Politics

[wizards8507]

I've added The Tyranny of Liberalism to my reading list.

It's funny that the author is immediately defensive that The Tyranny of Liberalism sounds like a Mark Levin book because he seems to be saying a lot of the same things that Levin writes in Liberty and Tyranny and Ameritopia.

One problem that I'd present for your comment is how to get the members of the "Church of Illiberal Liberalism" to engage on the intellectual level presented in these books and that article. The subtitle of the book is brilliant: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command but I'm not sure how many in the new secular religion would even understand those terms. They take them for granted, so it's not a matter of challenging their beliefs within a given framework, but rewriting the framework itself.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It's funny that the author is immediately defensive that The Tyranny of Liberalism sounds like a Mark Levin book because he seems to be saying a lot of the same things that Levin writes in Liberty and Tyranny and Ameritopia.

Dreher took issue with Palin's comment about water-boarding being America's method of "baptizing terrorists" as sacrilegious and distasteful. Levin ranted about Dreher being a phony conservative, Dreher shot back, and then a bunch of Levin's fans raided Dreher's blog and left some very "enlightened" comments. So that's probably why he's consciously trying to distance Kolb from Levin.

One problem that I'd present for your comment is how to get the members of the "Church of Illiberal Liberalism" to engage on the intellectual level presented in these books and that article. The subtitle of the book is brilliant: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command but I'm not sure how many in the new secular religion would even understand those terms. They take them for granted, so it's not a matter of challenging their beliefs within a given framework, but rewriting the framework itself.

The article by Damon Linker excerpted and linked above touches upon that briefly. He (a liberal himself) has been trying to rally others on the political left to defend religious liberty on the grounds that tolerance has historically been a cornerstone of liberalism. But, as Yuval Levin describes above, the English common-law tradition of religious toleration we inherited only applied to individuals, in order to better exclude those dirty Papists.

So I think that's where the breakdown occurs. Those on the American Left have no real issue (yet) with private individual religious practice (though it may preclude you from certain social circles). It's religious institutions that they have difficulty tolerating, because those are "fictitious entities that lack constitutional rights". The implicit argument there is that a public sphere free from government regulation does not (or should not) exist, leaving only liberated individuals and a leviathan State that secures that liberty (by destroying civil society).

 

[wizards8507]

The implicit argument there is that a public sphere free from government regulation does not (or should not) exist, leaving only liberated individuals and a leviathan State that secures that liberty (by destroying civil society).

That's really the crux of it, eh? The modern leftist perceives liberty only as it relates to the individual. They don't see organizations within the public sphere as groups of individuals all exercising their respective liberty, but rather distinct entities from which the individual must be protected.

 

[Emcee77]

It also has some special features. Liberalism is a stealth religion. It becomes established and authoritative by claiming that it is not a religion but only the setting other religions need to cooperate peacefully.

The claim doesn’t make much sense, since religion has to do with ultimate issues. The religion of a society is simply the ultimate authoritative way the society grasps reality. As such it can’t be subordinate to anything else.

This passage is so troubling.

The first paragraph is dead on and the cause of endless grief in our political discourse these days. As the author says at another point in the piece,

And here’s the most important thing to grasp about the Church of Illiberal Liberalism: its communicants do not have the slightest understanding that theirs is a creed, a set of dogmas, a worldview that makes exclusivist claims. They think their ideology is not an ideology, but reality, plain and simple.

One of my liberal friends keeps trying to tell me, as if I'm sympathetic to the view, how our conservative friends "live in a fantasy world that no longer exists" or "they need to wake up and realize that times have changed" or things along those lines. I don't know how many ways I can explain to him that they aren't failing to grasp "reality"; you might say they just construct reality differently than he does. Nobody stands outside ideology. Nobody.

But how can a democratic government function when you have people like this who simply cannot talk to each other? They can't even agree on what "reality" is.

Anyway, getting more to the point, I don't know how to strike the right balance, but there has to be some space between France and (some form of Christian) Iran, there are powerful forces in American society who want to drag the country toward either pole, and I guess it falls on all of us to struggle eternally to keep the country somewhere in the middle, where it belongs.

And that middle is a big space.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

This passage is so troubling.

