« Carnival of the Vanities Redux | Main | Feds Roundup 10,000 Fugitives »

I Just Don't Get It

I fully expect stupidity to reign supreme in the comments section after this post, but I'll post it anyway... [and I'll put the language warning here, I'm going to quote some people verbatim.]

What is it about the Mae Magouirk case that has so many people viscerally pissed???? And for the record, I'm not being a smart ass... I no more understand it than I understand nuclear physics and I'm genuinely asking a question.

Lemme explain:

The simple mention of her name makes many people I formerly respected say the most irrational things. Not to belabor the point, but as I see it, the core problem is that this woman's living will was being ignored....

Now I (apparently foolishly) thought universally everyone would agree that was a bad thing. Who would want their own living will ignored??? Not me.

Now I understand why the people on Ken's side are mad... They see it as murder. Frankly many of these people are melodramatic far beyond using it as a rhetorical tool... (heh- I guess that means they're not melodramatic they're really dramatic!) Anyway... I'm a pretty passionate guy and they leave even me way behind in the "passion quota", -- but intellectually I get can comprehend their points.

Then comes "The Other Side" and I call them that because I can't put a label on them. Some are conservative, some liberal, they cross gender lines etc... You can't say of these people "Well the GAYS are against it" or the BLACKS or WHITES or CONSERVATIVES or LIBERALS etc etc....

Everyone says labels suck... but they end up being used for a reason... As a white guy, I did not agree with what many blacks said after the OJ trial but I could comprehend why they said it. This I don't get....

Some examples: (I'll skip naming names) Somebody put my name on an impromptu mailing list about the case... Somehow someone got on the list who did not want to be on the list. Rather than a polite request to be removed, this person (who BTW is a public figure) mailed the whole list, ""take  me off your stupid list of morons." What's up with that?

Another blogger called people blogging about the case :"A bunch of fucking idiots." Yikes!

I've taken pounds of invective for simply blogging on the case. I just don't get it.

Why is this group of people so viscerally annoyed that this woman might get medical treatment instead of spending her final days wasting away in a hospice??? Why the passion on the other side? Who are they mad at???

I *could* be a jerk and say "they just want this woman to die"-- But I can't believe that on a bad day. One of the "Other siders" is one of the most compassionate people in the blogosphere, but they are on the other side of this one.

Some of you know who you are. I'm not picking a fight, I don't get your point. Email me if you don't want to say it publicly.

Now having said the above, I do have one theory that "elegantly" explains it. But I'm not even enough of a cynic to believe it. (I might share it later)

Anyone wishing to discuss it like an adult is not only welcomed but encouraged...

[edited for typos]


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I Just Don't Get It:

» A Small Victory linked with The "Culture of Death" Does Not Exist

» JackLewis.net linked with Mae Magouirk: Today's news

» Right Wing Nut House linked with A TOUGH OLD BIRD

» The Politburo Diktat linked with No More Big Tent

Comments (36)

A certain amount of the ven... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

A certain amount of the venom comes from this recent phenomenon in which every issue becomes a fight to the death (no pun intended.) Everyone has issues about which they are passionate, but you cannot fall on your sword over every small thing that comes along. Unfortunately, that is what has happened.

Now, a certain amount of it is exaggerated by the blogosphere and its very nature. In the past, if there were 1,000 people who felt very strongly about a topic, their voice might disappear because they wre located in 1,000 different places without a means to "multiply" their voices. Now, the Internet makes it simple for those people of passion to meet and/or express their opinions.

An additional factor, in my opinion, is the explosion of cable news in the past few years. There was a time when the names Mae Magouirk and Terri Schiavo would likely garner some local attention but that's about it. Now, these become household names and people's opinions come to the fore.

I think there is a third factor at play as well. The Average Joe Citizen sees the Hollywood dunderheads running at the mouth about every little thing whether they know anything about it or not because someone stuck a microphone in their faces. Now, the Internet gives everyone that "microphone."

Just an opinion.

Very reasonably stated.... (Below threshold)

Very reasonably stated.

Now, please--PLEASE!--do not get into another Urinary Olympiad with the Commissar!

Well, there IS a huge eleph... (Below threshold)
EJ:

Well, there IS a huge elephant in the living room. People aren't frequently connecting it with the level of invective that this issue has inspired, but there are factions in this country that are getting the hell scared out of them, right now.

