0 comment Saturday, December 6, 2014 | admin
In a recent post, I discussed the fact that the psychological worldview, as presented by the popular culture and the old media, has become a widely accepted, very influential belief system. It's also insidious in that most people have absorbed many of the core beliefs of this worldview without even being aware of it. Anybody who watches shows like Oprah, or reads any of the best-selling 'self-help' books, or who undergoes therapy or counseling for life problems, has taken in a good deal of the beliefs of the psychological worldview. Anybody who has taken social science courses in the last several decades has also imbibed some of these beliefs.
Many of those who have unconsciously adopted these beliefs also call themselves 'Christians', and may in fact be regular worshippers at a church. The pastor at their church may also preach messages full of the humanistic ideas with which the psychological belief system is saturated. This is particularly true these days, because so many churches are caught up in this 'seeker-sensitive' movement, with its idea that people (nonbelievers, casual 'seekers', spiritual shoppers) must not be made to feel 'bad about themselves.'
Most of the mainline churches today have embraced the messages of 'diversity', egalitarianism, race-denial, and ''social justice''.
Most of these established religious groups promote open borders and one-worldism -- although most people with even a rudimentary education should be familiar with the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, and the idea that a one-world system is not in God's plan.
Those who have not even examined the facts are quick to condemn Christianity for the Babelizing of the Western world, yet how can anyone, with a straight face, presume that the church, any church, exercises that much influence over people, much less over the world's political system? No, all the commonsense evidence points to the fact that the world system is instead setting the tone, leading the way, while the churches follow along. Granted, the churches are wrong in this. They are derelict, having lost their way. They are quite literally the 'salt which has lost its savor', of which Jesus warned, worthy only to be discarded.
And if the churches are guilty of going along with the world political system, they are wrong because they are not being true to themselves, and to the message they are supposed to be preaching.
However, if the political establishment and the ovine followers who make up most of the citizenry are not being misled by the church, who is leading them towards the multicultist Babel?
I've said that most people in our society owe more to the pop psychology cult, and humanism generally, than to Christian teaching. I can just hear someone say: what does psychology have to do with politics or world affairs? It's just about people's individual lives and problems, not about politics or society. Well, think again.
Clearly, societies both help and hinder human growth. Because nourishing environments can make an important contribution to the development of healthy personalities, human needs should be given priority when fashioning social policies. This becomes increasingly critical in a rapidly changing world threatened by such dangers as nuclear war, overpopulation and the breakdown of traditional social structures.
Many humanistic psychologists stress the importance of social change, the challenge of modifying old institutions and inventing new ones able to sustain both human development and organizational efficacy. Thus the humanistic emphasis on individual freedom should be matched by a recognition of our interdependence and our responsibilities to one another, to society and culture, and to the future.''
[...]
"As the world's people demand freedom and self-determination, it is urgent that we learn how diverse communities of empowered individuals, with freedom to construct their own stories and identities, might live together in mutual peace. Perhaps it is not a vain hope that is life in such communities might lead to the advance in human consciousness beyond anything we have yet experienced."
[Emphasis mine]
Notice the emphasis on 'social change' ''modifying old institutions and inventing new ones...' -- all the leftist concerns. It could have been written by some leftist politico as well as by a social scientist. They are hand-in-glove.
In my personal experience (and yes, it's anecdotal) most leftists are immersed in psychological jargon and thinking. Very few ''progressives'' are Christians, even liberal Christians. Most, in my experience, are secular and nonbelieving, or else involved in New Age practices. That latter topic in itself is worthy of a whole post, with New Age thinking very focused on the idea of a 'one world' government and a blending of all races into some 'highly evolved' hybrid race. I say this as someone who was once very involved in this kind of thing. I know it from the inside, and I have friends who are still part of that subculture.
Marilyn Ferguson who wrote the bestselling Aquarian Conspiracy, said
There are legions of [Aquarian] conspirators. They are in corporations, universities, and hospitals, on the faculties of public schools, in factories and doctors' offices, in state and federal agencies, on city councils, and in the White House staff, in state legislatures, in volunteer organizations, in virtually all arenas of policy making in the country."
That is probably more true now than it was when she wrote it, 20-odd years ago.
What has this got to do with the psychological worldview? It intersects with the New Age philosophy. The latter is a blend of a hodgepodge of various Eastern religions (Hinduism, Taoism, ''Native American'' spirituality/shamanism, etc.) and the Western humanistic tradition of which psychology is a part.
What these systems have in common is the focus on the self, on self-actualization (whatever that means), and they both tend to promote the notion that Western morality, which emphasizes individual responsibility and a defined system of right and wrong, is ''negative'' and backward, un-evolved.
New Age beliefs (although those involved often shun that label) blend seamlessly with the beliefs promoted in psychology, particularlly 'transpersonal psychology'.
There is an emphasis on 'not judging' or not excluding anybody -- except Christians of course, because they are too 'separative' in the words of Alice Bailey, who wrote a number of New Age/occult books which are considered authoritative by many. Anything that separates, as Christianity does, is bad, according to this worldview.
Psychology as it is understood by most people has done more than any other philosophy to popularize the idea of nonjudgmentalism as the greatest virtue. The idea is that we are not to put moral judgments on people, or anything people do -- unless it can be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or species-ist. Then we are free to judge and condemn at will.
Otherwise, moral relativism prevails.
