Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Laws and morality: The battle of worldviews

Published

on

Are laws about morality or a moral judgment? When it comes to same-sex marriage, we heard the expression that it’s not right for the government to tell two people in love that they can’t get married and its none of the government’s business to dictate morality. You might be reading this and might agree with that statement. Now, this article isn’t about a debate on whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not. I am using same-sex marriage as a way to show you that all laws are about moral judgments.

What’s love got to do with it

Therefore, let us first begin with the “two people in love” part of our argument. Do two people have to be in love? There are couples in this country that have had arranged marriages. Indian, Islamic cultures and other Asian cultures still practice arranged marriages. Even in the western world, you have the famously known mail ordered, Russian bride. Now I am assuming you won’t make it illegal for people to have to prove that they are in love to get married. The argument for love in same-sex marriage was only used as an emotional plea to win people over; it wasn’t about love. Why wasn’t it about love; I’ll show you.

First, why does marriage have to be between two individuals? You might have a situation where three of four people love each other and want to get married. Should they be allowed to marry? You might say, “of course they should. It’s none of the government’s business if consenting adults want to marry.” Again, you might be right but is it truly about love?

What happens if you have two people that are in love with each other and one person is sixty, and the other person is seventeen? In America that would be illegal for the most part because you are not considered a legal consenting adult until you are eighteen. Why eighteen years old? It is entirely arbitrary on our part to say you are a legal adult at the age of eighteen. Seventeen might be okay for some but how about places like the United Kingdom where the age of sexual consent is sixteen years old? Still fine with that. How about Quebec where the legal age of consent is fourteen years old? At this point, most people begin to say wait that is just way too young. I might be okay with even sixteen but fourteen is just pushing it. Some think even younger than fourteen is fine. Who are we to judge and discriminate against love?

You see the point isn’t about love it is about making a moral judgment about what is right or wrong. What we believe in society as the moral standard of society is what guides our laws.

Don’t push your morality on me

Let’s get away from polygamy, polyandry, and legal age of consent and go with two adults that happen to be both legal consenting adults. The argument has been that government shouldn’t make laws against this and it’s none of their business, and they shouldn’t dictate morality.

So how do you feel about incest? If a mother and son or a brother and sister that love each other and want to get married why shouldn’t they be allowed? You might say that is wrong and disgusting. If it’s wrong and disgusting aren’t you just imposing your morality on a loving incestual relationship and therefore aren’t you just a close-minded bigot?

Just like the age of consent, you need to explain why. With age of consent, it might be a medical argument on when the body is physically mature enough to engage in sex. With incest, some might argue that it shouldn’t be allowed because there is high-risk of congenital disabilities? If this is the case, should we make it illegal for people with physical and mental disabilities or genetic defects from getting married and having children? If so then to what degree?

If it’s all about genetics and birth-defects why not allow a father and son or a mother and daughter to get married? They have no possible way of producing offspring, and they are both consenting adults that are in love. Shouldn’t this be legally allowed?

When is it a life?

You see the entire point of this exercise was to illustrate that all laws are about making a moral judgment. Everyone one has a worldview, and that guides a person’s moral compass. Let’s take abortion for instance. Let’s say a woman that is pregnant is driving to a Planned Parenthood facility to have an abortion. Right before she pulls into the facility, she is struck by a drunk driver and killed along with the baby. In California, my home state, a state completely dominated by militant pro-choice Democrats passed a law which would prosecute the drunk driver with two counts of murder. Now, it’s not murder for the pregnant woman to kill the child, but it is murder when the drunk driver kills the child.

It seems logical and inconsistent. Same with most people that state they are pro-life. They believe that abortion is murder except when it comes to rape and incest. Now in the rape case, you might argue that it wasn’t consensual sex. Therefore, that is okay, because somehow the baby in the womb ceases to be a life. What if the incest relationship was consensual would that be murder? Would it be more logical to say that since most people don’t believe a woman should have to carry a baby to term in the case of rape or incest, that most people are pro-choice with differing exceptions, and it isn’t about when life begins?

The question of when it’s a life and when isn’t it isn’t important for most people. Most people are against late-term abortions but seem not to think it’s life in the first trimester, except of course if a drunk driver kills the child.

Laws reflect our society’s moral code

You see, all laws are about making a moral judgment. As a society, we all have differing worldviews with many similarities. Those similarities which typically become the majority view in society end up becoming the laws of the land. Like in California, marijuana is okay, but crack cocaine isn’t. Porn actors engaging in sex for money is acceptable, but prostitution isn’t. Parental consent to teach sex education in school but none needed for an abortion.

Like it or not, all laws are about making moral judgments on what is and isn’t acceptable in society. You cannot divorce morality from laws. It’s impossible. Our laws are a reflection of society’s moral compass, and our moral compass comes from our worldview. Simply put, our worldview is the lens on how we see the world and engage it. It determines what we believe and what we find acceptable and what we reject.

