Saturday, February 26, 2011

Dennis Prager and the Seculeftheists

After listening to Dennis Prager over the last couple of weeks, I'm convinced that Secularism, Leftism, and Atheism are three peas in a pod. To be sure, there are many leftists who are religious, and there are many secularists who are not leftist, and many atheists who are not leftists. But as a generalized principle, I think that these three philosophies intertwine inextricably and a follower of any one of them is bound to end up adopting many of the principles of the other two.

People who follow one or more of these three poisonous ideas can be generally characterized by the following beliefs (as well as many others not listed here).
1. Human beings are not special. Since we are just a different form of animal, not created in God’s image, there is nothing that should distinguish us from the animal kingdom, either in a legal sense, or in a moral sense. The nonsense coming out of PETA is a prime example of this idea. See Example #1 below for another illustration of this idea.

2. There is no objective morality. Since there is no God, there is no ultimate moral authority. Everyone’s morality is based on their own set of principles, wherever they may have obtained them.

3. As an appendage to the above rule, they believe that the definition for almost anything is entirely malleable, based on who is doing the defining and what their personal beliefs are. (See Examples #2 and #3 below for an illustration of this.) This is the prime basis for Multiculturalism (recently denounced by many European leaders who were formerly in favor of it). This insane belief system basically says that since every culture is different, and each has its own set of values and standards, it’s impossible, even wrong, to posit that any culture or practice thereof is better than any other.

These Seculeftheists (to coin a phrase) are a danger to our society, because they seek to uproot every solid foundational stone upon which this country, and Judeo-Christian civilization itself, were built. Read the following examples below and decide for yourself whether the type of thinking that these exemplify is a hazard of which we should be aware.

Example #1

Talking about the new supercomputer that won on Jeopardy, Dennis talked about how, no matter how smart a computer may be, no matter how well-designed it may be, no matter how well it may simulate a human being in response or even in emotion, there will always be a major difference between machines and human beings. When a caller challenged him on this, Dennis put forth an interesting question.

Dennis: "If somebody went and smashed 10,000 of the computers, would you consider that morally equivalent to killing 10,000 people?"

The response was telling.

Caller: "If they have the same degree of intelligence, why wouldn't it be?"

Example #2

On another day, Dennis talked to Michael Scheurer, who was previously the head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit. They talked about Bin Laden's goals and how he would like to establish an Islamic, Sharia-law Caliphate in Islamic countries such as Egypt, in place of the governments that are currently in power. During that discussion, Dennis brought up how a "Bin Laden Egypt" wouldn't have any significant measure of freedom for its citizens.

Michael Scheurer: "That doesn't fit your definition of freedom, Mr. Prager...their definition of what freedom is, is much different than ours, and we can't imagine that it would be acceptable to anyone and that they really should opt for our version of freedom...their freedoms would have almost nothing to do with elections and liberty and freedom and gender equality. And, yet, when we go there, for example, in Afghanistan, we're trying to plug in our definition of freedom, which is women's rights, parliaments, uh, all sorts of different civil liberties..."

Dennis: "Well, if freedom, if he, if his definition is as valid for the word 'freedom' as ours, then freedom doesn't mean anything."

Scheurer: "Freedom means something different to every people, you know, freedom, clearly, in the United States means something different than it does in the Islamic world..."

Example #3

Again on another day, Dennis highlighted comments made by liberal Tavis Smiley on Bill Maher’s show. They were discussing the Middle East and whether those societies are or could be ready for democracy. The false moral equivalency put forward by Mr. Smiley was astounding.

Tavis Smiley: “If our democracy, Bill, if our readiness for democracy in this country is based upon, determined by, demonstrated by, our respect for women, then we ain’t ready for democracy in this country.”

Bill Maher: “That is a false equivalence. Are you serious? You think the men in this country have an attitude that even comes close to what ….”

Tavis: “I’m suggesting to you, if you think that the way we treat women in this country, with patriarchy still alive and well, sexism still alive and well, is determinative or demonstrative of how well our democracy runs, I think you don’t understand how maltreated women are still then in this society. That’s all I’m saying.”

Bill: “What I’m saying is that you have no perspective.”

Tavis: "All I'm saying is, respectfully, is, and I don't disagree with the fact that they have a long way to go, what I'm trying to suggest to you is, that when we have these conversations about the way that they treat women, as if somehow we treat women better in this country... (Bill: "We do!") it demonizes Muslims..."

Even though Bill Maher is on the left, he occasionally gets things right, as he thankfully does here. There is no moral equivalence between how the western civilization and Islamic societies treat women. To assert that there is, is to spit in the face of reason.

Example #4

Finally, the final idiocy discussed by Dennis was the crazy proposition put forward in San Francisco to ban circumcision. Here is an excellent example of the logical and moral inversions that come as a result of this unholy collision of Athiesm, Secularism, and Leftism. Here we have people who think that their values (if you can call them that) are so correct that they feel obliged to make outlaws of people who choose to follow their own set of values, namely having their sons circumcised, a perfectly safe, accepted practice going back thousands of years. While true that it’s not medically necessary, it’s also not medically proscribed. Besides being a blatantly anti-Semitic proposal (an increasingly common thing among those on the left), it completely abrogates the parental role in favor of the nanny state because “they know better”.

The worst part of this whole story is that the people who are pushing this law are also those who vehemently fight to keep abortion completely unrestricted. The lack of moral or common sense is astounding. These people have no qualms sucking out the brains of an 8 ½ month old ‘fetus’ and dismembering its body while still in the womb, but think it’s totally reprehensible to take a baby (whose only physical difference is its current location) and perform a harmless ritual cutting off the foreskin of the penis. They claim that the reason that they oppose it is because it’s not medically necessary and it is ‘mutilation’ of an innocent baby who has not consented. (What’s next, making immunizations illegal because your two-year old isn’t able to properly give her consent?) I think, in reality, that this is an effort to marginalize Jews and religious people in general, because they are held in such contempt by these Seculeftheist know-it-alls. (Read more about this terrible proposition here.)

Truly, these Seculeftheists are a danger to common sense, any shared morality, and, ultimately, to this society. They seek to impose their vision of the world upon us by whatever means are available to them, but their preferred and most successful method is through the courts manned by like-minded judges. They proclaim that they are in the business of protecting sacred “rights”, but as with so many other words, their definition of “rights” is so skewed and outside the mainstream (and founding ideals of this country), that it literally doesn’t mean what it used to. Our only hope to preserve our culture is to educate our children, family, friends, and everyone who will listen, about what rights, responsibilities, and liberty are, and what those words really mean, and how they are threatened by the Seculeftheists.

1 comment:

Rile said...

The blatant hypocrisy of this anti-theology is what drives me insane. The "seculeftheists", as you call them, on one hand demand that we "live and let live" and avoid criticism or condemnation of another culture. Then on the other hand demand that all cultures "conform" to their ideology.

You could call it theological secularism. A group that has become so secular, so anti-theological and so anti-moral, that it creates a borderline theological belief structure or religion of its own.

If the secular-leftists were so certain that all belief structures were equal (as they claim), they would not feel so threatened by another belief structure that they try to end prayer in public, ban circumcision in San Francisco, and the other idiotic things they do in their secular crusade.