The first paragraph is dead on and the cause of endless grief in our political discourse these days. As the author says at another point in the piece,


One of my liberal friends keeps trying to tell me, as if I'm sympathetic to the view, how our conservative friends "live in a fantasy world that no longer exists" or "they need to wake up and realize that times have changed" or things along those lines. I don't know how many ways I can explain to him that they aren't failing to grasp "reality"; you might say they just construct reality differently than he does. Nobody stands outside ideology. Nobody.

But how can a democratic government function when you have people like this who simply cannot talk to each other? They can't even agree on what "reality" is.

Anyway, getting more to the point, I don't know how to strike the right balance, but there has to be some space between France and (some form of Christian) Iran, there are powerful forces in American society who want to drag the country toward either pole, and I guess it falls on all of us to struggle eternally to keep the country somewhere in the middle, where it belongs.

And that middle is a big space.

Ideology or reality lol

 

[Emcee77]

Ideology or reality lol

lol.

<iframe width="854" height="510" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OA3WGf9pX0A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[wizards8507]

I don't know how to strike the right balance, but there has to be some space between France and (some form of Christian) Iran, there are powerful forces in American society who want to drag the country toward either pole, and I guess it falls on all of us to struggle eternally to keep the country somewhere in the middle, where it belongs.

I think what you just said exemplifies the biggest problem we face. With all due respect, I'd rather NOT try and find the "middle" between leftist big government (communism/socialism) and right-wing big government (theocracy/fascism). We need to shake this left versus right framework and start thinking in terms of up versus down. We act like it's a choice between personal freedom and economic freedom, while sacrificing one for the other. How about just more freedom?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

One of my liberal friends keeps trying to tell me, as if I'm sympathetic to the view, how our conservative friends "live in a fantasy world that no longer exists" or "they need to wake up and realize that times have changed" or things along those lines. I don't know how many ways I can explain to him that they aren't failing to grasp "reality"; you might say they just construct reality differently than he does. Nobody stands outside ideology. Nobody.

Are you familiar with Jonathan Haidt's Five Pillars of Morality?

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

His research indicates that those on the American political left put immense weight on (1) and (2), but very little on (3), (4) and (5). Conservatives, on the other hand, weigh all five more equally (though still placing the most weight on (1)). You can take a quiz here to see what your moral "palate" is like.

Haidt recently published some new research wherein he asked liberals to try to respond to moral questions like a conservative, and visa versa. Conservatives were able to empathize with the liberal position fairly well, since they still place value on (1) and (2); but liberals were not able to do the same for conservatives, since (3), (4) and (5) typically don't even register for them. Point being, your friend likely has a sincere belief that conservatives are truly evil, cold-hearted bastards because his moral wiring prevents him from even recognizing much of what an average conservative holds dear.

But how can a democratic government function when you have people like this who simply cannot talk to each other? They can't even agree on what "reality" is.

This is the main thesis of (ND prof and legendary philosopher) Alasdair MacIntyre's book After Virtue:

MacIntyre provides a bleak view of the state of modern moral discourse, regarding it as failing to be rational, and failing to admit to being irrational. He claims that older forms of moral discourse were in better shape, particularly singling out Aristotle's moral philosophy as an exemplar. After Virtue is among the most important texts in the recent revival of virtue ethics.

The West enjoyed a shared coherent moral framework prior to the Reformation which allowed people to speak about moral problems rationally and to find widely-acceptable solutions. The Reformation caused much of the Christian world to reject Aristotelian philosophy, which resulted in a lot of incoherence. So the Enlightenment philosophers set out to discover a purely rational basis for objective morality. Their complete failure in that endeavor is what caused Nietzsche to declare that "God is dead." Emotivism-- the idea that moral statements are nothing more than emotional expressions-- came to prominence in that vacuum, which remains the dominant philosophy of modernity.

We're still left with the fractured remnants of a once coherent moral framework. So we continue to talk about morality as if appealing to a universal objective standard. But, as you noticed, many of us don't even have compatible concepts of the nature of reality. Which makes the moral issues we squabble about seem incapable of resolution. If I argue with a radical feminist about the morality of abortion, I inevitably end up appealing to metaphysical arguments that she doesn't accept, and she takes my statement that "Abortion is evil" not to be an assertion about the act, but a mere expression of my emotional state towards it.

So... we're already living in a moral dark age. And things will likely get much worse before they get better.

 

[ACamp1900]

Are you familiar with Jonathan Haidt's Five Pillars of Morality?



His research indicates that those on the American political left put immense weight on (1) and (2), but very little on (3), (4) and (5).