The idea that it's bad to be 'negative' about anything is also a very popular idea which is attributable to psychology and the social sciences. It's also an idea that is part of New Age thinking, which emphasizes 'positive thoughts'. (This system does not account for actual evil, or consider that being negative about some things is the only appropriate response.)
These ideas have wide exposure, especially among women who watch Oprah and other such shows. I allude to Oprah often as being a promoter of this kind of thing. She is a perfect example as she claims to be a Christian, yet publicly says she believes other 'paths' and religions are equally valid and true. She also promotes many New Age authors and their books, one recent example being Eckhart Tolle, a European New Age guru who has apparently taken in some gullible Christians.
I see evidence of the influence of such ideas all around us, especially when I converse with women, or when I read popular magazines or newspapers, or watch TV. It is part of the air we breathe these days. It baffles me to think that some people believe Christianity is so influential as to take the blame (or credit) for anything in our society, good or bad. Christianity is very much marginalized these days, and the thinking I've outlined briefly here is what dominates the 'purpose-driven' churches and the 'seeker-sensitive' churches, which are everywhere.
Christians who read their Bibles know that Jesus Christ is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever.' So riddle me this: how is it that old-time Christians did not believe in open borders, miscegenation, one-world government, and 'nonjudgmentalism', while today's ''Christians'' are perfectly comfortable, in too many instances, with all of the above? Christianity has not changed; today's Christians are thoroughly confused and lost, in many cases.
The fault is not in the Bible or in Christianity. The fault is in the insidious worldview, based on humanism, based on the false notion that 'man is the measure of all things', which has captured the Church as well as the rest of our society. And the fault, insofar as it lies with Christians, is that they do not read their Bibles or develop and exercise discernment. They simply take in the world's poisons and don't even realize it.
Some are being led astray by popular authors and 'teachers' who are in turn peddling the trendy ideas of the world, not the truth. These false shepherds are to blame, but so are the gullible 'sheep' who follow them.
We can see the havoc that the influence of psychology has played in our judicial system, where every criminal is portrayed as either ''mentally ill'' or as a victim of society, or a victim of bad parenting. Everybody is a 'victim' these days, especially the worst among us. Many people have lost all concepts of evil these days; the obsession we have with trying to 'understand' and 'reach out' to everybody, even heinous criminals, is a very detrimental trend to our societal well-being.
We see this carry over to our attitudes about things like illegal immigration; the people who consider themselves 'enlightened' are oh-so-careful to try to understand and empathize with illegals, saying things like ''well, I would do the same if I were in their shoes. I don't blame them.'' The drive to 'understand' and explain away all illegal behavior, or just plain bad behavior, has no limits. We have to re-learn to judge and discern, and not simply understand and empathize and tolerate anything.
As Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Man:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
If it was true in Pope's time, it is even more rife now, this 'pitying and embracing' of bad behavior. We can't be judgmental; who are we to judge? We have to understand and reach out.
If we truly care about rescuing our society, and averting its impending demise, we need to look at the real dangers which beset us and which have rendered us a weak and morally slothful people, a 'nonjudgmental' people who are scared stiff of offending anyone.
And while it's easier to zero in on easy targets, and hard to deal with an amorphous target like a hazy belief system with no visible insitutions to blame, it's also less honest.
Many of those who have unconsciously adopted these beliefs also call themselves 'Christians', and may in fact be regular worshippers at a church. The pastor at their church may also preach messages full of the humanistic ideas with which the psychological belief system is saturated. This is particularly true these days, because so many churches are caught up in this 'seeker-sensitive' movement, with its idea that people (nonbelievers, casual 'seekers', spiritual shoppers) must not be made to feel 'bad about themselves.'
Most of the mainline churches today have embraced the messages of 'diversity', egalitarianism, race-denial, and ''social justice''.
Most of these established religious groups promote open borders and one-worldism -- although most people with even a rudimentary education should be familiar with the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, and the idea that a one-world system is not in God's plan.
Those who have not even examined the facts are quick to condemn Christianity for the Babelizing of the Western world, yet how can anyone, with a straight face, presume that the church, any church, exercises that much influence over people, much less over the world's political system? No, all the commonsense evidence points to the fact that the world system is instead setting the tone, leading the way, while the churches follow along. Granted, the churches are wrong in this. They are derelict, having lost their way. They are quite literally the 'salt which has lost its savor', of which Jesus warned, worthy only to be discarded.
And if the churches are guilty of going along with the world political system, they are wrong because they are not being true to themselves, and to the message they are supposed to be preaching.
However, if the political establishment and the ovine followers who make up most of the citizenry are not being misled by the church, who is leading them towards the multicultist Babel?
I've said that most people in our society owe more to the pop psychology cult, and humanism generally, than to Christian teaching. I can just hear someone say: what does psychology have to do with politics or world affairs? It's just about people's individual lives and problems, not about politics or society. Well, think again.
Clearly, societies both help and hinder human growth. Because nourishing environments can make an important contribution to the development of healthy personalities, human needs should be given priority when fashioning social policies. This becomes increasingly critical in a rapidly changing world threatened by such dangers as nuclear war, overpopulation and the breakdown of traditional social structures.
Many humanistic psychologists stress the importance of social change, the challenge of modifying old institutions and inventing new ones able to sustain both human development and organizational efficacy. Thus the humanistic emphasis on individual freedom should be matched by a recognition of our interdependence and our responsibilities to one another, to society and culture, and to the future.''
