“How secularism will fail us”
This is a local story where this pastor from Inglewood Baptist church. Where he argues that secularism is going to fail because he equates it to moral relativism and that any moral claims made are a result of stealing from the “judeo-christian” worldview. This article brings in few common arguments against secularism in the United States. First, it makes the assumption that moral relativism is a negative consequence of not being Christian. It is the assumption or even assertion that if you do not have morals commanded on you by an invisible entity. And not just any invisible entity, it is the specific entity that must have their will interpreted by pastors. It is no more of an objective moral standard than any other pronouncements. The truth is the secular morality is the closest to an objective moral standard. This is because it is not subject to the thousands of sects of Christianity and the sects of the many other religions. The fact that these type of stories make it into the news in this region just show the ever growing need for us to build our communities. These ideas need an opposition if we are to ever hope to normalize atheism.
This pastor is among many that have this idea that the way in which all societies have formed moral identities is negative. This idea is counter to moral progress. The facts are that as societies have shed their adherence to dogmatic ideologies. This has led to moral progress.
The main problem I have with this story is this is the type of story that makes it into our newspapers. The Tennessean is a fairly large and old newspaper in the Tennessee area. This story represents a common view I hear when talking to the religious in my area. I even at one time held these types of views. Even the local government seems replete with people who hold these views.
“Group opposes city funds for Emerald Youth project in Lonsdale”
I want to do another follow up on a previous episode where I discuss some listener feedback on a statement I made about the differences in how liberals and conservatives define corruption. I don’t want to spend too much time on the recap. But just for new listeners what I had said is that conservatives look at politicians who support or are supported by unions are corrupt, and that is what is mean by statements drain the swamp. I supported my arguments with some anecdotes from my personal life, and by mention of some of the things I had read from the trump supporters on twitter.
None of this is actual evidence for my position on this, or should I say not great evidence. What I should have said is that it is nuanced just as many of these types of issues are. Yes the portrayal of wallstreet ties has been a major part of the rhetoric around this idea of liberal corruption. And many conservatives see this as a major liberal downfall. Even though the big business ties to the republican party are substantial, both sides have shown some level of collusion with the so called wall street types and big bankers.
This big speech by Obama to the Cantor Fitzgerald firm for $400,000 gives weight to this idea of political corruption of the left and their ties to wall street.
I want to be clear I am not saying this speech by obama is proof of his corruptions or that it shows he has any allegiance to wall street. I am also not saying that this should condemn all liberals to appear weak and corrupt. I am saying that regardless of the facts of Obama’s increasing of regulations on big business, and his push to increase taxes on top earners this does look bad to conservatives.
Some articles and right wing pages that show you what they say about corruption:
We never pay wall our content, but you may still support us with a monthly subscription.
Like our work, but don't want to subscribe no problem: Buy us a coffee instead.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.