Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin
by Michael McGrutherThe vast majority of adults in this world know that moral perfection is absolutely impossible, so I get upset when self proclaimed Hollywood/MSM liberals ruthlessly attack any conservative that cannot do the impossible; avoid succumbing to temptation for their entire life. Hollywood/MSM liberals always use this angle to attack conservatives nationwide because by strongly believing in nothing specific they’ve set themselves up to perpetually come out on top of any moral argument, guilt, worry and public-scorn free.
In today’s Hollywood a famous liberal filmmaker could hire a hooker while shooting a $100,000,000 studio feature film, secretly charge it to the budget, snort coke in his trailer between shots and drop E at night without any real concern for condemnation or job loss if he’s caught, because, well, he never proclaimed to be on the side of good in the first place. Whereas a famous conservative Christian filmmaker (pretend with me here) caught doing the same thing would be ridiculed and kicked out of town for the hypocrisy of it all since, by being Christian, he openly admitted that kind of behavior is not the most desirable for himself and doesn’t set a very good example for the fans.
What if this same mentality were applied to other shared parts of society? Could a Hollywood liberal drive his or her gas guzzling, Obama bumper sticker covered SUV through every stop light, plowing down innocent pedestrians and then when stopped by the police simply use the argument “I never said I believed in red lights, therefore I do not have to stop at them.” ?
What the majority of cultural conservatives really want is to reinstate traffic lights in pop culture and most of them set to merely flash yellow. But since Hollywood/MSM liberals thrive on the constant green light for their bizarre behavior from an adoring public in order to stay in power within the town, they must work overtime to keep any kind of national consensus emerging on what is morally good and bad in pop culture.
To quote the Apostle of Common Sense; “Art is like morality. Both begin by drawing the line somewhere.”
And nothing could be worse for the Hollywood/MSM power players than a clear definition of right and wrong because when you’re a profitable purveyor of smut, scandal, lopsided political propaganda and art without lines — the last thing you need is smut, scandal, lopsided political propaganda and art without lines going out of style.
A successful talent manager with a list of star clients once pulled me aside at a party and whispered into my ear “hey, nobody likes a guy that always tells the truth.” He wanted to sign me as a client and was trying to help me work my way through the system by learning to be dishonest when it paid.
So in my experience this “avoid the truth” mindset is precisely why Hollywood/MSM liberal attacks never end when a conservative or Christian does anything wrong; because they are a fearful living reminder of the truth that most of humanity still wholeheartedly embraces; men are fallen and must fight against their natural urges to become ruthlessly self centered and above the law.
If elite media neo-liberals can succeed in getting more people to speed through the red lights and play by their twisted non-rules then there really is no limit to how far they can sink this nation.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
112 Comments
Nice post Mr McGruther
Show me someone born without original sin and I'll show you a picture of Jesus. No one is perfect. Or something like that…………………………..
Its not moral relativism. The original crime is equally bad no matter who the person. That is objective.
The ADDITIONAL and SEPARATE OFFENSE when it comes to someone like Mark Sanford (and where the Hollywood scum bag is off the hook) is the hypocrisy.
Please look it up!
In order to be a hypocrite (paraphrasing Chesterton again), it is insufficient merely not to practice what you preach; a real hypocrite is one who doesn't even believe what he preaches. There is a difference between not living up to the standards you've set for yourself and ignoring them completely. The latter kind of hypocrisy is endemic to politics.
In order to be a hypocrite (paraphrasing Chesterton again), it is insufficient merely not to practice what you preach; a real hypocrite is one who doesn't even believe what he preaches. There is a difference between not living up to the standards you've set for yourself and ignoring them completely. The latter kind of hypocrisy is endemic to Washington and Hollywood.
In order to be a hypocrite (paraphrasing Chesterton again), it is insufficient merely not to practice what you preach; a real hypocrite is one who doesn't even believe what he preaches. There is a difference between not living up to the standards you've set for yourself and ignoring them completely. The latter kind of hypocrisy is endemic to Washington and Hollywood.
Great post. BTW when you are trying to explain to a leftist why socialism doesn't work they don't want to hear it. The thing is this, they know deep down that they are being told the truth. So lesson from what the post is about goes all throughout leftistdom. Leftists don't want to hear the truth. It hurts them. It pains them. They cannot deal with it in anyway shape or form because they have constructed this false premise they live in. Its a nihilistic anything goes, up is down down is premise but its theirs and to smash it apart with either being honest about who you are, or what their favorite political ideology is will crush their false premise of who they are and what they feel (notice I said feel because its all about feelings rather than reality). That is unacceptable.
[...] Easy As ABC…President Obama’s Official “State-Run” Media Michael McGruther, Big Hollywood: Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin Pam Meister, Big Hollywood: The Imus Standard: Should Letterman Be Fired? GayPatriot: Obama & [...]
[...] strings, and the legality of the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment Michael McGruther, Big Hollywood: Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: The Real Housewife of South Carolina The Other McCain: Mary Jo [...]
[...] Vote to Bankrupt Country With Libs You’re Unpatriotic Michael McGruther, Big Hollywood: Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin Radio Vice Online: GOP House Oversight Committee mortgage crisis review Victoria Jackson, Big [...]