If the failure to provide due process to Terri Schiavo can induce people across the spectrum to write to Congress in her support...

If the failure to provide due process to Mae Magouirk can induce people across the spectrum to blog and send out emergency emails....

If the "right to die" has become the "duty to die" in enough people's minds that they are willing to work to correct it...

If so many people from all walks of life can care enough about the lack of humane treatment and protection of civil rights afforded one disabled woman....

..... then just how much more could the public be stirred to care about the thousands of viable babies that are murdered while still in the womb every year?

How much more could we care about the slaughter if people actually knew the procedure for the rather sterile-sounding "partial birth abortion?"

The pro-abortion camp is firmly in this "duty to die" effort. They are well-financed and well-organized.

But, make no mistake about it, cases like Terri Schiavo's and Mae Magouirk's are scaring them to death.

Only fearful people resort to the type of name-calling and marginalization that I've seen in regard to the attempts to protect the civil rights of these two women.

Where is NOW on these two issues? Very telling, in itself. A woman's advocacy group, as long as the woman's cause does not undermine Roe v. Wade.


Paul, I am with you on this... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Paul, I am with you on this. I had been thinking about some of your questions myself. My own feelings on these issues are clear - at least to me. But you are correct. I have not found a division along lines of race, sexual orientation, gender, political leaning, etc. that allows me to categorize how an individual will view these same issues. I agree our tendency is to categorize/ sort/ label things. I have been racking my brains thinking of the question that is not being asked that helps to predict how an individual views these quality of life cases. So, as you can see, I have nothing insightful to offer - just saying, I guess, that I'm as curious as you are.

Paul,I see it as a... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Paul,

I see it as a combination of two things:

1) The old "80-20" power law rule; specifically that regarding any give issue, 20% of the people care about it a great deal while 80% either don't give a flip or have only a minimal interest.

2) The "discomfort factor." No one wants to think about dying; thinking about oneself ending up paralyzed or in a coma or as a brain-damaged vegetable is even worse. And right up there with those horrors is the fear of it happening to someone that YOU would be forced to take care of. Who wants to dwell on the possibility (for example) that your 19 year old son may be left brain damaged as a result of an automobile accident and that you will be forced to roll him around in a wheelchair, feed him baby food, and change his diapers for the rest of your life. No, our own lives are far too important.

And so we rely on that good old standby defense that has gotten us through so many difficult problems before - DENIAL. Or as Mark Steyn wrote a few weeks ago, when someone says "Terri Schiavo" we collectively put our hands over our ears and yell "LA-LA-LA-I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

(I hope I did not offend anyone who has a handicapped loved one that they care for. I have known several, and their patience and understanding is far beyond what most of the rest of us could ever understand. But the sad truth is that most of us are too caught up in our own goals and desires to even consider giving them up in order to to help someone else.)

I do find it strange to be ... (Below threshold)

I do find it strange to be on the same side as Jessie Jackson!

For me, I was annoyed with ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

For me, I was annoyed with the attempts to link this case to the Schiavo case, the slippery-slope argument, the inferences that the Magouirk case was somehow "caused" or resulted from the Schiavo case. That sort of reasoning ignores the fact that there thousands of end-of-life cases with conflicting moral principles occuring all around us, and that these cases existed well before, during, and after Schiavo. Schiavo was nothing new.

The focus on one or two sensational cases to the exclusion of all others is supermarket tabloid material. It diminishes the importance of all of the other lives that nobody wants to care about. I feel the same way when ONE child-kidnapping case demands all of the national interest. As a pro-lifer, I am disheartened that all the air gets sucked up by one case, leaving no room to consider the 1.3 million abortions that will occur this year. And I fear the alienation of people whose minds are/were slowly being changed, by caricaturing the pro-life movement as a fringe group of zealots. I don't know that you are intentionally doing that yourself, Paul, and I don't even know that you are passionate one way or the other about life issues, but the folks who eagerly follow you like a tidal wave definitely ARE creating this caricature, by their utterly predictable reaction to what were tiny slivers of unsubstantiated data.

And the data was weak and unsubstantiated, which required how many posts on Wizbang?, as if this one case was something unusual? In the end, the judge straightened things out, just as he would have without your Wizbang posts. The judicial system worked here.