[...]
"As the world's people demand freedom and self-determination, it is urgent that we learn how diverse communities of empowered individuals, with freedom to construct their own stories and identities, might live together in mutual peace. Perhaps it is not a vain hope that is life in such communities might lead to the advance in human consciousness beyond anything we have yet experienced."
[Emphasis mine]
Notice the emphasis on 'social change' ''modifying old institutions and inventing new ones...' -- all the leftist concerns. It could have been written by some leftist politico as well as by a social scientist. They are hand-in-glove.
In my personal experience (and yes, it's anecdotal) most leftists are immersed in psychological jargon and thinking. Very few ''progressives'' are Christians, even liberal Christians. Most, in my experience, are secular and nonbelieving, or else involved in New Age practices. That latter topic in itself is worthy of a whole post, with New Age thinking very focused on the idea of a 'one world' government and a blending of all races into some 'highly evolved' hybrid race. I say this as someone who was once very involved in this kind of thing. I know it from the inside, and I have friends who are still part of that subculture.
Marilyn Ferguson who wrote the bestselling Aquarian Conspiracy, said
There are legions of [Aquarian] conspirators. They are in corporations, universities, and hospitals, on the faculties of public schools, in factories and doctors' offices, in state and federal agencies, on city councils, and in the White House staff, in state legislatures, in volunteer organizations, in virtually all arenas of policy making in the country."
That is probably more true now than it was when she wrote it, 20-odd years ago.
What has this got to do with the psychological worldview? It intersects with the New Age philosophy. The latter is a blend of a hodgepodge of various Eastern religions (Hinduism, Taoism, ''Native American'' spirituality/shamanism, etc.) and the Western humanistic tradition of which psychology is a part.
What these systems have in common is the focus on the self, on self-actualization (whatever that means), and they both tend to promote the notion that Western morality, which emphasizes individual responsibility and a defined system of right and wrong, is ''negative'' and backward, un-evolved.
New Age beliefs (although those involved often shun that label) blend seamlessly with the beliefs promoted in psychology, particularlly 'transpersonal psychology'.
There is an emphasis on 'not judging' or not excluding anybody -- except Christians of course, because they are too 'separative' in the words of Alice Bailey, who wrote a number of New Age/occult books which are considered authoritative by many. Anything that separates, as Christianity does, is bad, according to this worldview.
Psychology as it is understood by most people has done more than any other philosophy to popularize the idea of nonjudgmentalism as the greatest virtue. The idea is that we are not to put moral judgments on people, or anything people do -- unless it can be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or species-ist. Then we are free to judge and condemn at will.
Otherwise, moral relativism prevails.
The idea that it's bad to be 'negative' about anything is also a very popular idea which is attributable to psychology and the social sciences. It's also an idea that is part of New Age thinking, which emphasizes 'positive thoughts'. (This system does not account for actual evil, or consider that being negative about some things is the only appropriate response.)
These ideas have wide exposure, especially among women who watch Oprah and other such shows. I allude to Oprah often as being a promoter of this kind of thing. She is a perfect example as she claims to be a Christian, yet publicly says she believes other 'paths' and religions are equally valid and true. She also promotes many New Age authors and their books, one recent example being Eckhart Tolle, a European New Age guru who has apparently taken in some gullible Christians.
I see evidence of the influence of such ideas all around us, especially when I converse with women, or when I read popular magazines or newspapers, or watch TV. It is part of the air we breathe these days. It baffles me to think that some people believe Christianity is so influential as to take the blame (or credit) for anything in our society, good or bad. Christianity is very much marginalized these days, and the thinking I've outlined briefly here is what dominates the 'purpose-driven' churches and the 'seeker-sensitive' churches, which are everywhere.
Christians who read their Bibles know that Jesus Christ is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever.' So riddle me this: how is it that old-time Christians did not believe in open borders, miscegenation, one-world government, and 'nonjudgmentalism', while today's ''Christians'' are perfectly comfortable, in too many instances, with all of the above? Christianity has not changed; today's Christians are thoroughly confused and lost, in many cases.
The fault is not in the Bible or in Christianity. The fault is in the insidious worldview, based on humanism, based on the false notion that 'man is the measure of all things', which has captured the Church as well as the rest of our society. And the fault, insofar as it lies with Christians, is that they do not read their Bibles or develop and exercise discernment. They simply take in the world's poisons and don't even realize it.
Some are being led astray by popular authors and 'teachers' who are in turn peddling the trendy ideas of the world, not the truth. These false shepherds are to blame, but so are the gullible 'sheep' who follow them.
We can see the havoc that the influence of psychology has played in our judicial system, where every criminal is portrayed as either ''mentally ill'' or as a victim of society, or a victim of bad parenting. Everybody is a 'victim' these days, especially the worst among us. Many people have lost all concepts of evil these days; the obsession we have with trying to 'understand' and 'reach out' to everybody, even heinous criminals, is a very detrimental trend to our societal well-being.
We see this carry over to our attitudes about things like illegal immigration; the people who consider themselves 'enlightened' are oh-so-careful to try to understand and empathize with illegals, saying things like ''well, I would do the same if I were in their shoes. I don't blame them.'' The drive to 'understand' and explain away all illegal behavior, or just plain bad behavior, has no limits. We have to re-learn to judge and discern, and not simply understand and empathize and tolerate anything.
As Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Man:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
If it was true in Pope's time, it is even more rife now, this 'pitying and embracing' of bad behavior. We can't be judgmental; who are we to judge? We have to understand and reach out.
If we truly care about rescuing our society, and averting its impending demise, we need to look at the real dangers which beset us and which have rendered us a weak and morally slothful people, a 'nonjudgmental' people who are scared stiff of offending anyone.
And while it's easier to zero in on easy targets, and hard to deal with an amorphous target like a hazy belief system with no visible insitutions to blame, it's also less honest.
Labels: Christianity, Death Of The West, Globalism, Liberalism, Moral Agnosticism, Moral Relativism, One World, Politics, Pop Psychology, Societal Decay, Therapeutic Society, Transnationalism
0 comment Friday, December 5, 2014 | admin
Another aspect of this pestilential 'niceness' is the moral agnosticism that usually goes along with it.
This seems to be an increasingly common problem in our society, and I think it is certainly a part of what ails us.
We've really taken to heart the idea that making a moral judgment or even a 'value judgment', in the namby-pamby social scientists' phrase, is to be avoided at all costs. We have to see everything in shades of grey, with ambiguities aplenty.
For example: two people of your acquaintance, both of them presumed 'friends' or at least people you purport to 'admire', are in a dispute. The moral agnostic 'nice' person makes sympathetic noises to both parties, and shrinks from making a judgment about which party is the wronged party, or which has right on his side. It may be that in rare instances, neither side is wrong, and neither is fully right, and it may be that the dispute is a mere misunderstanding or miscommunication which can be clarified by some detached third party stepping in and correcting the wrong signals.
But in my experience, when judging conflicting ideas or individuals, there is a preponderance of right on one side. Of course, a flawed human being will seldom be completely blameless, but the fact of human frailty does not mean that we can never, ever discern who is right, for the most part, and who is wrong, who was the aggressor or instigator and who was the recipient of the aggression.
I tend to think it's moral laziness to refuse to try to discern, or to seek to walk a tightrope, privately uttering sympathetic words to each side separately, while taking a neutral stance publicly. Or is it cowardice? Or a selfish desire to maintain oneself in the good graces of both sides, while feigning support to each party in secret? If so, that's also duplicitous and insincere, which the Bible condemns.
To refuse to take the right side in every case in which it can be discerned is immoral, and yet somehow these days, this is the default position of many people. Might it also be that so many people are deathly afraid of taking an unpopular position, and being isolated or ostracized for it? We certainly see many examples of this attitude.
The Bible also speaks against double-mindedness and having a 'double heart', or 'speaking guile.'
Psa 12:2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: [with] flattering lips [and] with a double heart do they speak.
I find that when someone takes the spineless way out and tries to have it both ways, working both sides of the street, I lose all respect for that person.
This is especially so when the wishy-washy person turns a blind eye to someone's aggressive or cruel behavior because they 'like' the person. Usually this is the case when one party is socially popular or influential, and many people, being in awe of social influence or prestige, will give the person a pass on reprehensible or uncharitable or immoral behavior because of who they are, or because of their personal charm or social status. This is what the Bible calls 'respecting persons.' We are not to be 'respecters of persons' or to hold the offender's 'person' in regard.
But we are supposed to be respecters of truth.
Suppose one party gossips, maligns, and slanders another party, and perhaps bullies that person in direct or indirect ways. Do we continue to be friendly with the wrongdoer and the wronged party? Why would we do this? The bully or the slanderer is not a person who should inspire our loyalty or regard, yet many people will refuse to call out the bad behavior or shun the wrongdoer, preferring to turn a blind eye, trying to justify their moral agnosticism by saying 'but he's a nice guy, and he hasn't done anything to me.'
Again, I cannot respect the person who behaves this way, even though they may fancy that their behavior amounts to being an impartial or above-the-fray 'peacemaker' between the two estranged parties. Either we believe that certain actions are right, and others are wrong, or we don't. It appears many people don't want to be so 'controversial' as to believe unequivocally in right and wrong, and to support the right side openly. But we are supposed to take a side, the right side, whenever there is a moral conflict. We are not allowed to sit out the battle.
Many of the people I know are very fluid in their principles, being easily moved one way or the other, based on their feelings and emotions. For instance Christians who claim to oppose things like abortion or homosexuality or illegal immigration will, if they meet with a likeable individual who is an advocate of abortion, or a homosexual, or an illegal immigrant, will not be able to separate their liking for these individuals from their opposition to the actions of these individuals -- so what gets lost? The principles. If they meet a personable and charming gay activist, they will begin to say 'well, we mustn't be narrowminded. Times change.' Many people are swayed by the immigrants they meet and sympathize with, and soon say 'we have to make it easier for these people; the laws for immigration are inhumane.'
Most conservatives and Christians of a traditonal sort deplore the moral relativism or facile moral equivalency at which the liberals are so practiced, but it seems they too are falling prey to the tendency.
And in most cases, we are drawn in that direction by our personal feelings, through being charmed by certain individuals, or perhaps we are flattered at being drawn into the circle of a prominent or influential person, so we overlook or justify the bad behaviors this person practices, whether it's sexual immorality or social cruelty and arrogance.
'But this man does so much good! He gives to charity; he supports a lot of good causes.'
