 |
The Liberal Morality? Part 2
How dare the liberals assume that they have a right to some mythical higher moral ground. Alan Colmes made a comment on the Nov. 3rd show, and I can’t find a transcript for the exact quote, implying that somehow being liberal equals being more compassionate. I wanted to reach through the TV and scream at him. “How dare you assume that because we have different opinions on how to handle some of societies problems that you somehow care more about the people.” The liberal answer of handing out cash simply does not work. If you want to help the homeless you don’t build a shelter and hand them free food. This succeeds in getting them out of the cold and rain on a given evening but does absolutely nothing to ease the overriding problem.
Programs that encourage education and self-discipline will help those that want to improve their situation to do just that. The best example of the Liberal vs. Conservative view in this regard is an old cliché’ Give a man a fish (The Liberal point of view) and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish (The Conservative view) and he will eat for a lifetime. It is not cruel or inhumane to insist that people take an active roll in order to improve their lives. Socialism, with its re-distribution of wealth, rarely produces people that have good work ethics nor does it promote productivity or creativity. What is the point in making more of an effort than John Doe when they are just going to take the fruits of my labor and distribute it to those that didn’t work to earn it? The liberals would have you believe that this country is full of indigent people standing in soup lines that desperately need my hard earned money so that they can support a large bureaucracy to accomplish very little in the way of actually fixing the problem. The people best qualified and most willing to help our society are the plentiful and various religious organizations across the country. These faith based organization offer to help, but require a standard of behavior, to qualify for that help. We should support these organizations. They are far more efficient at actually getting people beyond the point of needing outside help. The liberals scream separation of church and state as the reason not to support these organizations. (This is another proof of my assumption that most liberals do not have a devout belief in God) If the government limited support to one particular religion rather than just having a set of standards for religious and non-religious organizations alike, it would qualify as a separation issue. As long as the funds are available to all who qualify, irrespective of faith, there is no issue. What we cannot allow is for the liberals in government to write anti religious requirements into these standards. Why doesn’t the left understand that by insisting on the removal of religious symbols and practices from our public lives that it too violates the prohibition of separation of church and state? In fact, the wording of our constitution makes it clear that we must not abridge the freedom of religion, so passing laws that limit public display of faith are just as heinous as a law requiring such a display.
So lets see now, the “Morally Superior Liberal” favors allowing the murder of unborn children, favors legal recognition of deviant lifestyles, wants a godless society, and favors legislation to restrict religious expression. How dare they try and lecture me on morality.