Great post. So true – if you don't stand for anything then no one can ever accuse you of doing wrong. The only time they even come close to "getting caught" is on environmental stuff, i.e. flying around the world to spread the Gospel of Global Warming. But even then they let themselves off the hook b/c it is okay since they are doing it for the greater good.
[...] America’s a ‘Dishonest Custodian of Black Life’ Michael McGruther, Big Hollywood: Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin Jim Geraghty, The Campaign Spot, NRO: Rep. Peter King Campaigns for President of Those Tired of [...]
a Christian filmmaker…
Perish the thought- that's like Jenna Jamison teaching catechism at St Juliana's on Wednesday night before bingo- hard to imagine but intriguing in concept… but as the book says, Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth', and some good ol' humility coming out of Hollywood is a refreshing idea.
Excellent Post, sir. If I may make an additional assertion: the problem with the current "fiscal-only" shifts to the right that the nation is seeing among those who want less government, but "don't care" about social conservatism is this: we end up on the Left again. By only reducing the amount of government in our lives without addressing the moral relativism, we are in essence hacking at the plant rather than pulling at it's roots. Sure it will look like there are less weeds, but the plant will keep growing. Conservatism is philosophically grounded in the concepts of right and wrong as defined by an impartial, transcendent standard. It is fundamentally opposed to relative morality. In fact it is discontent with transcendent absolutes that made the call of the Left so enticing in the first place. Every society that has ever tried to throw off the "shackles of morality" has ended up in greater tyranny than when they undertook the enterprise.
Liberals should suffer the same censure from their peers, but they never do. Since the Bible is not generally a source of morality for liberals, we have to look at "liberal morality": Here are two examples:
1) Equality: Liberals claim to care about equality for all (yet support Affirmative Action and other forms of identity politics), which is a means of treating people differently based on race or gender. This is hypocrasy. Liberals don't call each other on it.
2) Freedom of choice: Liberals are all about freedom of choice when it comes to "reproductive rights" (euphemism for access at any time to abortion), but when it comes to OTHER choices people might like to have for themselves such as school vouchers, secret ballots, no federal funding for abortion, no federal funding of ACORN, well then- liberals don't want folks to have THOSE choices available to them. That's hypocrasy. Liberals don't get called on it.
What LolaLola said is true: Liberals HATE the truth; especially the truth about themselves which shows how ILLIBERAL and fascistic they are. (One idiot at another website comment board actually said to me, "It's impossible for a liberal to be a fascist", completely ignoring all that history has to say about the parallels.) I think it is a form of self-preservation. If they saw and acknowledged themselves as we saw and knew them, they would enter into such a profound state of self-loathing that irreparable psychological damage would be done.
There was Mel Gibson for awhile. But it seems like he has gone cuckoo….
I have some sympathy for the argument Liberals make about hypocrisy. I had the chance in my early 20s to be involved in the Christian music scene (I was friends with a number of big bands and considered a pretty good player). Unfortunately I decided to pass because I didn't think I could hold myself to a high enough standard to sing and play about how other people should live (I knew I'd feel like a hypocrite). People who try to achieve fame or political success in large part by preaching morality that they themselves don't have any interest in living disgust me.
The problem with Liberals is that they refuse to recognize this trait in themselves and people who they like. They are easily the most vicious, hateful political group out there, yet sell themselves as tolerant. They happily use bigotry to attack minorities, women, and homosexuals who don't agree with their political philosophy. In the last election they sold themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, yet after 6 months in charge have dwarfed the spending orgy that happened under Bush in eight years. Liberals embrace hypocrisy, while Conservatives (and Moderates for the most part) are ashamed of it. That's their greatest weapon, a complete and utter lack of shame in pursuit of what they want. Everything is fair game, no one needs to be treated fairly if they get in the way.
Honestly I don't know how you're supposed to fight against that. I don't want to be like them.
I have some sympathy for the argument Liberals make about hypocrisy. I had the chance in my early 20s to be involved in the Christian music scene (I was friends with a number of big bands and considered to be a pretty good player). Unfortunately I decided to pass because I didn't think I could hold myself to a high enough standard to sing and play about how other people should live (I knew I'd feel like a hypocrite). People who try to achieve fame or political success in large part by preaching morality that they themselves don't have any interest in living disgust me.
The problem with Liberals is that they refuse to recognize this trait in themselves and people who they like. They are easily the most vicious, hateful political group out there, yet sell themselves as tolerant. They happily use bigotry to attack minorities, women, and homosexuals who don't agree with their political philosophy. In the last election they sold themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, yet after 6 months in charge have dwarfed the spending orgy that happened under Bush in eight years. Liberals embrace hypocrisy, while Conservatives (and Moderates for the most part) are ashamed of it. That's their greatest weapon, a complete and utter lack of shame in pursuit of what they want. Everything is fair game, no one needs to be treated fairly if they get in the way.
