After thinking some more about my previous blog posting, I am reminded that there is no such thing as "amorality." Everyone has moral standards of one of sort or another. My attorney friend merely had a different and somewhat vague set of moral standards, but she still had them.
Hitler had his set of standards, as do radical Muslims and child molesters.
So, it is not a matter of morality or no morality, but "whose" morality. Which version of morality fulfills our needs the best? The "our needs" definition is part of the problem. Is morality to serve our own individual "selfish" needs? Our family's needs? Our community's needs? Our nation's needs? Or the world's needs. Obama's morality seems to be focused on fulfilling the world's needs. The child molester's morality is based on fulfilling his own needs. Biblical morality is based on fulfilling a definition of God's desires as understood through the prophets. Increasing numbers of us today seem to consider this standard a fiction.
The truth is, the Biblical standard of morality really does promote interpersonal and intergroup harmony, personal responsibility, respect, and tolerance - qualities that are lacking in the major competing ideologies of Islamicism and Communism.
Ironically, we have to be discerning (informed version of "judgemental") and resolute (civil version of intolerant) in order to maintain our collective moral values.
Who's morality shall we choose? Is our version worth fighthing for, or shall we let the new "morality" become the the standard by default?
Showing posts with label Amorality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amorality. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
“Linear thinking” used as a slur…
Early in my career, a lawyer and I were driving to a hearing together and had time for some idle chatter. Not far into the conversation I had the distinct impression I was on the psychoanalyst’s couch. Critical of my Christian beliefs, she diagnosed me as being a “linear thinker.” Of course I had no idea what that phrase meant at the time. She proceeded to evaluate my mental processes as being excessively “black and white.” In any event, the context of the conversation revealed that she determined my mode of thinking to be defective – a handicap.
It wasn’t until I looked up the term 30 years later that I realized the term “linear thinking” she used was not the term she intended.
Linear thinking is…
a process of thought following known cycles or step-by-step progression where a response to a step must be elicited before another step is taken.
That sounds like a definition of “analysis.” Ahaa. She was telling me I was “anal” before the word “anal” came into common usage.
Seriously, if I knew the definition at that time, I would have taken it as a complement. But a complement, it was not. What she meant was that my thinking did not allow for a million shades of gray as any “normally and productively functioning person should think.”
What I learned during that conversation was she hated religion and the concepts of faith and moral absolutes. Isn’t that just like an attorney. To her there were no moral absolutes. She didn’t grasp the concept of embracing clear principles and values that enable discernment. She likely considered such “discernment” to be “judgmental”, which of course one should never be. Wink wink. She questioned what my “principles” and “values” were based on. Of course, being naive and not a good debater, I responded “the Bible”. The trap was sprung. At which point she chuckled and proceeded to give me a litany of Old Testament scripture – a standard misdirect anyone who loathes Christianity or Judaism will do. She rattled off several misquoted, out of context, and misinterpreted sections of the Old Testament that discuss mass slaughter. “Is this what shapes your values?” she quizzed. Our 10 mile trip was a thousand miles short of a defense on my part.
One interesting twist is that an alternative to “lineal thinking” is “conceptual thinking.” I would guess, reviewing my blogs over the past four years, I am both.
Unfortunately, the great majority in Congress are attorneys, that breed of human stricken with the same deficiency in “principles” and “values” as my attorney “friend.” They have little sense of right and wrong, and insist on a million shades of gray to the point where right and wrong do not exist. That is a definition of “amoral.” Is it any wonder they are taking us down a dark path and don’t care about the future?
Sunday, November 04, 2007
"Values". What the heck are they?
The presidential campaign is rife with the "values" thing. Both Democrats and Republicans claim they understand the importance of "values", the need to defend our "values", to have strong "family values", ad nauseum.
What vague, meaningless tripe. What do they mean? Values are like belly buttons: everyone has them. Radical Islam has values, Al Capone had values, Brittany Spears has values. Even I have values.
What we don't hear much is a definition for "values." Unfortunately, most of the traditional values we've long held are out of vogue and the brunt of jokes and disdain. Traditional families, traditional gender roles, traditional moral behavior are all out of favor. The big pop-value now appears to be absolute tolerance of just about anything. A word for that is amorality. A made up synonym is "avalueity". This gets close to the meaning of most political messages.
Could this be why we don't hear any definition given on the stump: We've lost our "value-system" in this nation? Absolute tolerance for anything results in a valueless culture. A valueless culture is difficult to defend or promote. This explains, in part, why a large portion of our population cannot sustain a war more than a few months. We think that our values (whatever they are or used to be) are no better, maybe worse than, anyone elses. We are into self-loathing. Unfortunately, there are major populaton groups on earth who love their values more than we love ours (even if we could agree what they were), who believe their values are worth fighting for, and literally blowing themselves up for.
Granted, our military and many conservatives have a strong traditional value system that motivates and sustains them. But a large, influential, and growing portion of our population has lost their values compass.
How well does this scenario bode for our nation: A culture without values to motivate and sustain its' will, perseverance, and endurance versus a culture with values so strong and deeply held that they turn themselves into human bombs and are numerically the fastest growing population group and religion on the planet. I am speaking of Islam.
We are in a "values" war. And we will be on the losing end if we cannot rediscover values worth defending and promoting. The three decades of mocking and joking and ridiculing (e.g. Garrison Keillor, famed liberal, culture-mocking star of "A Prarie Home Companion" and late night comedy generally) and challenging the deeply held values of the past 200 years is not helpful to our survival. Nothing of any great society-sustaining ability has replaced those values that we have ACLUed out of existence.
I'm all for not taking ourselves too seriously and the occasional joke about our culture. The problem is, these jokesters and mockers and challengers really mean it. They really do seem to hate our historical culture and the values that founded our nation.
An excellent book well worth reading or listening to is "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It" by Mark Steyn. He identifies our "values" problem as the greatest challenge to our success in the face of Islamic resurgence. To all of our valueless libs, can you say "Dhimmi" dummy?
What vague, meaningless tripe. What do they mean? Values are like belly buttons: everyone has them. Radical Islam has values, Al Capone had values, Brittany Spears has values. Even I have values.
What we don't hear much is a definition for "values." Unfortunately, most of the traditional values we've long held are out of vogue and the brunt of jokes and disdain. Traditional families, traditional gender roles, traditional moral behavior are all out of favor. The big pop-value now appears to be absolute tolerance of just about anything. A word for that is amorality. A made up synonym is "avalueity". This gets close to the meaning of most political messages.
Could this be why we don't hear any definition given on the stump: We've lost our "value-system" in this nation? Absolute tolerance for anything results in a valueless culture. A valueless culture is difficult to defend or promote. This explains, in part, why a large portion of our population cannot sustain a war more than a few months. We think that our values (whatever they are or used to be) are no better, maybe worse than, anyone elses. We are into self-loathing. Unfortunately, there are major populaton groups on earth who love their values more than we love ours (even if we could agree what they were), who believe their values are worth fighting for, and literally blowing themselves up for.
Granted, our military and many conservatives have a strong traditional value system that motivates and sustains them. But a large, influential, and growing portion of our population has lost their values compass.
How well does this scenario bode for our nation: A culture without values to motivate and sustain its' will, perseverance, and endurance versus a culture with values so strong and deeply held that they turn themselves into human bombs and are numerically the fastest growing population group and religion on the planet. I am speaking of Islam.
We are in a "values" war. And we will be on the losing end if we cannot rediscover values worth defending and promoting. The three decades of mocking and joking and ridiculing (e.g. Garrison Keillor, famed liberal, culture-mocking star of "A Prarie Home Companion" and late night comedy generally) and challenging the deeply held values of the past 200 years is not helpful to our survival. Nothing of any great society-sustaining ability has replaced those values that we have ACLUed out of existence.
I'm all for not taking ourselves too seriously and the occasional joke about our culture. The problem is, these jokesters and mockers and challengers really mean it. They really do seem to hate our historical culture and the values that founded our nation.
An excellent book well worth reading or listening to is "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It" by Mark Steyn. He identifies our "values" problem as the greatest challenge to our success in the face of Islamic resurgence. To all of our valueless libs, can you say "Dhimmi" dummy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)