Wednesday, December 10, 2008

The Secular Progressive Ten Commandments

The following is a list of Bill O'reilly's secular progressive ten commandments. Despite what you may think of O'reilly himself, is this an accurate summary of the far left agenda?
What do you think?

  • Thou Shalt Not Make Any Judgment Regarding Most Private Personal Behavior. Man/Woman Is the Master/Mistress of the Universe and His/Her Gratification Is Paramount.

  • Thou Shalt Not Worship or Acknowledge God in the Public Square, for Such an Exposition Could Be Offensive to Humankind.

  • Thou Shalt Take from the Rich and Give to the Poor. No Private Property Is Sacrosanct.

  • Thou Shalt Circumvent Mother and Father in Personal Issues Such as Abortion and Sex Education in Public Schools.

  • Thou Shalt Kill if Necessary to Promote Individual Rights in Cases of Abortion and Euthanasia.

  • Thou Shalt Be Allowed to Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor if That Person Stands Against Secular Humanism.

  • Thou Shalt Not Wage Preemptive War in Any Circumstance.

  • Thou Shalt Not Impede the Free Movement of Any Human Being on Earth. All Countries Should Be Welcoming Places Without Borders.

  • Thou Shalt Not Prohibit Narcotics or Impede Personal Gratification in This Area.

  • Thou Shalt Not Limit the Power of Government in Order to Provide "Prosperity" to All.
Since "Open Topic Tuesday" didn't spark a whole lot of discussion, maybe this will.


  1. Bob,

    I think O'Reilly makes some good points, yes. Although as far as narcotics are concerned, I personally think there is room for legalization and regulation.

  2. Drug legalization is an interesting topic that hasn't been addressed on this blog yet. the interesting thing about most popular drugs today is that they were once legal in America. Due to the problems that they caused during the 60's and 70's, they were made illegal. Should the government regulate against harmful substances to protect people from themselves? Are we losing the war on drugs and if so, should we just give up? today it seems that cigarettes carry more social stigma than drugs. If we legalized drug use under certain circumstances, would narcotics become the new tobacco? just some thoughts.

  3. Oh come on! I said "legalization of narcotics" for crying out loud. Somebody have the decency to respond to that red meat!

  4. Sorry Bob, you responded while I was commenting.

  5. Sorry. I could come down with righteous indignation if you like. I'm purposely trying to be less opinionated today.

  6. I think Anon was being sarcastic because he posted a controversial topic and nobody responded for almost an hour.

    Anyway, I feel that narcotic use falls into the area where shame is more useful than legislation.

    I don't think there is anyone who believes there is no potential for harm in the use and/or abuse of narcotics. In the case of some drugs, that potential is higher than others. There are also societal detriments - especially when that use is coupled with driving or causes individuals to neglect or abuse their children or spouses.

    However, the "War on Drugs" is an expensive proposition that has made little (if any) progress in curbing this behavior. These are roughly the same circumstances that led to the repeal of prohibition.

    Cigarette smoking on the other hand, is on the decline - mostly because of PSA's and all sorts of public indignation heaped on smokers.

    Shame is a powerful tool in society. While I believe laws against driving under the influence (of alcohol or other substances) are valid, more lives would be saved if the public actually scorned drunkenness. Instead, people boast about how wasted they got at last night's party.

    Personally, I would not have an issue with leaglized narcotics - but we'd also need to refrain from cleaning up after the mess individuals make of their lives.

    In other words, just as you should be free to do what you will, I should be free to condemn your behavior if you show up in public hammered or stoned out of your mind.

  7. Of course permitting shame would violate the first commandment (to bring my comment back to the original topic).

  8. I think narcotics should be illegal because the Bible says it's a sin and they undermine the family. If they are legalized, our school children will be presented with a favorable view of the narcotic lifestyle -- like that book, _My Mommy's Opium Den_.

    I heard California will have "Prop 9" on their next ballot to amend the California constitution to ban narcotics use and to keep activist judges from making crazy rulings. . .

  9. I'm scratching my head & wondering if NTOA is being sarcastic or if this is someone pretending to be NTOA...

  10. John, it's I. I have yet to have someone impersonate me here. (I was being sarcastic in my previous post.)

    I'm shocked that you approve of legalizing narcotics, yet disapprove of legalizing gay marriage.

    One has a list of harmful effects as long as a tracked arm. The other one is anti-promiscuity and promotes healthier relationships...