Or: 'he's a brilliant man, very intellectually stimulating, a great thinker, a champion of our side,' -- so they tolerate, or worse, justify his petty unkindness towards his 'lessers', and his belittling of those he sees as rivals, intellectually or socially or politically.
Where are the lovers of justice and truth and goodness? We seem to be, too often, respecters of persons, covetous of the social approval of those we admire or like, regardless of their moral worth.
This can apply on a national scale, with the idolizing of morally reprobate celebrities and amoral politicians, or with those we look up to in other, smaller spheres. We have our favorites and our little idols, and we are happy to turn a blind eye to the harm they do -- simply because we 'like' them. They make us feel good in some way, and we are hooked on 'feeling good.' Or they flatter us, and we feel grateful that they include us in their circles, so we happily cluster around and applaud their every pronouncement, regardless of its worth, in gratitude for their deigning to notice us.
In some cases, some rather sad people identify with some high-achieving or notable person, and vicariously partake in their successes, and that this person may be an amoral, self-seeking egotist or an immoral, deceitful manipulator matters not at all to their admirers.
It all seems to boil down to our loss of fixed principles and morality, with a loss of regard for truth and right and justice. It's all about who we 'like', or how we feel about something, rather than about the question of goodness and worthiness.
I've had more people giving me unsolicited statements about who they are voting for, and so often I am struck by the utter incongruity of their choices. People I would least expect to hear these statements from tell me 'I'm voting for Obama', or 'I'll vote for McCain', while giving no sound reason for doing so. Their choices seem utterly illogical, at least based on what they have said over time, or based on what they purport to believe in. When we cut ourselves loose from our moorings in reason, logic, or established principles of any kind, and behave according to our shifting feelings and moods, there can only be more irrational and morally derelict behavior.
I suppose it makes a twisted kind of sense, if we have outlawed judgements, to base our decisions mostly on personal feelings and whims, and on a sense of loyalty only to persons, not to solid beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong.
This seems to be an increasingly common problem in our society, and I think it is certainly a part of what ails us.
We've really taken to heart the idea that making a moral judgment or even a 'value judgment', in the namby-pamby social scientists' phrase, is to be avoided at all costs. We have to see everything in shades of grey, with ambiguities aplenty.
For example: two people of your acquaintance, both of them presumed 'friends' or at least people you purport to 'admire', are in a dispute. The moral agnostic 'nice' person makes sympathetic noises to both parties, and shrinks from making a judgment about which party is the wronged party, or which has right on his side. It may be that in rare instances, neither side is wrong, and neither is fully right, and it may be that the dispute is a mere misunderstanding or miscommunication which can be clarified by some detached third party stepping in and correcting the wrong signals.
But in my experience, when judging conflicting ideas or individuals, there is a preponderance of right on one side. Of course, a flawed human being will seldom be completely blameless, but the fact of human frailty does not mean that we can never, ever discern who is right, for the most part, and who is wrong, who was the aggressor or instigator and who was the recipient of the aggression.
I tend to think it's moral laziness to refuse to try to discern, or to seek to walk a tightrope, privately uttering sympathetic words to each side separately, while taking a neutral stance publicly. Or is it cowardice? Or a selfish desire to maintain oneself in the good graces of both sides, while feigning support to each party in secret? If so, that's also duplicitous and insincere, which the Bible condemns.
To refuse to take the right side in every case in which it can be discerned is immoral, and yet somehow these days, this is the default position of many people. Might it also be that so many people are deathly afraid of taking an unpopular position, and being isolated or ostracized for it? We certainly see many examples of this attitude.
The Bible also speaks against double-mindedness and having a 'double heart', or 'speaking guile.'
Psa 12:2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: [with] flattering lips [and] with a double heart do they speak.
I find that when someone takes the spineless way out and tries to have it both ways, working both sides of the street, I lose all respect for that person.
This is especially so when the wishy-washy person turns a blind eye to someone's aggressive or cruel behavior because they 'like' the person. Usually this is the case when one party is socially popular or influential, and many people, being in awe of social influence or prestige, will give the person a pass on reprehensible or uncharitable or immoral behavior because of who they are, or because of their personal charm or social status. This is what the Bible calls 'respecting persons.' We are not to be 'respecters of persons' or to hold the offender's 'person' in regard.
But we are supposed to be respecters of truth.
Suppose one party gossips, maligns, and slanders another party, and perhaps bullies that person in direct or indirect ways. Do we continue to be friendly with the wrongdoer and the wronged party? Why would we do this? The bully or the slanderer is not a person who should inspire our loyalty or regard, yet many people will refuse to call out the bad behavior or shun the wrongdoer, preferring to turn a blind eye, trying to justify their moral agnosticism by saying 'but he's a nice guy, and he hasn't done anything to me.'
Again, I cannot respect the person who behaves this way, even though they may fancy that their behavior amounts to being an impartial or above-the-fray 'peacemaker' between the two estranged parties. Either we believe that certain actions are right, and others are wrong, or we don't. It appears many people don't want to be so 'controversial' as to believe unequivocally in right and wrong, and to support the right side openly. But we are supposed to take a side, the right side, whenever there is a moral conflict. We are not allowed to sit out the battle.
