“Lady Antebellum”, Sunny Choi, from the album “Best Artists, Best Songs”, 2011
It is fairly common knowledge that Canada has had a “special” relationship with various Asian regimes (including the old Soviet empire) for going on 45 years now. Nothing has changed and in fact things have only gotten chummier lately.
In this post we are thinking about the moral and logical questions inherent in the modernist philosophy exemplified by the statement “I’m OK, Your OK”. In our relativistic PC modern English culture how does a person distinguish between acts which are generally wrong but might be OK [usually for oneself!] in special circumstances; and acts [usually which other people do!] which really are always wrong?
Here in the west (Canada, the U.S. and most of Europe), things have reached a point where it has become impossible to even talk about right and wrong because the language of discussion has been perverted and contaminated such that words no longer even mean what they once meant.
Any serious discussion is brushed aside by our
leadership and rendered subject to the judgements of our Star Chamber Human Rights Commissions under the catch-all category of “Hate Crimes”, reserved for those who disagree with the wisdom of the leadership and their pet groups.
Truly, it has been accurately observed that people’s disposition, views and inclinations are revealed by the company they keep and the people and philosophies they support. This has certainly been the case for Canada’s long string of Socialist governments.
There is an interesting piece by another blogger over at “Orwell Today”. “In the late 70s, having not that long ago returned from travelling and working around the world (and being particularly amazed by Afghanistan), I was horrified when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. I was happy when President Carter announced that the United States would stop sending grain to the USSR in the hopes of starving them into pulling out their troops. But for the grain embargo to be effective, all other Western nations would ALSO have to stop sending grain.
I remember how ashamed I was of Canada when our Prime Minister – the Red-Chinese and abortion-loving Pierre Trudeau – refused to stop shipments of our wheat to the USSR. It seemed strange to me then, as it does now, how friendly our government was toward the Soviet Union, that we would keep on sending them food even though they were seeking world domination over free and democratic nations.”
But the bitter truth is that all the modern western systems for judging right and wrong which developed since the moral and societal upheavals of the 1960s fall under the condemnation of the teaching of Saint John Paul II’s encyclical “Veritatis Splendor“. Quite simply, S John Paul II taught that there are some things which are inherently and always wrong. (Para 80; intrinsece malum). The Catholic Church has always taught that there are are subjective circumstances in which the subjective guilt of an individual may be attenuated; but the act itself remains always wrong.
People talk about incrementalism … step by step … or about making the best of a bad situation … or discerning elements of good in an otherwise wrong context … and in Canada this has become almost our national sport (after hockey), but we really should apply an appropriate test to these statements. How about a test like: “Would you say that to a perpetrator of genocide? Would you say that to pedophiles like the members of NAMBLA, or a sadist, or a zoophiliac, or a necrophiliac? What if the necrophiliac enjoys creating his own fresh bodies in order to enjoy his passion?” There are endless likely tests of this sort.
I knew one of these sort of individuals personally back when I worked in our prison system where he was doing time for murder, but in a curiously Canadian twist he had never been charged with any crime for the necrophilia, just the murders (multiple). I guess necrophilia is OK in Canada as long as one does not personally kill the bodies one is indulging one’s passions with? I knew another fellow who was doing time for multiple murder but not for the cannibalism after the murders. WOW! So Canadian, eh? We dare not be “judgemental”.
“O Earth O Earth Return”, Bill Douglas.
And even the “murders” are touch and go here in Canada depending on the “category” of person you fall into. After the last round of Trudeau Liberal legislation, now Babies, Seniors, and the Handicapped are fair game and the programs get government funding to carry our the “Final Solution” for these inconvenient persons. But we can’t even have a discussion about the right or wrong of these sorts of things.
I heard on American media that 22,000 people demonstrated against this legislation on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Strangely, the Canadian Media didn’t mention anything, it’s like it never happened for Canadians who don’t follow outside media. The CBC, CTV, and Macleans Magazine, as the self proclaimed voice of Canadians, have pretty much sewn up the market for what Canadians are allowed to think, and no-one questions it.
The apparent Canadian popular opinion about folks who object to Canada’s Holocaust is pretty much summed up as scathingly wrong right wing nutz by the Bright Light Liberal Intellectual writing a popular blog found at Dammit Janet. Given the caliber of writing, and many stylish similarities he/she/it/other probably also writes for, or used to write for, “Being Liberal“, another popular Facebook site which I have mentioned before.
My including these links in no way implies that I in any way remotely endorse the material appearing at these sites but only as illustrative examples of what we are up against when trying to discuss morality and the significant lack thereof in our modern English society.
These days, few people have the remotest understanding of logic, and we would get totally irrelevant but extremely angry objections to a test like that above. I can think of any number of replies which would go something like this “Are you saying that remarried divorcees (aka habitual fornicators and adulterers) are as bad as Nazis?” Or something like: “Are you saying that homosexuals are all pedophiles?”.
Of course that isn’t what we are saying at all. We are simply saying: if you don’t agree that adultery, or fornication, or sodomy, or other homosexual interactions (with or without children involved), are always, in themselves, wrong, OK, I won’t try to prevent you from having your own views; but then, by the same logic, who are you to say that there is ANY other act which is in itself always wrong?
If we can’t tell you that sex between “remarried” divorcees is, in itself, intrinsically wrong, why are you entitled to tell a pedophile or a necrophiliac that what he does is, in itself, intrinsically wrong? If one were able to get this point over to the sort of people to whom we refer, they might very well reply [you often hear something along these lines] “Ah, but what they do harms others; what I do doesn’t” (another ‘consequentialist’ approach condemned in “Veritatis splendor”).
This at least opens up the possibility of suggesting that, for example, the serial habitual adultery [“remarriage after divorce”] of modern societies does harm others; and of arguing that there are, for example, recorded societies, such as aristocratic societies in some Greek cities, where institutionalized pederasty was not perceived to harm its ‘victims’.
The above was derived from a post by Fr John Hunwicke.
The sad proof of the thesis here is that the movement to legalize and “normalize” homosexuality and pedophilia has in the last few years gone increasingly public and mainstream. The fact is, the mainstreaming of homosexual “marriage” was never just about homosexuality. It was always about the Progressive’s attack on the very idea of human nature, of human beings with inherent rights and dignity. The abandonment of even Natural Law in our modern English society is deeply disturbing, for it is nothing less than a full court press to deny that the human individual has inherent rights and characteristics by virtue of our humanity, in fact it is a very explicit attempt to subordinate to the Secular Progressive will the very things which make us human.
Always remember, “Be charitable in your judgements, and never take yourself too seriously”