This is's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I think the objection to the Hobby Lobby case is less about the right to conscience than it is about what people should have a right to be conscientious of. Many fear a slippery slope, but there has been a slippery slope of moral latitude we've been descending for decades. For some, that is by design; they call it "progress" and "freedom" and "rights." Others differ in some of these matters and are villainized for those opposing beliefs by the same people who once appealed to personal choice, tolerance, diversity, or moral relativism in support of their own differing views. What once was a matter of personal liberty has now become of matter of public obligation, not only to affirm the new beliefs and behaviors as morally acceptable but in some cases to facilitate and fund them as well. This recent SCOTUS ruling suggests some obstacle to, or refuge from, the progressive program of terraforming the moral landscape. For this reason it is hated even more than it is feared for the alleged rights that some may be denied. I realize that there are some who do not share the vision of the full progressive program, but they are often unwittingly in the same boat and share the same view of the passing shore.
We are fast running out of things to reference in reductio ad absurdum arguments, and those left to us are often deemed too offensive to mention.
Some have gone further yet to infer that homosexuality is actually an evolutionary leap beyond strict heterosexuality. The new uber-man, so to speak. Perhaps not a common belief, or often admitted one, but it is another idea that leading edge advocates are acting upon. And, after all, it's not the moderates of any given movement, that just want to be left alone to their private lives, who drive the train, is it?
A "solipsistic concept" indeed. It is a sad and dangerous trend that our desires have come to trump reality, and if the physical world does not conform then it must be the thing to change. Look up "amputee wannabe" to witness one of the extremes of traveling down that road. When did we stop questioning the integrity of our own minds? One might say that secularism did this, but a purely material accounting of our selves would suggest that our brains could malfunction just the same as our bodies. I think that it is a cross between the nihilistic idea that there is no particular purpose to life and the hedonistic idea that happiness is the greatest good. The net result is a shallow form of "happiness" that seeks only the myopic gratification of physical and emotional desires. Consequently, it is completely immaterial whether transgender, homosexual, or amputee wannabe urges are pathologies, they are simply desires to be fulfilled in the pursuit of happiness. Even further, the philosophical freedom to pursue it has been elevated, in their mine, to a mystical "right." The only limitation that those practitioners of this ideology apply is the minimalist ethic of "consent" and "no harm." But that is no hedge against those who happen to have desires that necessarily violate other people's consent and health, e.g., rapists, serial killers, pedophiles. And after all, if some are required to curb their desires then we admit the unflattering conclusion that some desires, no matter how urgent, are psychologically or morally defective. The homosexual cannibal, Jeffrey Dahmer, sums up the problem nicely: "[I]f a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior, to keep it within acceptable ranges, that’s how I thought anyway." So, next time you tell your child that you "just want them to be happy," make sure they have the proper worldview context through which to lens that statement. is now following The Typepad Team
Jun 21, 2014