Culture v. Reality

[Wry Catcher]

"


"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's
behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are
growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with
wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups
on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a
loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism."

Who have I quoted? A liberal/progressive or a conservative?


Barry Goldwater, from the Congressional Record, Sept 16, 1981

This is a pretty 'meaty' post.

I like it because it allows both of us to present a defensible position, and you have focused like a laser on this one aspect of the debate.

Your point, it seems, is the Progressive stance that there are no time-honored, moral truths. You subscribe to the view that all cultures, all viewpoints are equally valid. That you have fallen under the spell of postmodernism and multiculturalism. The ‘search for truth’ is surpassed by ‘it all depends on your perspective'.

Am I correct as far as your thinking?

Now for mine.
Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. One example of such a truth is that the individual has a higher value than the state. Another is that humans are neither perfect nor perfectible by government policy or law. Therefore, the need for checks and balances and the separation of power.

Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

Now, the Senator Goldwater quote that you have included to support your position, it is only applicable if I were insisting on you behaving as I do, as I believe, but that is not the case.

Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

The only attempt at 'force' is the one we both use on this board: debate.

The Goldwater quote is an example of real life, not an abstraction. Consider:
Judaism --- A moral life is one that complies with the Law (ten commandments) and is responsive to the will of God.
Buddhism --- The summum bonum is the attainment of nirvana, the transcendence of earthly desires and suffering and the cycle of being and becoming.
Christianity --- The moral life embodies Christ's teachings, with emphasis on charity, meekness, poverty, the golden rule, and faith in God.
Plato: Moral truth exists; the ground of all moral knowledge is a transcendental world of changeless Forms of which the Good is the highest archetype. The best, most virtuous life is lived by philosophers, whose deepest passion is to purify the soul and to know the Truth.
Aristotle: The good is that "for whose sake everything else is done. In medicine this is health, in strategy victory, in architecture a house..." Happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Temperance is the hallmark of the good life, and the wisest people avoid extremes.
Epicureanism: The criterion of all good is pleasure. A moral action is that which produces the greatest pleasure; an immoral action one producing pain.

Taken from: ethics views

So it seems your first point is an accurate description of my sense of ethics. Are there "immutable laws' or moral actions, such as murder, robbery, slander and libel, theft (of all kinds), etc.? Yet, is there not for each such action a possible & reasonable explanation or justification for the act?
Consider, Bush ordered the murder of the sons of Saddam Hussein. He ordered the bombing of their place of residence, killing both of the sons of Saddam, and possibly others who worked in the home as caretakers. Possibly too residents of the neighborhood where they resided.
Was the president's action immoral?

I suggest that the liberal paradigm, that which describes (or did when I was in college) the works of Rousseau, Locke, Mill, and even Hobbs look at the human being as an individual no longer in "the state of nature" and the chains they wear today are a self-imposed as a product of the social contract.
(my apology for such a late response, I have a cold, sore throat and feel crappy)

 

[PoliticalChic]

"


"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's
behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are
growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with
wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups
on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a
loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism."

Who have I quoted? A liberal/progressive or a conservative?


Barry Goldwater, from the Congressional Record, Sept 16, 1981

This is a pretty 'meaty' post.

I like it because it allows both of us to present a defensible position, and you have focused like a laser on this one aspect of the debate.

Your point, it seems, is the Progressive stance that there are no time-honored, moral truths. You subscribe to the view that all cultures, all viewpoints are equally valid. That you have fallen under the spell of postmodernism and multiculturalism. The ‘search for truth’ is surpassed by ‘it all depends on your perspective'.

Am I correct as far as your thinking?

Now for mine.
Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. One example of such a truth is that the individual has a higher value than the state. Another is that humans are neither perfect nor perfectible by government policy or law. Therefore, the need for checks and balances and the separation of power.

Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

Now, the Senator Goldwater quote that you have included to support your position, it is only applicable if I were insisting on you behaving as I do, as I believe, but that is not the case.

Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

The only attempt at 'force' is the one we both use on this board: debate.

The Goldwater quote is an example of real life, not an abstraction. Consider:
Judaism --- A moral life is one that complies with the Law (ten commandments) and is responsive to the will of God.
Buddhism --- The summum bonum is the attainment of nirvana, the transcendence of earthly desires and suffering and the cycle of being and becoming.
Christianity --- The moral life embodies Christ's teachings, with emphasis on charity, meekness, poverty, the golden rule, and faith in God.
Plato: Moral truth exists; the ground of all moral knowledge is a transcendental world of changeless Forms of which the Good is the highest archetype. The best, most virtuous life is lived by philosophers, whose deepest passion is to purify the soul and to know the Truth.
Aristotle: The good is that "for whose sake everything else is done. In medicine this is health, in strategy victory, in architecture a house..." Happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Temperance is the hallmark of the good life, and the wisest people avoid extremes.
Epicureanism: The criterion of all good is pleasure. A moral action is that which produces the greatest pleasure; an immoral action one producing pain.

Taken from: ethics views

So it seems your first point is an accurate description of my sense of ethics. Are there "immutable laws' or moral actions, such as murder, robbery, slander and libel, theft (of all kinds), etc.? Yet, is there not for each such action a possible & reasonable explanation or justification for the act?
Consider, Bush ordered the murder of the sons of Saddam Hussein. He ordered the bombing of their place of residence, killing both of the sons of Saddam, and possibly others who worked in the home as caretakers. Possibly too residents of the neighborhood where they resided.
Was the president's action immoral?

I suggest that the liberal paradigm, that which describes (or did when I was in college) the works of Rousseau, Locke, Mill, and even Hobbs look at the human being as an individual no longer in "the state of nature" and the chains they wear today are a self-imposed as a product of the social contract.
(my apology for such a late response, I have a cold, sore throat and feel crappy)

No apology necessasy. I hope you feel better.

The direction of your post requires a definition of terms. The liberals to whom you refer are what is known as 'classical liberals,' closely related to the modern conservative- not to the modern liberal.

John Locke: men possess natural rights which government must support. Progressives eschew this view. Woodrow Wilson said that we must ignore the preamble of the Declaration. “Consider the American Declaration of Independence. We see in the Preamble a statement about the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” from which we derive our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. These rights are immutable; they transcend history; they are higher than the laws of the State.” Paul Eidelberg -- An American Political Scientist in Israel
This is why Woodrow Wilson famously said to study the Declaration of Independence but not the preamble.


In fact, the way we use the term liberal today was purposely and duplicitously chosen for that exact purpose: to obfuscate the substitution of the the supremacy of the state or the collective for the classical liberals' view of the supremacy of the individual.

Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’ Thus progressive reformers saw the home as the front line in thewar to transform men into compliant social organs.
a. One answer was to get children out of the home as quickly as possible, so that the home could no longer be an island, separate and sovereign from the rest of society.
b. John Dewey helped create kindergartens to help shape children for the new ‘society.’
c. This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111

“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State


In his writings, John Dewey makes clear that Progressive views had to be 'hidden' behind the term 'Liberal.'

This is a very important distinction for the purpose of this discussion, and reflects on your post in that Conservatives would encourage the diversity of religions such as you post, and you need look no further than the many posts of our left wing colleagues on this board who regularly attack Christianity, evangelicals, fundementalists, of every stripe, using their religious titles as pejoratives.

It is the Conservative and/or Classical Liberal who would judge the ones belief system as none of anothers' business.

In viewing your sig, I would also like to remind you that my post has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, but to self-identified Progressive Liberals and Conservatives.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is a pretty 'meaty' post.

I like it because it allows both of us to present a defensible position, and you have focused like a laser on this one aspect of the debate.

