On Who's Authority?
Self proclaimed historian, Howard Zinn writes today in the Progressive: "Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?"
One always has to wonder upon what moral authority any Lib like Zinn can claim that something is "evil". They don't believe in God, the Bible, or any absolute authority so how can there be any basis for determining anything is bad or good? I'd like him to point to some ultimate authoritative voice that would help us know that American nationalism is a bad thing. He won't be able to because he doesn't believe in absolute moral authority.
His only moral compass is the ramblings of his own demented mind, in other words, he is holding himself up as the final arbiter of what is wrong and right. When a person like Zinn does this he is, in fact, declaring "Your god is false for I am God".
But herein lies a conudrum. Zinn does not believe in Divine providence so one has to assume that he has to question his own self-proclaimed divinity. What to do?
In the Liberal world view, there is no absolute right and wrong - except what they claim themselves but even that has to be relative since these people are generally fine with killing thousands if done by one of their own (FDR, LBJ, JFK, Clinton, et. al.). They hate nationalism except when their guy is in power and then they are cool with it. How can one live in such a constant state of cognitive dissonance?
Generally, Conservatives need to remind Liberals that their own ideology PREVENTS them from declaring anything to be evil. Only God can establish that measure and since they don't believe in God, then the alternative must be survival of the fittest - every man for himself. If they can't agree to that then the only other option is to set themselves up as the ultimate authority of what is evil and what is not. However this makes them into the ultimate capricious god since it is their feelings at the moment that determines what is evil and what is not.
This is what makes people like Zinn more dangerous than any indian killing settler, or even Japanese interning Dem president. The level of narcissism required to establish oneself as the ultimate arbiter of good and bad is breathtaking in its arrogance.
Zinn and his ilk have an ideology that ultimately cares not for justice or peace. He hates God and so he sets himself in God's place. But that generates a self-loathing that results in a form of insanity that only suicide or conversion to a true belief in the God of the Universe can cure.
Personally, I would never call a person who could not learn from history a "historian". Do we call a guy who keeps wiring houses so poorly that they burn down, an electrician? Do we call a person who can't read a librarian?
If I found that a school my kid was attending was using Zinn's writings for anything but lining the cage of the kindergarten hamster habitat, I would have words with those in charge of the curricula. Idiocy.
posted by Dan at 10:34 AM
2 Comments:
"His only moral compass is the ramblings of his own demented mind, in other words, he is holding himself up as the final arbiter of what is wrong and right. When a person like Zinn does this he is, in fact, declaring "Your god is false for I am God"."
This argument has always fascinated me, because it betrays a real lack of logic, yet still seems popular.
Every person must decide if some standard of right and wrong seems fair and valid to themselves. It's unfortunate, but it's one of the duties of a responsible being who cares about the moral treatment of others: putting some thought into it. Believers are no better off on this, though they do often put less thought into it because they just just blindly assume that whatever they believe God says is what's best (what if they are mistaken about what God says? Well, whoops! We thought God said to kill that child, so against all our better judgement, we did! oops!).
The existence or non-existence of God has no effect on morality, and cannot have, or else morality itself is conditional and hence meaningless (i.e. rape isn't REALLY wrong, it's just something that God beats people up for). This is something that's been logically obvious ever since Plato pointed it out.
The previous poster's point? I can't make heads or tails of it.
God is the ultimate authority whether or not people understand what He wants us to do or not. But, according to Dan's column, the issue is not about Biblical interpretation but rather, about the assertion of what is "evil" and what is "good". If one can't point to an ultimate authority then there is no morality except what is generally agreed to in any given culture. Thus, some places it is okay to hunt and eat people and who's to say it is wrong. In other places it is okay to kill and eat animals and who's to say it is wrong. Here, I say it is okay to drill for oil in the wastelands of Alaska. Point me to some reason that this is inherently evil.
Post a Comment
<< Home