The Ideological Shift in America

[joe1776]

I make no claim of moral progress (or regress). I am examining the ideological shift in America, and the effects of this shift in the culture.

If your argument in the OP doesn't imply that the Progressive era brought on a decline of American morality, then your argument makes no sense.

You must take a stand: If American morality is declining, your argument is sound. If Americans are making moral progress, then your argument fails because it's clear from the decline of traditional Christianity that Christian ethics had nothing to do with the progress.

I dispute that humanity is more 'moral!', which is vague and undefined. I see no fundamental change in man. Greed, exploitation, power, and control still define humans, and altruistic sacrifice is still a rare thing.

I think that's an opinion that you've formed without giving the issue much thought -- and it's key to the argument you made in the OP.

You can't argue that traditional Christianity gave humanity its moral base if we humans are making moral progress while ignoring the influence of Christianity.

 

[MikeDwight]

K See what we need to do is we round up all the Korean women, K... Put them in the special stations of Comfort. Then Force them into OUR way of worship. That's with the hananim, that's right that's our Way. Once we've taught them all American Japanese, and addicted them to our money, gifted the land we'll steal out from under them. Then I don't know. United with Japan today to Universal end of Racism. Why didn't league of Nations adopt Japan's declaration against racism?

 

[columbus]

Who? Where? ..are these evil people who want to install a theocracy, and mandate the bible as law?

Where has ANY city or state tried to install biblical beliefs as law?

Have you forgotten Californians Prop 8?

A more recent example would be Mike Pence. He spent years as governor trying to get his religious views put into the Indiana State Constitution.
Tom

 

[MikeDwight]

US Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Confederate Constitution
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government,establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for theConfederate States of America.
Alabama Constitution
We the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama.

Dwight Eisenhower
Each day we must ask that Almighty God will set and keep His protecting hand over us so that we may pass on to those who come after us the heritage of a free people, secure in their God-given rights and in full control of a Government dedicated to the preservation of those rights.

 

[metis]

The transition to Progressivism in the 1960s:
5. Evolution was allowed to be taught, then grew through judicial activism until it became the exclusively taught belief about origins.
6. Abortion was legalized by judicial activism in 1972, opening the floodgates for amoral relativity.
7. Crime rates were historically low during the Christian era, but have steadily grown in the Progressive era.

Again, categorically false on all counts.

5.The ToE is not "exclusively taught" in public education as being the only approach, as I taught anthropology for 30 years that included religious concepts about creation as well, and I'm a theist btw.

6. "Judicial activism" is spouted by those who don't like a certain SCOTUS decision but then is immediately dropped the minute that SCOTUS agrees with their position.

7.Historically, crime rates were much higher centuries ago, including here in the States.

Where did you copy & past the above from, btw, and why didn't you cite it as your source?

 

[crossfire]

I don't want to spend the time reading the link, so I'll just ask.
How is homicide defined for this graph?

The reason I ask is because the formative decades of the USA were dominated by Christian culture and values. They included slavery and war, genocide and oppression(oppression of pretty much everyone who wasn't a WASP male with money), and violent expansionism.

An example is my home state of Indiana. It wasn't until the late 19th century that killing a Native was considered homicide. And the original state Constitution forbade black people from residing or owning property here. It was a very Christian place.
Tom

I don't know. A father was allowed to kill their defiant child without repercussions back then.

 

[crossfire]

American education now:

1. Choose your gender..

Gender is not the same as sex. I see nothing wrong with rejecting enforced gender roles.

2. Promote a narrative about climate change with minimal, inadequate statistics, juggled to produce the desired result, and bully anyone who dares question the myriads of assumptions and impossible conclusions, based only on a political agenda, not hard data.
3. Declare socialism as the best form of governance, and pound that with loud repetition into every student that passes through the state run indoctrination centers.
4. Mandate atheistic naturalism as the only state sanctioned religious belief. Bully and censor any outliers.
5. Divide and disrupt any open inquiry, or free expression of ideas with antifa shout downs and intimidation.
6. Race bait & divide the citizens into identity politics special interests, rather than a uniting ideology.
7. Promote a superior view of the educated elite, who are more highly evolved than the ignorant masses.