McCain, I wonder if people... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

McCain, I wonder if people are bothered because they figured out either 1) these cases are, in fact, NOT unusual and enough is enough or 2) they did not know that these situations are more commonplace but despite their ignorance do not want to see it become commonplace. I feel guilty at times not being more proactive than reactive on an issue. I acknowledge that zealots can really distort issues and hurt the higher sprit of a cause, but I think we all realize that things do not change unless someone has the where-with-all to raise a voice. And sometimes those people have to shout real loud before we finally listen and think about the message.

ME AGAIN:I read ea... (Below threshold)
Paul:

ME AGAIN:

I read each of you carefully... By and large I agree with most of your points but (sorry) none of them explains who or what these people are so mad about.

FYI- During the Schiavo debate I argued that it was a proxy fight for abortion for many people on both sides... But I don't know that the same can be said for this case... At least not for the "other siders."

Sure, many of the same people fighting this case on "the right" are also "pro-lifers" but I'm not convinced that the "other siders" are simply pro-abortion...

It is (I think) something else because many of these people are taking far more "violent" stands over this case than they took over Schiavo or abortion.

Why, I don't know.

I think that there are peop... (Below threshold)
Scott:

I think that there are people who are very passionate about certain issues and are easily "angered" in defending thier position.

Combine that the fact that pro-lifers (just using them as an example...) get little coverage in the media any more for protesting.

Now, all of a sudden, there is an issue new to the media that is close enough to their pro-life issue that they go protest. New to the media means that the coverage of thier protest is there.

Were they any more angry protesting outside the hospice in Florida than they were years ago protesting outside some clinic in Anytown, USA? I really don't think so. I think they were equally angry both times.

If it is considered passe, the media won't cover it and we won't hear it, no matter how angry they are. However, combine that anger with media coverage and it gives the impression that this is "new" anger simply because it is a "new" topic in the news

Something about when someon... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Something about when someone writes to someone else, "f/off" (spelled out, but I'm not going to here) or the alter, "go f*** yourself", as some have and do, there's little room to discuss much of anything afterward. What puzzles me is the what and why as to who writes stuff like that...not like it encourages anyone to consider another point of view, least of all the point of view of the author of comments such as that.

About this issue -- I had to delete offensive comments on my own blog wherein I wrote about Mae Magourik and also about Terri Schiavo -- there is some force, for lack of a better word here, that is implied, inherent in the darker emotional side of some: that to end someone else's life is someoe else's "right" and therein seems to spring very severe and sometimes harmful word activity about anyone else.

Interesting that someone from Wizbang comments section left nasty comments (since deleted) on BIRD attempting to reprimand me for even sharing my opinion about Mae (and Terri)...to the effect, it was "none of (my) business"...and yet, I'm wondering what "business" it was of THEIRS to run amuk on the internet reprimanding anyone else about someone else who isn't their business as per their own 'philosophy'.

It's the circular reasoning of disturbed minds and spirits, in my perspective. Intolerance always is.

I teach art in an elementar... (Below threshold)

I teach art in an elementary school. This school has quite a few "specials", that is kids who are either developmentally disabled or worse, emotionally disturbed.

Yesterday in a sixth grade class I noticed a "normal" sixth grade boy making fun of a young boy who is developmentaly disabled. The boy called him a "retard" and also accused him of some sexual comments. The developmentally disabled boy is cheerful, sweet and a really nice looking child who always does his best. He also understands enough to know when he is being made fun of.

The kid who made fun of the boy is hateful, and never makes an effort in school.

I see him as the kind of people who have no compassion for the disabled, ill, or dying and would just rather have them out of the way.

It scares them and that is as far as their emotions take them.

As others here have express... (Below threshold)
-S-:

As others here have expressed -- and about which I agree -- these issues of sheer life and death, and who gets to determine what and why, ARE key to certain very emotionally forceful groups: pro-abortion, euthanasia enthusiasts.

Unfortunately, those efforts/movements do attrack fatalists, even pathology of mentality. Which is why people who are suicidal are deemed threats (not only) to themselves, but also to others.

A person who can and intends to take a life, should be regarded as being capable of taking any life. It's the switch in someone's thinking that flips off regard for human life and it usually results in a forceful determination afterward to...take life.

