I wonder if anyone remembers Flip Wilson? One of his stock characters was a woman named Geraldine?
She was a woman of easy virtue, who would raise her voice with a shrill pitch, The Devil made me do it! when someone dared to point out her misbehavior.
I am surprised that some liberal theologian has not come along and suggested that there probably is a sin gene that does force people to do evil things.
In past years we have seen scientists promote the existence of a gene that causes alcoholism, drug addiction, sexual addiction and so on.
SomA number of scientists tried extremely hard to “discover” a gay gene.
The scientific findings began in 1991 when Dr. Simon LeVay, who was a homosexual himself, while working at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, found subtle differences in the post-mortem brains of heterosexual and homosexual young men.
By 1995 most science had given up trying to find this elusive gene.
Had they been successful, it would have taken away any moral context from their behavior.
Some scientists believe they has located a “god gene,” which would explain why anyone would believe in a Supreme Being and all the superstitions that follow from that belief, whether it be Catholicism, Islam or any other form of religious belief.
In effect this scientific determinism would be saying that the millions of believers who died rather than betray a faith in God were evolutionarily programmed to hold such irrational views.
All these addictions that dominate our lives started out as “innocuous” habits of sin that because of the chemical or physical high that comes with them. After so many times the high became part of their wiring and by that time it became too hard to walk away from.
I think this is all a blend of–I won’t say–JUNK SCIENCE–but an agenda-driven pseudo-science, which starts with a conclusion and then tries to adapt the evidence by piecing together dubious, erroneous and even falsified data to “prove” their point.
The multi-billion dollar money drain, better know as “global warming” is a perfect example.
But the main reason behind this modern compulsion to find a scientific determination for every example of personal self-abuse is part of an over all anti-theological effort to destroy any sense of human responsibility.
This is a perfect fit for our entitlement society.
This moral and scientific compulsion to find the determination of individual behavior revolves around the one essential question that strikes at the heart of all human political, moral and economic debates.
And that is: What is the nature of man?
Every dispute about philosophy, history, science and economics can be reduced to a discussion of the nature of man.
The most extreme answers to this question have been provided by John Calvin, with a little help from St. Augustine and French philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau.
The former position held that man was by nature an evil being. At the beginning of time God had had-selected his Elect who would reign with Him for all eternity in Heaven.
Rousseau, Denis Diderot and the Philosophes in pre-revolutionary France said the exact opposite.
Man was basically good.
The evil that existed was all the fault of the evil and corrupting social institutions, like the churches, government and business establishments.
The origins of this thinking of a scientific determinism that believes in the separation of man from his free will had its origins in the philosophical thinking of the latter group.
If there is no free will and things are already determined, then there is no sin.
Man cannot be responsible for anything, unless he disagrees with the liberal power structure. Then he must be silenced.
Of course this is all hogwash. Humans will never be separated from their feelings of guilt and there need to confess.
I guess that is part of the public penance our celebrities have to perform; drink, shoot-up, sleep around—get caught–make a tearful confession on Oprah and then go into rehab for forgiveness.
That’s the way the world turns–like a soap opera but with one very important exception–the incessant need to ask for forgiveness, not validation.
Charlie Sheen’s mental and moral breakdown is a perfect example.
Instead of seeking the penance of the Confessional, like his father most likely would have, the younger Sheen gets his own webcast program and tells everyone how great and perfect he is.
And this is coming from a family, whose name was adapted from a famous Catholic bishop.
I submit that there is some truth to this genetic determination.
So why not a generic sin gene?
I know that the modern world denies sin but this gene might be more of an “addiction” gene that explains human behavior by way of a predetermined genetic code.
Of course society would still demand some sort of confession but it would not be with a priest behind a screen but in the public confessional.
I believe that all human beings, save two were conceived in sin—a predisposition to do wrong permeates all of our DNA.
I call this the Stain of Adam.
St. Augustine, who knew better than most because of his sex addiction, while St. Paul talked about being ‘slaves to sin.
They both were until the grace of God intervened; and they did this on their knees, not reclining on a couch.
This is the only position for a fallen mankind
Several things can militate against this predisposition–good parents who will say No to their children, who left to their own devices will turn into little animals if not” trained” in habits of civilization and virtues.
I have a story that I use to illustrate a means to avoid a lot of trouble in one’s life.
I would ask my friends what would you do if you broke your nose in three places?
A puzzled look usually was the first response.
I would tell them I would stay out of such places.
We can avoid a lot of personal grief if we refrain from going to those places or associating with those “friends” that will lead us to exercise our sin gene.
It was President Theodore Roosevelt who used his office as what he called a bully pulpit to foment his progressive reforms for the American people.
Cited by politico, Mark Hanna, as that damned cowboy is in the White House,after William McKinley has succumbed to his bullet wound in 1901, just months after his second inauguration, Roosevelt ushered in a seismic shift to America’s traditional way of operating the affairs of state.
The Republican Roosevelt was not the only president to use the presidency as a pulpit for a revolutionary agenda.
His cousin Franklin did as did Jimmy Carter and even Ronald Reagan.
But no president has ever used his bully pulpit to condemn bullying in elementary and high schools.
Were the nation were not in a period of severe economic and international drift, apparently without an experienced or steady rudder to guide us, President Obama’s admonishment against the terrorizing bullies of our schools and his personal ruminations on how he was bullied because of his big ears would be comical.
But his comments are not funny.
In fact they are sardonic in that there are a copious supply of bullies around the world for him to actually do something about.
How about the Iranian bully?
The former bully of Egypt–Hosni Mubarak? Oh, Obama did readily condemn him. But did he do that because only he was a former American ally and more of a secularist?
How about all the bullies in this country, starting with Mr. Obama?
Has he not forgotten about the pain and sting of the comments about big ears that he has been able to bully anyone who disagrees with him, especially the Republicans in Congress before last November?
How about how his regime threatened and badgered the bond holders of Chrysler stock?
As a constitutional professor he should have known that by statute bond holders get first rights to any proceeds from a failing company—not the unions the president depends on.
How about the way his administration treated British Petroleum after the oil leak in the Gulf?
Did not Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar say something about putting a boot on someone’s neck or the president talking about kicking some a–?
Didn’t Obama to the detriment of the country and the loss of 150,000 Louisiana jobs shut down the oil drilling industry…maybe for good?
And with gas prices approaching $4?
And his reasoning? I won the election–get over it!
Well he lost the last election and now seems to be installing, Plan B. which means taking to the streets, which is the liberals’ moral equivalent of going to the mattresses.
It seems to me that the only bullies that have caused any serious harm and who have also had a strong political impact–favorable to Mr Obama’s interests, have been the orange-shirt thugs of ACORN and the purple-shirt bullies of SEIU?
Was it not the ruffians in the purple shirts who assaulted a black man–Kenneth Gladney— who was supporting the Tea Partiers?
Where was the president’s outrage?
Were was his outrage when ACORN sent bus loads of people to Connecticut to harass and terrorize the families of executives of AIG?
How about the public sector union thugs in Wisconsin who have occupied the state legislature? They seem like sophomoric retreads from the sixties.
Remember the black militants who occupied the Student Union at Cornell in 1969?
They strutted around campus with bandoliers of bullets, draped over their shoulders?
The moderate liberal professor, Clinton Rossiter, the author of a fine book on Conservatism in America was so distraught by these demonstrations and their aftermath at his beloved Cornell that he overdosed on sleeping pills.
If that happens here, will the president caution us about civility and rant against these bullies…or is more than likely to encourage them and sanction them…like his DOJ, which refused to prosecute the Black Panthers of Philadelphia who terrorized some conservatives?
Let’s face it, we have a president who seems to be encouraging and supporting the domestic terrorism of union thugs and black militants. Is that why liberals despise New York Representative Peter King because of his hearings on radical Islam?
Is that’s what is in our future?
Am I being farfetched…off my rocker…just a lingering illness from my studies about conspiracy? Maybe but I have been researching the ideas of the late Richard Cloward and his wife, Frances Fox Piven and they should be required reading for all Americans.
Glenn Beck was the first to out Piven and explain her influence. Now a City University of New York professor, she quickly has become a central figure in Beck’s analysis of Obama and the progressive destruction of America.
To indict her, Beck simply used her own her published works on how to intentionally collapse our economic system.
Beck’s concerns about Piven are rooted in an article she wrote with her husband, Richard Cloward, who died in 2001, for the Nation magazine.
Inspired by the bloody Watts Riots in Los Angeles in 1965, the article, The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty, suggested that if the poor could overwhelm the welfare rolls, the fiscal and political stress on the system to give rise to a guaranteed income.
Violence is an importance of their strategy.
What does this have to do with Obama? In his recent book, Radical-in-Chief, Stanley Kurtz demonstrates how Barack Obama was deeply affected by several socialist influences during his formative years at Occidental College for two years in California and for two years at Columbia the seedbed of socialist unrest and agitation since John Dewey taught there.
He is clearly argues that Obama attended Cloward and Piven’s Socialist Scholars Convention in the 1980s at Columbia.
Their strategy is very dangerous and seems to be playing out in Wisconsin now.
For Cloward and Piven, the core strategic lesson of their activism is that, rather than channeling poor people’s anger into conventional political activity, community organizers ought instead to escalate the momentum and impact of disruptive protest at each stage in its emergence and evolution.
Radical organizer Saul Alinsky, who urged his organizers to make the enemy live up to their own book of rules, inspired Cloward and Piven.
