Moral Relativism Led to Violent Society — How to Turn the Tide

Ideas have consequences, and the morally bankrupt theory of moral relativism has done damage.

Some pose that one of our core societal problems is “gun violence.” Yet violence is not the problem, but rather the consequence of the problem.

The actual problem exists in a false idea called “moral relativism,” which basically means that morals and values vary between individuals. This philosophy posits that each person must find his or her (or zim or zir) “own truth” that may differ from everyone else’s. Unchangeable “truth” becomes irrelevant, replaced instead with ever-changing “feelings.”

Yet when we become the sole arbiters of what is just and good, personal pleasure and success (often gained at the expense of other people) remains as life’s core goal. Living for success and pleasure, however, breeds a society of selfishness and narcissism.

In our culture, this narcissism has been leveraged, in a large way, by social media that rewards “likes” and quantifies a person’s popularity by displaying statistics of how many friends a person has. Thus, we compete with ourselves and others to be the most liked, most successful person in our circle of connections. And because right and wrong are mostly irrelevant, we pursue self-fulfillment in any way that seems “right” to us, regardless of whether it is actually moral. When someone questions what we have concluded to be “right” for us, we become an offended victim.

Unfortunately, moral relativism, in which we make our own rules and become victims if we can’t have our way, has infiltrated every area of society, including our education system, the discipline of psychology and our legal system. No longer is it, “You killed someone. Go to prison.” It is, “You killed someone because you were a victim of bullying.” But should appeals to victimhood absolve a person of capital murder?

The title of Richard Weaver’s 1948 book says it best: Ideas Have Consequences. And the idea of moral relativism has certainly had its consequences. As Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky said, “Without God, all things are permitted.” All things including, of course, violence and murder.

What did post-modernists think would result from teaching children that they were random results of meaningless primordial sludge and that everyone else is as meaningless as they are? Why are we surprised with the violence of our society, which gives the strong power over the weak, when we have modeled that with the legalization of abortion? Or why did we assume that allowing children to watch Hollywood’s glamorized violence, murder and killings would have no effect? Or that videogames that reward players for killing people would somehow produce virtue? Does good fruit ever come from a bad plant?

The Supreme Court first removed prayer (1962) and the Bible (1963) from public schools in order to be “neutral.” In reality, these rulings made morals irrelevant to the education process. But would a world where children are taught, “Do not murder,” “Do not steal” or “Honor your parents” be such a horrible place? Wouldn’t society (regardless of religious affiliation, or non-affiliation) benefit from such educational instruction?

This leads to the chief question, “What is education?” Is education merely the memorization of facts and figures or is education, at its core, the formation of character, of discipline, of honesty and of treating people with kindness and equity?

The Supreme Court decisions from the 1960s not only removed God from the educational process but separated being (who we are) from doing (what we do). As a result, education has become less about the formation of character and more about producing “results.” Yet human beings are comprised of both body and soul, of being and doing. Re-envisioning the education process as a place that teaches virtue and forms character and returning society to a place that affirms rather than derides values stands as the first step to reviving our culture from violence. Keep Faith in America, a growing movement across our country, has begun to take this step toward a virtuous society by communicating that prayer and faith act as the foundation of our country.

Several states are also standing for values. Recently, Arizona’s legislature passed a bill promoting our nation’s motto “In God We Trust” as well as Arizona’s motto, “God Enriches.” The Arizona bill also emphasizes public display of the Constitution and founding documents. Tennessee also passed a similar bill that promotes “In God We Trust” to be displayed in public schools. Alabama followed with a bill that allows “In God We Trust” to be displayed on public buildings. The Alabama legislature also proposed a bill for the public display of the Ten Commandments. Yesterday, the Louisiana governor signed a bill into law requiring public schools to display “In God We Trust.”

These bills and laws are welcome ones, but true, lasting change won’t happen from the top down. The grassroots must lead.

Ideas have consequences, and the morally bankrupt theory of moral relativism has yielded huge problems for our culture and our society. Growing movements among the people and in state legislatures that acknowledge a moral order will help us return to a moral society, a civil society and one in which we can honor one another.

SOURCE






After Collecting $16 Million in Grants From Housing Department in Obama Era, Liberal Group Sues Agency Now

A liberal advocacy group that has received more than $16 million in federal grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development is now suing the agency after HUD Secretary Ben Carson last month scaled back a regulation it supports.