Your point, it seems, is the Progressive stance that there are no time-honored, moral truths. You subscribe to the view that all cultures, all viewpoints are equally valid. That you have fallen under the spell of postmodernism and multiculturalism. The ‘search for truth’ is surpassed by ‘it all depends on your perspective'.

Am I correct as far as your thinking?

Now for mine.
Conservatives believe that there are moral truths, right and wrong, and that these truths are permanent. The result of infracting these truths will be atrocities and social disaster. One example of such a truth is that the individual has a higher value than the state. Another is that humans are neither perfect nor perfectible by government policy or law. Therefore, the need for checks and balances and the separation of power.

Liberals believe in a privatization of morality so complete that no code of conduct is generally accepted, practically to the point of ‘do what you can get away with’. These beliefs are aimed at the gratification of appetites and exhibit anarchistic impulses.

Now, the Senator Goldwater quote that you have included to support your position, it is only applicable if I were insisting on you behaving as I do, as I believe, but that is not the case.

Conservatives believe in the principle of variety, while liberal perspectives result in a narrowing uniformity. Conservatives believe in choice of healthcare, education, religion, and various other areas. Under conservative principles, there will be differences in class, material condition and other inequalities. Equality will be of opportunity, not necessarily of result. The only uniformity will be before the law. Society will not be perfect. Consider the results of the rule of ideologues of the last century.

The only attempt at 'force' is the one we both use on this board: debate.

The Goldwater quote is an example of real life, not an abstraction. Consider:
Judaism --- A moral life is one that complies with the Law (ten commandments) and is responsive to the will of God.
Buddhism --- The summum bonum is the attainment of nirvana, the transcendence of earthly desires and suffering and the cycle of being and becoming.
Christianity --- The moral life embodies Christ's teachings, with emphasis on charity, meekness, poverty, the golden rule, and faith in God.
Plato: Moral truth exists; the ground of all moral knowledge is a transcendental world of changeless Forms of which the Good is the highest archetype. The best, most virtuous life is lived by philosophers, whose deepest passion is to purify the soul and to know the Truth.
Aristotle: The good is that "for whose sake everything else is done. In medicine this is health, in strategy victory, in architecture a house..." Happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Temperance is the hallmark of the good life, and the wisest people avoid extremes.
Epicureanism: The criterion of all good is pleasure. A moral action is that which produces the greatest pleasure; an immoral action one producing pain.

Taken from: ethics views

So it seems your first point is an accurate description of my sense of ethics. Are there "immutable laws' or moral actions, such as murder, robbery, slander and libel, theft (of all kinds), etc.? Yet, is there not for each such action a possible & reasonable explanation or justification for the act?
Consider, Bush ordered the murder of the sons of Saddam Hussein. He ordered the bombing of their place of residence, killing both of the sons of Saddam, and possibly others who worked in the home as caretakers. Possibly too residents of the neighborhood where they resided.
Was the president's action immoral?

I suggest that the liberal paradigm, that which describes (or did when I was in college) the works of Rousseau, Locke, Mill, and even Hobbs look at the human being as an individual no longer in "the state of nature" and the chains they wear today are a self-imposed as a product of the social contract.
(my apology for such a late response, I have a cold, sore throat and feel crappy)

No apology necessasy. I hope you feel better.

The direction of your post requires a definition of terms. The liberals to whom you refer are what is known as 'classical liberals,' closely related to the modern conservative- not to the modern liberal.

John Locke: men possess natural rights which government must support. Progressives eschew this view. Woodrow Wilson said that we must ignore the preamble of the Declaration. “Consider the American Declaration of Independence. We see in the Preamble a statement about the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” from which we derive our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. These rights are immutable; they transcend history; they are higher than the laws of the State.” Paul Eidelberg -- An American Political Scientist in Israel
This is why Woodrow Wilson famously said to study the Declaration of Independence but not the preamble.


In fact, the way we use the term liberal today was purposely and duplicitously chosen for that exact purpose: to obfuscate the substitution of the the supremacy of the state or the collective for the classical liberals' view of the supremacy of the individual.

Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’ Thus progressive reformers saw the home as the front line in thewar to transform men into compliant social organs.
a. One answer was to get children out of the home as quickly as possible, so that the home could no longer be an island, separate and sovereign from the rest of society.
b. John Dewey helped create kindergartens to help shape children for the new ‘society.’
c. This can be seen in Woodrow Wilson’s speech as president of Princeton: “Our problem is not merely to help students to adjust to themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.” (Michael McGerr, “A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920,” p. 111

“The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State


In his writings, John Dewey makes clear that Progressive views had to be 'hidden' behind the term 'Liberal.'

This is a very important distinction for the purpose of this discussion, and reflects on your post in that Conservatives would encourage the diversity of religions such as you post, and you need look no further than the many posts of our left wing colleagues on this board who regularly attack Christianity, evangelicals, fundementalists, of every stripe, using their religious titles as pejoratives.

It is the Conservative and/or Classical Liberal who would judge the ones belief system as none of anothers' business.

In viewing your sig, I would also like to remind you that my post has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, but to self-identified Progressive Liberals and Conservatives.

I don't self describe myself, generally. I do have beliefs which may be described as conservative on some issues and liberal on others - note neither are capitalized.

 

[ACG22]

Much better job, but you still fall short.

1. "You attempted to make a criticism, yet you used the exact same tactics as those you were criticizing."
Not true for several reasons. First, there is not word one of mine in the OP. All is Klavan. Second, his use of examples to make his point is far more efficacious than your bloviation.

>>Yawn. You used his words to make your argument, ergo you agree with them.

2. "...there's very little "adult" debate going on here..." Allow me to defend the USMB, although I believe that if you were to view more of the debates, you would find that there are quite a few adult, informed, passionate posters on both sides.

>> Message boards are idle entertainment for me. It's nice on the rare occasion to actually have a good exchange of ideas with someone, preferably with a different perspective on things. But like I said, it's rare on these. So far things little pretty much the same as the History Channel, except you can cuss here. How civil.

3. "Just more ranting and ignorant commentary like your OP." Ah, and here we see the sophomoric poster in action. If you were able to list and give examples of "ranting and ignorant commentary" then you would have. Instead you use "ranting and ignorant commentary" as though your opinion was in some way dispositive. Which it is not.

>> No need. It's the whole thing. When an entire argument is based on false premises, there's no need to itemize.

4 "your OP was childish and full of errors." Either defend or retract. How about examples of the errors, or the childish nature of the OP. Or did you find Klavan's humor childish?
Or, silently skulk away with your tail between your legs.

>>I notice that you are moving further away from Klavan's words with each posting. This is telling in itself.

5."At least I'm learning who I don't need to bother with already."
And, finally, the real import of your post: fear.

>>LOL. Fear? On a message board. Get a life.

Before you next post, you should consider asking yourself” Do I really want the word ‘moron’ in my obituary?”

>>I don't concern myself much with trivial insults like that. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Enjoy it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[youtube]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lWHgUE9AD4s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lWHgUE9AD4s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Foxfyre]

"


"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise.
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious
beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than
Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme
being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's
behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are
growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with
wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following
their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups
on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a
loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the
political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if
I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'
Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to
claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even
more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every
religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my
vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today:
I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their
moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism."

Who have I quoted? A liberal/progressive or a conservative?


Barry Goldwater, from the Congressional Record, Sept 16, 1981

Here is the money line from that quote:

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

I might ask the then Senator Goldwater what right he had to deny people the right to express their moral beliefs? And is not their vote the only means they have to express their displeasure or appreciation for what an elected leader does?

