Skip to comments.On Social Justice, "Right To Die,' and 'Quality Of Life"
Posted on 03/28/2005 2:35:32 AM PST by Lindykim
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." ~~~Declaration Of Independence
The preceding statement points to the Creator as the author of our Natural rights. This is the very same Creator who likewise authored the Ten Commandments (Natural Law), which place moral constraints upon our behavior in the exercising of our rights and which also serves as the moral basis to our Rule of Law.
The way it works is like this: Freedom of speech is coupled to an obligation to be respectful to others. Freedom of the press is paired with a moral duty to not bear false witness. "Thou shalt not kill..." speaks to the sanctity of human life, life created by God and therefore not for man to deprive his fellow man of. The second and tenth Commandments state, with respect to the judiciary: "Thou shalt not worship yourselves in any way," and "Thou shalt not covet power that belongs to the other legislative branches and to the people."
Certain members of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of US), along with other renegade judges and communistic ideologues, all with neither loyalty to nor belief in our traditional values and system of government, are breaking those moral laws as well as others in their pursuit of internationalism and social justice.
Social justice boils down to this dangerously insane utopianistic notion: "That 'somebody' should have the power to make life fair for everyone else". This means that 'somebody' should have the power to determine what each and every individual can have or not have, which now includes whether you can still be designated as either a male or a female. It also means that 'somebody' should have the power to determine if an individual's 'quality of life' is such that he should go on living......or if he should just die.
The end state, or desired goal of social justice is communism. According to social justice crackpots, the state of communism cannot be attained until all 'social tensions' (differences) have been eliminated, hence the need for 'somebody' to have complete control over everyone else. To put this into context, think of how social justice activists are currently trying to 'eliminate differences' between same-sex people and heterosexuals. They're doing this by stripping documents of all references to 'mother/father," "husband/wife," grandfather/grandmother" and replacing those with gender neutral terms. They're agitating for gender-free public restrooms, conditioning children to experiment with homosexuality, waging war against traditional marriage, and even boldly proclaiming that any mention of heterosexuality is 'heteronormalism." The goal of this madness is to force heterosexuals to no longer exist as such through the 'elimination of differences" (causes of social tensions). Only then will they consider that social justice on behalf of homosexuals has been achieved,
It is social justice seekers who are trivializing our Constitution out of existence through the deceptive practice of 'discovering' hitherto unknown 'new' (bogus) rights which they call civil rights and/or human rights. Think about this Americans: Just as there is no such thing as the "separation of church and state' clause, neither is there a Constitutional category of rights called 'civil rights or human rights." These things are counterfeits.
But consider how they've been destroying our Constitutionally guaranteed rights and debasing our culture at the same time by bestowing these fraudulent rights on for example, pornographers (the right to produce and market vile degradation?); on abortion mills (the right to kill the unborn?); on illegals ( the right to possess drivers licenses, collect welfare and free medical care?); on people who engage in same-sex (the right to teach our children this and to conduct lewdly sexualized parades?); on telemarketers so they can invade our homes?; how about the 'right' not to be offended by whatever might be construed as offensive at any given moment so long as it's something anchored to our traditional culture, such as Ten Commandments monuments or the Boy Scouts because they refuse to submit to the tyranny of political correctness? Or how about the latest social justice issue being discussed by animal rights activists? They want animals to have, among other things, the "Constitutional" right to own land. Next thing you know, we'll hear that social justice activists are demanding that dung beetles be awarded the Constitutional right that their 'piles' never be disturbed.
The 'right to die," which falls under the banner of "quality of life" is yet another social justice scheme. After all, how 'fair' is it that an adulterous husband have his 'quality of life' be adversely affected by the burden of maintaining the life of his disabled wife? That's just terribly unfair. As usual, in all social justice issues, the underlying theme is "me, myself, and I."
"Quality of life" is a purposely misleading term that serves as a facade behind which lurks a multi-tentacled social theory that doesn't just concern itself with human health. It's more like an umbrella under which are social issues that concern themselves with human impact upon environment, economy, population demographics (population control, primarily), and global citizenship. All of these issues call for "elimination' of defective, surplus, and ideologically unwanted human beings.