These are worthy critiques.

8. Promote relative morality, expediency, and amorality, not absolute morality.

Moral absolutism sorta hog-ties the idea of morality being something to cultivate within, no? If there is an absolute right and wrong for everything without regard to particular circumstances, then there is no reason for a given individual to become personally engaged with morality, no? It's all relegated to the impersonal, prescribed absolutist notions.

Biology, climate science, social science, and just about every study of Reality has been hijacked by the progressive left, and are now tools for indoctrination. A broad minded, open education for consideration of other views is censored by left wing echo chambers, where the dull monotone of homogeneity shapes the leaders of the future.

I'm all for healthy debate, especially when the goal is discovering truths rather than the goal being victory.

There are authoritarian factions in both the left and the right. You seem to be pinning the authoritarianism solely on the left. (Social conservatism is an example of authoritarianism on the right.) There are also liberals on both the right and the left to be found, where healthy debate is embraced and personal introspection and enlightenment is expected of an individual.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have not rebutted anything, with your ad hominem based reply. My points stand, unrefuted.
Assertions without reasoning or facts can only be dismissed. You have no arguments, just personal attacks.

There you go, back to using false claims about others, an ad hominem, to try to detract from your failures. When you do not understand ask questions. Making false claims about others is not an effective debating technique.

 

[Augustus]

To give just one example, Darwinism was hijacked (think "social" Darwinism and eugenics) by the political Right, not the Left.

Eugenics actually had plenty of support among left-leaning 'progressives' in the late 19th/early 20th C. It was the kind of thing scientific-minded liberals believed in (although obviously not the Nazi kind of eugenics).

And it wasn't really 'hijacked', it was mainstream scientific belief. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, even invented the word.

 

[exchemist]

Eugenics actually had plenty of support among left-leaning 'progressives' in the late 19th/early 20th C. It was the kind of thing scientific-minded liberals believed in (although obviously not the Nazi kind of eugenics).

And it wasn't really 'hijacked', it was mainstream scientific belief. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, even invented the word.

Fair points. Re hijack, I must admit I thinking more of social Darwinism. .

 

[usfan]

Eugenics actually had plenty of support among left-leaning 'progressives' in the late 19th/early 20th C. It was the kind of thing scientific-minded liberals believed in (although obviously not the Nazi kind of eugenics).

And it wasn't really 'hijacked', it was mainstream scientific belief. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, even invented the word.

 

[Ouroboros]

..sorta..

The labels can remain, but the underlying ideology is completely different.

Marxist Darwinist principles, that are at the root of Progressivism, have become mainstream in most of the major xtian denominations. The current pope is openly sympathetic and supportive of Marxism. Most religious institutions, like the rest of human institutions, are devoted to, and run by, dedicated progressives.

This does not change the original, historical belief system that Christianity was based upon. It is, in fact, another departure from historical Christian orthodoxy.

When I grew up, I remember one of the members in our church explained to me that Jesus was a socialist. The Bible talks about how they lived in communities, shared everything, and everyone was equal. Jesus talked about taking care of the sick, homeless, poor, starving, and so on, and the fundamentals for communism was that there would be an equality and care for everyone, and of course that capitalism was not the method to achieve it. Also consider that the Bible talks about how the rich have a harder time to get into heaven and that love to money is the root of evil. I think the fundamental principles for how to care for other humans are very similar. Now, the differences are of course that Marxism/Socialism to some degree denies religions and religious beliefs.

 

[usfan]

There are authoritarian factions in both the left and the right. You seem to be pinning the authoritarianism solely on the left.

The topic is a shift in ideology. The old way vs the new. The progressive left is the driver of this change, and it has dominated the current institutions of man.

Moral absolutism sorta hog-ties the idea of morality being something to cultivate within, no? If there is an absolute right and wrong for everything without regard to particular circumstances, then there is no reason for a given individual to become personally engaged with morality, no? It's all relegated to the impersonal, prescribed absolutist notions.

There either is, or is not a higher 'moral law', that everyone is subject to. The earlier values promoted a God given Law, embedded in everyone, while the relativity and subjectivity of morality in a godless universe (or a distant, indifferent God), is a tenet of Progressivism.

