None Dare Call It What It Is...

[PoliticalChic]

1. Evil, that is.

In fact, in secular society, very few even dare use the term; it's archaic, it's abstruse....it's.....religious.


But it exists.


“The world turns and the world changes,
But one thing does not change.
In all of my years, one thing does not change,
However you disguise it, this thing does not change:
The perpetual struggle of Good and Evil.” T. S. Eliot



2. "In enlightened political conversation, the word 'evil' had been disreputable for a long time-..... The word “evil,” in many minds, |smacks of an atavistic, superstitious, and even medieval simplism, of a fundamentalist mindset that might be inclined to in witches or to reject the teachings of evoluiton in the public schools.

The secular, educated, cosmopolitan instinct...tends to shun the word 'evil' and, as an optimist and creature of the Enlightenment, approaches the world's horrors as individual problems that can be solved...."
Lance Morrow, "Evil: An Investigation,"p.12-13


"Evil has made a successful career over many centuries by persuading people that it does not exist."




3. Did I mention that the fear of being labeled as 'religious' has caused some fearful folks to make some sort of humor out of the term.

"The sixties' rebellion against authority introduced the idea of Satan as rock star..

...Many people do not believe evil exists..... The trouble comes in trying to understand evil. When people become frustrated in their effort to do so, they are inclined to say that because they do not understand evil, it does not exist- a....fallacy based on the thought that what I do not understand cannot be real."
Op.Cit., p. 3-4




But it is here, it does exist....and it plays a mighty role in the course of human activity.

I use evil to describe Hillary Clinton on a regular basis.

There are two books in play right now in the battle of whether civilization continues or the liberals completely destroy it. Which one are you for?

Bible - good - law- God
Rules for Radicals - Evil - anarchy - Lucifer.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

when you understand the left and their rule book, you know why they promote EVIL ways.

The Bible is not just good because that includes the Old Testament, which contains a whole lot of evil as well.
Fathers should never be asked to sacrifice their children, for example.
Women and children should never be massacred, as Joshua is said to have done to the Canaanites at Jericho.

And even though the New Testament is much better and has good ideals, the practice still ended up as evil, with burning witches, inquisition torture, crusades, conquistadors, scarlet letters, etc.

And it is wrong to imply that Liberals are not basically motivated by the defense of individual liberties.

"And it is wrong to imply that Liberals are not basically motivated by the defense of individual liberties."


How long did it take you to get to be this stupid???


Liberals oppose the first amendment and free speech.



"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."



In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."



Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"

Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia





If the Democrats ever gain control of the Supreme Court, that will be the end of free speech, and free thought.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I just used it here the other day. Ripping a child apart in the womb is evil...