Theirs was a direct form of economic sabotage. Political sabotage goes along with it as well.
What is happening in our country with all the union unrest is a validation of the Cloward/Piven Strategy.
I urge everyone to study this issue, and discuss it with your friends and family.
And then let me know what you think.
You can read my full explanatory essay on Obama and his mentors—Communist Frank Marshall Davis and Socialists, Saul Alinsky, as well as Cloward/Piven at mindszenty.org and about six weeks.
In the movie, Jerry Maguire the eponymous lead character, played ably by Tom Cruise gave the American lexicon a new catch phrase:
Show me the money!
In our case we would be hard-pressed to show anyone any money that was not borrowed or even printed!
Most often the talk has been about deficits when the real problem is the root cause of these deficits.
When the nation looked to the frugal witty sayings of founding father, Benjamin Franklin for his sage financial advice in his Poor Richard’s Almanac, and the laissez-faire theories of Adam Smith, government prided itself on balancing its annual budgets and keeping its economic house in order.
With the dawning of the progressive period in the early 20th century,and the coming of the New Deal, Lord John Maynard Keynes replaced Smith and Franklin as the country chief economic wizard.
And since then the country has been struggling with a mountain of debt that has finally reached its point of systematic collapse.
Keynesian economics proposed priming the economic pump with government spending to get the economic system working in times of depression and economic distress.
The flip side of his theory was that in times of prosperity, surpluses were to be stored away for the proverbial rainy day.
With liberal politicians the word surplus does not exist.
Waving money in front of their noses is tantamount to opening a Vodka bottle in front of a drunk. They just can’t say no.
They realized early that they could forge a long career in Washington by using other people’s money to favor their constituents back home.
The late Senator Robert Byrd built so many bridges in his native West Virginia that they seemed to be lined up line bowling pins.
The question looming before the public today, is not deficits but what to do about the spending that is like a wild-fire that now threatens the many heart of our country’s future.
With the recent controversy in Wisconsin with its oppressive deficit of $3.6 billion, the country has been given a frightful preview of what the nation’s future may look like.
Wisconsin is not only a microcosm of what most of the remaining 49 states ledgers look like, it has become the battleground between those elected officials who were recently elected to do something about the mounting debt.
As a result the left has dug in its heels to frustrate the will of the Wisconsin electors by denying a quorum.
To do this 14 Democratic senators fled the state for the confines of Illinois, which has failed to properly address its own spending excesses.
Thanks to the president of the United States the Democrats mobilized their forces and taken to the street with placards comparing Walker to Adolph Hitler and Hosni Mubarak.
Teachers were filmed getting excuse slips from doctors on site so that they could still be paid even though they picketing, instead of teaching.
Thugs and union types occupied the state house, reminiscent of the adolescent demonstrations of the 1960s in the nation’s elite universities.
Teachers paraded around like a room full of children. And we wonder where America’s ills started?
The American people were told that Governor Walker was out to destroy their union by, not only getting the teachers to pay for some of their healthcare and make contributions to their pensions but for trying to limit their collective bargaining to just wages and working conditions.
He also wants to stop the automatic collecting of union dues by the state.
The truth of these matters have been skewered by a White House with a strong vested interest in these public sector unions and the mainstream media that marches in lockstep to presidential promptings.
People fail to realize that The AFL-CIO or the teamsters represent private sector unions who work for companies owned by stockholders.
If these union want better wages and other benefits, those will ultimately be dependent on whether or not their companies are profitable.
So the unions do have a vested interest in making sure that they still have a company to work for.
The reason GM and Chrysler went belly up and needed bail-outs was because they had granted such legacy payments to their union workers over the years that when people stopped buying their cars and vans, they could not cover all these costs.
When the unions balked at cutting any of their benefits, their companies failed and the federal government stepped in, not to save GM but to save union jobs and their attendant contributions to the DNC.
In the after math GM became Government Motors.
With the Wisconsin teachers, they don’t work for a private manufacturer or service industry.
They work for the tax payers of Wisconsin.
And many of them have better pensions and benefits than their employers do.
So when they go on strike, they are striking against the citizens of that state.
I have always believed that no public sector employee should ever have the right to strike the public.
When the Boston police struck in 1919, Republican Governor Calvin Coolidge stood tall and stopped them from paralysing his city.
When the teachers of Illinois periodically struck over the last 30 years, I always thought that they were holding the children of that state as hostage for their own self-centered gains.
And many had the effrontery to say they were doing it for the children, even when they were falsifying their sick slips. This was certainly a lesson in Machiavellian morality.
It is ironic that some use this same reasoning in abortion–killing the unborn child would be better than living with a mother who didn’t want the child.
I also think it is unprofessional for doctors, nurses, and teachers to be union members, especially if they reserve the right to strike.
No free society can survive if its most important professionals can render the public helpless.
