I got a couple very well thought out responses to my last query. I’ll be posting parts of them in this thread and respond to them so that it is more freely viewable.
I’d like for that to really kickstart more people into giving their opinion on the matter.
First, JaneM Writes:
I think we are witnessing a clash of cultures, western culture is splintering off with one faction in the US and the other in Europe. Conservative Americans (and Canadian and Europeons) see the changes in European society as a grave threat to their dearly held beliefs in tradition, individualism and cohesive moral values. The same threat is felt by those who don’t value traditions, believe strongly in the collective and are completely secular in their moral perspective.
You put into words my train of thought.
I think you’re right. There is a clash going on. A further widening of the gap between conversative values and liberal morals.
I see many exceptions to this though. Canada as a whole is liberal, but many many people still go to church and take their moral direction at least in part from their spiritual beliefs. The same in Europe. Italians, French, Spanish… they are largely Catholic, the older generation especially. Yet those same people do not aspire to the conservative “Good vs. Evil” battle.
While religion certainly plays an integral role in the challenges that we face as a world… is that the cause of the divide between liberal and conservative camps in the West? What of the Buddhist movement… who, next to Islam I believe is the fastest growing religion in North America?
More questions…
Without the common foe, the USSR, to collectively oppose, we are now free to examine more subtle aspects of our societies aims and goals and our ways of living. Our goals are clashing far more openly
You took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to write exactly that in the previous post. I think this is definitely a factor. Without a common cause as overbearing and straightforward as the USSR Behemoth.. we are left to our own devices. The other “causes” in the world are so much more complicated and convoluted. They are open for interpretation… and that exposes our own differences.
One of the startling contrasts in western society between early 1900 and early 2000 is the increasingly prevalent lack of civility. Society on both sides of the Atlantic has become rude, crude and angry to a great extent. Such attitudes only fuel polarization.
Definitely. Just after the last Canadian election, when people started to realise that we would be government by a Minority/Coalition government the point came up about the lack of “Whit” in the House of Commons. Back in the 50s and 60s, confrontation in the House was much more civil. Insults were delivered through witty exchanges rather than the blunt accusations of today. I’m willing to bet the same can be said about the exchanges in the US Senate and House.
Our Parliamentarians are supposed to reflect the views, attitudes, and expressions (Carolyn Parrish aside 🙂 ) of their constituents. Looks like they’re doing exactly that.
What ever happened to diplomacy and helping others save face?
Indeed.
I believe that to be the root of what happened at the UNSC before the Iraq war. We all know that negotiation and diplomacy works eventually… yes sometimes it’s a very long tedious and frustrating process. But it boils down to all parties “saving face”. There has to be a willingness by all parties, at the start, for that to happen.
Thank you Jane for your comment… what I find most striking and encouraging about your comment is that we share so much in common in terms of what we think is wrong. That is the starting point to making things right. Right? 🙂
On to the 2nd comment.
From Tony:
The US war on terrorism didn’t begin and end with Osama Bin Laden, or didn’t begin or end with al Queada or the Taliban. Name a country any country in the middle-east that is mostly Muslim and you will find a dictator running it and clerics in mosques teaching hate and death to America.
…
The truth of the matter is, Saddam Hussein is a bad bad man, the baathist are a bad bad political party, al Queada and the rest of the terrorist are bad bad people, Islam is fast becoming a bad bad religion.
In a way I agree… Islamo-Fascism didn’t pop out of nowhere on 9/11. It was already there and already spreading its’ ways. I cannot agree, however, with the notion that Islam itself is to blame for the violence that we see. There are millions upon millions of Muslims and people of Islamic faith in the world. Indeed, in Canada in the 2001 Census, 580,000, or 2% of Canadians said they were Muslim. That may not sound like much, but it was an increase of 128% since 1991!
In the US the Census cannot ask about religion… but others can. You will find the exact same trend. In 1990, 520 million Americans said they were Muslim, in 2001, 1.1 Million said they were.. a very similar increase to Canada.
My point being… how many times have you heard of those Muslims in your country, and in mine, spouting Anti-American slogans? I certainly haven’t… which leads me to belief that the majority of Muslims, just as the majority of Catholics, Christians and Jews, regular people who just want to live their lives in peace and freedom.
And that is why we must fight not only the Islamo-Fascists… those that are, I suppose, lost souls… but also the root causes that have driven them hate and violence.