(quote) "There are essentially two perspectives taken in quality of life research: social indicators research which considers the elites valuation of what people need, and conventional QOL........which studies what people want." (end quote) ~~~QOL, Ramkrishna Mukherjee, Sage Publications, 1989
(quote)"The purpose of the QOL index is to provide a tool........which can be used to monitor key indicators that encompass social, health, environmental, and economic dimensions......" (end quote) ~~~Ontario Social Development Council, 1997
When, for instance, Hitler gained power he persuaded Germans to accept the 'right to die" notion. Having accomplished that, the "quality of life" concept was then introduced. From there it became a matter of eliminating the 'useless eaters' and 'parasites." On behalf of the 'quality of life' social theory, Hitler relieved the German State of the unfair burden of having to care for and/or abide with 250,000 human 'parasites:' retarded, institutionalized elderly who lacked family or funds, disabled, psychiatric patients, deaf, blind. welfare recipients, convicts, street people, the very poor, ideologically unwanted, religious 'extremists," and anyone deemed disloyal. All of those people were 'humanely' killed by starvation and/or gassing, followed by cremation. Just as is being done to Terri Schiavo, who is scheduled to be cremated as well. Megalomaniac Stalin, not to be outdone by the likes of Hitler, also 'eliminated' social tensions in his quest for social justice. His extermination program 'eliminated' even more millions of humans than did Hitler's "humane holocaust".
I wonder if in the beginning stages of Hitler's humane holocaust if whether Germans had debated the merits of their 'new right,' the 'right to die' as Americans are doing? I wonder if among their news and political pundits there were those who sanctimoniously called the 'sanctity of life' faction, "religious extremists and nuts?"
Our traditional Christian-Judao worldview led to the creation of a system of government that guaranteed individual rights, equality of opportunity, a guarantee of personal property, and an inalienable right to life for every American. It also led to a common identity, and a system of moral and ethical beliefs upon which our Rule of Law is anchored and which also serves as the basis for our common culture. It gave us a 'culture of life," where families and their children flourished and human beings would never be mercifully 'starved to death.
More than a century ago, James Russell Lowell, Minister of State for the US to England was attending a banquet at which atheist/human secular 'social justice' scoffers were heaping scorn on Christianity. Lowell said to them: (quote)"I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the Gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they can find such a place, then I encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief." (end quote)
America is not in the ever-deepening cultural crisis she is currently in because of Christian-Judao morals and principles. She's in crisis because of a deplorable Lack of them. Social justice is a genocide-inducing nightmare conceived of in evil madness and carried out in the same.
Americans..........it's imperative that we wake up before America, as we have known her, ceases to exist. We Must steer a course back towards the path America was meant to be traversing; the one our Founders had blazed for America. Social justice seekers are driving America onto the rocks and towards horrors heretofore unimagined.
"......evil is nothing but a privation of good, which can continue to the point where a thing ceases to exist altogether" ~~~~Augustine
The hour grows late. Let us not wait till America has been drained of all her goodness.
note: James Russell Lowell quote taken from "What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?" by D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe
Copyright 2005 The Sierra Times Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2003 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted) SierraTimes.com A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc. http://www.sierratimes.com/05/03/27/209_240_205_63_96147.htm
The US Supreme Court ripped up the Declaration of Independence in the '70s.
Greer has now burnt it.
Great tagline. I hope more and more Americans will become inspired to do just that.
The chilling comparison to Hitler's raving lunacy is accurate and telling. He spent much of his "political capitol" convincing Germans that the humane course of action was to eliminate the suffering of anyone living an unproductive life. However, once power was his, convincing the populace was no longer necessary.
Maybe it's just my hypersensitivity, but have you noticed how much of the meanstream media (yeah, I did intend to type meanstream.) argument is about the 'right to die'? Absent any legal documentation of Terri Schiavo's preference, the 'right to die' notion isn't worth pursuit. Its simply Michael's word that's been given legal standing without appellate review.
Therein lies the chilling comparison. The leader of this current debate is one Micheal Schiavo. If he is victorious in his quest to eliminate Terri, what would stop him from seeking an equivalent demise for others?
The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war against Great Britain. What do the courts have to do with it?
