conservatives" had literally set the stage by dehumanizing the political opposition. Quite frankly, I'd be more willing to ask, did the gunman think that there were gays and liberals among the people he killed and wounded? Did he think that he was an arm of God's vengeance? Seems to me that what this fellow did ought to bring shame to anyone who claims a "morality argument" but who does not practice what he or she preaches. Those people were innocent. For what purpose did they die? And I would further note, can it shame the NRA as well who want toys unlimited and the gvt can keep its filthy hands off them? Christ told Peter that he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. A conservative, especially one who claims an association with Christ, wouldn't be preaching the sword and then demanding special considerations from no less than gvt for special protections from its wrath.
Finally, Pitts bemoans a lack of accountability. Oh, that's right, only if we get gvt to impose it... on everyone else but us. That spells radical. Thank you Pitts for getting nearer to the truth.
Reminds me years ago, visiting various message boards, including one for "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Seems there was a particularly hostile poster who treated the Second Commandment as uttered by Christ, to love your neighbor as yourself as some kind of a liberalism that was dangerous, naive, and of course totally unacceptable. A biblical commandment as found in the New Testament and this poster was telling me 1. Just how ignorant the poster was about his/her bible and 2. Morality arguments that somehow did not translate into practicing what one preaches. In even earlier years, I saw a remarkable whine from a letter writer to the Press who described precisely Secular Humanism and was wondering why I did not apply such "secular humanistic" standards to her and people who thought like her. In short, long before Mr. Pitts finally caught wind of this, this strange identification of what it means to be "conservative," I was getting the general drift of how much you owe me, it is all about me, me first; before projecting that social or individual failing onto other people. Of course, "liberals."
Only by reading these posts on message boards, written letters and even published editorials could I finally come to the conclusions that I now have of radical — New Left or Old Left. You see, both style of radicals tend to go off the deep end. They are narrow minded, obsessed with their agendas, they do not take into consideration other opinions, the fact that people may indeed disagree with them, that their agendas may in fact cause more harm than good. They may be passionate, but they are hardly compassionate. And the gvt should be there for me, me, me... the causes I support. And both types of radicals certainly do engage in social engineering, I don't like the fact that this society is racist... Gvt pass a law. I don't like the idea of legal abortion... Gvt pass a law. Illegal immigrants should ultimately have the same rights as legal Americans... Gvt pass a law. I don't think gays should marry... Gvt pass a law. And on, and on, and on. Since both types of radicals insist on gvt running amok, who is the conservative? And since none of the radicals think in terms of morality but rather in power plays. Can I be the special interest that gvt is most inclined to support never mind what it does, tax wise, etc. to my neighbor, who is effectively the liberal? And both the new left and the old left have touted being "agents of change." But of course, they want "change" to be spear headed by some kind of activist gvt acting on behalf of their special interests and social agendas. And any number of letters to the Coeur d'Alene Press that whined about too much gvt, but then in another breath in another letter, what gvt wasn't doing to support my passionate cause and how we must elect so and so to guarantee that gvt is activist on my behalf. Or gvt wasn't "Christian." Define? So we must take it back for Christians. When was the last time fellah, that you took a good long look at the U.S. Constitution? The U.S. Constitution is biblically based? The bible pushed any number of theocratic gvts. God created the form of gvt that we have now: as found in the Old Testament where God basically is written as the law giver, the supreme ruler and the judge. Don't ask me how anyone could revise a totalitarian argument into a "democratic state." Any king can be argued to be the law giver, the supreme ruler and the judge. But the society that he governs is decidedly not democratic. Only radicals could be persuaded into not thinking before they write or otherwise opinionate. And take at face value what any scumbag taking on a man of the cloth persona feeds them.
On the other hand, a liberal would have cause to think and a conservative would have cause to question.
As Pitts put it, a conservative would be suspicious of change. A conservative would support minimalist gvt. Which is not what we have now with the current crop of radicals posing as "conservatives." And the liberal? Well the liberal would be the guy who wants to fix what is broken, and a truly acknowledged liberal, Senator Barack H. Obama is running for the presidency. But is Senator John McCain a "conservative?" beyond pushing for low taxes at a time of record deficits and wanting to keep a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future? Or is he wandering into dangerous radical territory by walking lock step with GW on any number of his current domestic and foreign policies? The Gods only know that if I had to select between a radical and a liberal, the liberal would be the first to get my vote. Given the fact that there are no conservatives in the race at this time. Even Senator McCain pushes a gvt is an answer for everything, to include a "gas tax holiday." And then whines at Obama for also having a good gvt approach in domestic policies. Get my point?
When Pitts wrote his republished to the Spokesman-Review editorial, it invovled a shooting that left 2 dead and a number of victims wounded. The gunman said that he couldn't get a job and that he hated gays and liberals. Yeah? What an excuse to disobey thou shalt not murder. The lib-lefties and the gays made me do it! As Pitts saw it, the self-proclaimed "conservatives" had literally set the stage by dehumanizing the political opposition. Quite frankly, I'd be more willing to ask, did the gunman think that there were gays and liberals among the people he killed and wounded? Did he think that he was an arm of God's vengeance? Seems to me that what this fellow did ought to bring shame to anyone who claims a "morality argument" but who does not practice what he or she preaches. Those people were innocent. For what purpose did they die? And I would further note, can it shame the NRA as well who want toys unlimited and the gvt can keep its filthy hands off them? Christ told Peter that he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. A conservative, especially one who claims an association with Christ, wouldn't be preaching the sword and then demanding special considerations from no less than gvt for special protections from its wrath.
Finally, Pitts bemoans a lack of accountability. Oh, that's right, only if we get gvt to impose it... on everyone else but us. That spells radical. Thank you Pitts for getting nearer to the truth.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment