A Crucial Question: Revisited
A note from Radarsite: I am reposting this earlier Radarsite article in response to Stop the ACLU’s John Ray’s excellent and thought-provoking December 14 article “Assumptions in Moral debate”. http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/12/14/assumptions-in-moral-debate/
————————————————
In response to a recent Radarsite article our good friend and fellow blogger Findalis began her comments with this important but unfortunately still controversial statement:
Findalis said…
I am reminded that this war is a war
between the forces of Good against the forces of Evil.
To properly defend ourselves against this ruthless onslaught of the Bloody Religion of Peace we must first and foremost accept the existence of Evil. For some of our delusional friends on the left this seems to be a concept that is totally foreign to them. All wars, they hasten to explain, are merely the selfish actions of self-interested nation-states competing for world hegemony. All the participants have equally meritorious claims. In these great global conflicts there is no such thing as right or wrong, just differing perspectives.
If this view of our world is correct then Islam has as much moral standing as Christianity or Judaism, and is just as valid a form of society as a democracy.
How can we prosecute the GWOT and not believe in the existence of Evil?
In response to this question I am reposting a previously published article, which is I believe worth revisiting. In my opinion, there can be no better experts to answer this weighty question. – rg
——————————————————————
Sir John Keegan:
“The world’s preeminent military historian.”
Professor Gerhard Weinberg:
“One of the world’s foremost scholars on
Hitler and Nazi Germany.”
“Considering the number of revisionist histories which have been published in these past few decades, attempting to depict the Second World War as merely a morally-neutral conflict between nation-states over competing self-interests, do you still believe that that war was indeed a battle between Good and Evil?”
Both men answered with an unequivocal, Yes. Despite all of the intervening arguments to the contrary, both of these acknowledged experts still viewed WWII as a battle between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil — although, Prof. Weinberg added that the forces of Good had had to make temporary common cause with another force of Evil (the Soviet Union) in order to achieve its ultimate victory.
Why is this an important question today?
In our present PC society, where almost every moral stance has been eroded and weakened by those currently-popular concepts of moral equivalency, it is crucial for this beleaguered country of ours to accept the fact that Evil does exist. And, to believe that that is what we are currently fighting against; and that, as flawed as we may be, we are indeed the forces of Good.
http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/02/crucial-question-two-important-answers.html
Email This
Posted by Roger W. Gardner on December 16, 2008 12:21 pm
» Filed Under Foreign Policy, History, Liberal Media/Bias, Moral Relativism, Multiculturalism/PC, National Security, liberalism
Trackback URL:
Comments
One Response to “A Crucial Question: Revisited”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
If the moral relativist all viewpoints are equal and equally good (or bad) is valid then there is no moral or constitutional basis for finding constitutional rights to either abortion, gay rights or gay marriage. Since any finding of those ‘rights’ have to appeal to a special human rights argument, since these rights were nowhere long standing or enshrined in western legal or moral structures, the argument has to be that there is a ‘right thinking’ moral/legal viewpoint the adoption of which must inexorably leads to establishment by the Courts or by the plebiscite. However, if those supporting these viewpoints are not superior to those opposing them (western liberal viewpoints not superior to biblical fundamentalist viewpoint) a Court would have to defer to the legislative viewpoint-the weigher of competing (equally assessed) viewpoints to grant whatever additional rights may be granted to persons supporting these ideals. Otherwise, the libs and/or the courts would be compelling or prohibiting acts that others believe to be if not evil, than socially untenable, and imposing a moral/legal framework as superior that by dint of liberalist ideology, no ideology, and especially no western ideology (such as liberalism) may be enthroned with.
Ah, the pretzels of liberal thought twist and turn, and the only engine that powers it (due to such convolutions) is naked power and self righteousness.