Which is what I think is the heart of this aspect and why the apparent word violence is appearing in regards to these more highly publicized two lives (Mae's and Terri's). It's drawing out an element within humanity that is, well, threatening to others who are perceived to be preventing, or not allowing, them to fully realize what it is their will 'wants' and what it wants is that a life be ended.

I mean, the goals involved are pretty grim and pretty clearly divided: either maintain life as intensely as possible, or, allow life to end, bring death on. George Felos is uncomfortable to many people because he is just way too enthusiastic, adament, about bringing death on. And, the forceful and damaging, sometimes threatening rhetoric appearing appears intent on protecting the Felos perspective.

-S-, are you saying that th... (Below threshold)

-S-, are you saying that the people who were on the opposite side of the fence as you in the Schiavo case are capable of taking lives...any lives?

Paul writes: Now ... (Below threshold)
s9:

Paul writes: Now having said the above, I do have one theory that "elegantly" explains it. But I'm not even enough of a cynic to believe it.

The last time Paul used scare quotes around a cognate of the word "elegant" in reference to something he thought was a theory, he merely demonstrated that he has no useful idea what the words "elegant" and "theory" mean— either separately or in conjunction.

So, this ought to be entertaining.

Paul continues: (I might share it later)

The blood races at the possibilities...

michele: reread what I wro... (Below threshold)
-S-:

michele: reread what I wrote and don't apply second layer, rose-tinting or amplification to what I wrote.

I wrote what I wrote.

I wrote about people who are suicidal, and that they pose a potential harm to (not only themselves) but also to others.

Are you confused about that?

About those with opinions of whatever, provide specifics opinions ("theirs" and "mine", whatever they may have been, are, whatever it is to which you refer) and I'll try to make additional comments at that point.

Otherwise, you've just imagined a premise of your own making, about which, without further elaboration by you, I have no further opinion. We could always discuss cheese on the moon, if that'd work, as to imaginings of all things possible, or, not.

michelle:Person wa... (Below threshold)
-S-:

michelle:

Person walks into a store.

Salesperson offers to help them find what they may be looking for.

Person remarks, "are you suggesting I am looking for you?"

Salesperson responds, "no, I'm offering to help you find whatever you may be looking for."

Person remarks, "are you suggesting that everyone who comes in this store who doesn't look for you shouldn't be here?"

Salesperson responds: "no, I'm offering to help you find whatever you may be looking for. I offer to help anyone who comes into the store find whatever they may be looking for."

Person remarks: "Why are you insulting me?"

Salespersons responds: "Is there something specific that you want that I can help you find?"

Person remarks: "Why won't you just answer my question?"

Salesperson responds: "Which question was that? Is there some specific item that you're looking for and are inquiring about?"

Person remarks: "Do you have sand in your ears? Did I not just ask you to answer my question?"

Salesperson responds: "Alright, then, if you need my help, please don't hesitate to ask. Please feel free to browse the store, let me know if I can help you find something that you may be interested in but can't locate."

I am the Salesperson.

You, michelle, are the "Person" in this specific thread, as to your specific earlier remark.

-S-, I'm sorry. I have this... (Below threshold)

-S-, I'm sorry. I have this habit of not understanding a single word you write. Try quality over quantity next time and maybe I won't misunderstand you.

As for your little anecdote...oh, I'm sorry again. Didn't read it.

IMHO it is the result of mo... (Below threshold)

IMHO it is the result of moral relativism. Life is no longer considered sacred (sanctity of life), rather it has been reduced to a subjective value judgment (quality of life). People are all too willing to rashly decide who is worthy of living (including themselves) based on some abstract idea of what constitutes "quality."

I think most people in this camp would sing a different tune if they were confronted with actual circumstances rather than the abstract idea of "I wouldn't want to live like that."

They don't stop there - people are extrapolating to "I wouldn't want to live like that - therefore no one else should either."

I believe it boils down to your perception of God and morality. Call it the "hostility towards God and anything to do with morality" camp.

michele wrote:... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

michele wrote:
-S-, are you saying that the people who were on the opposite side of the fence as you in the Schiavo case are capable of taking lives...any lives?

I know you're not addressing me, but allow me to respond.

I don't believe you'd take just any life.

The problem is, your definition of who is alive can be eroded by the opinions of supposed authorities.

Someone with an M.D. or J.D. after their name can tell you and others like you that So-And-So is not really alive, so dehydrating them is not actually murder.