Stymied by their cowardly flight of the state’s Democratic senators, Governor Scott Walker had his hand forced and he has begun the process of balancing his budget by laying off teachers.
The union leaders and the politicians did not care because their power is more important than a few teachers.
And theirs really is not the traditional kind of collective bargaining between two adversaries or people on different sides of the negotiating table.
It is more corrupt bargaining.
The forced dues deductions for often found their way into the campaign coffers of Democratic candidates who pledged to give into virtually every union demand, including thousands for Viagra.
I am unsure how that will enhance their performance in the classroom.
That puts serious politicians intent on representing ALL of his constituents from directly addressing the state’s spending crisis.
Many yell for compromise.
On what? Obama has shown us how serious he is about the even greater national spending problem by offering a paltry few billion in cuts when more than a trillion is needed to bring us back to sanity.
How about a tax increase in exchange for serious cuts?
Many Catholic bishops and priests think increased taxation should be part of the compromise.
In 1987 Ronald Reagan made one of the biggest mistakes in his presidency. He agreed to raise taxes in exchange for large spending cuts from Democratic Speaker of the House Tip ‘Neill.
Well the country’s tax rates went up and somehow those spending cuts never materialized in any shape or form, leading to a recession and Reagan’s enormous budget deficit.
Trust a Democrat?
If the Republicans do this, I want to sell them a bridge over the Ohio River in West Virginia.
Let’s face it, unless serious spending cuts are made, the party is over not just for Republicans and Democrats but for all of us.
In the highly acclaimed movie, Cider House Rules, the apple pickers discuss the relative merits of the rules that were to apply to their living quarters.
On the frayed paper on the wall, was a list of superfluous and meaningless caveats that were easily ignored.
A leading character said that the people who live in the cider house should make the rules.
The movie should be required viewing because it illustrates American society’s fundamental approach to its moral and social problems.
It is a given that America makes rules and regulations for everything.
If there’s a problem with guns, smoking, or wellness, the government makes laws that will punish those people who run afoul of its litigious will.
Congress passes enough legislation each year to fill a small library.
It is no surprise the nation has more lawyers than people.
Yet when it comes to drug use, sexual morality, abortion and euthanasia, the left lobbies for greater freedom of choice.
Their leaders emphasize the existential canard that individuals actualize their true personalities when they are allowed the greatest latitude in these matters.
To oppose these freedoms is to limit one’s ability to be fully human. This sounds like having it both ways to me.
What is really at work is a profound Cultural Revolution that was begun over a hundred years ago.
The forces of progressive and liberal reform have been slowly but effectively eroding and decreasing the importance of the nation’s former traditional values, or what now passes innocuously, as family values.
The old guard is giving way, each and every day, to a new paradigm of diversity, alternate families, and liberated children who know more about the mechanics of sex and birth control than their parents could ever have learned in the backseat of a car.
The 10 Commandments have been relegated to the museum status of a harmless artifact.
They are merely suggestions to which no one pays any attention.
Part of the success of this new freedom has been the requirement that the old timers, that is, the conservatives, are not to complain or criticize.
To be judgmental is the mortal sin of the new age.
Behaviors, which a generation ago would have drawn social ostracism, if not jail time, are to be accepted with full approval without complaint.
But hypocrisy was never a problem for the left.
Judgmentalism is alive and well if one is unfortunate to be out of the cultural mainstream.
Modern society can be very critical if one is a smoker, a polluter, a bigot, a gun-owner, a religious fanatic, that is one who publicly declares a belief in a transient God or even a stay-at-home mom.
The penalties can be financially severe and the social ostracism just as great as those once reserved for the homosexual or the unwed mother.
Can the county jail or the gulag be far behind?
Did not Pope Benedict warn against a dictatorship of relativity?
The new morality with its own stringent rules can be just as stifling and as unforgiving as the worst fire and brimstone preacher ever was.
The left’s ambiguous stance on judmentalism does create a conundrum.
Given the decline of our traditional moral values and the relative, almost whimsical nature of the new rules and regulations, I wonder if today’s left could in any logical and consistent sense condemn the World War atrocities of Adolph Hitler and company.
Consider the following parallels.
Was not Hitler clearly exercising the left’s Machiavellian principle of the “ends justify the means”?
Was he not “merely” actualizing his own personality in effecting his vision of a better world?
On what moral principles would the left judge him?
Certainly not the Mosaic Tablets!
By today’s standards, Hitler was in the mainstream.
Nazi Germany practiced gun control, put limitations on smoking, and encouraged sexual couplings that had eugenic intent.
And is not utility an American virtue?
As Michael Caine’s character, abortionist Wilbur Larch said in “Cider House…,” “People have to be useful.”
Hitler killed only those “useless eaters,” who were a drain on German society or those ethnic groups that did not the fit the perfect image of his Master Race.
After all who are we to judge?