This is pretty disgusting.
This video has a bunch of young girls wagging their snotty little fingers in the face of the governor of Alaska over things that they and their liberal parents don't like; didn't the parents have the guts to say it themselves?
This kind of disrespect from children is improper, and whoever put this video together has encouraged rebellion and disrespect for authority from children--when the opposite should be enforced.
But then, what can you expect from a segment of society which, young or older, has made rebellion, along with thumbing its nose at morality and virtue, a way of life?
Featured Article
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Exploiting Children for Obama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Yes, how dare we teach our children to challenge authority? They should be molded into good little sheep who follow orders without question.
We should get back to the good old days. Like in the time of Moses, when these little punks would have been stoned to death for disrespecting their elders!
It is appropriate for adults to question authority when that authority has clearly departed from legal foundation and moral precepts.
It is inappropriate, however, for children (who are still learning, and who should still be under authority themselves) to wag their arrogant fingers in the face of authority.
Returning to the Mosaic Law is not necessary under Biblical or other requirements. A simple return to moral allegiance, restraint, and respect for authority would be sufficient.
Unfortunately, some folks are too arrogant and immoral to see that.
Would it have been appropriate for an adult in Ancient Israel to say, "Hold on a second, stoning our disobedient children is wrong"? Would you have rebelled against that law?
Not at that time.
But then, we don't currently live 2,000-3,000 years ago, do we?
See, if you were a good father, you'd have said, "I would rather die than bash in my kid's head with stones, even if my religion commanded me to." But you obviously value blind, self-preserving obedience to religious dogma more than the wellbeing of your own children. Not only that, but the only thing stopping you is that we don't live in that time anymore? I thought Christians didn't believe in moral relativism.
You just don't get it, do you, cinemaphile85? Or perhaps I should have said, "You just don't want to get it."
Alas, all I can do is try, though my patience is running short in talking to a moral fence post.
Rebellion from children is as harmful and as wrong now as it was under the Mosaic Covenant. Only the penalty has change.
Which, incidentally, is why I condemned it in this post: it is wrong, it is harmful to society, and it is harmful to these children as well.
Someone more astute wouldn't need that explained to them.
What you're saying is that at one time, stoning your disobedient children was morally acceptable (it had to have been, since the command came from God), and today it is not. How is that NOT moral relativism?
And if you think it's wrong for people to question or challenge what society considers "right," then there wouldn't have been the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, or the women's lib movement. Slavery, segregation, and gender discrimination all had legal foundations and were viewed as moral precepts by most of society at one point in time. Only in hindsight can we determine what should and should not have been considered "moral."
But I have to keep reminding myself that I'm talking to a guy who would kill his own children if a book told him to. Someone call social services!
I'm getting pretty tired of trying to explain morality to someone who has made it abundantly clear that they have absolutely zero interest in pursuing morality, but I'll give it one more try.
The stoning was a punishment for an immoral behavior--rebellion. The punishment has changed, not the moral status of the offending behavior. Rebellion against parental authority is still as wrong as it was back then. It can lead to an almost endless list of fresh sins and crimes, including murder.
Moral relativism says things that were once immoral can magically be made moral because of consensus. That is a fallacy based on a desire to do what is immoral with no support in reality or logic.
I didn't say it was wrong for for people to examine behaviors to evaluate their morality. I said it was wrong for children--who are themselves under all authority--to question authority. They have not learned enough yet to defy authority, and they are not yet autonomous individuals.
If you don't get it after this (which, I'm sure you won't, since you've made it clear that you don't want to get it), we're finished. I've toyed with answering a fool according to his folly long enough.
Post a Comment