Many of the people I know are very fluid in their principles, being easily moved one way or the other, based on their feelings and emotions. For instance Christians who claim to oppose things like abortion or homosexuality or illegal immigration will, if they meet with a likeable individual who is an advocate of abortion, or a homosexual, or an illegal immigrant, will not be able to separate their liking for these individuals from their opposition to the actions of these individuals -- so what gets lost? The principles. If they meet a personable and charming gay activist, they will begin to say 'well, we mustn't be narrowminded. Times change.' Many people are swayed by the immigrants they meet and sympathize with, and soon say 'we have to make it easier for these people; the laws for immigration are inhumane.'
Most conservatives and Christians of a traditonal sort deplore the moral relativism or facile moral equivalency at which the liberals are so practiced, but it seems they too are falling prey to the tendency.
And in most cases, we are drawn in that direction by our personal feelings, through being charmed by certain individuals, or perhaps we are flattered at being drawn into the circle of a prominent or influential person, so we overlook or justify the bad behaviors this person practices, whether it's sexual immorality or social cruelty and arrogance.
'But this man does so much good! He gives to charity; he supports a lot of good causes.'
Or: 'he's a brilliant man, very intellectually stimulating, a great thinker, a champion of our side,' -- so they tolerate, or worse, justify his petty unkindness towards his 'lessers', and his belittling of those he sees as rivals, intellectually or socially or politically.
Where are the lovers of justice and truth and goodness? We seem to be, too often, respecters of persons, covetous of the social approval of those we admire or like, regardless of their moral worth.
This can apply on a national scale, with the idolizing of morally reprobate celebrities and amoral politicians, or with those we look up to in other, smaller spheres. We have our favorites and our little idols, and we are happy to turn a blind eye to the harm they do -- simply because we 'like' them. They make us feel good in some way, and we are hooked on 'feeling good.' Or they flatter us, and we feel grateful that they include us in their circles, so we happily cluster around and applaud their every pronouncement, regardless of its worth, in gratitude for their deigning to notice us.
In some cases, some rather sad people identify with some high-achieving or notable person, and vicariously partake in their successes, and that this person may be an amoral, self-seeking egotist or an immoral, deceitful manipulator matters not at all to their admirers.
It all seems to boil down to our loss of fixed principles and morality, with a loss of regard for truth and right and justice. It's all about who we 'like', or how we feel about something, rather than about the question of goodness and worthiness.
I've had more people giving me unsolicited statements about who they are voting for, and so often I am struck by the utter incongruity of their choices. People I would least expect to hear these statements from tell me 'I'm voting for Obama', or 'I'll vote for McCain', while giving no sound reason for doing so. Their choices seem utterly illogical, at least based on what they have said over time, or based on what they purport to believe in. When we cut ourselves loose from our moorings in reason, logic, or established principles of any kind, and behave according to our shifting feelings and moods, there can only be more irrational and morally derelict behavior.
I suppose it makes a twisted kind of sense, if we have outlawed judgements, to base our decisions mostly on personal feelings and whims, and on a sense of loyalty only to persons, not to solid beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong.
Labels: Justice, Moral Agnosticism, Moral Relativism, Societal Decay, Traditional Morality
0 comment Saturday, June 28, 2014 | admin
A number of blog posts ago, I linked to an article which was about the subject of resisting evil. The writer described two types of responses, the first being 'selloutism' and the second being 'retreatism.'
The first approach is the mainstream one, the one usually recommended by middle-of-the-road types. The solution is supposedly to work within the system, to try to change things from within the existing order. To the extent that the activist becomes part of the system, they often become part of the problem, co-opted or compromised. The 'retreatist' recognizes the evils of the existing order and responds by retreating. In a sense this is sometimes a healthy response, if the existing order is too hopelessly corrupted to be rectified or reformed by standard means.
I thought about this in the context of both a TV documentary I saw and a conversation I had with a fellow Christian yesterday. The documentary was about a criminal, a violent sexual predator. One of his neighbors and acquaintances, who looked like a typical middle-class respectable man, asserted that this predator was a 'good man' -- based on what? Based on the fact that the offender was a father who attended birthday parties for his (the interviewee's) children. Then he displayed a picture of the sex predator smiling, and radiating friendliness.
I suppose to the unwary, this is all it takes to be deemed one of the good guys. Smile, present a friendly face, and do nothing overt to alarm your neighbors. Voil� ; you are then a ''good man'', even if you abduct and molest somebody's children, and shoot it out with the police.
he conversation with my friend had to do with the inauguration. Now, keep in mind this friend did not vote for the Usurper, and in fact has been rather negative about him, although in an ambivalent fashion. But she said, her college-age child had told her that the inaugural speech contained some wonderful things, and that perhaps he would do some very good things after all, and be a good president.
Again, here is an example of children 'leading' parents, and of children infecting their parents with their leftist ideas.
But the larger question to me is: how is it that so many people in our age are so unable to discern not only where ideas and doctrines are concerned, but where people are concerned? Why are so many among us so quick to assume that a smiling face and soothing words mean 'goodness' and trustworthiness? Have we mostly lost the ability to distinguish between good and bad, or to recognize evil when it presents itself?
I would posit that there is another, distressingly common response to evil, that being to fail to recognize or acknowledge it. In fact I think that this is the most common response these days. I don't know if it involves a response of denial when warning signs appear, or if it is outright moral blindness. I rather suspect it might be the former.
Political correctness, along with the 'therapeutic', pop-psychology ideology of today, insists that we refrain from ''judging'' anybody or anything, especially if that person is of a protected group. Therefore warning flags may go up, but the conditioned response is to censor our own judgments, lest we be 'racist' if the person is of a 'victim' group, or plain old ''judgmental'' otherwise. Both these things are considered deadly sins in our Oprahized society.
