It Could Be Better...Then Again, Maybe Not [Mrs. R.]

CONTENT WARNING: This post expresses views that could be construed as socially conservative and/or religious in nature.

 

 

What a magnificent tree.

It's okay.

Okay?! 'Tis the finest tree I've ever seen.

It could be better. A lot better.

But look at the many wonderful fruits it bears.

It could bear more. A lot more.

I don't see how.

Well, for starters, I'd yank it out of this old boneyard.

 

Sometime later...

What are you doing?

Moving the tree. What does it look like we're doing?

Wherever to?

Into the 21st century... To what we refer to as a more "scientifically" controlled environment.

But why on earth would you want to do such a thing? The tree was doing so well where it was.

So the citizens of this country can do whatever they want, with whomever they want, whenever they want without getting hassled... That's why.

I see. Well, good luck with that.

 

Sometime later...

 

Dear God, man, what happened to the tree? It looks so...so puny and...gray.

It could be worse. A lot worse.

I don't see how... What happened to all the lovely fruit it bore?

It's producing a different kind of fruit, now...OK?! Just 'cause you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Doesn't sound very "scientific" to me.

---

The 'Who Needs It?' Quiz:

If secular humanism and moral relativism lead to a more permissive society, and a more permissive society leads to a more self-destructive society, who needs a higher moral authority than man?

Conservative answer: Secular humanists and moral relativists.

Is it possible to need something that doesn't exist?

Conservative answer: No.

 

Comments

[hunter]

I see the point. And agree. I would not have used a rocket engine, only because I happen to like space stuff. Maybe a cheexy plastic tree?

[Mrs. R.]

Hey, Hunter,

It's not a rocket engine, it's a tree that looks like a rocket engine... and isn't doing a very good job at either:-)

[wonko]

Ah. The fruits of moral reletivism and secular humanity.

Bah. How do they get to claim the benefits of scientific achievement? Like Tang and Velcro. (So much more tangible than the fruits of, er, moral, er, submission to, um, er, godly ethics, morals, and principles, like NOT getting AIDS, and NOT becoming hard of heart, and NOT becoming psychopathic, and NOT becoming disillusioned and blowing your brains out, and developing warm eternal friendships with your wife and kids, and having the stability to weather the tough times, and knowing that no matter how bad it gets, things will work out for the best in the end.)

Science was doing pretty well without moral reletivism and secular humanity; in fact, it was probably doing better without them. The continued acceleration of scientific progress isn't explained by a turn to moral reletivism. It is explained by current observers standing on the shoulders of giants.

[Mrs. R.]

Science was doing pretty well without moral reletivism and secular humanity; in fact, it was probably doing better without them.

Wonko,

I agree. What is science without faith and natural law?

I'd venture there are just as many (or more) atrocities created by science as there are "miracles", they just don't get as much press.

What I don't get is why so many people want to shift Constitutional principles from their foundation to some godless and essentially experimental one.

[BubbaB]

Mrs. R, YOU RAWK!!

[darthlaurel]

I thought that tree was on its way to Iraq.....it could be a lot better/worse/whatever-I-say-it-could-be-du-jour-sayth-the-press......
Anyway, excellent point and now we just need to add a penumbra to the tree, dontcha think? Maybe you could represent that as maggots......

[eddie]

Someone please point to where in the constitution the words "God", "Morality", "Judeo-Christian", etc. are. The only express mention of religion is basically in the First Amendment and basically states government and religion basically should not and shall not mix.

As far as atrosities is concerned, it is basically only the religious zealots who co-opt the results of scientists who have perpetrated the most egregius examples of mass killing.

And please stop with the moral relatives arguments: torture is basically okay because we believe in god and we must protect all similar god-fearing people.

The only "shift" that is being perpetrayted is basically the shift away from the Framers secular vision for our government.

[Mrs. R.]

eddie,

Read the Declaration of Independence for context. You define "Creator". If you come up with something other than God (or reasonable facsimile of), let me know.

Another concept: Men may be able to deprive another man of his rights (through tyranny), but it is not man who grants rights to other men, we are born with them. Attribute that to God, nature, or whomever/whatever you like.

Are there rules? Yes. I suppose you would deny there's a need for rules, or such a thing as natural law.

In your world, everybody gets to play by different rules - whatever rules they choose to play by. Brilliant.

Do you actually think that is tenable alternative?

As far as atrocities are concerned, it is only the religious zealots who co-opt the results of scientists who have perpetrated the most egregious examples of mass killing.

Ah, yes, your saints are scientists, totally innocent of any malfeasance.

And, in case you're unaware of it, non-religious zealots can be pretty scary, too. Ever hear of Stalin, or Pol Pot?

When are people like you going to stop associating ethics and/or religion with people who distort/pervert or twist them? People distort, twist and pervert anything and everything they can get their hands on, especially if money and/or power is involved.

Tell me what you think is so abhorrent about Christianity. (And not about the way some people distort it).

I don't have to support the corruption in the Catholic church (the institution and its leadership) to support Christianity - and, conversely, just because I support Christianity doesn't mean I have to support the corruption in the Catholic church.

I support rights for women, but I don't have to support NOW if I think the leadership is doing things that are actually counterproductive for women, or women's rights.

It's people who are the problem. Humans are imperfect. Always have been, always will be.

And who said torture is ok? And, let's define torture, while we're at it.

You sound like a teenager who has just discovered critical thought and skepticism. I hope you are young, because I'd hate to think you're over 25 or 30.

[Luprand]

I have to say, that's the first time I've heard "Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there" come from the secular humanist's mouth. Usually, it's the religious people who are stereotyped as saying that about God.