HUD has given the liberal National Fair Housing Alliance $16.1 million in grants since 2009, according to USAspending.gov, which tracks federal grants and contracts. Under the Trump administration, the organization has received just one grant—$300,000 in March.

“NFHA was awarded roughly $16 million in grants from [fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2016],” Jessica Aiwuyor, associate director of communications for the organization, told The Daily Signal in an emailed statement, insisting that none of it is being used to file its legal action. “NFHA has used zero HUD funds to bring this lawsuit. NFHA uses zero federal dollars to conduct lobbying. We do not have a separate arm for advocacy or lobbying.”

She said that 55 percent of Fair Housing Initiatives Program dollars that HUD has given the group “were passed through to other organizations to fight illegal housing discrimination and educate the public about fair housing laws.”

Federal law prohibits using grants from the Fair Housing Initiatives Program for funding lawsuits against the federal government. The program provides federal funding to fair housing groups and other nonprofits that assist people who claim to be victims of housing discrimination.

A senior HUD official said agency grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and political or litigious activities of a group cannot be considered for grants.

The legal clash stems from a HUD announcement in May that it would be doing away with a computer tool that was key to an Obama administration regulation known as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

The Obama-era rule was finalized in July 2015. The centerpiece of the rule was a computerized assessment tool that was touted as making it easier to identify housing discrimination.

The rule would have required local governments to use the tool to determine exactly what type of housing disparities residents face, and report that back to HUD. If the local community didn’t provide a plan to fix the problem with new zoning rules, it stood to lose out on HUD funding.

According to HUD, the Local Government Assessment Tool was “confusing, difficult to use, and frequently produced unacceptable assessments.”

“We believe in furthering fair housing choice in our neighborhoods, but we have to help, not hinder, those who have to put our rules into practice,” Anna Maria Farias, HUD assistant secretary for fair housing and equal opportunity, said in a statement after the announcement. “We must make certain that our tools can facilitate the goals we all share—to build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination.”

Any local government that hasn’t yet submitted an assessment of fair housing is still legally obligated to present a plan to HUD, and the department will be offering technical assistance to local jurisdictions.

In the Federal Register, HUD stated it spent more than $3.5 million assisting local governments in working with the tool.

“HUD is withdrawing the Tool to produce a more effective and less burdensome Assessment Tool,” the notice reads. “These improvements to the Tool will make it more effective in assisting program participants with the creation of meaningful assessments with impactful fair-housing goals to help them plan to fulfill their legal obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.”

The HUD rollback of the rule has been in the works since January.

The National Fair Housing Alliance announced the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., days before the formal HUD announcement. Two other nonprofit advocacy groups, Texas Appleseed and the Texas Low Income Housing Information Service, are also plaintiffs in the litigation. They are asking the court to require HUD to enforce the entire rule.

The complaint claims HUD unlawfully suspended the requirement, effectively removing civil rights oversight of as much as $5.5 billion per year through 2024 or later for almost 1,000 local jurisdictions.

“For [30] years, NFHA has promoted the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirement of the Fair Housing Act. We have advocated to HUD to release an effective AFFH Rule; educated jurisdictions, fair housing groups, and community-based organizations about the AFFH requirements; and implemented programs designed to further fair housing,” said Lisa Rice, of the National Fair Housing Alliance, in a public statement.

“Each day HUD holds up requiring jurisdictions to fully comply with the law is another day that millions of people are being denied fair housing opportunities. HUD’s action is a clear example of ‘justice delayed, justice denied,’” Rice said.

Judicial Watch, a conservative government-watchdog group, in a post called it “an amusing—and unbelievable—story” that HUD is bankrolling an organization that is suing it. Judicial Watch criticized the Obama-era program.

“[Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing] also requires federal and local governments to spend tens of millions of dollars annually gathering statistics on racial and ethnic concentrations in America’s neighborhoods,” the Judicial Watch post says.

The group said the lawsuit was brought by “a group of leftist organizations.”

The National Fair Housing Alliance is engaged in significant public policy advocacy. It tracks the federal budget advocating increased investigations of housing discrimination complaints, and advocates expanding the Fair Housing Act to protect gay, lesbian, and transgender people.

Currently, the 1968 law outlaws discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, familial status, and disability. It does not address sexual orientation and gender identity.

Judicial Watch also noted that liberal billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations gave the organization $475,000 in 2016.

Deidre Swesnik, a program officer with the Equality Fund of the Open Society Foundations’ U.S. programs, confirmed the $475,000 donation.