We (the US) have helped (by blood and money) more people than any other country in the history of the world and deserve the utmost respect, but look where it has gotten us, NOWHERE. We can’t depend on anybody but ourselves anymore…
You’re right… the US is by far the biggest contributor to help the needy and poor and disadvantaged throughout the world. I believe you are respected for that to the utmost and it has helped you in many instances to garner support for your initiatives. What’s more, I think it is too often forgotten now that the attacks of 9/11 generated absolutely universal and deep sympathy to the United States. I certainly was personally affected by that day and I remember saying to my girlfriend at the time that I thought the world was surely going to change because of that day. It affected us all. That is why the entire world, including all of the Allies of America rallied to your defense and supported you in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, Iraq presented a much different situation. The majority of people outside the US did not recognize the links to Terrorism or AQ, whether they were there or not. And that really resulted in a huge split in world vs. US opinion. I believe the runup to the War… and the bitterness around it, squandered much of the sympathy and support that the US gained from 9/11.
The liberalism that permeates your culture is the disease that causes your poor judgment. The only way to make amends is to apologize for your mistake. When we start seeing polls in Canada that show the majority supporting our efforts in Iraq, and when you send troops and money to help us, then and only then, will we know that you have apologized. When that day comes…you will be forgiven.
Your terminology is really overly antagonistic… but I think it does represent what many feel. It is that more extreme view, along with the opposite view on “the left” that must be moderated in order to find a solution.
I don’t think that you’ll ever see a poll in Canada (or anywhere outside the US for that matter) that will be supportive of the US operation in Iraq if it continues as it does today. That said, I do think there will be wider support to help Iraq once Elections are held. It will probably not be in the form of direct military support for the US, but rather some sort of UN sanctioned forced in Baghdad. I would hope that the Canadian military would be able to be part of that operation, and I know that Canadians in general would support that operation.
I would like to point out also, that Canada was one of the first and largest “non-coalition” countries to contribute money and support to Iraq after the war.
I don’t think Canada or Canadians, or anyone is looking for “Forgiveness” from the US. But we are looking for a way to reconcile our differences. And I believe that will come in time.
… So that’s it.
I ask the others on that are visiting to share their opinions as well. Thank you Jane and Tony for your contributions.. feel free to continue the discussion in the Comments in this post.
Chris
A few more thoughts:
I think that the use of religion in the conservative vs liberal debate is really more symbolic than a true reflection of real ideologies in play. You point out, correctly, that many liberals have religious faith and attend a church regularly. Conservatives have no ownership of the “faith” factor in a political sense by any means. Religion is not a true measure of the distinctions between the two sides of this debate but has been more or less hi-jacked by the press to make it seem so.
Using religion as a defining hallmark for either side’s political beliefs is, to me, just one step in the demonization process that both conservatives and liberals are attempting to use to their own advantage both in North America and Europe. Neither side would recognize or admit to such veniality but, nevertheless, demonization is what we are seeing and would include the Islamic and other eastern religions as well. This phenomenum was at the heart of the Northern Ireland conflict IMO.
I’m no expert but it seems to me that the use of religion as a defining factor in most conflicts is basically an expression of human tribalism, the inherent competition for resources and dominance over geography that is our genetic instinct. We are more sophisticated than our cro-magnon ancestors so we dress our disagreements up in “spiritual” and philosophical costumes which makes us believe that our side is the possessor of lofty ideals which if only adopted by our opponents would make them as good as we are and would end the conflict satisfactorily (in our favor of course).
Demonization and polarization are two sides of the same coin. Quite frankly, right now I think the world, both western and near eastern, is in the grip of hysterical and exaggerated fear and paronoia. Americans, some of us, marched into Iraq in the grip of the conviction that Saddam was a bogeyman of the first magnitude when in fact he was more a paper tiger. Our ignorance of his true weakness was understandable since he did all he could to puff himself up into a demonic character. He did a good job, too. But fear was the true beast and just as in the 30s and 40s, horrible human tragedies are happening in the insanity of this or any war where little kids are being blown up and burned and killed right in their own homes. I weep over this.
Our opponents, Europeans mostly, are in the grip of fear of the US and are just as paranoid as we are. What I read of many headlines and commentary in Europe is a totally exaggerated and ridiculous fear of American power with opinions that we are dumb, ignorant and bloodthirsty. I admit that since the end of WWII, America has become a far more militaristic and nationalist country. The “fear” of the USSR instigated this change in our nature as a country. The battle against the USSR was a demonization process as well, by the way, but they were a very real threat nonetheless. Now that the USSR is gone, we, the US, are left with the residue of that battle – militarism. We are now the bogeyman to those who have little real knowledge or experience of the American psyche.
