"Oh, I see. The grinding materialism is the Democrat's fault. :p Funny, the party that called for Americans to contribute to the war on terrorism by "going to the store" now decries materialism. :p"
I, of course, am neither the Republican Party, nor George W. Bush, nor is the Republican Party George W. Bush. Dubya here said a very non-conservative thing, which both you and I deride.
"How are institutions of family and church being 'deliberately eroded', exactly? Is there legislation being passed requiring divorce? Have we passed a bill barring people from attending churches, synagogues, and mosques? Or are you concerned that familial and religious structures unfamiliar to you are springing up to allow people who don't fit into society's narrow view of what is the "right" way to live, to allow familial, religious, and communal support to the non WASPs of society?"
The institution of the family is being eroded quite deliberately. Many prominent and influential education professors (and men such as Richard Dawkins, incidentally) proclaim outright that their goal is to turn children away from their families. (Curiously similar to the approach Nazi Germany took toward children.) The intellectual history of liberalism is full of the ideas of socialization and the erosion of church and family as opposed to community and nation. Consequently, many of the policy ideas and ideals that have been handed down to a liberal community that has, for some decades now, been in a state of intellectual torpor have the consequence of destroying certain inherently conservative institutions. This, although such sentiments would only actually be expressed forthrightly by those inhabiting the deepest fever swamps of the American academy.
Even when liberals are not openly attacking these institutions, their policies are inherently anti-family, anti-church, and materialistic. Individuals are necessarily dependent on others, and large welfare-state programs make them more dependent on the state, less dependent on community, family, and church. This is demonstrably the case, as churches are significantly less important sources of charitable activity now than before the public dole, and many of the old community organizations, such as the lodges, are non-existent. Moreover, the liberal idolization of universal economic security reflects their belief that either material existence is all there is, or that material security must be supplied before higher things can be thought of. But it is little wonder that people who believe only in material existence become materialists; it is often, however, a great wonder to some when those to whom material security has been given become more grasping, more acquisitive. Liberals, ironically, want to enlarge a middle class whose bent, historically, has always been that of material gain.
"For a man who opposes gay marriage and thus opposes 10% of America's right to have access to a family to suggest the left is eroding family and church is mighty hypocritical. :p"
The idea that not getting married precludes ever having a family doesn't even pass the smell test, as the irrepressible Professor Williams might say. But here we have only to take a look at those nations where gay marriage has been allowed: divorce and illegitimacy rates have skyrocketed, even beyond the norms for Western nations. My friend introduces the typical shrill accusation of social liberals here--"You just don't like these things because you're ignorant!"--which is founded not in reason but in the sort of excessive stereotyping that now passes for enlightened discussion on college campuses. If marriage and family, both important institutions that provide the glue for any society that can be called civilized, do not mean specific things, then they are meaningless. We should not be surprised, when they are diluted, that they are less respected. Moreover, we should not be surprised when churches that acquiesce to the radical ideology of gay marriage see less people in their pews; why attend a church that stands for nothing you couldn't stand for at home?
I shall provide my comments on the second part tomorrow.
See you!
Posts
