The War On Bullshit

At what point did liberal become a four-letter word in the United States of America? It seems strange to me that a country founded on its revolutionary ideals - a country which inspired much of the world to free itself from the bonds of British imperialism - could nurse a spirit of modern conservatism to the extent that it has almost become an insult to call people a liberal.

With the Presidential Push trudging along longer than any political season I’ve ever followed as a political pundit, I’ve been forced to listen to the conservative talking heads quite a bit, and I’ve noticed something. There are three words which, in the eyes of Rush And His Parrots, are perhaps the dirtiest, slimiest descriptors of human beings: communist, Muslim, and liberal.

Now, the first two, I can at least see where the animosity comes from. Our country was attacked by Muslim terrorists, and we were in a Cold War with communism for decades. Liberals, however, were the very founding fathers we so revere in American History classes. Don’t believe me? Let’s define some terms.

Liberal vs. Conservative
liberal (lib’er al, lib’rel), adj. 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. 2. designating or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual freedom of action and expression. 4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies. 5. free from prejudice and bigotry; tolerant. 6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.; open-minded. 7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.

conservative (ken sur’ve tiv), adj. 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Positive thinking and generosity a bad thing?
These are from Webster’s, and I think that’s a reliable enough source to focus my thesis sufficiently. I suppose I can understand disagreeing with current liberal politicians’ policies if you think the current system, unchanged and uncriticized, is okay. However, to use the word ‘liberal’ as if it is a bad thing goes against the very definition of the term if you don’t think everything is working right.

I don’t even know how to make this point clearer than the definition already has. “Favorable to progress or reform” certainly seems like a good trait in a politician or a person, if you don’t believe our government is functioning at its maximum capacity. I’m personally a big fan and advocate of “individual freedom of action and expression,” and I like to think I am “free from prejudice and bigotry.” Where does any of this become a bad thing?

Liberal as the American ideal
It seems to me, reading that definition, Webster could replace the entire liberal entry with a much more concise definition: one who believes in the American ideal. What could be more American than believing in a society free of bigotry; a government that is run by the people instead of a monarch; and a government which is favorable to progress and reform? So, no longer be afraid to self-identify as a liberal, all you real Americans. Don’t let the conservatives fool you. America was once the most liberal nation on Earth, and that’s what made the rest of the world emulate us. If the Adams cousins and John Hancock had been conservatives, we’d still be paying tea taxes to England.

That’s it. I can’t take it anymore. Every year there’s a fresh outcry about the seal hunt. And every year the same old bullshit arguments get dragged up.

1st Bullshit Argument: The seal hunt is barbaric.

There are four approved methods of slaughtering livestock in the US:

1. asphyxiation (you know, take away their oxygen)
2. Captive Bolt (i.e., whack ‘em in the head to knock the animal unconscious before you slice and dice it)
3. Gunshot to the head
4. Electrical (the black wire is positive, the red wire is negative).

How exactly is having your skull smashed by a club any more “barbaric” then any of these? I understand if you’re a vegetarian, and you’re against the slaughter of any animal, but if you’ve had a burger in the past year, you can shut the fuck up right now.

2nd Bullshit Argument: It’s wrong to kill animals for their fur

Well first off, people eat seal. Just because YOU don’t eat seal, doesn’t mean there isn’t a market for seal meat. Second, if you’re mad about fur, take it up with fashion designers and the people who wear the fur and leave the seal hunters out of it. And if you own any fur, you can definitely shut the fuck up.

3rd Bullshit Argument: They’re Killing BABIES!!!

No, they aren’t. That’s illegal. But the animal rights groups have been feeding you a pack of lies about seal pups being slaughtered. But you ever wonder why there are so many chickens and so few roosters? What exactly do you think happens to the male chicks? Think blender. So if you’ve had eggs in the last year, you can shut the fuck up.

Conclusion

Let me why there is such outcry about the seal hunt:
1) Seals are cute
2) Blood on snow looks dramatic
3) People have come to believe that their food comes from factories.

I’ve got news for you. If it’s good to eat, it used to be alive, and someone killed it. That’s how nature works. Up until the day they die, seals live a normal life. That’s more than you can say for the dairy cow, who spends its life locked in a cell with some of its tits hacked off so it fits the milking machine, or the steer that has it nuts lopped off so its meat will be a little more tender.