I think this pings off of wiz' point the other day about emotions being their driving force.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Whiskey, when and where was the golden era of morality?

 

[wizards8507]

Whiskey, when and where was the golden era of morality?

Obviously a trap question. Whatever Whiskey says, I presume you're going to Google that era and list out the top five or so most horrific human atrocities that occurred in that time. Obviously he's referencing moral philosophy and thought, not arguing that there was a point in time when all people were saints.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Obviously a trap question. Whatever Whiskey says, I presume you're going to Google that era and list out the top five or so most horrific human atrocities that occurred in that time.

Well shouldn't we find a time of "moral enlightenment" if we know this a moral dark age?

Obviously he's referencing moral philosophy and thought, not arguing that there was a point in time when all people were saints.

Im not looking for a society of saints but at least when above average moral people reigned supreme.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey, when and where was the golden era of morality?

I'd say medieval Europe was the closest we've come, if only because the West enjoyed a shared and comprehensive moral framework. That meant that questions about morality could be discussed rationally and actually resolved to the satisfaction of a strong majority of people. That's no longer the case today.

That's not to imply that the average medieval European was a "better person" than a modern American. Despite the advantages of that shared framework, humanity was as fallible as ever. And if you consider only (1) and (2), or if you believe that humanity is progressing toward a Roddenberry-esque techno-utopia, then this contention probably strikes you as absurd.

But for all our wealth, technology and social "progress", our culture has lost an awful lot in (3), (4) and (5). And we've reached a point where most controversial social issues seem incapable of resolution, because we've lost the vocabulary and shared moral framework that once allowed us to discuss them rationally. That's why I'd say we're in a moral dark age. Not because of comparative health and wealth outcomes, but because we're pretty much philosophical barbarians now who can only appeal to instinct for authority and can barely converse with each other on the subject.

 

[pkt77242]

I'd say medieval Europe was the closest we've come, if only because the West enjoyed a shared and comprehensive moral framework. That meant that questions about morality could be discussed rationally and actually resolved to the satisfaction of a strong majority of people. That's no longer the case today.

That's not to imply that the average medieval European was a "better person" than a modern American. Despite the advantages of that shared framework, humanity was as fallible as ever. And if you consider only (1) and (2), or if you believe that humanity is progressing toward a Roddenberry-esque techno-utopia, then this contention probably strikes you as absurd.

But for all our wealth, technology and social "progress", our culture has lost an awful lot in (3), (4) and (5). And we've reached a point where most controversial social issues seem incapable of resolution, because we've lost the vocabulary and shared moral framework that once allowed us to discuss them rationally. That's why I'd say we're in a moral dark age. Not because of comparative health and wealth outcomes, but because we're pretty much philosophical barbarians now who can only appeal to instinct for authority and can barely converse with each other on the subject.

I think that my problem with you saying medieval Europe is that it wasn't discussed rationally by the majority of people. While there was a shared framework (mostly one religion) the average person could not read nor write nor were they allowed to participate in the discussions. The resolving of the moral issue was done by the wealthiest (Kings, Princes, etc) and the Catholic Church. Serfs and Peasants (and most freemen) were not included in that discussion and I would say that they probably had a different view of the outcomes in comparison to how the Church and Royalty felt about it. It is much easier to come to a consensus when such a small percentage of the population is involved in the discussion. It is typically much easier to get three people to agree then it is to get 1000 people to agree.

 

[Emcee77]

I think what you just said exemplifies the biggest problem we face. With all due respect, I'd rather NOT try and find the "middle" between leftist big government (communism/socialism) and right-wing big government (theocracy/fascism). We need to shake this left versus right framework and start thinking in terms of up versus down. We act like it's a choice between personal freedom and economic freedom, while sacrificing one for the other. How about just more freedom?

I think this mischaracterizes my post, but at the same time I don't totally disagree with you. I generally agree that the left vs. right analytical framework, at least in this country, confuses more than it clarifies and could use "shaking up."

But I'm not sure about the bolded. I didn't mean to make any point about economic freedom at all. I didn't mean to compare France and Iran generally; I meant to compare their approaches to religious rights.

In the AmCon article we were discussing, the author uses France as an example of a state that takes secularism to a totalizing extreme. People are not even free individually to exercise their religion, any religion, in France if it interferes with the state and its purposes (for example, the headscarf ban). We don't want that. In this country the First Amendment guarantees the Free Exercise of religion.