Therefore, if you want to reshape society and culture, you must win the worldview argument. Those who control the worldview of society are those who control society. The battle of ideas is fought and won on the field of worldviews. When you cease to fight and take the premise of your opponent’s worldview you have already lost. All you are doing is negotiating the terms of surrender.

Therefore, if we are to resurrect the conservative movement in America, we must re-engage on winning the worldview argument. If and only then will we have a chance of winning and conserving the principles we hold dear.

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Culture and Religion

The complete fraud that is socialism

Published

on

By

The complete fraud that is socialism

Once again we are witness to the age-old scam of socialism with Leftists making promises to attain power that can never be fulfilled.

Long before Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago exposed the systematic oppression, torture, incarceration and deliberate mass murder that are the hallmarks of socialistic slavery. James A. Michener documented the 1956 Hungarian uprising against communism in his book ‘The Bridge at Andau’. While both are great literary works, ‘The Bridge at Andau’ laid bare the complete fraud that is the collectivist ideologies in creating a ‘Heaven on Earth’ or ‘worker’s paradise’ that never comes to fruition.

The selling of socialistic slavery to a new generation tends to follow a certain type of ‘progress’. Promises are made for all kinds of largess ranging from Free Healthcare, Free Housing, Free College, Free food to even Free income. All paid for with other people’s money. Never mind that It’s impossible to fulfill all of these wondrous asseverations. Appearances must be made to at least begin the process, so the ever-present task of wealth redistribution begins at the point of a gun.

This is also why the Socialist-Left obsesses over gun confiscation and the suppression of free speech. It is imperative for the Leftists to disarm the people since they generally object to having their property stolen from them. However, we are getting ahead of ourselves, this is to document how this exploitation of the people has ‘progressed’ in other collectivist enclaves to better understand how this crime against the people is perpetrated.

Why do collectivist regimes always require secret police apparatus and the suppression of Liberty?

This question was detailed in The Bridge at Andau in the chapters on the ‘AVO man’. In which he discusses the secret police organisation of the Hungarian Communists, the AVO (Allamvedelmi Osztaly). He bluntly asked and answered the question:

Why must communism depend on such dregs of society?

No matter on what elevated plane communism begins its program of total dictatorship. it sooner or later runs into such economic and social problems that some strong-arm force is required to keep the civil population under control.

As is the case now as it was then, a nation’s Socialist-Left will promise just about anything to attain power over the people:

When communism is wooing the workers in Csepel, all kinds of exaggerated promises are made if they seem likely to awaken men’s aspirations and their cupidity. These promises are couched in such simple terms and such effective symbols that they become immediate goals of the revolution.

Review briefly what communist agitators had once promised the Hungarians who appear in this book: consumer goods such as they had never known before, increased wages. increased social benefits, shorter hours of work, improved education for everyone, a greater social freedom, and a government directly responsible to the working classes. Under communism such promises were never even remotely capable of attainment.

[Our Emphasis]
If all of that sounds eerily familiar, it’s because that’s part of a very old song and dance that has deceived many a generation into enslaving themselves under socialism. Consider this recent story from the Associated Press:

Democrats lurch left on top policies as 2020 primary begins

NEW YORK (AP) — Democratic presidential contender Julian Castro launched his campaign by pledging support for “Medicare for All,” free universal preschool, a large public investment in renewable energy and two years of free college for all Americans.
….

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who is expected to launch his presidential campaign soon, has sponsored legislation to create a federal jobs guarantee program in several communities across America.

The pilot program… could ultimately transform the U.S. labor market by providing well-paid government employment with benefits for anyone who wants it.

[Our Emphasis]

As Margaret Thatcher so aptly surmised, eventually they will run out of other people’s money. In our case in the states, that is already the situation given the enormous debt and unfunded liabilities reaching into the stratosphere of trillions of dollars. Of course, this hasn’t deterred committed collectivists such as Democratic mayor Bill de Blasio who recently stated that ‘There’s plenty of money in the world… It’s just in the wrong hands!’ Never mind that it is morally wrong to steal the property of others or that once a society turns down the dead-end of socialism there will always be more people wanting more money from those who have it.

Wealth redistribution scams will always wreck the economy. A socialist regime that nationalizes the economy can never function better than one of economic Liberty. Soon enough everything breaks down, the people see through the lies and the government has to start breaking heads. Thus it is imperative that they have previously confiscated the people’s guns and made it illegal to defend themselves.

The Takeaway

Socialistic schemes always run contrary to basic human nature. Rewarding someone for not working will always result in less work. Conversely, punishing someone for working will also result in less work.

