“Nature abhors a vacuum”
Aristotle’s quote applies not only to physics but also to social organisation , ethics and morals.
There is no such thing as moral neutrality.
All world views have a system of morality i.e what one ought to do and, in every society, a world view / value system is going to be the basis for law and social organisation.
Secularists seek to give the impression that secularism is the default neutral position for public policy because it is supposed to be based on reason. They also seek to deny that secularism and atheism produce identical effects on public policy.
Secularism and atheism produce identical effects because secularism refers to public policy without reference to God (therefore created by the individual) and atheism denies the existence of God and has no basis for morality which must therefore be created by the individual. – the end result today is an imposition of the world view of the secular elite.
The real objective of secularists therefore is to replace God as the moral law giver.
In the United Nations system the representatives of the people (diplomats) negotiate Treaties on the floor of the United Nations. These Treaties then become the basis for International law.
Over the last twenty years or so the arrogant all – wise secular elite have set about usurping the role of diplomats to be the ones who lay the foundations for international law and have begun to manipulate the Treaties crafted by the deliberations of diplomats to meet their secular worldview agendas . They then seek to impose their interpretations of the Treaties as International law.
Using this strategy secularists have set about creating rights to “fisting, felching, rimming, farming, scat, chariot racing , anal penetration by Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), abortion and other such depravities.
Also known in personal ads and internet profiles as:
- dirty (as in ‘into dirty’)
- on the left (wants to dump on you)
- on the right (wants to be dumped on).
What is scat?
Scat involves playing with shit, smearing it on your or his body, and sometimes eating it. It can also mean just getting off on seeing another guy dump his load.
‘Farming’ is taking shit from public toilets to play with.
What’s the attraction?
Taboos around cleanliness couldn’t be more powerfully broken by shit play: it’s everything we’ve been told not to do since childhood.
Men can be drawn to scat precisely because it provokes such a strong negative reaction in others. Lovers of scat might get a kick from stepping over what for most people is the line between what’s OK and what’s too extreme. Scat is perhaps the ultimate in sex without limits or inhibitions.
Privately we’re often fascinated by our own bowel movements and excrement. Scat lets men explore and share this interest and enjoy a special bond with other lovers of shit.
For scat fans shit can excite all the senses with its warmth, texture, smell, colour and possibly taste. Just like contact with the intimate body fluids of cum, spit or piss, sex involving shit can be a sign of intense closeness as someone is offering something that’s come from deep inside them. And in an intense power play scene, nothing is more symbolic of degradation, humiliation and control than exposure to faeces.
xxxxx E N D S xxxxx
Atheism Has No Morality
Published: Wednesday | March 19, 20147 Comments
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I write in response to ‘On atheism, ethics and euthanasia’ (Sunday Gleaner, March 16, 2014), which itself is in response to ‘Atheism in public policy: A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy’ (Sunday Gleaner, March 9).
In their article, authors Hilaire Sobers and Udo Schüklenk stated that it is possible to produce ethics within atheism/secularism and without the need for a transcend cause. I disagree with the authors because the concept of atheistic morality is an oxymoron.
Let us for the sake of argument say that there is no God, and that evolution, as taught in biology classes, is true; then humans, like all other animals, would have arisen by natural selection of traits which were most suitable for survival within the environment within which our ancestors lived. This selection is without reference to morality and is based purely on utility.
Natural selection has no intellectual or moral component. It merely selects traits that are best suited for survival by deadly competition in nature. From an evolutionary point of view, all considerations of right and wrong, moral and ethical are simply illusions – subjective judgements imposed on a completely amoral process of natural selection by humans.
Since humans are the product of, and subject to, the identical forces as other animals, how could a lion killing another lion to take over its pride be amoral, and one human killing another immoral or one nation enslaving another be immoral? Logically, from an evolutionary point of view, none of these actions can be either moral or immoral. They simply are.
The essence of natural selection and evolution is that all offspring are not identical. Natural selection acts on this diversity. All traits, including that of murderers or arsonists, are equally valid for selection, if necessary, for survival. They are neither right nor wrong, moral nor immoral.
Since evolution does not, and cannot, address concepts of morality and immorality, and these concepts are man-made illusions framed within particular world views, the illusions can potentially embrace all actions and are only applicable to local geographies (however defined), specific times and within the competence of the individual, or specific societies.
It would seem then that attempts by atheists such as Messrs Sobers and Schüklenk to impose their illusions of ethics on others is merely a grand conspiracy to make themselves the international moral compass, that is, to sit where God correctly belongs.