Please don't post photos like this to me. I don't agree with the message.
"Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny." -- Patrick Henry
"The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric." -- Thomas Jefferson
"What those guys said" --SeaBiscuit
Excellent--and Par for the Course at Sierra Times. I am troubled that the bush brothers have chosen to bow before
the oligarchy of despots and claim they did all they could.
The three part system of "co-extensive powers" granted
independent departments to provide necessary checks and
balances to guard against despotic rule seems irretrievably broken. Senator Lieberman on Meet the Press
agreed with the Declaration -and Right to Life. That Terri
has willed to live these eleven days despite the cruel efforts of her infidel and adulterous husband in name only
to Kill her -proves the LIE that said Terri did not want
to live. Holland pretends to insure a written right to die
but reports are that thousands have been killed -like Terri -in Holland. I do Not want that in America.
snip...but have you noticed how much of the meanstream media (yeah, I did intend to type meanstream.) argument is about the 'right to die'?
Absolutely. But then the necrotic virus aka as communism began spreading it's mind destroying poison to the schools of journalism long enough ago to have produced the mind-conditioned robots who daily tell us what to think and how to feel about what we've been told to think.
snip...I am troubled that the bush brothers have chosen to bow before the oligarchy of despots and claim they did all they could.
Yes, it's troubling. But it's occured to me that what might be the underlying cause of their seeming timidity is that Americans in general have become so ignorant of how their system of gov't is supposed to work that they wouldn't support Bush if he exercised his proper and legal authority. That would be due to their inability to recognise it as such. America's ignorance is becoming the downfall of our nation. We desperately need to educate and inform Americans.
If the Declaration's sole purpose was to serve as a declaration of war against Britain, then it would've made sense for the Founders, who were unusually intelligent men, to have disposed of it rather than attaching it to the Constitution as though it has some reason & purpose. The truth is that the Declaration is the preamble and the Constitution is the extrapolation upon it.
Your argument re the Declaration is one most favored by atheist humanists.
Most assuredly agree! Too many Americans are as I was until
that "unusually good Liar" Clinton changed policy for the
Military -and followed through with serious and probably
warranted concern that the "unorganized militia" might be his undoing. Prior to that I had only the crap I learned
in high school and what I had pieced together after --Am
forever thankful to God that Thomas Sowell published a reading list for those interested in learning about our
Constitutional Govt. I would insist that Joseph Story's
Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States
(From the 1859 original) And the Federalist-and anti-Federalist Papers be required reaidng in every grade from
9-12.For highschool I would add Mark Levin's Men in Black
Plus such classics as Bastiat's little book "the Law" and
Machiavelli's "the Prince",and Hayek's "The Road to serfdom"
the Declaration of Independence is listed in the US Code as
one of our fundamental legal documents. AMong others listed
are the Mayflower Compact, and the US Constitution. When I
was subject to the public education system they still taught that our Declaration of Idependence presented the
moral principles that our US Constitution provided a means
to secure. So your vain assumption that the Declaration was
a mere declaration of war against Britain is uneducated.
The Declaration of Independence speaks of the Right to Life, Liberty, etc
The Supreme Court shredded those rights with Roe V. Wade. Greer has now finished the job.
Yes, it does. But, this Declaration of War has no standing in the law---- principle, yes...law, no.
These principles have been codified into law through the establishment of the US Constitution, most pointedly, the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is either upheld or diminished by every law passed in its wake.
BTW, another founding principle of this representative republic is the responsibility of every citizen to monitor what laws are passed, and to be an agent of change if individual rights are diminished.
Without the founding principles and overarching moral authority to whom all men are to be obesiant, to whit: human life is sacred, so said the Creator, therefore 'thou shalt not kill,' the law becomes nothing more than the plaything of tyrants.
The Bill of Rights is either upheld or diminished by every law passed in its wake.
BTW, another founding principle of this representative republic is the responsibility of every citizen to monitor what laws are passed, and to be an agent of change if individual rights are diminished
In order for citizens to be able to gauge whether their laws are being diminished or upheld, there must be absolutely,unchanging Standards by which they can measure the degree to which their laws are being upheld or diminished. Natural Laws (Ten Commandments) are both the source for laws and the standards by which laws are measured. Without them, laws will become nothing but some man's personal opinion.