Honestly I don't know how you're supposed to fight against that. I don't want to be like them.
kind of like Sarah, Mel came under absolutely intense criticism for 'Passion' and it made three quarters of a billion dollars which drove his enemies even crazier- and then the drunken meltdown which he has apologized and should be forgiven for. It does seem the pressure has affected him; we hope not too much for he remains one of our very favorites…
Religions, philosophers, social critics, et.al. have struggled throughout history to elaborate moral and ethical theories that could explain human failings and provide meaningful correctives. Human nature, whether from original sin or from evolutionary development, is what it is. It has not changed since the beginning and it will not change in the future. Which is why the Founding Fathers designed a government based upon a system of checks and balances and limited government powers. They understood the tendency of even the most honest and upright persons to succumb to temptations. It is the natural failings of human nature that strongly suggests that it is not time for more government but less. If I as a private citizen have a moral failing it affects only me. When a politician does so it affects innumerable people, often in ways that can seriously impact their lives.
Well stated, Mick- What was John Adams' quote? "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
When people forget God, they forget where their inalienable rights come from, and then begin to believe those rights come to them from the government.
[...] here: Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Claiming to champion equality for all yet supporting Affirmative Action is hypocrasy.
Claiming to champion "climate change" issues while leaving every light in the mansion burning and flying across the globe daily in the private jet is hypocrasy.
Crowing about "bipartisanship" while shutting Republicans out of debate entirely is hypocrasy.
Saying "Americans need to share the sacrifices" while jetting the missus to NYC for dinner and a show, or buying $500 sneakers and touring Moscow with a $6K handbag… a little hypocrasy there too.
I NEVER hear of liberals calling out their peers on things like this, though.
The only hypocrasy you all care about involves conservatives and sex, isn't it?
Indeed. If inalienable rights do not come from a source higher than oneself, or God forbid, the state, then they are no longer inalienable. They may be revoked by the biggest fish at any time. Which is what we are seeing now. We would do well to avoid the short-sightedness of a "secular" Right. It is only a much slower Left. But have no doubt, its final destination, no matter how slow the march, IS Left.
BTW, Adams kicks butt. That is all.
Sanford says he fell in love with his "soul mate," separated from his wife, then agreed to break off the affair and work on saving his marriage and "falling back in love" with his wife.
Bill Clinton went after a cheap thrill, "just sex."
I put this out as an open question, a polling if you will, to all the married people reading this. While realizing both are terrible betrayals, which would you find worse, that your spouse had found someone they loved more, or that they had some meaningless encounters with their office staff?
well said, Des
Fantasic article! I shall add nothing since it's all been said here. And said extremely wel.
great stuff, Michael.
Very Very true. Especially don't accuse leftists of being narrow minded. Have you looked up the meaning of narrow minded? You don't have to, I just did it for you:
nar⋅row-mind⋅ed [nar-oh-mahyn-did] Show IPA
–adjective
1.having or showing a prejudiced mind, as persons or opinions; biased.
2.not receptive to new ideas; having a closed mind.
3.extremely conservative and morally self-righteous.
The whole culture is leftist oriented, but they don't admit their unreceptivity to new ideas. If it doesn't fit into their cherished, already held mindset, they violently reject it like poison.
then they call us narrow-minded and self-righteous to boot.
The big difference is that liberals usually don't preach how socially moral they are, they sure don't make it the basis of their campaign, many socially conservative R's do, so it looks that much worse when they screw up. For example to be out-spoken against gay rights and then get caught trying to pick up a guy (Larry Craig) It's called being a hypocrite.
Excellent article. Moral relativism is the secular euphemism for original sin. It's the belief that you, not God, can determine right and wrong, ie. determine what is true. Curiously, Jesus reminded us that He is the way, the truth, etc. The visceral reaction of the moral relativists to "truth" is simply the satanic reflex to light.
I maintain the best American films were made under the old studio system (with some major exceptions in the 1960s and 70s, and minor ones beyond). The technology has become so easy, filmmakers generally don't seem to put much thought into anything anymore, there is little challenge left. And so much of what is produced is, aside from being thoughtless, completely derivative. Glad to know you still have your eye on the ball, Michael – and are forging ahead!
Great point. But here's the rub.
Do we want our President to be driven by a purpose with meaning (could be better stated I know) or do we want a leader who is just after a cheap thrill, "just money?"
The former is an issue for Hillary. Whether Bill discovered his true soul mate with a self-centered spoiled brat. The later is an issue for the other 300 million of us who believe the White House should not be run like an auction house with the scruples of a mafia don.
Hence that Hillary is less concerned with either makes her even less qualified to sit in the Oval Office. No?
From what I can tell only about 30% – 35% max – fit this liberal persona. If you exclude those who are too dumb to know the difference then maybe it is only 25% or less.
Why exactly have we let the tail not only wag the dog but completely severe itself from the dog while leaving the dog in the dust to rot. America is not only in decay but somehow is seems the tail is rotten to the core – spoiled rotten. And the 40% of us who GET IT can't seem to do a gosh darn (%$^&**^&(&%) think about it. Makes you want to leave the country.
For you hyper-lefties that would be called quitting. Unlike what Palin is doing – fighting. Maybe we should keep that a secret. While they continue to think of her as a quitter maybe she can ram moral relativism up their pathetic arses.
I'm embarrassed to say that I stayed in a cheating marriage for twenty years. I've experienced both scenarios, so I know from where I speak…
It doesn't matter why they cheat. It hurts just as bad either way. The trust is irreparably broken either way. You think of him as just as much of a weak, disgusting, s.o.b. scum-bag either way.