  11. A couple of differences (off the top of my head)

    1) Legalization of narcotic use is not the same as state sanctioning of such behavior - IOW, legalizing narcotics does not say "narcotic use is good" any more than legalized tobacco use sanctions smoking.
    2) Legalization of gay marriage forces all private citizens to acknowledge behavior they do not necessarily approve of. Legalization of narcotics would not.
    3) Bans on Gay marriage place prohibitions on the state. They do not prohibit individuals from any particular behavior.

  12. I think we should keep in mind that when you legislate against drugs, you're legislating against the activity itself. It's not illegal to practice homosexuality in America, so legislating against gay marriage isn't exactly the same as legislating against drug activity. Gay marriage goes a step further than legalization and normalizes homosexual relationships with a tradition that most Americans still view as more sacred than secular. (At least that's why I think most Americans still disapprove of gay marriage.) Equating gay marriage to drug promotion, not just legalization, would be more accurate.

  13. I posted that comment while John was posting his... I guess, Which is why I basically just repeated what he said.

  14. I liked "My Mommy's Opium Den"... it made chortle to myself (no sarcasm)

  15. Most Americans don’t consider marriage as sacred; the majority of American marriages end in divorce.

    Legalizing gay marriage is promoting the freedom of religion. It also allows a group of people to have a healthy expression of their sexuality. Without that people run into problems, which is then turned around to be used against them as to reasons why gay is bad. Whatever.

    I'm not sure if homosexuality is one of O'Reilly's "flower points" above. BTW, I am jealous of the flowers. . .

  16. Then why do most Americans get married in churches, with pastors? most Americans don't intend to get divorced when they say their vows.

    BTW, I had bullet points initially, but for some reason they turned into hippie-esque flowers when I posted my blog. How embarrassing (j/k)

  17. I've often heard that legalizing weed would have the same positive effects that ending Prohibition had: greater restrictions on quality (meaning keeping out dangerous additives like PCP), and significant cutting out of powerful organized crime. How is some old hippie growing a few plants in his backyard the government's business anyway? How does that endanger society more than someone drinking?

  18. RE: the flowers

    I haven't been able to figure this out - If you try to make bullet points, regardless of what kind, they show up as flowers...

  19. I've given up on using the bullets or outline buttons & just manually enter the numbers if I wish to make a list.

  20. Anon - I've heard many of the same arguments. Whether or not legalizing weed (or other drugs) would enhance the quality is beside the point.

    The main thing I would recommend regarding narcotics legalization would be to tie it with limitations on welfare and such. State funds shouldn't be available to support crack habits.

    I think most people's arguments against "hippies growing weed" is that it is a "gateway drug". However, they would still be able to make that argument if it were legal.

    When it comes to drug use, I am much more in favor of shame than laws when it comes to narcotics. I should be free (in the eyes of the law) to put what I want in my body, however, I should not expect my "self-esteem" to be protected if I whip out my crack pipe in public or show up stoned at work.

  21. So, marriage is sacred when people get married, but secular when they get divorced and have to split up the property.

  22. NTOA - Let me first stipulate that from a sacred perspective, divorce is not a valid option - even though Moses permitted it due to the "hardness of [their] hearts", but Jesus stated that "from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19:8)

    From a secular perspective as far as the distribution of assets during divorce, the case is certainly there that a private contract is in place. People enter into private contracts of all sorts all of the time.

    If one party is found in breach of contract, the courts get involved - whether or not the state had any hand in creating the contract or not.

  23. My counterpoints to the 10 flower points above:

    1) You can have whatever opinion you like. You can even tell me that opinion. Just don’t try and stop/change my behavior based on that opinion unless my behavior is injurious.

    2) You can worship anything you want to wherever you want (within reason), just don’t use government funds to do it. If you let one do it, you will have to let them all do it. Then, we would end up with a state capitol rotunda filled with a bunch of controversial stuff. Oh wait. . .

    3) Take care of the needy and hopefully the term needy is well defined. . .(2 cents -- I hate the word sacrosanct -- how about untouchable)

    4) Almost never circumvent parental authority; it is untouchable. . .

    5) Only kill to defend one’s life.

    6) I don’t understand where Billy-O is coming from on this one, but see #1.

    7) You can wage preemptive war -- especially when there is ***actually*** something to preempt.

    8) Countries are sovereign nations and can control their borders as they see fit. As far as the US is concerned we need to screen people for our safety and strive to keep aliens off the dole.

    9) See #1.

    10) Government should be as small as possible.