As pretty much a fan of Senator Goldwater, however, he was having an especially difficult time with one small but highly vocal group at the time he made that speech. I wonder if he would apply the same criteria to those who would claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs in matters of:

Gay rights (pro or against)
Abortion rights (pro or against)
Protection of the traditional definition of marriage (pro or against)
Affirmative Action (pro or against)
Right to free or subsidized healthcare (pro or against)
Right to be in the country illegally (pro or against)
Right to have a Bible study club on the school campus somewhere (pro or against)
Right to have a generic prayer before a football game (pro or against)
Right to smoke pot (pro or against)
Right to not wear a helmet or seat belt (pro or against)
Right to confiscate wealth from Citizen A and give it to Citizen B (pro or against)
Right to get a free condom at school (pro or against)
Right to view child pornography (pro or against)
Right to demand military policy in time of war (pro or against)
Right to demand military tribunals rather than access to US courts for terrorist (pro or against)
Right to fail/hold back students who do not learn the material (pro or against)
Right to dictate what carbon footprint people will be allowed to have (pro or against)
Right to a school lunch (pro or against)

And we could go on and on and on.

Where do you draw the line on which of these people can rightfully and legitimately petitition their elected leaders to vote a certain way and which should be off limits? Which of these do not insert a sense of morality into the equation? It's okay to have moral sensibilities so long as they don't have anything to do with or arise out of one's religious beliefs? How would that be squared with the First Amendment?

Goldwater said a lot of hard things about those who offended him or those of whom he disapproved. And since most of his targets were conservatives or Republicans, he has long been a darling of the Left who just love to quote him. They especially like to pull out the quote the member quoted here.

They almost never use this Goldwater quote though:

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

 

[Againsheila]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. In movies, TV shows, novels, even comedy routines, our intellectuals, entertainers, and other fools are busily reshaping reality into works of art through their piercing insights into what will get them good reviews and awards, and through their rich and varied experience of the café in the Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles.

To illustrate, I’ll give you some examples. See if you can spot the difference between reality and American culture. In reality, President John F. Kennedy was a fierce Cold Warrior who twice tripled America’s military presence in the Vietnam War to try to stop the spread of Communism and risked nuclear disaster by standing up to the Soviet Union in Cuba. He was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, an America-hating leftist who had once defected to the USSR.

Now, the culture: in Oliver Stone’s film JFK—nominated for Best Picture Oscar in 1991—Kennedy is a peaceful lefty contemplating a withdrawal from Vietnam. He’s assassinated by a vast right-wing cabal that includes every single person in America except for Oliver Stone. Reality, culture. Can you spot the difference?

Here’s another: in reality, Terri Schiavo was a severely brain-damaged woman who was judicially starved to death in 2005 at the request of her husband, while evangelical Christian right-to-life groups unsuccessfully petitioned to keep her alive. In the culture, a 2005 episode of Law and Order entitled “Age of Innocence” depicted a severely brain-damaged woman whose husband tried to euthanize her—until he was murdered at the instigation of an evangelical Christian right-to-lifer. In reality, evangelical Christians try to keep people alive. In the culture, they murder people. That’s a subtle one, I know—but can you spot the difference?

In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.

But in our culture, the U.S. military is always evil, housewives are always desperate, corporations are always corrupt, and poverty is always the fault of wealthy people’s greed. Can you spot the difference between those assumptions and reality?
If you can’t, you’re probably a liberal. And a knucklehead."
Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

I'm only going to take ONE of your examples and lambaste you for it...Terry Schiavo, what right does anyone have to end the life of another like that? My son is low functioning autistic, you want to kill him because at 22 years old he still wets his bed? He can't carry a conversation with anybody, you want to kill him for that? Where do you draw the line?

In truth Terry Schiavo's husband wanted to end her life before the money from the settlement ran out and he wanted to marry another woman. I sincerely doubt he had any concerns at all for his wife at that point. She wasn't in any pain. Even smiled in the video I saw.

Where do you draw the line? If we are going to be euthanize people, are we gonna be like Hitler and Euthanize all the people with disabilities? Sterilize anyone that has a gene that could cause a birth defect?

Is my son less of a human because he can't talk? Because he's still in diapers?

