There are those who believe that Global Warming (Cooling or Climate Change, etc.) is primarily a man-made disaster. I would have used the word “think,” but when people look over the numbers (the data) over the years, and those numbers contradict what they “know” to be correct, and they still cling stubbornly to their religion of Man-Made Climate Change, then they obviously aren’t thinking, they’re believing.
The leader of the Roman Catholic Church is the head of believers of that church. Generally, that church is held up to ridicule by those secular “enlightened ones” who, without evidence, believe there is no God, but only a universe (or many multiple universes) that have either sprung into existence at some point or have always existed. This is THE heavy subject for anyone who likes heavy subjects. But is there really any solid, scientific proof one way or other on the subject? Doesn’t the belief of the holder determine the outcome of their reality?
Those persons who classify themselves as today’s liberals consider themselves liberals because of their closely held core beliefs, which can be said to be: unrestricted abortion, unlimited sexual license, forced egalitarianism, crony socialism, multiculturalism, and you can throw in the unshakable belief in man-made climate change. Anyone who crosses them on any of these subjects is their enemy, in every sense of the word.
But are we creating or contributing to man-made climate change?
There is still another (and maybe even more) tenet of today’s self-defined liberalism (how I detest how that term has been perverted), and that is that America has a plague of guns available to anyone who wants one, and anyone (including criminals, crazies and even babies) can easily get hold of one. Therefore: guns should be abolished for use by anyone outside of carefully categorized persons or groups, such as law enforcement officers and bodyguards of the well to do.
Some of today’s liberals believe that door to door confiscations would solve the problem. Of course that would create another larger problem in that the highest law in the land, The Constitution, would have to be tossed in the trash. But a lot of today’s liberals don’t have much use for The Constitution anyway.
Is the poor demented fool who killed congregating Christians in their church after welcoming him in a man-made disaster?
Today’s self-defined liberals would say absolutely. What other evidence is needed? This person was steeped in traditional racism and its accompanying hates. Why, it was just a matter of time before this bomb finally exploded. How many others of his ilk are out there plotting a similar incident?
The Left defines the Right as anyone or any traditional institutional belief contrary to their own. Traditional beliefs can be (but certainly not restricted to) those beliefs and opinions opposed to the beliefs and opinions that make up the self-described Left.
Whenever the Left believes there is some connection to guns and traditionally held beliefs they become agitated and demand that society and law conform to their gun control tenet. Traditionally held beliefs can be composed of many items, but the Left devoutly believe that anti-multiculturalism revealed as racism is the cornerstone of traditional beliefs. It is always white racism, by the way, because they believe nonwhites don’t have the power to be true racists, or so they believe or pretend to believe.
The incidents with nonwhite racists are disregarded or sympathized with. The oppressed minority card is always played along with the racism card. But if one objectively reviews the gun violence statistics one would come away with the view that there are two major groups that should never – ever – have access to guns. Those two groups? Criminals and persons living in inner urban areas.
One occasional racist outlying crazy loner becomes another cause célèbre for universal gun control, and also is presented as proof that traditional values are the source of all evil. Habitual criminals living in parts of certain cities of certain sizes? Not so much.
No one is apologizing for anyone who is evil. How can evil be defined? How about this: self justification in purposefully hurting others for real or imagined gain, or just for the thrill of it?
But isn’t there an evil about purposefully trying to connect a tragedy of an evilly crazed person with a political agenda? Realizing this, I must thread carefully in trying to connect our amoral violence ridden entertainment culture with the acting out of evil. I do not want to make the mistake of those on the Left in trying to blame others for the acts of individuals.
A long time ago the kinds of scenes of violence and depravity were never allowed to be seen in an entertainment format by the general public. Why? Because at that time it was well understood by most people that there are vulnerable individuals in any society that will act out what they are exposed to. In fact, it is widely understood by both the Left and the Right that showing people enjoying smoking encourages them to smoke. So, without having to pass laws to prevent smoking shown in large venue entertainment, it basically disappeared.
Gratuitous violence has been the norm since the late 1960’s. Before that, the so-called hero of entertainment drama had an unwritten code of conduct of answering injustice by never shooting first, never risking innocent bystanders to peril, stopping the action when the villain was subdued, and never – ever – taking satisfaction in killing another human being no matter how richly that person deserved it. And, of course, evil persons and/or criminals were never – ever – treated as sympathetic protagonists. They would have to be utterly destroyed in the last reel.
Now, of course, gratuitous killing and the celebration of it is the norm in virtual reality settings. How many computer generated games are there where the games’ goals are accomplished by the entertaining and brutal elimination of “enemies”? How many entertainment scenes in movies have as the laugh line someone getting killed by another someone who either shows no emotion or actually is shown to enjoy the act?
Aren’t we training our children to be unprincipled cold blooded killers? Isn’t this a REAL man-made disaster?
One of our biggest troubles as a society and culture is that our collective sense of what is right and wrong is rooted in secular politics. Without some sort of reasonable agreement that certain things are bad and/or evil and what the underlying causes truly are, we have no sense of direction on what to do to solve them.
One of the unfortunate things that has happened to our educational establishment is that it has become nearly totally politicized. First it was in the arts and humanities, then the social sciences, until now it has firmly permeated the medical and environmental sciences. Will it soon become a political issue if a bridge is designed correctly? Or that 1 plus 1 equals 2? Those would truly be man-made disasters.