Iran is an example of a theocratic republic where converts to nonconforming religions are persecuted even if they only practice in private. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/opinion/irans-oppressed-christians.html?_r=0 Obviously we don't want that either. The First Amendment prohibits policymakers from "respecting an establishment of religion."

But it has bedeviled courts and policymakers for decades that these clauses, the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause, can cut against each other. The government has to accommodate religion without going so far to accommodate it that it is basically adopting that religion as its own, which would only corrupt the religion.

So when you say, "how about just more freedom?", the question that immediately comes to my mind is, which kind of freedom? Freedom to do what? I think it's a bit of a disingenuous question. Freedom or liberty is obviously an important value, but it's not that helpful in defining the limits of government to vote in favor of "more freedom." Even the concept of religious freedom is too broad for that.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I'd say medieval Europe was the closest we've come, if only because the West enjoyed a shared and comprehensive moral framework. That meant that questions about morality could be discussed rationally and actually resolved to the satisfaction of a strong majority of people. That's no longer the case today.

I don't know much about M.E so can I get examples of big moral issues being discussed and resolved.
Second Q: Do relationships with the Non-West come into play in discussions of morality, or to put it another way, "The Other"?

That's not to imply that the average medieval European was a "better person" than a modern American. Despite the advantages of that shared framework, humanity was as fallible as ever. And if you consider only (1) and (2), or if you believe that humanity is progressing toward a Roddenberry-esque techno-utopia, then this contention probably strikes you as absurd.
I don't see a utopia coming along. I think people, religious or not, will do fucked up things.
But for all our wealth, technology and social "progress", our culture has lost an awful lot in (3), (4) and (5). And we've reached a point where most controversial social issues seem incapable of resolution, because we've lost the vocabulary and shared moral framework that once allowed us to discuss them rationally. That's why I'd say we're in a moral dark age. Not because of comparative health and wealth outcomes, but because we're pretty much philosophical barbarians now who can only appeal to instinct for authority and can barely converse with each other on the subject.
I don't know, I read a little of The Dish now and then and when I read Andrew Sullivan's arguments on homosexuality, they sound very much like one that fits within at least 4 of the 5, with only the authority/subversion one being leaning more towards subversion.

.

 

[Emcee77]

Are you familiar with Jonathan Haidt's Five Pillars of Morality?

Yes. Awfully illuminating, isn't it? I love that.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I think that my problem with you saying medieval Europe is that it wasn't discussed rationally by the majority of people. While there was a shared framework (mostly one religion) the average person could not read nor write nor were they allowed to participate in the discussions.

Yes, many more people are literate these days. But how do they use that gift? What sorts of media do they consume? How many people are engaged in the political process? Literacy is a tool, and tools are morally neutral. I don't think that increased literacy has made modern society morally superior to past cultures.

The resolving of the moral issue was done by the wealthiest (Kings, Princes, etc) and the Catholic Church.

The Church is no longer involved, but otherwise it's not much different today.

Serfs and Peasants (and most freemen) were not included in that discussion and I would say that they probably had a different view of the outcomes in comparison to how the Church and Royalty felt about it.

To be honest, I don't think we can honestly compare what life was life for medieval Europeans to ourselves today. They had a fundamentally different worldview-- the Cosmos made sense in a way it doesn't for us, and every individual, great and small, had a purpose. How do you put a value on purpose? It's easy for us, as modern liberals, to look back at them and sneer, but only because our secular outlook places no value on what we've lost in the interim.

Do relationships with the Non-West come into play in discussions of morality, or to put it another way, "The Other"?

All human actions have a moral dimension, so yes, relationships with non-Western nations would be fair game. I'm not sure how that would illuminate our discussion though. Regarding tolerance for "the Other", the West is superficially much more tolerant now than it's been in the past. But, as that AmCon article argued, liberalism is itself a sort of religion, which is becoming increasingly intolerant of non-adherents.

I don't know, I read a little of The Dish now and then and when I read Andrew Sullivan's arguments on homosexuality, they sound very much like one that fits within at least 4 of the 5, with only the authority/subversion one being leaning more towards subversion.

I doubt we can safely make generalizations about modern society from Sullivan. He's conservative and Catholic (at least nominally), but he's also a gay man who has arguably been the most effective advocate for SSM in America. He doesn't typically get very philosophical on his blog (or if he does, I haven't read those posts), but I have a difficult time imagining a coherent philosophical view behind those disparate positions. Regardless, he's very intelligent and I enjoy reading most of his stuff.

