What is Liberalism? You say:
"The point I was trying to make is that liberalism has left an ethical vacuum at the centre of our society ..."

Sells,

You may be interested in Noam Chomsky's "Understanding Power". The topic of liberalism and its use (as both an element and a target of propaganda) is insightfully discussed in several places.

You assert that, as a result of liberalism,
"Harm reduction takes the place of morality and the evils that we seek to control quickly become industries that are to be respected."

My core point is that the industries of prostitution and of drug sales and distribution are long-standing industries, marginalised into the informal and criminal sectors of the economy by the law and a punitive law-enforcement approach to health issues, and kept there at least in part by those whose profits would be lost, were these industries to be legitimised.

Chomsky is also highly critical of the mainstream press, and offers a nuanced view of its workings. The book is well worth your time, if you wish to gain a wider perspective on "liberalism". He has been working directly on social issues in a so-called liberal society for many years, and is in addition an interesting theorist.

There is truth in what you say. Thanks for putting it out there.

...with God comes responsiblity...but His burden is light compared to the burden of unending desires.

What a revelation it is to discover God in the heart....to worship...I am struck by it too....the profundity of its import can not be lost on one who has begun to experience it.

I have to wonder sometimes, at the wisdom of seeking to replace one ideology with another. In the face of such irrational thinking we used to comment in footnotes, "this person has reached rock bottom.... and started digging"

Before you get too uspet with Bushbasher or Ho Hom, you need to understand that if you wish to be out there with fairies, pixies and aliens, you might, just might be considered as an agent provocateur.

I particularly liked your response to Sir Vivor when you said "I was concious of using my three examples". I don't think you were, "concious" that is.

If you don't like posters commenting in your "discussion space", don't post.

>> Bushbasher. What is the point of your post?

Sellick, what is the point of your writing, for the twenty-fifth time, your ignorant and divisive and pointless, special-pleading claptrap?

i have addressed your posts seriously in the past. but you are not the slightest bit interested in genuine dialogue. you are only interested in preaching. and you are an excruciating bore.

i gave your piece exactly the disrespect that it, and you, deserved.

Dear Sells,

Ho Hum's first reference contained 14 points defining fascism.I find liberalism the best antidote to fascism. Before the word fascism was invented Calvin ruled Geneva.

A master of the art of organization, Calvin had been able to transform a whole city, a whole State, whose numerous burghers had hitherto been freemen, into a rigidly obedient machine; had been able to extirpate independence, and to lay an embargo on freedom of thought in favour of his own exclusive doctrine.

Calvin held sway over the printing presses, the pulpits and the professorial chairs; as wax in his hands were the various authorities, Town Council, university and law-courts, priests and schools, catchpoles and prisons, the written and the spoken and even the secretly whispered word.

It was Protestant proto-fascism.

The url Ho Hum referred to mentioned four Catholic fascists - Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Pinochet.

It was only with the separation of Church and State which meant the removal of the oppressive hand of Christianity and its relegation to acceptance by choice rather than by compulsion that we could achieve a democratic society.

You wrote: "Mounting an argument against liberalism is a big ask. It is like arguing against common sense or motherhood."

I agree that mounting an argument against liberalism is like arguing against common sense.

Sellick wrote: Ho Hum,
Pushing your old and tired bandwagon again at the cost of my discussion space. Would you please desist, no one is interested.

Dear Peter Sellick,

Your discussion space? It was your article but hardly your discussion space.

I disagree. I see you as pushing an old and tired bandwagon. You are wrong that no is interested in Ho Hum's writing. I find Ho Hum most interesting and possessing the common sense of liberalism.

You have the narrowness of many religionists. You want to have your say and others to shut up. I prefer the liberal tradition of free expression.

I always try to get through a Sells piece. Sometimes I succeed, but I fell pretty much at the first fence on this one.

My roadblaock was:

"Liberalism is not so much an ideology but the vacuum left after the implosion of Christianity. It consists of the detritus left over from that implosion, more negative than positive, a fall-back position that defends the nihilism that exists in its centre."

Followed immediately by...

"Liberalism stands for freedom, tolerance, fairness, self expression, choice and fulfilment. It stands against doctrine, discipline, self sacrifice and discipleship."

My brain conflated this to form...

"Liberalism is the vacuum left after the implosion of Christianity, and stands for freedom, tolerance, fairness, self expression, choice and fulfilment"

All I could think was, hey, isn't it a really good thing that Christianity imploded, if that's what it created.

Freedom? Tick

Tolerance? All for that.

Fairness? Yep.

Self-expression? All good.

Choice? Yes please.

Fulfilment? Absolutely

Unfortunately, this interpretation turned out to be inconsistent with the remainder of the piece. Apparently, my approval of all the things I believe we should value as human beings, make me a thoroughly bad lot.

Most disturbing.

But if these are the values Sells despises, no wonder I continue to have difficulty discerning how his world works.