Liberals don't preach morals at all, unless a conservative gets caught violating his own. Then they're perfectly happy to jump on the holier-than-thou bandwagon.
Doing the right thing is its own reward. So there's nothing to do, but to do the right thing and lead by example. These people are lost in the wilderness, poor of spirit, and — because of it, lead small lives. There's nothing bigger in their lives than themselves and the next score/payday. They are wells without water. Mores the pity. If you don't believe in God, you'll believe in anything.
The good news for these folks is– miracles do happen.
Meaningless encounters are bad because they could mean an addiction problem or an issue with intimacy and trust. They could also mean one is married /in a relationship with someone who's just plain selfish. But an affair based on LOVE is also really bad because all that affection was stolen from the spouse. (Can the affair REALLY be based on love if the cheater doesn't have the real love capacity to KEEP from cheating???)
If I HAD to pick which type my husband would engage in if he was forced to cheat on me, I guess I would pick… meaningless affair. But I would still be looking to kill someone..
Divorcing his wife after taking up with a much younger female does not inspire my confidence in Mel's recovery. I don't know the story of their marriage, I don't know the ups and downs but his wife was by his side for a LONG time, and to get traded in for a 20-something is not too cool.
LIberals keep playing the same game over and over again. The evidence suggests that (A) people are getting sick of it and (B) conservatives are getting more savvy at shutting them down.
Thomas Paine on Common Sense would state the Society and the State are two different things…..
Tyrrany arises when we begin to think that they are the same thing.
I am paraphasing but the quote is something like this
Society is Positive and derives from our Wants, Government is Negative and drives from our Wickedness. Society is Good whil government is at best a necessary evil.
Actually, I think you're the one who needs to look it up. If Mark Sanford openly condemned people who cheat on their wives while HE was cheating on his wife, that would make him a hypocrite. Simply being a Republican who cheats on his wife doesn't make him a hypocrite, any more than your being a liberal makes you a hypocrite whenever you use more than one square of toilet paper per sitting.
I think we miss the point with the moral relativism of liberals. It is not moral relativism it is Political Morality. Liberals will gladly sink their teeth into their own when the time comes to save their "cause". They do not give the director a pass because he does not believe in goodness. They give him a pass because he believes in Statism. It is no more complicated than that. A Libertarian believing in Prostitution and Drug legalization would get treating the same way as the Christian if he publicly announced he was voting for Bush. It the Christian was publicly for Obama we'd hear endless lectures on he's trying to follow his beliefs but it is hard or Other such nonsense.
Support the State and will Advance your plate
If to criticize the state is your chime then you sir will be pilloried for your Thought Crime.
Christians are hypocrites because their morals and beliefs inspire them to be better people, yet in their human imperfection they often fail.
Liberals have no morals, which makes it impossible for them to fail, and therefore impossible for them to be hypocrites. The most sickening forms of depravity are acceptable to liberals as long as you are a liberal. That's why Bill Clinton could turn the Oval Office into a bordello without any complaints from the left, but a Republican governor cheats on his wife and democrats suddenly think adultery is a bad thing.
To be fair, they were legally separated at the time, and had been for years, and she initiated the divorce when she found out that his girlfriend was pregnant. It wasn't his decision to end the marriage, though it probably should have been, so he could properly take responsibility for his actions.
Unfortunately, it's not just the left, and it's not just confined to our country. The idea that something is only wrong until you can find a way to justify it and rationalize away the guilt is corrupting our society with an ever-increasing rapidity. And it's happening on a global scale. It's almost terrifying to watch at times.
VERY GOOD ARTICLE– BH WRITERS NEED TO KEEP HAMMERING MORAL RELATIVISM FOR TWO REASONS; FIRST, IT IS THE UNDERPINNING OF ALL OF THE MORAL/POLITICAL SLIDE OF AMERICA AND THE ASCENDENCY OF LIBERAL "VALUES" AND POWER; SECOND, SO MANY IN LA-LA LAND DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT MORAL RELATIVISM IS.
BH NEEDS TO HAVE A CONSTANT CONTRIBUTOR, WHO HAMMERS THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE AT LEAST TWICE A MONTH, WITH CURRENT EXAMPLES THAT MAKE LIBERALS HEADS SPIN.
THE NEXT TO LAST PARAGRAPH IS DEAD ON EXCELLENT!!! KEEP IT UP!!!
Thanks for the two Chesterton mentions. Here are some more of his words of common sense.
" Men do not differ much about what things they will call evil; but they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
I've had this thing going through my mind in the last few days, especially after I read the most recent letter to the editor about GOP hypocrisy: It is hard to be a hypocrite when your standards are set so low.
Whereas a famous conservative Christian filmmaker (pretend with me here) caught doing the same thing would be ridiculed and kicked out of town
Nonsense. If the guy was a moneymaker he could do what he liked. Like Mel Gibson.
It starts and ends with most liberal's lack of belief in a higher power. Without fear / respect / understanding / worship of a Father and Creator, the liberal has no moral absolutes by which to answer. If there is no higher authority, there is no purpose to take what is often the more difficult path, the moral one. Without faith, purpose and meaning, there is no reason to act other than in complete self-indulgence.