 

[GoldenDomer]

Everyone go see the documentary America directed by Dinesh D'Souza!

 

[Buster Bluth]

Yes, many more people are literate these days. But how do they use that gift? What sorts of media do they consume? How many people are engaged in the political process? Literacy is a tool, and tools are morally neutral. I don't think that increased literacy has made modern society morally superior to past cultures.

I think that a number of tools, specifically superior levels of communication, have made the world a much more morally superior place. I would assume there is an exponential growth in the rights of people that mirrors exponential growth in ability to communicate. Slavery ended in the 19th century, women's suffrage started in the 20th, homosexuals treated exponentially better in the 21st. Before all that, how much better was in from the 8th century to the 18th century?

I mean isn't the internet accelerating the Muslim world's moral progress by allowing the dispersion of ideas throughout social networks? The communication of ideas ultimately leads us to "truths that we hold self-evident," and objective truths, etc. Peoples arrive there at different paces.

To be honest, I don't think we can honestly compare what life was like for medieval Europeans to ourselves today. They had a fundamentally different worldview-- the Cosmos made sense in a way it doesn't for us, and every individual, great and small, had a purpose. How do you put a value on purpose? It's easy for us, as modern liberals, to look back at them and sneer, but only because our secular outlook places no value on what we've lost in the interim.

Kinda sounds like Oz was just peachy before they figured out it was a sham, or that Neo should have taken the other pill and lived in the matrix without knowledge.

I'd rather sit here with untold levels of knowledge at my fingertips while not having a clue why I'm here, than slave away in the medieval period with a "purpose."

But, as that AmCon article argued, liberalism is itself a sort of religion, which is becoming increasingly intolerant of non-adherents.

Intolerant of intolerance. I like it. If there isn't a victim, why should I care? Take SSM for example, where is the victim? A person? A person's soul? Society? I don't see a victim at all, so I don't care. Whereas something like polygamy has a victim: society, by reducing the number of single women and thus creating social unrest, as China will see with its extra 50mil men (due to another policy, but effect is the same).

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I figured you'd chime in as I was typing that post, Buster. I'll respond as soon as I can, probably on Monday.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

All human actions have a moral dimension, so yes, relationships with non-Western nations would be fair game. I'm not sure how that would illuminate our discussion though. Regarding tolerance for "the Other", the West is superficially much more tolerant now than it's been in the past. But, as that AmCon article argued, liberalism is itself a sort of religion, which is becoming increasingly intolerant of non-adherents.

I just wanted to know for sure if everyone was included in the moral framework, because in your answer it seemed like that era was the "golden era" only because the nations in the West agreed with each other on what was right and wrong.

I doubt we can safely make generalizations about modern society from Sullivan. He's conservative and Catholic (at least nominally), but he's also a gay man who has arguably been the most effective advocate for SSM in America. He doesn't typically get very philosophical on his blog (or if he does, I haven't read those posts), but I have a difficult time imagining a coherent philosophical view behind those disparate positions. Regardless, he's very intelligent and I enjoy reading most of his stuff.

I honestly know little about Sullivan, but I mentioned him precisely because he is gay, conservative and Catholic. He sounds like he is on your "team" when it comes to a moral framework, yet he disagrees on gay part. Is that not the way the ball is rolling when it comes to Christians?

.

 

[BobD]

Whiskey, when and where was the golden era of morality?

I'd say medieval Europe was the closest we've come, if only because the West enjoyed a shared and comprehensive moral framework. That meant that questions about morality could be discussed rationally and actually resolved to the satisfaction of a strong majority of people. That's no longer the case today.

That's not to imply that the average medieval European was a "better person" than a modern American. Despite the advantages of that shared framework, humanity was as fallible as ever. And if you consider only (1) and (2), or if you believe that humanity is progressing toward a Roddenberry-esque techno-utopia, then this contention probably strikes you as absurd.

But for all our wealth, technology and social "progress", our culture has lost an awful lot in (3), (4) and (5). And we've reached a point where most controversial social issues seem incapable of resolution, because we've lost the vocabulary and shared moral framework that once allowed us to discuss them rationally. That's why I'd say we're in a moral dark age. Not because of comparative health and wealth outcomes, but because we're pretty much philosophical barbarians now who can only appeal to instinct for authority and can barely converse with each other on the subject.