So demonization grows ever more prevalent as others are convinced that just because we have power we will use it to destroy others without real provokation.
I don’t know how to stop any of this. I do have great faith in the overriding goodness of my people and our benign intentions when not being menanced by others who mistake our benevolent nature for weakness.
Well said again Jane.
Fear is too often a driver behind policy and justification. It has been a very long time since there has been a leader that actually lead their country. Pierre Trudeau was the last one for Canada. Perhaps Ronald Reagan was the last for the US, but I’m more inclined to go all the way back to Kennedy.
These people had a vision for their country, it was well articulated, and it was that vision that people grasped and followed en masse.
Islamo-Fascism didn’t pop out of nowhere on 9/11. It was already there and already spreading its’ ways.
You are correct. It began 25 years ago in 1979 when Islamist radicals stormed the US embassy in Tehran and, with the support of the Ayatollah Khomeini, proceeded to hold 52 Americans hostage for the next 15 months. The Carter administration’s response — an embargo on Iranian oil, a break in diplomatic relations, and a botched rescue attempt — was feeble and inept. It was also the start of a pattern that would be repeated time and again in the years and administrations that followed.
When American citizens living in Lebanon were abducted — and some of them tortured and killed — by Iranian- and Syrian-backed terrorists between 1982 and 1991, the United States reacted not with a terrible swift sword, but with a pathetic arms-for-hostages ransom scheme. When a massive car bomb at the US embassy in Beirut murdered 63 people in April 1983, and another attack in October killed 241 Marines in their barracks, the Reagan administration promised vengeance, but in the end merely withdrew US troops from Lebanon.
And so it went when TWA Flight 847 was hijacked and Navy diver Robert Stethem murdered in 1985. When the cruise liner Achille Lauro was seized and Leon Klinghoffer shot dead in his wheelchair. When Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Scotland. When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. When dozens of Americans were murdered by Arab terrorists in Israel. When two US military compounds in Saudi Arabia were destroyed in 1996, leaving 26 dead and more than 500 wounded. When Al Qaeda blew up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. When the USS Cole was attacked in 2000.
Atrocity followed atrocity, but the fury of the United States was never aroused. The terrorists attacked us again and again, but Washington retaliated with only half-hearted gestures and empty rhetoric.
No, the terror war didn’t start on the 11th of September. What happened on 9/11 is that America began fighting back. And the counterattack was launched not from Washington but from the skies over southeastern Pennsylvania, when the heroic passengers of United Flight 93 rose against the terrorists, and aborted the fourth attack.
I cannot agree, however, with the notion that Islam itself is to blame for the violence that we see.
The slaughtering of innocent human beings as if they were animals while chanting Muslim prayers. The reintroduction of black slavery and genocide against blacks. The murder of daughters and sisters for imagined or real sexual behavior. The stoning of women accused of adultery. The burning of Hindu temples and Christian churches, and the destruction of among the greatest Buddhist sculptures. The ban on women driving cars or learning to read. The idolization of young men who blow themselves up while murdering and maiming innocent non-Muslims — and the theology of sexual rewards in heaven for doing so. These are some of the atrocities being committed by Muslims in different parts of the world today.
It is, of course, only a minority of Muslims that engages in such horrors, but it is only Muslims who are doing all these things. Christians aren’t — even among Palestinians, there are no Christian terrorists. Jews aren’t — and when one Jew did deliberately kill innocent Palestinians in 1994, the rest of the Jewish world was horrified and demonstrated its revulsion in word and deed. Buddhists aren’t — despite the destruction of Tibet by the Chinese Communists, no Buddhists have murdered innocent Chinese, let alone non-Chinese who deal with China.
And that is why we must fight not only the Islamo-Fascists… those that are, I suppose, lost souls… but also the root causes that have driven them hate and violence.
So, Chris, what do you think are the root causes? I didn’t cause this. Did you cause this, Chris? Don’t you believe people should be responsible for their own hate and violence?
Unfortunately, Iraq presented a much different situation. The majority of people outside the US did not recognize the links to Terrorism or AQ, whether they were there or not. And that really resulted in a huge split in world vs. US opinion. I believe the runup to the War… and the bitterness around it, squandered much of the sympathy and support that the US gained from 9/11.