To quote your article: "What the majority of cultural conservatives really want is to reinstate traffic lights in pop culture and most of them set to merely flash yellow. But since Hollywood/MSM liberals thrive on the constant green light for their bizarre behavior from an adoring public in order to stay in power within the town, they must work overtime to keep any kind of national consensus emerging on what is morally good and bad in pop culture" Exactly. That's why liberals don't want conservative fimlmakers to work in Hollywood because they want the absolute artistic freedom they have had since the fall of the Hayes codes. They feel if even one conservative gets in, he may change the system from the inside and have the liberals' artistic freedom shackled up. That's what they're so afraid of. You have to read into the history of these things to fully understand the thinking of Hollywood liberals. I am neither liberal nor conservative, so I know thoroughly the history of censorship, black-listing of both sides and the consequences of absolute power to control the media, which despite reports from some certain Catholic leaders, is not controlled by secular Jews.
Do they know that they are being told the truth? I think they believe their ideas so "superior" that they are not taking in the truth.
"Whereas a famous conservative Christian filmmaker (pretend with me here) . . . "
That's good writing.
… or can't take it in. i.e. Block it.
Dare I say it? Pray for Mel Gibson. We need the likes of the way he was.
The abandonment of truth and morality is a perscription for disaster. In Romans 1:18 and following, God pours out his wrath on those "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." The interesting part is that He pours out His wrath by giving the people over to the very unrighteousness with which they suppress the truth. If we choose to suppress the truth and honor untruthfullness and immorality then we will live in an untruthful and immoral world. If we spend a week making a hero out of a very sick man, then our world will begin to mirror those actions and values. The worse part is that as long as truth and morality is suppressed then the more degraded the world will become.
Okay, here I go.
Christians believe a certain truth.
Denominations of Christianity put a manmade spin on things. Ergo: Fair game for criticism.
The people who deride Christianity seem not to realize this manmade part, versus the C.S. Lewis-style argument. The "it's mythology" etc. high-school take on things seems to pervade the liberal mindset.
Anyhoo, here's to an insurgence in better informed, if not Christian, people with power in all forms of mass media.
I'm with you, Jamesb.
Quite right.
Below I have posted links to two different speeches at The Heritage Foundation by comedian Evan Sayet on the subject of Moral Relativism and How Liberals Think. They are both about 40 minutes long but I highly recommend them to anyone who would like to hear a brilliantly thought out assesment of Modern Liberal Thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1...
Please post back and tell me what you thought.
case in point: Michale Jackson and the huge pass that he's getting. Evidently if you a big enough "star" you can even get away with f-ing little boys!
I know the concept is ancient, Machiavelli finally wrote it down 500 years ago, but the left can be made to toe the line. It happens when their "G.I. hate fest" movies fall on their face, their crappy T.V. shows get canceled and some other liberal Hollywooder steps up to fill the void. DON'T PAY 'EM! I won't watch Jay Leno, he rode my guy into the dirt and was still making fun of him two months AFTER he left office. Has he opened up both barrels on Obama yet? No, he's a political coward who will claim to be non-political. Screw him.
Thanks LiberalHypocrit. I just made an oblique reference to Sayet's lecture through citing Professor Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind," which profoundly reshaped the way I see the American Left. Best, RJ
Bert, I respectfully disagree. Christians need to see that the atheistic socialists are seizing their freedom using Christians' condemnation of "greed" and "selfishness" against them. What is at the heart of the matter is free will (see Thomas Aquinas' Theory of Good and Evil), private property (previously upheld by the Catholic Church), and the ability for one to determine one's own path in life. How can you serve God if you are forced by atheistic elites to serve government? How can it be charity if it is taken at the point of a gun? How can it be "selfish" to want to tend to one's own soul?
I love the Machiavelli reference. The influential Italian neomarxist Antonio Gramsci explicitly used Machiavellian logic to develop his grand strategy of controlling the media, education and legal system for the socialists to seize power. People can find out more about this by searching "Gramsci" and "cultural hegemony."
Great Machiavelli reference. The influential Italian neomarxist Antonio Gramsci explicitly used Machiavellian logic to develop his grand strategy of controlling the media, education and legal system for the socialists to seize power. People can find out more about this by searching "Gramsci" and "cultural hegemony."
Christians are not hypocrites for advocating a morality and attempting to live up to it.
Great essay again Reasonjester, as D. Patrick Moynihan a devout liberal who stated in one of his moments of clarity coined the phrase, “the dumbing down of America.” Critical thinking or a classic education if you will, has to be attained by the individual’s own curiosity, and parental guidance. However I’m beginning to see real pushback coming from free Americans, so the ending is not certain, and our ‘60s radicals dreams of a egalitarian utopia can be permanently shelved, as many of these worn out Marxist pass. We must maintain the American ideals of exceptionalism, freedom, love of country, love of God, love of family, and in my opinion America will go forward and remain the greatest country the world has ever known, without exception.