Saying medieval times were the golden age of morality would definitely depend on your feelings about the crusades.

 

[ACamp1900]

Saying medieval times were the golden age of morality would definitely depend on your feelings about the crusades.

But they started it.....

 

[pkt77242]

Yes, many more people are literate these days. But how do they use that gift? What sorts of media do they consume? How many people are engaged in the political process? Literacy is a tool, and tools are morally neutral. I don't think that increased literacy has made modern society morally superior to past cultures.



The Church is no longer involved, but otherwise it's not much different today.



To be honest, I don't think we can honestly compare what life was life for medieval Europeans to ourselves today. They had a fundamentally different worldview-- the Cosmos made sense in a way it doesn't for us, and every individual, great and small, had a purpose. How do you put a value on purpose? It's easy for us, as modern liberals, to look back at them and sneer, but only because our secular outlook places no value on what we've lost in the interim.



All human actions have a moral dimension, so yes, relationships with non-Western nations would be fair game. I'm not sure how that would illuminate our discussion though. Regarding tolerance for "the Other", the West is superficially much more tolerant now than it's been in the past. But, as that AmCon article argued, liberalism is itself a sort of religion, which is becoming increasingly intolerant of non-adherents.



I doubt we can safely make generalizations about modern society from Sullivan. He's conservative and Catholic (at least nominally), but he's also a gay man who has arguably been the most effective advocate for SSM in America. He doesn't typically get very philosophical on his blog (or if he does, I haven't read those posts), but I have a difficult time imagining a coherent philosophical view behind those disparate positions. Regardless, he's very intelligent and I enjoy reading most of his stuff.

B: I agree that being literate doesn't make our time period more morally superior but it does allow more people to be involved in that conversation. Think about the debates in the U.S. over waterboarding, drone strikes, contraception or abortion. Due to the relatively free flow of information and a more educated populace there are many more people involved in the debate over the morality of these issues. Literacy doesn't make a society more moral but it does allow a significantly larger portion of the populace to be involved in that discussion.

I: While the Catholic Church isn't the only religion involved currently, Religions in general are heavily involved especially in the U.S. While I agree that their are still a few decision makers just like there was then, the populace has a greater say in what they feel is moral now then the general population had back then and the U.S. has codified way of putting new voices into power that we feel better fit us when we so choose while in the Middle Ages there was no such thing, Kings and other rulers had absolute power.

U: Why can't we still have a purpose? Do we have to be uneducated people to have purpose? Also I think the average serf/peasant never thought about their purpose in a moral sense, they just focused on survival.

 

[JughedJones]

I just typed a three paragraph rebuttal to what Whiskey said, then deleted it.


I disagree.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...xsVs7n7SYOSpxGvTA&sig2=YOy9DXXInaAlBNFtEnRPBQ

 

[Bluto]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...xsVs7n7SYOSpxGvTA&sig2=YOy9DXXInaAlBNFtEnRPBQ

From the "Raw Story". Kind of ironic. Anyhow, that's one of the crazier things I've read.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

New York City creates ID card so 500K illegal immigrants can get services - Washington Times

You want it you got it NYC lol

 

[BobD]

Two comments:

This morning I was at a diagnostic lab having some blood drawn. While I was waiting to be seen I noticed a lady crying at the check in desk. As I listened in, she was crying because her husband who has cancer was only going to be able to get a few of the test his doctor had ordered because he doesn't have insurance and only had enough money to cover a couple of them. It was heart breaking to watch. It makes me sick that people cannot get past this political bullshit and see how badly we need basic medical care available for all. Continually hearing people politicizing something that should automatically flow from their heart is disgusting. It's not about politics, it's about human fucking decency.

If the kids crossing the border had blonde hair and blue eyes or were black, they'd sure have a lot better representation. I've got news for everyone, nobody that landed at Plymouth Rock had a passport, they were illegals.

From now on, before I listen to anyone's opinion, I want to know more about them and their credibility. What have they done for others? What have they done for our country? Right now in the media, my country sounds more like a bunch of prejudiced, lazy, entitled crybabies than I can stomach.

Go ahead and try to turn my rant here into a republican vs democratic thing. If you do try, you're a stooge. I honestly could care less about political parties anymore. I think people need to stop talking and get to doing, because being a true American is about doing, not talking.

End rant.