Confusing Intent and Tactics »« The Worldnutdaily and ‘Hostility to Religion’

Rabbi Spero’s Profoundly Non-Historical Claims

The Worldnutdaily publishes a column by Rabbi Aryeh Spero that claims that liberals have redefined conservative terms and it’s time for the right to “reclaim our conservative moral language.” But he stands history completely on its head in making his argument.

As an idealistic and religious people, Americans have shaped societal issues within the framework of moral narratives, be it abolition, civil rights, or matters of war and peace. The candidate running for president who could best articulate a vision that reflected the prevailing moral nomenclature already embedded in society’s consciousness most often won. He did so because what he expressed touched something already deep within the electorate…

We have allowed the political left to hijack and corrupt the moral language, terms such as compassion, fairness, tolerance, love, social justice, greed, peace. Let 2013 be the start of an era in which we take the language back and infuse it with its original religious and classic meaning. That is my goal in “Push Back: Reclaiming our American Judeo-Christian Spirit.” We need once again to own our historic moral vocabulary. The rekindling of our conservative moral language will not only ameliorate individual character but is also good politics.

How amusing. He actually mentions civil rights and abolition as places where the “left” has “corrupted” our “moral language.” But as anyone who has studied history knows, the “moral language” of Christian conservatives were, in all of those battles, against civil and human rights. Christian conservatives always opposed those advances in liberty and equality and they made their arguments in explicitly moral and religious terms. In each case, from abolition of slavery to giving women the right to vote to ending segregation and the Jim Crow laws, they claimed that God himself was against those attempts to grant freedom and equality to those denied those things for so long.

The genuinely moral case was always in favor of progress, of course. The only thing the right had to offer were quotes from the Bible, not serious moral arguments. It is immoral to oppress women, blacks, gays and anyone else, no matter what they think their bronze age God commands. That moral language is indeed important, but it is conservatives who have corrupted it by substituting alleged divine command for any attempt at genuine moral reasoning.

Comments

  1. oranje says

    Wait, the left is the one redefining language? Really? Not the Luntz model of life?

    You’d think they would go hoarse from this much projection.

  2. says

    Iclane2:

    Close. Tax cuts for the wealthy is the goal. The moral language justifying it is, “That’s class warfare! And socialism! Shut up!”

  3. anubisprime says

    @ OP

    That moral language is indeed important, but it is conservatives who have corrupted it by substituting alleged divine command for any attempt at genuine moral reasoning.That moral language is indeed important, but it is conservatives who have corrupted it by substituting alleged divine command for any attempt at genuine moral reasoning.

    But…but …but…. you can only have ‘genuine moral reasoning’ by ‘divine command’!
    The most amazing and holy thing is that against all logic and statistical evidence…it just so ‘appens that the ‘genuine moral reasoning’ by ‘divine command’ absolutely mirrors in every case the crass bigotry…hatred…persecution…intolerance…and ignorance that xtians label ‘genuine moral reasoning’ from ‘divine command’, in other words it appears more often then not that god fully supports his blessed followers, and his blessed followers would find it churlish not to enact their god’s ‘divine command’ !

    Tis wot’ god wants…how freaky is that?…It is but passing strange that there is that amazing match in god’s desires and his followers wishes, the more discerning amongst the jeebus sunbeams takes that amazing ‘coincidence’ to actually prove that god exists, …how very odd…

    I do but wonder who is following and who is leading?…but I imagine most folks here already know the answer to that little poser!

  4. raven says

    We need once again to own our historic moral vocabulary.

    The Rabbi has been reading their instruction manual again, Orwell’s 1984.

    Translating from Newspeak to English,

    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength

    In Tea Party Newspeak, jesus loves you translates to jesus loves us and hates you. The poor are “moochers”, the oligarchies are job creators, and Romney the Reptilian hybrid is human.

  5. davidct says

    Holy men always claim to be authorities about morals. In spite of having a number of “god” written instruction manual they can never agree on anything other than a few basics. Sorry I just do not see any moral authority there and history clearly demonstrates this lack.

  6. baal says

    @#1 Yes – the right’s been frankly amazing at controlling language. ‘Conservative’ used to be a pejorative but is (maybe only until recently?) considered an aspiration (leaves me gasping).

  7. says

    Oh, please! Everybody knows that proper moral reasoning, whether by divine command or commanded by the divine, supports the status quo, whatever it happens to be at the time!

  8. thebookofdave says

    Damn those Liberals! Their civil rights activism and humanitarian agenda is ruining the English language for right-wing demogoguery!

    Let 2013 be the start of an era in which we take the language back and infuse it with its original religious and classic meaning. That is my goal in “Push Back: Reclaiming our American Judeo-Christian Spirit.”

    Oh, there’s a term we forgot to distort in our campaign to crush traditional moral values. Rabbi Spero will be comforted to know it has its original meaning.

    Judeo-Christian (adj): a fictional majority consensus of shared religious values, used to artificially justify authority for a moral opinion, or exaggerate its claim to popularity.

  9. birgerjohansson says

    Regarding bronze age / iron age.
    It is my understanding that the Jewish religion did not become truly monotheistic until the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews used religion to define themselves.
    Afterwards, they chose to “retcon” the myths and stories, setting the beginning of monotheism in the bronze age.
    This is how Goliath (described as an iron-age hoplite warrior) ended up in the late bronze age (David, Salomo and other characters appearing in these myths seem to be as historical as Hercules).
    Ironically, the earliest confirmed royal capitol in Israel/Palestine is in the land of the despised Samarians.

    The one part of the corpus of Jewish religion that is truly ancient is the chunk of Mesopotamian mythology that was appropriated by the Jews (the flood myth*). It would be interesting to know if a character named Noah featured in some minor Jewish myth pre-dating the Babylonian captivity or if he is “related” to David et al..

    *Copper-stone age? The neolithic?
    -Anyway, since David et al are fictional, maybe we should insert them into the next episodes of “Xena, Warrior Princess”.or some re-make of “Conan the Barbarian”. A prequel to “Gladiator”?

Leave a Reply