An excellent letter , the new secular gods and “rights” to depravity.

 

“Nature abhors a vacuum”

…..  Aristole…

 

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. 

 

http://www.hardcell.org.uk/en/playroom/scat/

SCAT

Scat / Things to know

Also known in personal ads and internet profiles as:

  • brown
  • dirty (as in ‘into dirty’)
  • scatology.

Hanky code

Brown worn:

  • 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.

MAN-MADE ILLUSIONS

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.

KAY BAILEY

jchsadvocate@gmail.com

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s