The secularization of America has been underway since about 1930, when the Frankfurt School came to America (see:  www.extremeethics.org/?p=216).  The current administration is clearly progressive and secular, although the country as a whole is not and never has been.

The Founders, not all Christian but religious to a man, agreed in principle that the law of God precedes and overrules the laws of man.  This is clearly written into the Declaration, to wit: “(the) people…to assume among the Powers of the Earth the separate and equal Station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” and “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” and alluded to in the Constitution: “the Blessings of Liberty…”.  Moreover, the Constitution prohibits laws that would establish a national religion, thereby negating any effort for a particular religion to use political power to the subjugation of others; and prohibits laws that would limit free exercise of religion. Their intent appears innumerable times in documents and letters leading up to and following the Constitution.  In fact, they embraced a Christian God, and promulgated use of the Christian Bible when swearing-in the various officers of State (www.extremeethics.org/?p=886) .  These facts are indisputable.  Others follow:

Secular progressives would limit the influence of religion by denying the Christian God written into the Law of the Land and, if that doesn’t work, to remove all evidence of that God and religiosity from public places, even limiting the influence of religion (read: Christianity) in government by changing the Constitution.  They would limit the free exercise and influence of religion in public debate and public life generally, and would have the establishment disenfranchise religiously-motivated voters to achieve their ends.

Their agenda includes moving to pass laws based on ‘public reason’ (rather than on the individual rights guaranteed by the purportedly out-of-date Constitution),  place the economy  under full control of government, and generally limit religious influence over public life.

How can less than 25-percent of those who claim no religious affiliation (20-percent), or only about five percent of the nation’s voters, exert so much political clout?  Because they include a preponderance of wealthy and socially-dominant elites including academics, the press, and Hollywood luminaries who have a strong ideological agenda embracing a so-called ‘fairness principle’ and the fallacy of political correctness.

On the other hand, thirty percent of the nation claims to attend church weekly.  Of the remaining fifty percent–the uncommitted population—we  can safely assume that a large number—probably most–are those with no particular political agenda, that ‘silent majority’ who just want to be left to themselves to “cling to their guns and religion”.  These people are seen by progressives as troublesome folks bent on limiting progressives’ ‘social  progress’ by opposing diversity, gay marriage,  abortion and euthanasia while favoring ‘discrimination’ (which, along with outright racism, in fact is practiced by progressives themselves in favoring certain select voting minorities).

How is it that a small minority of boors can savage our Constitution in the name of ‘public reason’ and seek redress from government in the name of ‘fairness’ (neither concept appearing in our founding documents)?  Why do we permit five percent of the population to dictate to at least sixty percent of our largely law-abiding (and quietly religious) citizenry?

How indeed… passivity.  After all, Christianity advises us to ‘turn the other cheek.’

All we have to do is nothing–let others do it.  That’s not the American way, and unless we get back to basics (the American way, the Constitution and spirituality), we’re going to lose 200-years of progress along with our hard-earned freedoms and world-leading status.

The Progressive Ethic is anti-religion (particularly anti-Christian) and, make no mistake, would remove religion from the public sector.  It is also seriously anti-Constitution, particularly anti-individual.  That would seem to make ‘progressives’ anti-American, considering our hallowed roots.

The founders warned against faction; this is clear in their writings of the time.  We now have a faction that has assumed virtual control over our government while trashing the very bases of that government.  Political correctness, abortion rights and changing the whole meaning of marriage and other secular (anti-religious) pursuits are evidence of their influence, and no wonder—political correctness has its roots in the communism of the early 20^th Century (proof at www.extremeethics.org/?p=216).   Liberty is being sacrificed in the name of what a small but strident minority consider the common good, with their socialistic government defining what is good.

The fact is that spiritual faith has been the most powerful and enduring force in the course of human events;  faith is characteristically individual and faith tends to foster ethics.  Spiritualty, individualism and ethics are  anathema to the Progressive Ethic. http://www.extremeethics.org/insight

Faith doesn’t require church-going, or even an organized religion.  It just requires that you believe what you already know (knowledge requires truth) and TRUST IN IT.   If you have doubts, read To Tell The Truth… (see sidebar) and act on it.  Make the world a better place.  YOU can make a difference—trust yourself.

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects religion from government but not the reverse, and in no way demeans religion or its effects.