Both are beliefs.. religious beliefs, about the nature of the universe.

Progressivism encompasses atheism, but not all progressives are atheists.

The BASIS of the beliefs, or the ideology, is what is being examined here. ..how we got here.. why the cultural mores have changed, and perhaps a glimpse into the future, if history repeats itself.

 

[crossfire]

The topic is a shift in ideology. The old way vs the new. The progressive left is the driver of this change, and it has dominated the current institutions of man.

M'kay

There either is, or is not a higher 'moral law', that everyone is subject to. The earlier values promoted a God given Law, embedded in everyone, while the relativity and subjectivity of morality in a godless universe (or a distant, indifferent God), is a tenet of Progressivism.

Everyone has to deal with their own psyche. You can work to become skillful, or not.

Both are beliefs.. religious beliefs, about the nature of the universe.

I worry more about understanding my own psyche than on metaphysical speculations.

Progressivism encompasses atheism, but not all progressives are atheists.

Not all atheists are progressive, either. You really can't pidgeonhole true individuals by this measure.

The BASIS of the beliefs, or the ideology, is what is being examined here. ..how we got here.. why the cultural mores have changed, and perhaps a glimpse into the future, if history repeats itself.

Well then, I will bow out and leave you to your pideonholing.

 

[usfan]

Where did you copy & past the above from, btw, and why didn't you cite it as your source?

I am the source. If i quote someone, i give credit. If i copy or paste, i will give the source.

I will take your implication of plagiarism as a compliment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am the source. If i quote someone, i give credit. If i copy or paste, i will give the source.

I will take your implication of plagiarism as a compliment.

Sorry, but you are far from a valid source. You might as well admit that you are wrong with such a weak argument.

Your OP demonstrates an amazing ignorance of the history of abortion in the U.S. Abortions were both legal and common before the 1880's. It was a common method of birth control then and very possibly more common then today since birth control was very limited:

The surprising history of abortion in the United States - CNN

 

[usfan]

as well admit that you are wrong with such a weak argument.
Your OP demonstrates an amazing ignorance

..yes.. much better.

Why bother with implications of plagiarism when straight up insults are so much more effective?

 

[Subduction Zone]

..yes.. much better.

Why bother with implications of plagiarism when straight up insults are so much more effective?

Observations and facts are not insults.

Try again.

And I edited my post to show how you were wrong about your abortion claim.

 

[usfan]

Two scientists can hardly be named who have, in the second half of the 19th century, dominated the human mind to a greater degree than Darwin and Marx. Their teachings revolutionized the conception that the great masses had about the world. For decades their names have been on the tongues of everybody, and their teachings have become the central point of the mental struggles which accompany the social struggles of today. The cause of this lies primarily in the highly scientific contents of their teachings.
The scientific importance of Marxism as well as of Darwinism consists in their following out the theory of evolution, the one upon the domain of the organic world, of things animate; the other, upon the domain of society. This theory of evolution, however, was in no way new, it had its advocates before Darwin and Marx; the philosopher, Hegel, even made it the central point of his philosophy. ~Anton Pannekoek, 1909

They are core elements in the historical progressive worldview. Dewey, Wilson, and other early progressives credited both as influential in the crafting of progressive ideology.

This ideology was born in a Christian dominated society, at turn of the century America. Expressions of Christian faith and belief were common in the public discourse, and were not heckled or ridiculed. That came much later, as Progressivism began to dominate.

 

[usfan]

My only comment about abortion, as an indicator of societal change:

6. Abortion was legalized by judicial activism in 1972, opening the floodgates for amoral relativity.

Your OP demonstrates an amazing ignorance of the history of abortion in the U.S.

Really. So Roe v Wade did not legalize abortion, which was already rampant? You accuse me of ignorance, with this kind of rebuttal?

And I edited my post to show how you were wrong about your abortion claim.

What was wrong? The date? The claim of legalization?

You cannot even be specific, just go off on some knee jerk, 'Wrong!' accusation..

I guess if you have nothing, you can still heckle and disrupt those who do..