Religious But Not Spiritual

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

A nearby office has a student intern. She describes herself as a social liberal but fiscal conservative. She also believes women should have the right to abortion up to the point of viability because prior to that, the fetus is not a child and therefore is not entitled to the protection of law.

Even after all these years, I am continually astonished at how glibly supposedly educated people say ridiculous things.

If you’re socially liberal, you can’t be fiscally conservative. Food is a basic human right (socially liberal) but some people can’t afford to buy food. So what, we stick to being fiscally conservative and let them starve? No, we buy them food. Her social liberality trumps her fiscal conservatism and she ends up being a plain liberal, she just doesn’t have the courage to admit it to herself.

If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. And calling a child a fetus doesn’t make it something other than what it is – a child. All liberals agree women should be allowed to kill their children, the question is when to stop: at quickening, twinning, trimester, viability, partial-birth, or any time up until its second birthday? But no liberal is willing to say that aloud in plain English. They don’t have the courage to admit to themselves the plain truth of their desires.

Liberal is a synonym for willfully self-deluded. How can we save a society that refuses to admit the most basic, simple truths?

Joe Doakes

True.

But it’s also human nature to jump into pools feet first.

Especially when one lives in a place where calling oneself “conservative” is so socially dangerous.

7 thoughts on “Religious But Not Spiritual

  1. That sounds a lot like Hannah Nicollet. She was on the U&AE show last week and described herself that way. What had me fuming, was after claiming that she was left leaning on social issues, she emphasized that she is a “live and let live person.” Obviously, either she didn’t give that statement any thought before she blurted it out or she really doesn’t know that libidiots want to run everyone’s life, because they know what’s best.

  2. A ‘live and let live person’ does not prosecute people or drive them OOB for sticking with their religious principles.
    And yes, this would apply even if those religious principles included racist elements (did you know that many orthodox rabbis do not approve of mixed marriages? It’s true!). ‘Live and let live’ does not mean what most liberals believe that it means.

  3. If you’re socially liberal, you can’t be fiscally conservative.

    Not true. I’m fully willing to let you play with drugs, but if you do burn out your brain with them I’m completely willing to let you live at a level that’s just above prison comforts. I don’t believe in letting people die for their poor decisions, but it doesn’t mean coddling them from them, either. Same with college loans, btw.

    Liberal is a synonym for willfully self-deluded.

    I wouldn’t go that far. But it is a synonym for panty-waisted, lazy, incomplete thought. Just look at the murder charges for killing a fetus except when the woman chooses to do it herself. Kind of hard to reconcile those laws, but it’s what liberals love to do.

  4. Nerdbert wrote:
    “I’m fully willing to let you play with drugs, but if you do burn out your brain with them I’m completely willing to let you live at a level that’s just above prison comforts.”
    What about the burn-out’s kids? His or her spouse?
    Most of what we now consider to have been religion-based social rules against sex outside of marriage and drunkeness were intended to keep the issue or the family of a bad apple off of parish welfare rolls.

  5. What about the burn-out’s kids? His or her spouse?

    Again, support, but not lavish. Let them know that it’s bad decisions that put them in that position and help them out, but not sugar coating what’s going on. That’s especially true if they’re clinging to the rock that’s dragging them down. Otherwise, they need help and counseling, too.

    That may sound cruel, but I’ve been through the addicted offspring stuff. You should try the AlAnon meetings sometime and see what it’s like (don’t do the NarcAnon, they’re worthless, and the NA meetings are nothing better than advertisements for pushers). I always thought the talk of “enablement” was overblown until I saw what a lot of folks did to “help” the addicted and their families. What passes for “help” among those families is frankly shocking. Shielding an addict from the consequences does nobody any favors. Many of the addicted won’t even begin to face the problem until all supports, especially emotional and family ties, are gone.

    I’m more than willing to give second, third, and fourth chances since even in the best programs like Hazeldon the “cure” rate is about 20% on the first shot. I’ve seen families that have progressed from Hazeldon to places like Teen Challenge (despite the name, they actually do more adults than teens these days) as the treatment money ran out and the bottom became deeper. But once the addicts start again you’ve got to help them hit bottom as fast as possible and desire treatment again before they do something really stupid and kill themselves or someone else. It’s especially a problem with the kids who get hooked on H since it’s so damn easy to kill yourself when you get back on the stuff.

    Been there, got the scars. Maybe someone else has seen a better solution, but if you talk to the recovery folks they’ll pretty much say the same thing I am. You don’t give up, but you can’t make being an addict/loser easy if you want someone to recover — why fight a really hard battle when you can take the easy and pleasurable way out?

    And you can’t make it easy on families helping the addict stay addicted. Doesn’t mean you don’t help the families, but you have to recognize when the families are enabling the addiction and not helping. The Christian way is to hate the sin, but love the sinner. I don’t see anything loving about assisting the sin.

  6. Prison comforts. That’s how it always starts. We won’t be liberal with taxpayers money, we’ll be tough: we’ll only provide the bare necessities of life. Food. Shelter. Money to pay the light bill. And a bus pass, to get to class for your GED. And free daycare while you’re at class. And better medical insurance than working people get, for you and all your kids. And free cell phones, to keep in touch with the kids. Plus cash back at tax time from the Earned Income Credit, to spend as you like.

    Hmmm, looks as if socially liberal sentiment just trumped fiscal conservatism.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.