So the butcher from Baghdad slaughters a million people and the world doesn’t care. He uses poison gas on Iranians and Kurds and the world doesn’t care. He invades a neighboring country, pillages, and rapes, and murders its people and the world doesn’t care. He can violate UN sanction for 12 years and the world doesn’t care. He can publicly sponsor terrorism and the world doesn’t care. The US finally decided to do something about this butcher in Baghdad and is morally in the right for doing so. The fact that the rest of the world doesn’t agree, says a lot about the rest of the world now doesn’t it? Maybe if the media weren’t fueling anti-American hate there’d be a change of heart in Canada and elsewhere, and hopefully people would begin to realize that Iraqis deserve freedom and democracy too.
Your terminology is really overly antagonistic… but I think it does represent what many feel. It is that more extreme view, along with the opposite view on “the left” that must be moderated in order to find a solution.
Yes, maybe my terminology was a little strong but I truly believe that Liberalism – the American sect of Socialism has everything to do with the world hating America. Sure, 9/11 gave America a little bump of compassion but it wasn’t long before the world resorted back to the same old “hate America” attitude. I believe the hate for America originated in the Soviet Union and from the Mullahs in Iran. After the tearing-down of the Berlin wall the hate spread through Europe, into Canada, South America and even into the United States. People hate and fear America partly because it’s the only superpower left. When the Soviet Union existed it was the boogeyman and the root of all the world’s problems. Now that the Soviet Union is gone I guess America gets tagged with being the boogieman. The news media especially throughout the Arab countries and Europe, and maybe even Canada, are very much guilty for fostering this hate towards America.
I truly believe with all my heart that America is a force for good, and has always been a force for good. I believe that only people with traditional strong religious values can see this. Nobody is trying to demonize socialists, but it is the socialism, I believe, that clouds peoples judgments especially when it comes to the big issues such as what’s truly good and what’s truly evil. I’m generalizing but socialists think some of the biggest evils in the world today are SUV’s, or the destruction of wetlands, or second hand smoke. While I think these are problem areas that need to be addressed, they are by far not the biggest evils we face. The biggest evils we face are the Islamic radicals that want to destroy the civilized world and that includes their buddy Saddam Hussein. Why can’t the world see that liberating 25 million people in Iraq was a good thing to do? I just don’t get it.
Here’s an article I found that gets a little into the nuts and bolts of the differences between Liberals and Conservatives (Traditionalists). Tell me what you think.
Liberals and traditionalists are talking about entirely different things when they address values. Like Big Brother in George Orwell’s chilling novel 1984, liberals employ a NewSpeak lexicon in which the word values is unrelated to its historical meaning.
Two things explain this gulf. First, liberalism is the American sect of the international religion of socialism. Second, socialism is a secular and materialistic religion.
When liberals speak of values they are talking about material goods and services, which are presumed to flow exclusively from collectivized government. Those values fall under the heading of so-called social justice, or redistribution of income and property as equally as possible.
In a July 3, 2004, New York Times article headlined “Kerry Invoking ‘Values’ Theme to Frame Issues,” reporter Jodi Wilgoren wrote: “Forty-eight minutes into a rambling speech about education, health care, jobs and equal opportunity here the other morning, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts went off-script to sum up his White House quest in a simple sentence. “In the end it’s about values,” he told a conference of the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.”
In the same vein, a Reuters dispatch dated October 24, 2004, said: “Earlier, Kerry liberally quoted scripture as he told supporters in Fort Lauderdale that the Bible demanded deeds to match words and said his faith gave him “values to live by and to apply to the decisions that I make.”
“I will put middle class families and those struggling to join them ahead of the interests of the well-to-do and the well connected,” he said. “Justice and lasting peace require the strength of our ideals as well as the strength of our arms.”
Viewing values as strictly secular and materialistic inputs, and measuring them by income levels, is straight out of Karl Marx, who wrote that religion is the opium of the masses, conceived by the ruling classes to oppress the workers, and that human behavior is a variable controlled by the physical conditions in which people work and earn their livings.
The writings of every socialist, from Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte to Irving Howe, the late dean of American liberal-socialists, affirm that socialism is a secular religion and that liberalism is its American sect.