If you have a problem with the seal hunt, why don’t you wag your finger at yourself first, leave ruining someone else’s livelihood for tomorrow.

I was recently told by a Christian that I, being an atheist, am intrinsically immoral, having nothing on which to base my morality. I think with the Pope’s recent visit to our fair shores, this is a great statement for me to sink my teeth into. For all you Christians who think atheists lack a moral compass, I’ve got the real good news: belief in an imaginary father-figure is not necessary to define your morals, and, in fact, religious moral authority often prevents tolerance of other systems of morality.

This theory hinges on a few concepts I’ll discuss: moral relativism, the subjective nature of human life, and the flawed philosophy of Plato.

The Problem with Plato
Let’s start with the groundwork. For those of you unfamiliar with Platonic idealism, here’s the real short version: Plato believed that there was an objective reality out there, and truth is an accurate representation of this objective reality. Now, this sounds good – it’s easy to digest, and wraps everything up in a happy black and white picture. If reality is objective, then good is good, bad is bad, and ugly is ugly.

There are, however, some serious problems with Plato. Richard Rorty, a postmodern philosopher, argues in Contingency, Irony and Solidarity that big-T Truth is a problem because man interprets everything through language. Don’t buy it? How are your thoughts organized? BINGO! Language. Language is seen by Rorty as nothing but a series of metaphors; the word tree is not, in fact, a tree, but merely a verbal image representing a tree. He thus comes to the conclusion that language must be subjective, since we all have slightly differing interpretations of these metaphors. You may see an oak tree, while I envision a pine tree, for instance. Rorty and other postmodernists believe, rather than in Truth, in truths. To the postmodern philosophers, there is no objective reality – or, rather, mankind can never find objective reality because we are limited by the subjectivity of the language with which we interpret the world. This leads to some interesting concepts regarding morality…

Moral Relativism
Moral relativism is a concept espoused by existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, who believed a human being’s morals are subjective and based on cultural and societal norms rather than some objective morality given to us by God. This hinges on the above-expressed idea that reality itself is subjective, of course. Moral relativists often argue that someone’s morality is only applicable within their own culture, and can’t be applied to other, conflicting cultures. There are some problems with this theory as well; moral relativism implies that we can each create our own morals, and since we each create our own moral code, no one is immoral. I tend to subscribe to a more practical view: morals are socially constructed. Individual cultures come to a consensus of what is considered immoral.

Conclusion
“So what the heck is your point, Riley?” you might be asking. My point is, atheists are perfectly able to be moral, righteous individuals. If morals are relative to the culture, my morality is based on the same Western ideals as the morality of any Christian. The idea that an atheist cannot be moral is based on a concept I just don’t buy into: that we have some Truth handed down to us by a nonexistent God.

Kavan pointed out in an earlier article that the Ten Commandments are missing some very important rules; for instance, rape is wrong, despite not being in the Ten Commandments. I think we can all agree that a rapist is not a moral individual; where does this come from, if the Bible does not command it as part of your moral foundation? It’s because rape is damaging to society, and thus goes against our collective, cultural moral foundation.

Now here’s the leap: atheism and moral relativism actually breed more tolerance than mainstream, Christian ideology. Christians’ belief that morals and Truth are handed down by God (not any god, but their God), has led many (not all) Christians to believe those of other belief systems are wrong, going to hell, and generally bad and immoral people. Because I do not follow the Word of God, I must be an immoral person. Worse than individual persecution, religious morality breeds systemic intolerance.

Ex.:The Bible says in Leviticus 20:13, “And if a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” There are vast armies of Christians who argue that this is the way we actually ought to treat homosexuality. Because their religion is a system of rules given to them by a divine, infallible Creator, His words make it okay to persecute and even put to death those who go against His divine morality.

Moral relativism and a belief that the world itself is subjective allows one to gain a better appreciation for why other cultures do the things they do, and allows for a more tolerant view of them. That being said, this problem is not unique to Christianity – this kind of superiority complex is pervasive in almost all organized religions. Each one thinks they have the Ultimate Truth, and the others are all wrong.

Not to sound too much like a Beatles song, but imagine if people worldwide accepted the notion that morality is a societal invention. Since it is no longer something given to us by some infallible source, and is, in fact, a creation of mankind, the other religions of the world are no longer immoral and wrong. They’ve just got a different view of the truth. After all, they’re all shooting for the same target, right? “Do unto others…”