“There is ample research showing racial discrimination by ZIP code in this country,” Swesnik told The Daily Signal. “Like the majority of Americans, the Open Society Foundations believe people should be able to live where they want without being barred because of their race.

“HUD has important responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act to make sure that its program and those of the cities, counties, and states that it funds advance fair housing. We support the National Fair Housing Alliance work and the work of other organizations to combat housing discrimination wherever it occurs,” she said.

SOURCE






Another fase rape claim

They don't exist, according to feminists

Rape or sexual assault: what do I do now? “MY friends are waiting for me outside, let me go outside.”

Those are the words of teenager Nikki Yovino when describing what allegedly happened inside a bathroom at an off-campus house party.

Yovino, 19, has been jailed for one year after claiming two university football students raped her, allegedly holding her down and taking turns assaulting her.

She pleaded guilty to the charges and accepted a plea deal after previously denying she had made up the claims.

The claims lead to the boys’ suspension from their football team where they also had their scholarships revoked.

The allegations were later cleared when the former student admitted to making up the claims against the two Connecticut university athletes in a bid to gain sympathy from another man — a prospective boyfriend, according to the New York Post.

“She admitted that she made up the allegation of sexual assault because it was the first thing that came to mind and she didn’t want to lose (another male student) as a friend and potential boyfriend,” the affidavit revealed.

“She stated that she believed when (the other male student) heard the allegation it would make him angry and sympathetic to her.”

Yovino was a student at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield when police say she reported being raped by two Sacred Heart football players at an off-campus party in Bridgeport in October 2016.

Authorities say she later admitted that she had consensual sex with the players and told them her motive. She was charged with evidence tampering, a felony, and falsely reporting an incident, a misdemeanour.

The teenager was charged with second-degree falsely reporting an incident and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence on Tuesday.

She was sent to jail after pleading guilty to the charges and will now serve a reduced sentence of one year in prison. She had been facing six but reportedly accepted a plea deal.

Yovino — who had since left the private university — had been defending her rape accusations since February 2017, when she was first charged by Bridgeport Police.

She claimed that the assaults happened inside of a bathroom at an off-campus house party. “I don’t want to be in here, I don’t want to do anything,” Yovino recounted telling the men during police interviews.

She claimed that the bathroom was in the basement, and that the individuals held her down and took turns assaulting her. “My friends are waiting for me outside, let me go outside,” Yovino recalled saying.

Police claimed in the arrest affidavit that Yovino filed rape charges against the two football players in October 2016 — and then recanted her story three months later.

While both men admitted to sleeping with her, they claimed that the sex was completely consensual.

Their lawyer, Frank Riccio II, told the Connecticut Post yesterday that they are now thinking about suing Yovino for all the trouble she put them through. “Her actions have seriously affected them,” he said.

“They’re no longer in school. The loss of their education and the college experience has certainly affected them greatly. And this is all because of a very serious lie.

“While this disposition does not replace that which the boys lost, it does send a powerful message that lying about a serious incident carries serious consequences.”

He told reporters on Monday that Yovino’s actions had “seriously affected” the former athletes.

SOURCE






In what should be a surprise to no one these days, the Mr Men books are now sexist

It is nasty. But not in a good way. It contravenes the value of respect.

So upon contact with Mr Tickle, please find a safe space and immediately dial your nearest Human Rights branch on the emergency line.

Because he is sexist. Can’t you just that sexism oozing? Actually, I can’t either. But someone else can. Madeleine Pownall to be precise.

She goes to the University of Lincoln and has made a living counting the number of words that each of the Mr Men say and comparing them with the syllables uttered by the Little Miss characters.

And that is how we know that the image above is sexist.

Mr Tickle’s likely to have been given eight more words than Little Miss Bossy, which would probably mean that she’s not so bossy after all. But it does mean, apparently, that the bloke who wrote the books hates women.

At this point, I will remind you that the entire anti-discrimination industry is made up of depressing people who don’t like jokes, as I wrote here last week.

Somehow we’ve ‘progressed’ to the point where these sad sacks control pretty much the smallest details of our lives and even who we can boo at the footy.

And now kids, who have been deprived of Biggles and Enid Blyton because someone somewhere is offended, are to be deprived of Mr Nosey because Little Miss Sunshine should not need saving.

The good news is that I am reliably informed that carrying around an image of Mr Tickle will ward off femo-nazis. You never know when they may strike, so keep one on you at all times.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************