As a kid in the ‘60s and a young man in the ‘70s and as I made my way through school I bought into the counter culture completely, and one of the cornerstones of this dogma was “moral relativism.” As I grew and experienced functionally ‘60s gobbledy-gook aka. The Carter Administration I moved to the right of Bill Buckley. The end result is not a fait de compli, and if we remain vigilant we can vanquish ‘60s radicalism once and for all. I prefer to see the Obamanation as an opportunity, you can’t defeat an enemy that hides, well boys and girls the enemy is fully exposed lets get’em in 2010!
That's like a college with no football team blasting another college's football team for losing a game. Then the college with no football team crows about how they're undefeated.
And when you determine what right and wrong is for yourself, "right" simply becomes "what is advantageous to me, even if it harms another."
Hey! Hey! Stop shouting.
Also, why is it that most all non-religious, non-profit, tax-exempt organizations can say what they will about whatever they choose, yet churches and other religious tax-exempt organizations are prohibited their free speech rights, under threat of loss of their non-profit status?
An aside, in my opinion, all churches should be free from government intervention, yet most seem to CHOOSE the shackles of the IRS by CHOOSING to take the government "hand-out" of tax deductions. Most seem to CHOOSE to be bound by the Government simply for the sake of MAYBE receiving a few more donations because of their tax-exempt status. Is God not capable to providing sufficient funding without a secular government hand-out?
it doesn't seem good- but in affairs of the heart we tend to steer clear of judgement. His wife is going to net the largest settlement in history so one can say he putting his money where his 'heart' is…
Mmmmmhhh – it's sorta like asking which hurts more: that your dog was killed by a driver who deliberately ran him down or was run over by some careless motorist who was talking on the cell phone at the time.
"If it works for me…" – the credo of the post-modernist era.
I feel so sad for moral relativists as they are trapped. They do not understand the freedom in the truth. I am reminded by Paul's words to the Corinthians: "Everything is permissible for me"–but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"–but I will not be mastered by anything. 1 Corinthians 6:12
So are we allowed to pick on the "First Ogler" picuture then?
When a person who publicly advocates aspires to a higher moral standard gives in to temptation, that doesn't necessarily make him or her a hypocrite – it just means he or she is weak. When a recent conservative televangelist was discovered to have used meth while having sex with a male prostitute, I don't believe that that preacher thought that his behavior was okay. I believe that he still<i/> thought it to be wrong and that he knew his behavior went against everything that he stood for; however, his character was weak and he gave in to his temptations. It's like the diabetic who knows he shouldn't have that sugar-covered donut or the struggling alcoholic who knows that she shouldn't have that drink. That's why these people tend to quickly drop out of the limelight when caught. They knew what they did was wrong and they realized that it was "game over".
Excellent post. I use this rather extreme analogy to illustrate the point. Would you rather a murderer justify his acts through some rationalization to avoid being labeled a "hypocrite" or condemn the acts and admit wrong. Point is would you rather people not hold themselves to higher moral standard to do as they please to anyone, or hold themselves to a higher standard and sometimes fall short, but accept responsibility. Besides the person that lives without the higher standard is living only for his own gratification, I thought that was charge against evil capitalist conservatives. (or classical liberal in my case, not social liberal)
The late Senator Moynihan also came up with the phrase, "defining deviancy down" – the more you let slide, the worse in anti-social behavior you will get – like the glorification of "pimp culture" and young college-educated women who regard strip-tease dancing and prostitution as appropriate employment. No matter how low you may "set the bar", there will be reprobates who will manage to slither under.
Depends on the person, actually.
Some people will hold themselves to standards that don't give them advantages and ones that are meant to avoid harming others (excepting things like self defense or defense of another, of course) and actually try to maintain those standards. Trying to live up to the whole "what you do when no one is watching" sort of thing… even if no deity is watching (or if they aren't sure there are any to keep tabs on them.)
Am I doing this whole agnosticism thing wrong again? First I get the impression from unbelievers that I should be acting like a complete tool towards those with religious beliefs and now I'm getting the impression from believers that if I don't have beliefs then I should feel like I can do anything so long as I'm not caught. Oh drat. I guess I'll have to keep winging it.
(Though if a vending machine keeps malfunctioning in my favor, even after I report it, boy is that tempting.)
I treat malfunctioning vending machines as I do non-working parking meters and when I find money left in an ATM, I thank God for the gift then move onward.
I have done the agnosticism route, it is like programming your own operating system. You get to the point where you accept something pre-packaged would be better, then you can get on to doing higher-level work. I decided I like freedom with minimum requirements but also wanted security with a set framework of guidelines, some absolute but others open to interpretation with a good deal of personal control, so I choose Christianity. BTW I recently converted to Linux, Debian actually, and have no plans of ever going back to Windoze. That should give you some insight into the other decision.
Deliberate. It is my fault if my dog is in the street, but someone wanting to kill that dog is wrong.
[...] Big Hollywood: Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin by Michael McGruther The vast majority of adults in this world know that moral perfection is absolutely impossible, so I [...]
An opportunity to vanquish the '60s radicalism . . . I like that. Hadn't thought of these dire times in exactly that light before.
If you have a link to Chesterton saying something similar to that I would appreciate it.
