Sunday, December 16, 2012
In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the reprobate descends to the squalor of the pigsty before he comes to his senses, repents, and returns to the Father. It is in the concrete realization that one has either abysmally squandered his resources or that his poor will soon seal his destruction, that true life altering changes can be made.
Government, in its anti-wisdom of unreflective compassion, has effectively ordained the unintended consequence of sanctioning and subsidizing the "pigsty." Why return to the father when one can keep his "pride" and continue eating pods alongside his piggish brethren? The government, many layers removed from the multiplicity of social pathologies and the genuine causes of impoverishment when dealing with aid recipients, oftentimes short circuits the natural internalized reflection necessary for a lasting remediation leading towards a moral/spiritual self-examination. In fact, its ham-handed blundering and ignorance of human nature exacerbates the dilemma.
Clearly, the nonjudgmental and wisdom-free manifesto of the bleeding heart ensures that life within the pigsty will harden and metastasize generationally, and that the propagation of one's young within the velvet snare is reduced to a perverse economic incentive of sorts. Meanwhile, the fruits of such ill-conceived compassion are manifold: the inculcation of stubborn pride and sloth, the folly of short term benefit over long term self-worth, the destruction of the natural family, learned helplessness, generational indolence, cultural infantilization, and the eclipse of the classical virtues. One can go on ad nauseum.
Perhaps the most devastating argument against the government assuming the communitarian burden of indigent aid is the moral one. A judgment-free redistribution of money ensures that dependency will continue and perpetuate. Going further, the individual virtue one acquires from giving aid "up-close and personal" effectively dissolves, helping to sever the reciprocal bonds of duty and obligation that comprise the healthy fabric of civil society.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_prodigal_and_the_political.html#ixzz2FDy3KQeR
Friday, December 07, 2012
“The reasons people want assisted suicide include fear of being abandoned, dying alone and unloved—and of being a burden on others.”
Loneliness and love aren’t usually topics that come up in conversations about euthanasia. But the point above, raised by Margaret Somerville at a recent event hosted by the deVeber Institute at the University of Toronto, suggests that euthanasia is far from simply a legal issue. It is first and foremost a cultural issue—an issue that sheds light on how we understand what it means to be human, and what it means to be a human community.
Closely related was another observation made by Somerville in one of the law classes she teaches at McGill. She noted that her students no longer see death as the ultimate antithesis of life. Her students think that “yes, death is bad” but quickly add “but suffering is worse.” In the course of her remarks she noted that this tendency to view suffering in life as a fate worse than death is a leading cultural driver—alongside horribly muddled language—of the movement towards physician assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Suffering no longer has any meaning. And therefore a life with suffering doesn’t either. She noted that the most common place where suffering is seen as possessing some sort of meaning, even positive meaning—religion—is in decline, and that this too is a contributor to the euthanasia movement.
All of which caused me to consider two things:
First, what happened? When was it that suffering lost meaning?
Go on over and find out.
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Andrew G. Bostom wrotes at American Thinker.
Theodore Roosevelt penned these remarkably prescient words in a 1911 letter to his longtime correspondent and friend, Sir George Otto Trevelyan, reflecting upon Roosevelt's post-presidency visit to Cairo, Egypt, the previous year.
The real strength of the Nationalist movement in Egypt ... lay not with these Levantines of the café but with the mass of practically unchanged bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian, and a return to all the violence and corruption which festered under the old-style Moslem rule, whether Asiatic or African.
Roosevelt's concerns about the recrudescence of "old-style Moslem rule" -- that is, a totalitarian sharia (Islamic law) not reshaped or constrained by Western law, may now be fully realized a century later.
Less than two years after the forced abdication of Egyptian President Mubarak, we appear to be witnessing the ultimate triumph of the electoral ascendancy of vox populi, mainstream Egyptian Islamic parties -- and most prominently, the Muslim Brotherhood. Muhammad Morsi, the Brotherhood's freely elected presidential candidate, has successfully outmaneuvered a minority coalition of secular-leaning Muslims, and Christians, to orchestrate the passage of a more robustly sharia-complaint Egyptian constitution.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/morsis_totalitarian_mandate_is_sharia.html#ixzz2DuA3ygxn