But if this phenomenon is just moral obtuseness or ethical agnosticism on the part of most people, then it is baffling because it is contrary to common sense. Most of us should, as good parents, teach our children at a young age that you cannot trust that someone is 'good' and trustworthy just because that person is friendly or attractive or glib or personable or 'nice.' Or well-dressed. Most of us know that ourselves, and if we don't know it, we are in danger in this rather corrupt world of ours.
We have old sayings like ''don't judge a book by its cover', but strangely, most people interpret that only in the negative sense. They lean over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to people of questionable appearance. Doing so is a huge gamble, but one which many 'nice' people are willing to take so as not to appear 'prejudiced' or 'biased' or 'judgmental.' Most people would not interpret that saying about a book and its cover in connection with pleasant-appearing people; we too often judge them favorably even when they give evidence of not being good or honest.
This blanket ban on 'judgmentalism' seems to apply only to negative judgments about people; political correctness and pop psychology encourage us to avoid judging people negatively but they do not encourage us to avoid making positive judgments based on superficial evidence. In fact, much of political correctness consists of defusing our natural instincts to be wary of certain people, such as outsiders and strangers not of our own people, or people with criminal backgrounds, or people with bizarre appearances. In the past, such people would be subjected to a prudent kind of scrutiny, but now we are taught to go against that tendency and lean over backwards to be 'welcoming' to all such people.
The only exception to this ban on judging others (which really means condemning others) is in the case of those who transgress against political correctness -- and who are thereby 'bigots' worthy only of abuse and contempt. And under our present system, this class of 'offenders' includes mostly White Christian middle-class traditional people.
So what is the harm if many well-meaning ''nice'' people (I carefully distinguish them from ''good'' people) choose to be morally blind, to go through life like the three monkeys in the 'see-no-evil' mode? The harm is that like the neighbor who saw his sex-predator friend as a 'good man'', and like my friend who is letting her children guide her morally, a great deal of evil is given a pass, not recognized or not acknowledged for what it is. And this is solely due to our strange new philosophy of willing ourselves to think only good of people who should set off our alarm bells.
We don't want to be judgmental and moralistic, or we don't want to be 'biased' and racist, so we willfully expunge any suspicions we might naturally have and we focus on some small gesture on the surface that might, might reassure us that someone is good and worthy of our trust. We as a society have essentially 'learned' that it is wrong to be suspicious or even wary in a healthy sense of certain people. We have allowed ourselves to be convinced that certain people deserve every benefit of the doubt solely because their ancestors, or others who look like them, were discriminated against in the indefinite past.
It's become a truism accepted by many people that we are not to judge anything, not only in a spiritual sense, but in a cultural sense or a social sense. Who are we to judge if a piece of alleged 'art' is obscene or not? It's all a matter of taste, and if we don't like it, we are constrained to just look the other way. Who are we to judge the extreme clothing styles that are popular in certain quarters? It's all relative.
So essentially anything goes -- anything, of course, except violations of political correctness, which are to be harshly condemned and punished. All standards otherwise, all attempts to discern and choose and judge, are 'discriminatory' and probably racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, and mean-spirited.
As a result, we lack the discernment and the will to enforce standards, to protect our culture and our way of life, and ultimately, many people refuse to even educate their children to use good judgment in dealing with situations and people. Our national borders are wide-open and unguarded, which is an outward image of our society in every sense of the word. The fact that we refuse to guard our gates and enforce our laws is mirrored in our spiritual and social sphere as well. We don't 'guard our borders' in the sense of keeping boundaries between ourselves and outsiders. We don't care enough, many of us, to keep our identity alive and reproduce our kind.
The absence of discernment and judgment is disastrous not only to our country and our people, but to our spiritual life, as we increasingly have a Christianity that is morally slothful and negligent, concerned only with effete 'niceness' rather than an active and militant goodness that actually recognizes evil, sounds the alarm, and takes an active stand against it. In order to respond to evil at all, we have to first recognize it, even when it comes in a pleasing disguise, speaking smooth words and 'masquerading as an angel of light.''
The first approach is the mainstream one, the one usually recommended by middle-of-the-road types. The solution is supposedly to work within the system, to try to change things from within the existing order. To the extent that the activist becomes part of the system, they often become part of the problem, co-opted or compromised. The 'retreatist' recognizes the evils of the existing order and responds by retreating. In a sense this is sometimes a healthy response, if the existing order is too hopelessly corrupted to be rectified or reformed by standard means.
I thought about this in the context of both a TV documentary I saw and a conversation I had with a fellow Christian yesterday. The documentary was about a criminal, a violent sexual predator. One of his neighbors and acquaintances, who looked like a typical middle-class respectable man, asserted that this predator was a 'good man' -- based on what? Based on the fact that the offender was a father who attended birthday parties for his (the interviewee's) children. Then he displayed a picture of the sex predator smiling, and radiating friendliness.
I suppose to the unwary, this is all it takes to be deemed one of the good guys. Smile, present a friendly face, and do nothing overt to alarm your neighbors. Voil� ; you are then a ''good man'', even if you abduct and molest somebody's children, and shoot it out with the police.
he conversation with my friend had to do with the inauguration. Now, keep in mind this friend did not vote for the Usurper, and in fact has been rather negative about him, although in an ambivalent fashion. But she said, her college-age child had told her that the inaugural speech contained some wonderful things, and that perhaps he would do some very good things after all, and be a good president.