The problem begins when Mr. M.D. or Ms. J.D. moves that line where life is. Do you believe them or not? If you have solid morality, you have your own line that is not influenced by what someone in a lab coat or suit and tie says.

Do you have a line, michele? Will it move the next time a doctor or lawyer says it must move?

Paul, excuse me while I try... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Paul, excuse me while I try to respond to something that is quite obviously not constructive to your questions:

michelle, I don't write for you. Perhaps eventually you can share with the public here what it is that is bothering you. I'm rather curious.

The focus on one or two ... (Below threshold)
TnTexas:

The focus on one or two sensational cases to the exclusion of all others is supermarket tabloid material. It diminishes the importance of all of the other lives that nobody wants to care about.

People can only know and act on that which is brought to their attention; doing so doesn't mean that they don't care about others in similar situations. In fact in my opinion, acting on the cases that are brought to their attention would indicate that they do care about those in similar situations.

TnTexas gets it. Bravo.... (Below threshold)

TnTexas gets it. Bravo.

I was just reading <a href=... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I was just reading The Dawn Patrol and she has written insightful comments about the issue of life as worth, or, not. I don't mean to be presumptuous here, but her comments are really worth a read in relationship to Paul's thread here.

TnTexas -I understand what ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

TnTexas -I understand what you are saying, however, there is only so much political capital to spread around, only so much air. My opinion is that it has been squandered. But that is only one point among others that answer Paul's question. The silly comparison to the Schiavo case, the one-sided and scanty tidbits of information offered authoritatively, and yes, a lack of perspective that would be easy to present. It would be more useful, albeit less sensational, to formulate a story about what is happening everywhere around us, so that readers can more easily reflect upon the conflicting moral principles presented in these end-of-life cases. And that would be an especially good story here since conservatives are conflicted about the fundamental issues. And also, to be fair to Paul, I think some of the preposterous rhetoric in comments, such as the judge was trying to kill off granny, gets associated unfairly with him.

- In My dodage I have occas... (Below threshold)

- In My dodage I have occasionally podered the irony that G_d, in whatever form we may personally regard Him, handed our race a very hard "truth". How we deal intellectually with that truth seems to bear heavily on the whole question of pro-life/pro-choice, and its inescapable twin sanctaty-of-life/quality-of-life. We are given a mind that is easily capable of any number of years of fruitful persuits in living, learning, and achievements, but a body pitifully frail. Some accept thus state of things with equinimity and grace, taking it as His will. Others have deep and immovable feelings of betrayal, and a a fatalistic remorse, that in the extreme, leads them to take their own lives or willfully endanger the lives of others. If you look at the two camps that have fixed, emotionally rigid positions on this issue, just maybe thats the heart of the label that alludes us.

- pondered, sanctity, pursu... (Below threshold)

- pondered, sanctity, pursuits, lable and anything else I missed - its been a long day.....PIMF

The Schindlers were simple,... (Below threshold)

The Schindlers were simple, naive and engendered sympathy, but that wound up getting their daughter tortured to death.

Ken Mullinax is savvy, politically astute and has a good grasp of how the media (including bloggers) work. That makes him suspicious to those sympathetic to the Schindlers, and seems to be the sole basis for their distrust of everything he says -- in spite of the fact that he has yet to say anything that can definitively proven wrong.

I've talked to Ken myself, twice now, and he's a very congenial and friendly guy, and not the shrewd manipulator people make him out to be. In fact, both times I spoke with him, we strayed well off the topic (with him doing most of the talking) simply because the guy is not the tight, efficient activist people claim he is. He comes across to me as just like the type of guy I see in a crowd of 40 to 50ish men at the doughnut shop near my house on Saturday mornings, telling stories and discussing politics.

A lot of the misunderstaning comes from a lack of knowing who said what. Ken's first communication, that I can gather, was to Cheryl Ford, who then emailed it to those on the Terri Schiavo list. From there various bloggers and blog readers paraphrased the story and made phone calls and blog entries so that a number of distortions entered the picture -- distortions blamed on Ken.

I've done my best (as have a number of blogs, WizBang included) to get the facts straight before reporting them. That's precisely why I've called Ken twice to verify things and get new stuff stright from him. But the ripples across the blogosphere change the story and cause people to be angry that someone might be manipulating them. And rather than taking the time to check the facts -- they snap back.