This basic logic of human nature seems to be lost on Leftists. But perhaps it is not. They have to know their schemes have never and will never work. And yet they still try to impose them on everyone else. Perhaps they know of the epic fraud they are continually perpetrating on society, but they don’t care. That will be the subject of our next installment.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The real story here is that a radical activist took on high school kids

Published

on

The real story here is that a radical activist took on high school kids

The Covington Catholic School story has taken on a life of its own. What started as an attack against MAGA hat-wearing teens who supposedly went after a Native American Vietnam War veteran has turned into a witch hunt by leftist mainstream media to prove their righteous indignation towards the kids was justified.

But at the core of the story is something that most seem to be missing. Nathan Phillips isn’t a random activist. He’s an outspoken radical who intentionally inserts himself into situations to draw attention to his cause. We saw this clearly the day after the viral video was shot (but before it went viral) when he tried to storm a Catholic church to disrupt worship services. Those are not the actions of a peace-seeking, mild-mannered activist for Native American rights. They’re the actions of someone seeking trouble for the sake of attention.

Then, there’s the question of claims that he was a combat veteran who fought during the Vietnam War. To be fair, these are not necessarily his assertions, though I haven’t read everything he’s said about that period in his life. But mainstream media has painted him on multiple occasions as essentially a war hero. His claims have been that he was a “Vietnam times veteran,” which is obviously meant to insinuate he participated.

Thankfully, many of the publications that painted this picture of Phillips have since started editing their stories. Nevertheless, the damage is done. His reputation as a Vietnam War hero is still prominent in the eyes of those who read the initial stories and haven’t gone back to reread them since the corrections were made. We can assume that means nearly none of them have learned of the correction. That’s why he’s still being widely labeled as such on social media.

One of his claims to fame is that he starred in a Skrillex video that depicted armed opposition against law enforcement as a potential solution for those who are being forced from their homes by a land developer.

The sum of the parts of this story paint a very strange picture of Phillips. There is absolutely nothing wrong with activism for the sake of Native American rights. The cause is a righteous one and most activists are doing their part to properly bring awareness to the American people while working with governments in their plight.

Phillips doesn’t fall into that category. His stories keep changing, but the truth is still a mystery.

As our EIC noted yesterday, he claims to be a hero but he’s not.

Nathan Phillips claims to be a hero, but he’s the reason “MAGA kids” are now being demonized

http://noqreport.com/2019/01/22/nathan-phillips-claims-hero-hes-reason-maga-kids-now-demonized/There have been multiple shifts of the narrative being pushed by mainstream media about the Covington Catholic School “MAGA kids” since it first went viral. Each shift further demonstrates the far-left’s unhinged nature and mainstream media’s desire to attack conservative Christians no matter what the facts of the matter say.

All of this goes back to Nathan Phillips, the Native American who sparked the incident by trying to march through the group of kids. It wasn’t necessarily his actions that should be condemned, but how he portrayed the whole situation and his role in it have perpetuated the falsehoods that are being reported by mainstream media even today.

This all brings us back to his “opposition,” or at least the people he apparently opposes. By no means do I believe these kids are innocent. They’re kids. They were thrown into a situation they didn’t know how to handle, but even in those circumstances they handled it fairly well. Nick Sandmann, the “smirking MAGA kid” who was literally at the center of the initial controversy, is having to go on air to defend himself, his school, and to try to prevent the threats that have hit their community.

It’s a disgrace that these kids couldn’t just go to the March for Life unscathed. The trashy people who continue to dig into their pasts, shame them, and threaten their lives are being driven by the progressive worldview that is intolerant of the hats they wore.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Before you assume young earth creationists are anti-science, watch this video

Published

on

Before you assume young earth creationists are anti-science watch this video

Even in Judeo-Christian circles, young earth creationists are often considered on the fringe of faith. Most scientists have concluded that the universe and planet Earth are billions of years old, life is millions of years old, and the Biblical account of the creation is either allegorical or jibes with scientific understanding of the universe through creative interpretation such as the gap theory.

But here’s the thing. Since nobody can know for sure how old any of it really is since absolute certainty is only possible through observation, we all must rely on evidence, or more accurately, interpretation of the evidence. Those on both sides of the debate are looking at the same evidence but come to greatly contradictory conclusions.

Educators, mainstream media, and scientists have been pushing the old universe concept for decades. At this point, most consider it to be “settled science” that the earth and universe are old. What if I were to tell you the same evidence they base their conclusions on also establishes a scientific premise that supports a literal Biblical worldview? Many would point to dinosaurs, stars, and other pieces of evidence that are contrary to the Bible, but even these have scientific explanations that fit perfectly within a Biblical worldview.

As I stipulated earlier, nobody can know for sure, but that doesn’t mean they can’t agree to a likelihood. To me, the evidence favors a young earth concept. Before you balk, watch this short video.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report