Again, here is an example of children 'leading' parents, and of children infecting their parents with their leftist ideas.
But the larger question to me is: how is it that so many people in our age are so unable to discern not only where ideas and doctrines are concerned, but where people are concerned? Why are so many among us so quick to assume that a smiling face and soothing words mean 'goodness' and trustworthiness? Have we mostly lost the ability to distinguish between good and bad, or to recognize evil when it presents itself?
I would posit that there is another, distressingly common response to evil, that being to fail to recognize or acknowledge it. In fact I think that this is the most common response these days. I don't know if it involves a response of denial when warning signs appear, or if it is outright moral blindness. I rather suspect it might be the former.
Political correctness, along with the 'therapeutic', pop-psychology ideology of today, insists that we refrain from ''judging'' anybody or anything, especially if that person is of a protected group. Therefore warning flags may go up, but the conditioned response is to censor our own judgments, lest we be 'racist' if the person is of a 'victim' group, or plain old ''judgmental'' otherwise. Both these things are considered deadly sins in our Oprahized society.
But if this phenomenon is just moral obtuseness or ethical agnosticism on the part of most people, then it is baffling because it is contrary to common sense. Most of us should, as good parents, teach our children at a young age that you cannot trust that someone is 'good' and trustworthy just because that person is friendly or attractive or glib or personable or 'nice.' Or well-dressed. Most of us know that ourselves, and if we don't know it, we are in danger in this rather corrupt world of ours.
We have old sayings like ''don't judge a book by its cover', but strangely, most people interpret that only in the negative sense. They lean over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to people of questionable appearance. Doing so is a huge gamble, but one which many 'nice' people are willing to take so as not to appear 'prejudiced' or 'biased' or 'judgmental.' Most people would not interpret that saying about a book and its cover in connection with pleasant-appearing people; we too often judge them favorably even when they give evidence of not being good or honest.
This blanket ban on 'judgmentalism' seems to apply only to negative judgments about people; political correctness and pop psychology encourage us to avoid judging people negatively but they do not encourage us to avoid making positive judgments based on superficial evidence. In fact, much of political correctness consists of defusing our natural instincts to be wary of certain people, such as outsiders and strangers not of our own people, or people with criminal backgrounds, or people with bizarre appearances. In the past, such people would be subjected to a prudent kind of scrutiny, but now we are taught to go against that tendency and lean over backwards to be 'welcoming' to all such people.
The only exception to this ban on judging others (which really means condemning others) is in the case of those who transgress against political correctness -- and who are thereby 'bigots' worthy only of abuse and contempt. And under our present system, this class of 'offenders' includes mostly White Christian middle-class traditional people.
So what is the harm if many well-meaning ''nice'' people (I carefully distinguish them from ''good'' people) choose to be morally blind, to go through life like the three monkeys in the 'see-no-evil' mode? The harm is that like the neighbor who saw his sex-predator friend as a 'good man'', and like my friend who is letting her children guide her morally, a great deal of evil is given a pass, not recognized or not acknowledged for what it is. And this is solely due to our strange new philosophy of willing ourselves to think only good of people who should set off our alarm bells.
We don't want to be judgmental and moralistic, or we don't want to be 'biased' and racist, so we willfully expunge any suspicions we might naturally have and we focus on some small gesture on the surface that might, might reassure us that someone is good and worthy of our trust. We as a society have essentially 'learned' that it is wrong to be suspicious or even wary in a healthy sense of certain people. We have allowed ourselves to be convinced that certain people deserve every benefit of the doubt solely because their ancestors, or others who look like them, were discriminated against in the indefinite past.
It's become a truism accepted by many people that we are not to judge anything, not only in a spiritual sense, but in a cultural sense or a social sense. Who are we to judge if a piece of alleged 'art' is obscene or not? It's all a matter of taste, and if we don't like it, we are constrained to just look the other way. Who are we to judge the extreme clothing styles that are popular in certain quarters? It's all relative.
So essentially anything goes -- anything, of course, except violations of political correctness, which are to be harshly condemned and punished. All standards otherwise, all attempts to discern and choose and judge, are 'discriminatory' and probably racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, and mean-spirited.
As a result, we lack the discernment and the will to enforce standards, to protect our culture and our way of life, and ultimately, many people refuse to even educate their children to use good judgment in dealing with situations and people. Our national borders are wide-open and unguarded, which is an outward image of our society in every sense of the word. The fact that we refuse to guard our gates and enforce our laws is mirrored in our spiritual and social sphere as well. We don't 'guard our borders' in the sense of keeping boundaries between ourselves and outsiders. We don't care enough, many of us, to keep our identity alive and reproduce our kind.
The absence of discernment and judgment is disastrous not only to our country and our people, but to our spiritual life, as we increasingly have a Christianity that is morally slothful and negligent, concerned only with effete 'niceness' rather than an active and militant goodness that actually recognizes evil, sounds the alarm, and takes an active stand against it. In order to respond to evil at all, we have to first recognize it, even when it comes in a pleasing disguise, speaking smooth words and 'masquerading as an angel of light.''
Labels: Decadence, Moral Agnosticism, Political Correctness, Societal Decay