I intend to monitor the story and get my info from the source until Mae is no longer under the guardianship of Beth Gaddy. Until that time, I consider her still in danger. So people can find daily updates on what's new at my site, JackLewis.net. I should be calling Ken in the next hour to get the latest news.

Thank you Danny, you're par... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Thank you Danny, you're part of the citizen journalist vanguard. :)

Hey, maybe Mae's granddaugh... (Below threshold)
Rob Roy Fingerhead:

Hey, maybe Mae's granddaughter is in a weirdo-cult and wants her to die so she can baptise her.

I've got a few things to ad... (Below threshold)
Chad:

I've got a few things to add to the whole Pro-life/Pro-choice, Quality of life/Sanctity of life argument. I was adopted. Had I been born a year later, I would probably never have been. I'm not disabled, nor was I guilty of any crime, but I'd have been snuffed like a candle (most likely) had I been born but 1 year later. My aunt died this morning. After a long struggle with Alzhiemer's, her body finally just gave up. Even though my uncle has been caring for my aunt (a time-consuming and tedious lifestyle) he's devastated by losing her. She hasn't had a single coherent thing to say for 7 years, and it's a mercy that she's gone home to be with God, and in her full glory, but he's devastated. There's an army officer that just got court-martialed for putting an Iraqi insurgent that was mortally wounded out of his misery, and he's going to pay for it. I'm rabidly Pro-life, not because of the above, it just backs up my belief. Life is precious, and not to be taken lightly. Anyone here ever see someone die? It's almost always an incredible struggle. You see the soul, will, and mind of the person hanging onto the flesh, trying to will in one more breath, fighting to stay alive. Man should not decide which person is too sick to live, or what baby isn't convenient. It's not up to us, and someday the price for all the blood is going to come due. I'm not talking God's righteous judgement, as I'm not him. I'm talking about the ideas we are fostering, that life is just something to be ended, that we decide who lives or dies.

I'm having some fun over at... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

I'm having some fun over at Michele's place, since I clicked through her trackback.

I think The Commissar called me a sycophant of yours, Paul. Anyone who disagrees with him is a sycophant and/or Bible-thumping moron, because no one who think for themselves could possibly ever disagree with him. They're beginning more and more to sound like Democrats.

I hope everyone's ready for Hillary in 2008.

Yeah, Sue Dohnim, the fasca... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Yeah, Sue Dohnim, the fascades, they are beginning to fade.

I agree with Sue Dohnim abo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I agree with Sue Dohnim about Danny Carlton and about the JackLewis.net website. About all, my hat, she is way off to you.

Okay, I just got back from ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Okay, I just got back from a three day trip, and have been out of the loop on this story since Tues.

But I really agree with Jeffblogworthy on this comment:

"IMHO it is the result of moral relativism. Life is no longer considered sacred (sanctity of life), rather it has been reduced to a subjective value judgment (quality of life). People are all too willing to rashly decide who is worthy of living (including themselves) based on some abstract idea of what constitutes "quality.""

I really think this has a whole lot to do with it. Even if it is only on a subconcious level for some people.

McCain-you mention the slippery slop argument.

I think you are right and I think you are wrong.

I think you are right in that the Schiavo case isn't really the begining of the slippery slope.

I think you are wrong though, if your argument is that there isn't a slope there. I think there is, and I think we have already started to head down it.

I think what the Schiavo case did was bring the issue to the public forefront by drawing tons of media attention to it, and because the Schiavo case got so much attention, the Mae case was quick to follow.

Basically the media attention of the two cases reveals that we are already on the slope.

Moral relativism - exactly.... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Moral relativism - exactly.

That's where Michele is wrong. It's not the Culture of Death so much that it's the Culture of Moral Relativism.

That's why Gramsci and the Frankfurt School were so adamant about ridding Western societies of religion in general and Christendom in particular.

Religion is a solid foundation for morality. Release morality from a solid foundation, and it can then drift, and so goes the society tied to it. At that point the social engineers can push the society into what they think will be a utopia. But every dream of utopia plunges into the nightmare of totalitarianism. There has never been, nor will there ever be, an exception to this rule.

The engineers and the people who are duped into helping them were described by C.S. Lewis in his essay "The Abolition of Man," as "men without chests."

C.S. Lewis's writing almost convinced me to convert.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy