Monday, August 07, 2006

Hedonistic Apologists and the Separation of Sex and State

(rereleased from redstate archive)

What is one of the main tenets of the Church of Social Humanists? In general it is the pursuit of the universal pleasure. That each individual would receive equal resources, achieve the same 'happiness', and be free to obtain that which satisfies. It is intended to please everyone. The pursuit of pleasure universally. In fact it would be safe to say that it is the promotion of the pleasure state. Allowing (forcing) each individually the equal opportunity to experience that which is pleasing. But has this religion encroached upon the Constitution of the United States? Has our Judiciary become biased towards a particular belief system?The Oxford dictionary, great tome of wisdom, gives as a definition of Hedonism: "The doctrine or theory of ethics in which pleasure is regarded as the chief good, or the proper end of action." Now in defense of the Church, we can dichotomize this theory into two separate positions, one of the egoist in search of only personal pleasure, and that of the universalistic who intends pleasure for all. The more clear comparison to the philosophy of the Church of Social Humanists is that of the global hedonist. Notice how we have not tread down the path of depravity yet? It is simply comparisons of accurate definitions, and labeling the actions of a modern political group.

Before I get to the core argument, we better deal with Liberals. The label that is liberal has changed over the course of time, just as the term conservative has. What we are dealing with here is not a discussion of the label, just an exploration of the modern philosophy and position. My contention is that within the political basket of those who could be considered modern liberals, a significant number are secular humanists. An additional subset of liberals, though not necessarily the equivalent set, are those who in action or name are socialists. Merge these together and you have the Church of Social Humanists. Yes, I call it a religion, as they have strayed into the reality of simply believing what they want, and acting upon that. They exercise faith in fitting what they are told into what they feel is right, and coming up with what they perceive as reality. This becomes the religion that they practice. Though not openly stated, humanity is the Deity they end up worshiping.

Now as a very accepting and universally open minded religion, so long as you agree with them, there are many expressions of faith. The one we will deal with today is the matter of copulation. The Church supports the position of promoting copulation amongst believers and non-believers. It is a pleasurable experience and should not be denied anyone. Also, the Church does not believe that this sacred act should be limited to specific social institutions such as marriage. That is against the goal of the equality of pleasure.

At this point, have I stretched the truth? I have qualified most of the argument, and tried to apply accurate interpretation to the actions of some Liberals. To reinforce before we make complete the argument, take an example. Ask a liberal (modern) some general questions about copulation. How do they feel about teenage exploratory sexuality? Is it wrong? Ask about swinging around in college. Is that wrong? These questions tend to expose what the liberal "believes" in regards to this issue. There are no facts necessary to establish moral behavior in this topic. Most moral institutions elevate copulation to a covenant between a man and a woman in the social institution of marriage. Those same institutions do not legislate this behavior in the modern age. However they aggressively promote this standard as a higher one and arguably more civilized.

Not so for the Church of Social Humanism. This religious institution has infiltrated the legal system and forced the promotion of its beliefs on the general population. The Judge has become an apologist for the hedonists. The primary target of their legal actions is the public school. It started with the erasure of gender differences and continued with the emasculation of the male. Now it has taken the overt action of promotion of "safe sex", which includes a very broad definition of what constitutes acceptable sexual behavior. They have begun to legally force their religious views on younger children as well to establish "normalcy". This violates not only the child's personal choice of moral behavior (which is still forming), but invalidates the teaching and modeling of accepted behavior by the parent.

Does this obvious promotion of religious beliefs constitute state promotion of religion? Must we force the left to acknowledge that their opinions have become beliefs, and that their actions constitute a practice of those beliefs? Or can we operate under this reality without the overt self declaration of their religion? Clearly the actions of this religious group are in violation of the Constitution. A clear violation of the Separation of Sex and State. We must identify those in the judiciary who are letting their activism lead them to become Hedonistic Apologists. Conservatives should begin to shine light on these actions and label them for what they are. Social Humanism can constitute a religious faith as strong as any other. And if we don't want a state sponsored religion, we need to act soon, at least in regards to copulation.

No comments: