Tag: racism


Progressivism’s Past, Progressivism’s Future


What is often difficult to remember — because it’s buried under a pile of red herrings and equivocation — is that progressivism is necessarily divisive, and naturally tends towards racism. There are those who are “progressing towards the utopia,” progressive liberal imagine the future contains, and there are those who are not. Because this “progress” is tied up with Darwinian evolution, those who are “progressing” must always be the “next evolved generation,” and those who are not must always be “the ones evolution is leaving behind, and hence must go extinct.”

As Jesus might say, “it is not the technology a man uses that defiles a person, but the content of the text message that comes from the heart which defiles.” (Matthew 15:17-19)
In the early days, evolutionary dogma took race as a proxy for a person’s standing in the process. Today, because progressives have “grown out of racism,” beliefs are taken in the same way. The conservative Christian is, truly, the “new black,” in the sense that if you believe in the Scriptures in a literal way, you must be a “throwback,” somehow “against the tide of history,” while your progressive antagonists must always be on the “right side of history.”

The problem is that humans haven’t “progressed” since the beginning of time — the fundamental error of progressivism is the failure to differentiate between human progression and technological progression. An iPhone in the hand doesn’t make someone kinder, more loving, less racist, more intelligent, or much of anything else.

As Jesus might say, “it is not the technology a man uses that defiles a person, but the content of the text message that comes from the heart which defiles.” (Matthew 15:17-19)


Those Poor “X” People Who Can’t Think for Themselves

The one thing progressives will tell you is that conservatives — particularly Christian conservatives — are racist, homophobic, and that they hate poor people. Is any of this true? Or are they just looking in a mirror, projecting their own feelings on others? Or are they looking at those same people they claim others hate as objects to be manipulated towards a progressive end goal — still yet another level of hate? A couple of thoughts on the matter.

Who’s racist, the person who wants only those who have a right to vote to vote, or those who think some members of society — those with darker skin, specifically — are “not sophisticated enough” to know how to get an identification card proving their eligible to vote? Not that voter fraud exists, of course.

Who’s racist, the person who wants to find out the truth about the shooting of Michael Brown, or the person who wants to claim it’s all about race, no matter what the facts might say?

To put a fine point on it…


Moral Truth and “If it Feels Good, Do it”

The expression “if it feels good, do it” is a well-known caricature of the ideology of sexual liberation. Only it is not really a caricature so much as an apt description. The predominant argument by which easy divorce, premarital sex, adultery, and finally homosexual conduct have been legitimized has always depended on the claim that these things simply could not be wrong if they were pleasing to the feelings of those who wanted to do them. The Sterling affair should remind us that this claim is both dangerous and unpersuasive. It we really commit ourselves to the idea that the feelings are themselves the source of moral principles, then there is no basis on which to condemn Donald Sterling’s feelings. If there are no objective moral standards that reason can perceive, we have no business telling Sterling what he ought to feel. We might try to evade the necessity of moral realism by appealing to the feelings of the majority and holding that everybody will simply have to conform to them. Most of us think that racism is repellent, we might say, and we are simply acting out our own feelings when we condemn a Donald Sterling. This approach is obviously inadequate, however. It obliterates the distinction between a just public order and a tyranny of the majority, since it recognizes no standard other than the majority’s feelings by which to be guided. In this view, we would have to concede that Sterling’s racism was appropriate and just, back in the days when it was shared by most people. –Public Discourse

© Copyright 2014, All Rights Reserved