It seems that the meaning of hypocrisy has changed over time. It originally meant an "actor" which is how Jesus uses it, i.e., someone pretending to be what they're not. But I believe it was Rousseau who popularized the modern notion of hypocrisy as, failing to live up to your own standards. Rousseau established a new definition of virtue where the most virtuous man was the one who always lived up to his own standards. As a result the virtuous life became easily accessible to all. A man had only to eradicate all his standards and he would instantly become virtuous. The appeal of this get virtuous quick scheme is obvious. That was the beginning of the modern age.
I'll check it out. "The Prince" is chillingly relevant today.
they both suck. if you're in a committed relationship (marriage) then you are responsible for your committment. if you claim that you "found" "love", most likely what you found was no strings, no committment sex, with lust, excitement, & infatuation masquerading as "love". love is a choice – caring more for the good of another than you do yourself – not a random emotional state.
Every so often I hear some prominent cultural/artistic/musical type, & I think – you're practically a conservative. But then their desire for NO limits pops up and they slide back left.
While I fully agree that there are necessary limits and moral definition, I am more and more beginning to question how we codify them – I guess I'm getting more libertarian.
I am a very conservative Christian, but even Christianity doesn't have "laws" that your church can condemn you to death for. it is God's role as Judge. And I am not arguing that nothing is wrong, but like I said – getting more libertarian in my aging!
I think I am going in circles here – but that exemplifies my uncertainty on how we should apply them legally.
In our personal lives … that goes without saying.
I would like to extend Mr. McGruther's persuasive argument and pose that what liberals seek to escape is from the concept of evil itself. Ever since Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil," and his famous pronouncement that "God is dead," intellectuals have fused the spirit of the enlightenment with an antiseptic secular ideal that holds that all standards are fabrications, and thus the ends justify the means. But what ends? What means? The will to power.
Professor Allan Bloom in "The Closing of the American Mind" makes a good case that many have overlooked Nietzsche's crucial role in building the leftists' morally relativistic outlook. Instead, most people think that Marx is the lynchpin to understanding the leftist mindset. But it is my argument that socialism is a veneer for a fascistic mentality that sees the citizenry in a collectivist framework to be dominated by "oligarchs." To quote a passage I recently rediscovered in Orwell's 1984:
"What kind of people would control the world had been equally obvious. The new aristocracy would be made up for the most part by bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition."
[Recently, retiring National Education Association General Counsel Bob Chanin gave us a revealing window into the left's sick obsession with power in his farewell address (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqn1rvv7Fis).]” target=”_blank”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqn1rvv7Fis).]
F.A. Hayek, the Austrian economist who witnessed the rise of the Nazis, makes a similar point in "The Road to Serfdom" when he warns of the union of "big government" and "big labor" (i.e. national socialism). Hayek takes particular pains to show how the bureaucratic drive to micro-manage people's lives is indeed what the new form of slavery will look like.
Although I am sympathetic to Christianity in many regards, I am afraid that it is the fuel that feeds the fire of the socialist arguments of government. (Although I advocate Christian religion privately, I do not think it can be the basis for a legal order if it conflicts with the free will of each individual – see Thomas Aquinas' Theory of Good and Evil. The legal basis should be life, liberty and property.) The recent encyclical by the Pope can be seized upon by who Mark Levin calls "the statists" to justify massive socialistic spending programs and even a "new world economic order" based not on "greed" but on charity. The new elites, such as frontman Barack Obama, have no compunction against stealing from Christianity to justify their aim of pure unadulterated power, since they don't believe in God, and they don't believe in evil.
The media's adoration of the Chicago Alinskyite community organizer, though sincere, is projected in the most contrived and pre-meditated fashion. The disparity between the popularity of Obama's personality and his policies demonstrate this point very poignantly. The media has abandoned its role as The Fourth Estate to join The Fifth Column.
The moral relativism referred to in McGruther's article is truly the "liberal lynchpin." So how can "conservatives" fight back against this amorphous liberal mentality, which resists an effective counter-blow? This is very difficult to do, since the liberal education system has intentionally dismantled critical thinking and the media have removed the frame of reference for the majority of people to display judgment. The enemy is ruthless and they use any means at their disposal, including ridicule, dismissal, arrogance, and fabrication to fight those who seek to preserve America's successful institutions. Conservatives are both discredited by the press, and seemingly unable to connect with the American public.
Fortunately, there is one thing that may save conservatives: The utter incompetence of the ruling elites. The Keynesian economic theory of the "experts" is flawed and history repeatedly shows this to be the case. In the big picture, the parasitic policies of collectivists are ultimately doomed, and perhaps intentionally so, because it is fairly clear that "socialist" economics are absolutely dysfunctional. The high standard of living in this country for decades will make it highly difficult to effect rapid "change" without agitating the masses. Whether agitation and social strife, followed by reaction, or alternatively, incremental enslavement is the goal of the elites is something that is not easy to discern. Such manufactured "crises" as global warming and swine flu lead me to believe that the elites are intending to cause social strife so the government can justify reaction and repression. Regardless, there will be resistance as unemployment and economic hardship ratchet up and the masses are able to find out for themselves, on new media outlets like this one, that this is not the way things have to be.