Bertrand Russell, one of the last century’s most prominent socialists, said of the German socialist party: “For Social Democracy is not a mere political party, nor even a mere economic theory; it is a complete self-contained philosophy of the world and of human development; it is, in a word, a religion and an ethic. To judge the work of Marx, or the aims and beliefs of his followers, from a narrow economic standpoint, is to overlook the whole body and spirit of their greatness.” (from Lecture One, German Social Democracy).
Two decades before Marx, Auguste Comte proclaimed The Religion of Humanity. God and spiritual religion were dismissed as superstitious ignorance, a belief absorbed by the youthful Herbert Croly attending a church of The Religion of Humanity in Manhattan. In 1871 his father had written A Positivist Primer, an introduction for American readers to Comte’s philosophy of Positivism and his secular Religion of Humanity. Young Herbert became the famous founding editor of The New Republic, the most influential periodical of American liberalism in the first half of the 20th century.
American liberals’ focus on secular materialism also reflects the precepts of John Dewey, their leading icon during this period. Professor Dewey’s Reconstruction in Philosophy called for scrapping all existing ideas of morality, philosophy, and religion, because he regarded them as impediments to the advancement of science and to the socialist catechism of social justice.
In his 1908 lecture at Columbia University on Intelligence and Morals, Professor Dewey said, “…the abandonment by intelligence of a fixed and static moral end was the necessary precondition of a free and progressive science of both things and morals…The effective control of [men’s] powers is not through precepts, but through the regulation of their conditions. (italics added)…
“…The progress of [Darwinian evolutionary] biology has accustomed our minds to the notion that intelligence is not an outside power presiding supremely but statically over the desires and efforts of man, but is a method of adjustment of capacities and conditions within specific situations [i.e., moral relativism]. History has discovered itself in the idea of [evolutionary] process. The genetic standpoint makes us aware that the systems of the past are neither fraudulent impostures nor absolute revelations; but are the products of political, economic, and scientific conditions whose change caries with it change of theoretical formulations [i.e., today’s “values” are valid only until further notice].
“…From this point of view there is no separate body of moral rules; no separate system of motive powers; no separate subject-matter of moral knowledge, and hence no such thing as an isolated ethical science.”
In other words, the Judeo-Christian tradition of timeless moral virtues, the essence of Western civilization, is unscientific nonsense. Liberal “values” are expressed in regulations devised by intellectuals like Professor Dewey to herd the masses into the conformity of egalitarian social justice.
Teaching children American history and traditions with stories of patriotic, honest, respectful, courageous conduct cultivates individualism and therefore interferes with preparing students for collective living. Concepts such as spiritual religion and moral codes are “value judgments,” and therefore unacceptable.
I’m having trouble posting. Any ideas why?
Wow, it took that. Is there a character limit?
Your terminology is really overly antagonistic… but I think it does represent what many feel. It is that more extreme view, along with the opposite view on “the left” that must be moderated in order to find a solution.
Yes, maybe my terminology was a little strong but I truly believe that Liberalism — the American sect of Socialism has everything to do with the world hating America. Sure, 9/11 gave America a little bump of compassion but it wasn’t long before the world resorted back to the same old “hate America” attitude. I believe the hate for America originated in the Soviet Union and from the Mullahs in Iran. After the tearing-down of the Berlin wall the hate spread through Europe, into Canada, South America and even into the United States. People hate and fear America partly because it’s the only superpower left. When the Soviet Union existed it was perceived as the boogeyman and the root of all the world’s problems. Now that the Soviet Union is gone I guess America gets tagged with being the boogieman. The news media especially throughout the Arab countries and Europe, and maybe even Canada, are very much guilty for fostering this hate towards America.
I truly believe with all my heart that America is a force for good, and has always been a force for good. I believe that it’s mostly people with traditional strong religious values that see this. Nobody is trying to demonize socialists, but it is the socialism, I believe, that clouds peoples’ judgment especially when it comes to the big issues such as what’s truly good and what’s truly evil. I’m generalizing but socialists think some of the biggest evils in the world today are SUV’s, or the destruction of wetlands, or second hand smoke. While I think these are problem areas that maybe need to be addressed, they are by far not the biggest evils we face. The biggest evils we face are, number one, the Islamic radicals that want to destroy the civilized world, and number two, I know you’re going to love this one, the international secular religion of socialism.
Here’s something that gets a little into the nuts and bolts of the differences between Liberals and Conservatives (Traditionalists). Tell me what you think.