Freedom of religion is ensured by the First Amendment, as are other freedoms as well. But in cases where a religion conflicts with our Constitution or its protections, the Law must prevail. This is the case with Islam, which along with its (Muslim) religion includes an ideology (embracing Sharia Law) that does not recognize the freedoms ensured by the Constitution but is instead in opposition to them. The Qu’ran is in direct conflict with our inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and human rights generally. It  does not tolerate any religion other than Islam (further evidence of our Judeo-Christian roots—Islam was not in any way a factor in our founding and is not supported by our laws—killing infidels is not part of our heritage). Even a cursory reading of the Qu’ran will support this statement.

The current world situation (Islamic terrorism) is testing our nation and its resolve. The concept of Political Correctness has manufactured an artificial tolerance of Islam in the name of religion rather than upholding the law of the land.  But this is unconstitutional as well as unethical.

Political Correctness is false and therefore unethical; we need not tolerate terrorism in the name of ‘fairness.’  (Feel free to find any reference to ‘fair’ or ‘fairness’ in either of our founding documents.) Our Constitution is clear if we will take the time to read and understand it and its supporting documents, and our Constitution is the law of the land. It has helped to make us the envy of world cultures. There is no need to lower the bar to mollify those who do not realize its benefits.

Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment should that be deemed necessary. There are currently 27 amendments, duly processed and permanent parts of the current document.  You are encouraged to read the entire document. It’s short and understandable—not at all like our Tax Code. And don’t forget the Declaration—it’s even shorter but equally instructive. Even more information is available in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers as well as other documents of the time. The intentions of the Founders are quite clear, should we care to investigate them.

Freedoms of speech or peaceful assembly are not limited.  This would seem to mean that anything may be voiced, including profanity or ‘hate speech.’  Not said is not meant.

“Hate speech’ is a function of political correctness, which has no constitutional support whatsoever.  Feelings are not considered by either the Declaration or Constitution.  Common courtesy and decorum were assumed by the Founders and would seem to limit what may be voiced, but the Constitution does not.  There exists a built-in concession to ethics and morality but there’s no code of ethics written into it.   http://www.extremeethics.org/home/code-of-ethics This would normally not constitute a major problem in a world of an objective press, which would itself compensate for flagrant bad-mouthing.  However, this is not the case in our society currently.

Somewhere along the societal line it has become common for those offended and/or insulted to seek redress from government.  This phenomenon tends to be one-sided; it’s OK for one to trash others but not to be insulted.  It is also not supported by the Constitution.

This is one reason for the current Progressive drive to change the Constitution in the name of modernity.  Feelings have become more important than objectivity.

But the Constitution is nothing if not objective.  It assumes that individuals will handle these problems themselves, without the intervention of government.  This is as it should be—not said is not meant.

Fairness is not a stated function of our Constitutional law, which may not and does not favor one special interest over another.  Such issues are left to propriety, individual action and the courts, which may not make law.   This is as it should be.  Deal with it, but mind the words of Blaise Pascal: “The first rule of morality (ethics) is to think clearly.”  Thinking clearly requires an accurate understanding of the language. Read the Constitution. You may disagree with what I say here, but make certain that we’re talking about the same thing should you challenge my statements. http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=565

Questions? Comments? Concerns?  Feel free!

What follows may be offensive to some, but that, precisely, is the foundation of political correctness.

PC is an inherently unethical form of censorship originating in Germany (1923) at the Institute for Social Research (The Frankfurt School), a group of Marxist Jews, in response to a perceived need to spread communism.  The foregoing description is accurate but probably not politically correct.

Whereas in communism all valid ideas are purported to come from The State, Western thought is founded in the individual.  The Frankfurt School worked to bring about the self-destruction of Western Civilization by manipulating its speech and thought patterns through instilling feelings of guilt and spreading the idea that certain of its beliefs are disrespectful of others and therefore not to be tolerated…

…and call it something positive, as in “Political Correctness” or PC, for short. (more…)

Racist!  An epithet guaranteed to raise hackles on both sides of the accusation.  Its hallowed definition has come to mean ‘whites’ demeaning ‘blacks’ or other groups, a definition worthy of political correctness..

It is common knowledge that 90% of ‘blacks’ voted for Barack Obama in the last presidential election.  That bell-curve is skewed ‘way beyond any reasonable statistical degree of probability known to mankind.  Is it possible that blacks voted for Obama simply because he is black?  Of course it is, and that is clearly the case.  This is a classic example of racism, but is it called such?  Of course not.  That would be politically incorrect.

The infamous OJ Simpson trial is another case in point.  Simpson was clearly guilty of murder—he admitted it—but was found innocent.  The verdict was racially motivated, another case of racism.  But it is not politically correct to label it as such.  To do so would be ‘racist.’ (more…)