Another Letter....

A few are dictating what morality is now
Peter Tupitza, Elkton, Md
"Fundamentalists are defining what Christianity is while apparently not going so far as to define what a Pharisee would be in this age."

-----
Pharisee 1 capitalized : a member of a Jewish sect of the intertestamental period noted for strict observance of rites and ceremonies of the written law and for insistence on the validity of their own oral traditions concerning the law
-----

That was easy. Already one can see that he may not know the difference between ritual and ethical Law. Ritual or symbolic laws that serve as a sign can be fulfilled. Moral Law is transcendent, as in men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, based on what is right. That notion should ring some Liberty Bells for Americans.

What does he most likely mean about "defining" Christianity? His assumption is that Christianity is something to be defined, not adhered to. It is an inversion of the Founding Fathers who believed that self evident truths were there whether they are admitted to or not. They are there because the Maker is there regardless of human "definition." Instead, he seems to be saying that truth regarding morality is a matter of how we define things, probably based on feelings, will and whim.

"The most financially profitable Christian churches are successfully defining what morality is. So-called moral heterosexuals are trying to dictate what rights homosexuals may claim."

This is a deeply ironic claim in many ways. First, he seems to argue not to define morality. Then he argues that groups of people can be defined as immutable types or groups by their sexual desires or behavior.

He is defining morality. His definition looks a little like this: "Your sexual desires define you as a person. These define your rights for you and what is right to you. Anything less than being defined by and ruled by certain types and patterns of sexual desires is living a lie. For they define what is true and moral."

And so on. Moral degenerates will seldom state all their reasoning clearly, or "define" it. Instead, they attack definition in general and then whatever "just happens," happens. It is very juvenile.

As to this,
The "financially profitable" Churches are defining morality because they have money? Despite all the sniveling about victimization self defined gays are the most wealthy and privileged class of Americans. They spent a lot of money on a lot of marketing to proselytize this sort of religious identity having to do with hedonism. They are joined by other hedonists in entertainment, journalism and so on who also have a lot of money and power. Is the Church really comparable? Given the experience of the Weimar Republic, one can only hope that the Churches generally are powerful enough to withstand the usual forces of decadence. It seems that the only way is if the Maker makes this so.

"Nearly a century-long study of human sexuality would suggest that at least 5 percent of them are self-loathing homosexuals. "

It seems that every person who has same sex sexual desires is self-loathing. Even those who choose to avow homosexuality openly are still full of self-loathing. That is why they use homosexuality as an insult or as a way of discrediting others. Actually, that's sort of what he just did. For you see, it is assumed that homosexuality leads people to be irrational. And it does seem to. So he makes use of this fact. Yet, at the same time he seems to want to say how good, so very good it is.

What seems the biggest mystery is how any man could deny the beauty of woman. Maybe this denial has something to do with the self-loathing that comes through in so many ways among men who do deny her beauty.

"White people decide the level of opportunity nonwhite people receive."

Excrement. That is a racist attitude. The more nonwhites who actually believe that, the worse off they all will be. There are few who will listen but Bill Cosby is just repeating an old message.

If whites believed in some Victim status, the worse off they would be too. If one of the most victimized group of people ever to walk the face of the earth started being Victims, they would be worse off too. But Jews do not seem to take on that status so much as other groups have chosen to in history.

"We have a class problem. "

There are problems that can be created by Marxist, if one let's them go their way. They'll even set up classes based on sexual desires and then tell you about that problem too. They seem to want their Collectives and Victims. This seems to suit their moral vanity that is never quite "defined."

"We have a race problem."

There is a problem with tribalists.

"We have a moral problem. "

With a morality he cannot seem to "define" openly. Maybe the problem is with moral degenerates who refuse to deal with morality openly, with definition and Law. Instead, they tend to ask a series of passive agressive questions trying to come to some conclusion as other letter writers have. Or like this one, they simply avoid an open definition and plead to American pop-culture identities like gay and straight which historically speaking have been constructed quite recently.

"And there are few nonpartisan venues outside of the opinion pages of local newspapers (no matter what bias you may perceive) where we can start a public dialogue."

He could try blogs and other places where there is total free speech. But he would get his Leftist butt kicked all over the place. He is the one who needs the journalists and the editors to "shape" things because his ideas are inferior.

James Careville noted that Leftists have been creatures of littanies for some time. Healthcare, the environment and Big Meanies is what I would call "Leftist talk." But it is just talk. John Kerry was hopefully its dying gasp.

"I have a plan!"

What is it?

"Well, I plan to have a plan!"

Is this just a bunch of talk?

"You're not pro-choice! I decide, to have a decision. If you disagree then you are a threat to my freedom to decide my decision, like the Taliban!"

And so on.

They have little to no vision or insight. They have a littany of "problems" mixed in with some pandering and buzzwords, identity politics. If you'll notice, this letter writer also fit this littany of "problems" pattern. They keep losing, yet they keep going with it. It is odd.

I suppose they cannot even have insight and vision about why they are losing. Even James Carville after saying that, settled into the same old patterns on the same show he said it on.