Terry Schiavo's family WANTED to take care of her, actually begged him to let them take care of her. Why didn't he just divorce her and let them? Again, she wasn't in any pain.

Oh, and just so you know, I'm not "evangelical". I am a Christian though, and I believe Andrew is here for a reason, if just so I can use him as an example when people start calling for euthanizing others because of brain damage.

I believe you owe me an apology for this statement alone: "...you want to kill him ..."

This slander is based on your misreading of the OP.

I have never taken such a position, nor has the OP.

I apologize, I meant to say "do you want to kill him..."

Sometimes I type faster than I think.

 

[Samson]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. .......

....In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.


Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

I'm not sure I agree that "Culture in America" = Avatar, but I do agree with Klavan's review of the film. On the other hand, there's no movie that cannot have a political (sexual, or religious) subtext extracted.

Andrew Klavan needs to go to more Highschool Football Games on Friday Night, Go On the Town in Vegas Saturday Night, then Visit a Babtist Church Sunday Morning before he presumes to write about "Culture in America."

 

[Foxfyre]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. .......

....In reality, it&#8217;s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.


Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

I'm not sure I agree that "Culture in America" = Avatar, but I do agree with Klavan's review of the film. On the other hand, there's no movie that cannot have a political (sexual, or religious) subtext extracted.

Andrew Klavan needs to go to more Highschool Football Games on Friday Night, Go On the Town in Vegas Saturday Night, then Visit a Babtist Church Sunday Morning before he presumes to write about "Culture in America."

I generally resent a really good fantasy being cluttered up with some kind of heavy social message. And I'll have to read all of Klavan's essay to decide where his cultural center probably lies.

But I think you and I might agree that there are often subtle but discernable anti-traditional values promoted in the "Hollywood" culture versus those that most of us grew up in.

Whether or not we carry the doctrine into our adult lives, growing up in that childhood church does have a bearing on our general views and sense of place in the culture we live in. That small town highschool football game teaches us as much about grit and determination and grace in victory and defeat and getting past the last triumph or disappointment in order to focus on the next goal more than anything any of us will ever learn in a classroom. Those neighbors you barely met who bring a covered dish over when they hear your mom died just because they know you'll be needing the food say more about our culture than anything we'll see in the current best seller or a block buster movie these days.

 

[Samson]

"Culture in America is an enchanted place where the conservative facts of life are magically transformed into liberal fantasies. .......

....In reality, it’s civilization, democracy, capitalism, and technology that give us greater health, equality, and happiness.


Culture v. Reality by Andrew Klavan, City Journal 5 February 2010

I'm not sure I agree that "Culture in America" = Avatar, but I do agree with Klavan's review of the film. On the other hand, there's no movie that cannot have a political (sexual, or religious) subtext extracted.

Andrew Klavan needs to go to more Highschool Football Games on Friday Night, Go On the Town in Vegas Saturday Night, then Visit a Babtist Church Sunday Morning before he presumes to write about "Culture in America."

I generally resent a really good fantasy being cluttered up with some kind of heavy social message. And I'll have to read all of Klavan's essay to decide where his cultural center probably lies.

But I think you and I might agree that there are often subtle but discernable anti-traditional values promoted in the "Hollywood" culture versus those that most of us grew up in.

Whether or not we carry the doctrine into our adult lives, growing up in that childhood church does have a bearing on our general views and sense of place in the culture we live in. That small town highschool football game teaches us as much about grit and determination and grace in victory and defeat and getting past the last triumph or disappointment in order to focus on the next goal more than anything any of us will ever learn in a classroom. Those neighbors you barely met who bring a covered dish over when they hear your mom died just because they know you'll be needing the food say more about our culture than anything we'll see in the current best seller or a block buster movie these days.

True.

The old arguement is, of course, do movies reflect us (our culture), or does our culture reflect what we've seen in movies?

Does Marleboro Man depict the Cultural Male Icon?

Or, does every Real Man want to smoke Marleboro Cigarettes?