Liberals and traditionalists are talking about entirely different things when they address values. Like Big Brother in George Orwell’s chilling novel 1984, liberals employ a NewSpeak lexicon in which the word values is unrelated to its historical meaning.
Two things explain this gulf. First, liberalism is the American sect of the international religion of socialism. Second, socialism is a secular and materialistic religion.
When liberals speak of values they are talking about material goods and services, which are presumed to flow exclusively from collectivized government. Those values fall under the heading of so-called social justice, or redistribution of income and property as equally as possible.
In a July 3, 2004, New York Times article headlined “Kerry Invoking ‘Values’ Theme to Frame Issues,” reporter Jodi Wilgoren wrote: “Forty-eight minutes into a rambling speech about education, health care, jobs and equal opportunity, here the other morning, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts went off-script to sum up his White House quest in a simple sentence. “In the end it’s about values,” he told a conference of the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.”
In the same vein, a Reuters dispatch dated October 24, 2004, said: “Earlier, Kerry liberally quoted scripture as he told supporters in Fort Lauderdale that the Bible demanded deeds to match words and said his faith gave him “values to live by and to apply to the decisions that I make.”
“I will put middle class families and those struggling to join them ahead of the interests of the well-to-do and the well connected,” he said. “Justice and lasting peace require the strength of our ideals as well as the strength of our arms.”
Viewing values as strictly secular and materialistic inputs, and measuring them by income levels, is straight out of Karl Marx, who wrote that religion is the opium of the masses, conceived by the ruling classes to oppress the workers, and that human behavior is a variable controlled by the physical conditions in which people work and earn their livings.
The writings of every socialist, from Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte to Irving Howe, the late dean of American liberal-socialists, affirm that socialism is a secular religion and that liberalism is its American sect.
Bertrand Russell, one of the last century’s most prominent socialists, said of the German socialist party: “For Social Democracy is not a mere political party, nor even a mere economic theory; it is a complete self-contained philosophy of the world and of human development; it is, in a word, a religion and an ethic. To judge the work of Marx, or the aims and beliefs of his followers, from a narrow economic standpoint, is to overlook the whole body and spirit of their greatness.” (from Lecture One, German Social Democracy).
Two decades before Marx, Auguste Comte proclaimed The Religion of Humanity. God and spiritual religion were dismissed as superstitious ignorance, a belief absorbed by the youthful Herbert Croly attending a church of The Religion of Humanity in Manhattan. In 1871 his father had written A Positivist Primer, an introduction for American readers to Comte’s philosophy of Positivism and his secular Religion of Humanity. Young Herbert became the famous founding editor of The New Republic, the most influential periodical of American liberalism in the first half of the 20th century.
American liberals’ focus on secular materialism also reflects the precepts of John Dewey, their leading icon during this period. Professor Dewey’s Reconstruction in Philosophy called for scrapping all existing ideas of morality, philosophy, and religion, because he regarded them as impediments to the advancement of science and to the socialist catechism of social justice.
In his 1908 lecture at Columbia University on Intelligence and Morals, Professor Dewey said, “…the abandonment by intelligence of a fixed and static moral end was the necessary precondition of a free and progressive science of both things and morals…The effective control of [men’s] powers is not through precepts, but through the regulation of their conditions. (italics added)…
“…The progress of [Darwinian evolutionary] biology has accustomed our minds to the notion that intelligence is not an outside power presiding supremely but statically over the desires and efforts of man, but is a method of adjustment of capacities and conditions within specific situations [i.e., moral relativism]. History has discovered itself in the idea of [evolutionary] process. The genetic standpoint makes us aware that the systems of the past are neither fraudulent impostures nor absolute revelations; but are the products of political, economic, and scientific conditions whose change caries with it change of theoretical formulations [i.e., today’s “values” are valid only until further notice].
“…From this point of view there is no separate body of moral rules; no separate system of motive powers; no separate subject-matter of moral knowledge, and hence no such thing as an isolated ethical science.”
In other words, the Judeo-Christian tradition of timeless moral virtues, the essence of Western civilization, is unscientific nonsense. Liberal “values” are expressed in regulations devised by intellectuals like Professor Dewey to herd the masses into the conformity of egalitarian social justice.
Teaching children American history and traditions with stories of patriotic, honest, respectful, courageous conduct cultivates individualism and therefore interferes with preparing students for collective living. Concepts such as spiritual religion and moral codes are “value judgments,” and therefore unacceptable.