I agree with you that the Bush brothers were essentially bowing to the courts because they lacked public support to do otherwise. But I don't think it's something as innocent as public ignorance.
We may not like it, but the public has been so brainwashed that the majority is pro-death, and in fact, violently pro-death. I live in Florida, and I have heard nothing but vilification of Bush for even having tried to save Terri. According to people here, he's a "pro-life tyrant" trying to prevent Terri from "a peaceful death" because of his insane Christian ideology.
We Freepers always speak as if the will of the majority is being repressed in this case, but sadly, I think we are so far gone in this country that the will of the majority is actually being done.
I thought for the first several years of Clinton's presidency that his idiotic fascist policies might start a civil war, right up until he became a parody president, at which point he was pretty much harmless, although still despicable.
This is an error. The Ten Commandments are covenant law, not natural law. They are a part of revealed religion, not natural religion. That is, we know them because God revealed them to Israel and they are recorded in scripture. They are not something natural man can just figure out on his own by looking at his universe.
They apply in this age to those who belong to the covenant. They are addressed to the people of the Exodus: "I am the LORD (YHWH) your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."
There are, to be sure, universal principles embodied in the Ten Commandments ... but to describe them as natural law is just plain wrong.
snip.....According to people here, he's a "pro-life tyrant" trying to prevent Terri from "a peaceful death" because of his insane Christian ideology.
This is not just sad, it's tragic stupidity. The death knell is ringing today for people like Terri. Tomorrow though, it'll ring for those who applauded her 'right to die." 'Right to die" believers are today's version of Lenin's 'useful idiots."
you said..There are, to be sure, universal principles embodied in the Ten Commandments ... but to describe them as natural law is just plain wrong.
You err. The Ten Commandments are the more perfect version of the ancient pagans "Natural Law" in that it encapsulates all of the very many versions of ancient Natural Law into 12 commands which are themselves condensed into the 1st and the 2nd.
1. Duties to parents, elders:
"Your father is an image of the Lord of Creation, your mother an image of Earth. For him who fails to honor them, every work of piety is in vain. This is the first duty." (Hindu, Janet, i.9)
"Has he despised Father and Mother?" (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v 446)
"Honor thy Father and thy Mother."
(Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:12)
2. Law of Justice
(a) sexual justice
"Has he approached his neighbor's wife?" (Babylonian. List of Sins, ERE v 446)
"I saw in Nastrond (=Hell)....beguilers of other's wives." (Old Nore. Volospa 38, 39)
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:14)
"Has he drawn false boundaries?" (Babylonian. List of Sins ERE v 446)
"I have not stolen" (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v 478)
"Thou shalt not steal." (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:15)
Take note of the following:
1.The great similarities between ancient pagan Natural Law and Judao-Christian Law.
2.Natural Law was knowable to ancient pagans by virtue of observation, reason, and logic
3.Ancient pagans understood and accepted that not only did mankind possess a soul which would depart from man upon death but that it would enter into a spiritual realm (refer back to Nastrond=Hell=spiritual dimension=sin deserving of punishment=reality of soul).
4.Logic says that Natural Law, which existed all over the world in every ancient civilization (Aztecs, Incas, Maori,Chinese, etc) despite the fact that most of the ancient civilizations existed in complete isolation one to the other, has one but source: one Author.
Why did the ancients, who knew of the existence of Natural Law not follow the teachings of it but instead practice human sacrifice, population control (abortion, eugenics, euthanasia), slavery, sexual promiscuity, etc? Because although they knew that logic spoke to the existence of a First Principle (Author), they chose to worship the creation rather than the Creator. By virtue of their choice, "creation" becomes that which mankind must be subordinate to. Subordination to nature by man, means that human life must be sacrificed for the betterment of the creation (think here of onerous environmental regulations; peoples lives destroyed in favor of spotted owls; PETA, etc)
One final point: Darwinian evolutionists (human seculars, cultural Marxists, socialists, etc) believe that man's creator is "matter" (creation). This explains why America has regressed to the practices engaged in by ancient pagans.