Bert, I respectfully disagree. Christians need to see that the atheistic socialists are seizing their freedom using Christians' condemnation of "greed" and "selfishness" against them. What is at the heart of the matter is free will (see Thomas Aquinas' Theory of Good and Evil), private property (previously upheld by the Catholic Church), and the ability for one to determine one's own path in life. How can you serve God if you are forced by atheistic elites to serve government? How can it be charity if it is taken at the point of a gun? How can it be "selfish" to tend to one's own soul according to the dictates of one's own conscience?
Wrong answer, bubba. If Mel wasn't held to conservative standards, then the incident with the police, particularly his tirade, would have been swept under the carpet or greatly minimized. Instead, he was pilloried for it at the time and the persecution continues to this day. And what's the major theme? You got it – his "hypocrisy". I'm sure that there are numerous incidents featuring actual liberal filmmakers (and stars and other celebrities) where they were given the kid glove treatment in similar circumstances, to include an aiding and abetting press. When is someone going to do an update of "Hollywood Babylon"? And while they're at it, they can do one of Washington DC.
This bizarre reasoning that rights derive from some unknowable, unseeable transcendental source is what is absolutely killing this country. Rights derive from reality, not God. They are justified by reason. Not pragmatism. Reason. Not mysticism. Reason. If rights are grounded in an appeal to God, Christians have NO grounds to object to Islamists seeking "rights" justified by Allah. I'm serious. Christians are being manipulated by socialists and are unable to see it because they are deluded by mysticism. Life, liberty, property. Not necessarily endorsed by the Bible, but necessary for human beings to have free will.
I agree.
"We must maintain the American ideals of exceptionalism, freedom, love of country, love of God, love of family, and in my opinion America will go forward and remain the greatest country the world has ever known, without exception."
Beautifully put, Stan. I wholeheartedly endorse your formulation of what America needs to replenish the fountainhead of freedom.
You mirror my thoughts 100%! Thank you. Sometimes I feel like I am totally alone in the world when it comes to 'knowing what I know about liberals'. Well….as you have so skillfully demonstrated…I'M NOT!!!
Both situations point toward the one straying not being happy in the marriage. That becomes a problem for both people in the marriage to the extent they want to do what they can to 'restore' or 'repair' the marriage. However, of the two…learning someone loved you less than someone else is worse. You either accept it and move on or launch yourself into a 'program' to win back the heart of your husband or wife. Only if the one who strayed is WILLING, mind, body, and soul, to cooperate does the 'program' have a chance in hell of working. If it does…there will be trust issues for who knows how long.
Watch Hal's July 3rd show: http://www.hallindey.com/
Oops. http://www.hallindsey.com/
I personally feel people 'get into trouble' with the hypocritical point, not because they 'fell' but because they made such a point of NEVER FALLING somewhere in their own life. An example of this would be getting flipped off by someone driving a car with a sticker that read 'Jesus Saves…Are You?'. Getting flipped off is not that unusual. No one is going to be called a hypocrit for flipping someone off…unless they have made a point of saying or indicating that is not something their values and principles allows them to do. I know a lot of liberals who could be poster children for living out Christ's love…just by the way they behave….believe it or not…but they are exceptional people, I should add. My point is…action speaks louder than words when you really want to live your values and principles. Words speak louder than actions if you want to be put to the test when you are least likely to pass the exam.
Thanks, Reasonjester that’s easy, it’s what I believe.
The USA is inherently a conservative country expose leftist as the wacko-loons they are and indeed we can finally vanquish our ‘60s radicals once and for all. We must put forward conservative candidates and the rest will take care of itself.
What you say is true. This is a chance for American liberalism to destroy itself based on its own flawed premises. If the Republicans can predict failure and articulate it, they can gain credibility when the house of cards collapses.
I correct myself. It's not G.K. Chesterton, it's Peter Kreeft. He further expands on the idea thusly:
"Hypocrisy means not moral weakness — that is common to all of us — but moral dishonesty."
That's funny, because the reasoning that rights derived from a tracendental source is what created this country:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…"
Are you saying that men who were among the top thinkers of their age, "The Age of Enlightenment", when beyond all other time in history, "Reason" was preeminent, were being unreasonable? You seem like a reasonable fellow, surely you can see the folly of calling upon something within the created order to bestow that which is transcendent of the created order to a fellow creation in that order. Drivel.
Shakes head at comment!!!
[...] Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin by Michael McGruther [...]
[...] America’s a ‘Dishonest Custodian of Black Life’ Michael McGruther, Big Hollywood: Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin Jim Geraghty, The Campaign Spot, NRO: Rep. Peter King Campaigns for President of Those Tired of [...]
[...] these white-trash Bible-beating hillbillies in middle America Michael McGruther, Big Hollywood: Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin Ann Coulter: Watching MSNBC Is Torture Frugal Café Blog Zone: Why Are Conservatives So Mean? [...]
[...] America’s a ‘Dishonest Custodian of Black Life’ Michael McGruther, Big Hollywood: Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin Jim Geraghty, The Campaign Spot, NRO: Rep. Peter King Campaigns for President of Those Tired of [...]
[...] America’s a ‘Dishonest Custodian of Black Life’ Michael McGruther, Big Hollywood: Moral Relativism; The Liberal Lynchpin Jim Geraghty, The Campaign Spot, NRO: Rep. Peter King Campaigns for President of Those Tired of [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.