There goal, entitlements for all, redistribution of wealth (Communism), the suppression of faith or at the very least any public displays of it. Anti conservative....well?
2007-05-17 03:42:09 · 7 answers · asked by Polilical conundrum... 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Rather than a small movement it is actually a wide net you cast that covers many movements. Basically, "Secular" in this instance refers to a Godless society or a society without moral absolutes. This is also known as secular-humanism, secular-relativism or moral relativism.
The purpose is to replace God as the arbiter of right and wrong and replace him with man. In essence, we are our own God. Therefore, anything we do, no matter how dastardly or despicable is perfectly OK as long as it serves our needs. Getting the people of America to accept this form of "morality" is essential if a socialist state has any chance of being established.
It is our unalienable rights granted to us by our Creator that protect the individual from the gross power of the state. Only by destroying that protection can socialism take control of our country. Under socialism the individual has no status. It is the collective or society as a whole that must be protected. This is the main difference between our present government and socialism.
That is what allows socialist societies to do things like euthanize old people who are no longer useful to society or the crippled or insane or mentally retarded for example. It explains why safety of workers is not a concern in socialist societies.
Under socialism, the individual is expendable. Under our democratic-republic the individual is precious. That is the main difference.
"Progressive" is newspeak for socialist. To fool potential followers, who would never join a socialist movement, they substitute the word progressive.
Is it anit-conservative? Well, in one sense it is but it is also anit-liberal if one is referring to pro-America liberals. It actually is anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-individual rights and anti-private property. In other words, socialist.
.
2007-05-17 04:51:18 · answer #1 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It must be kind of a small movement. I have never heard of them. I venture 90% or more Americans have never heard of such a movement. If it exists other than just in your mind. They probably won't get far. Then of course, to a right wing radical even the slightest movement to the left is Communist or full of entitlements. If you are such a person I can understand why your rant is so ridiculous. Radicalism on both ends of the spectrum is dangerous.
2007-05-17 03:51:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The S-P movement, fueled by the likes of George Soros, the media elite and Hollywood ner' do wells would like nothing better than the governmnet to take over and provide for everyone. Do you think its fair that Bob down the street has everything I do yet Bob spends his days drinking beer and smoking weed and I leave for work at 7A.M. and get home at 9P.M. and work most weekends? No of course it isn't, but the SP's would have you believe it is. No religion, no incentive to work hard and make something of yourself and redistribution of wealth,(as long as it's not theirs). Makes me ill to think my country has become...France.
2007-05-17 03:50:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Never heard of them. Maybe you should adjust your tin-foil hat for reception.
2007-05-17 03:47:12 · answer #4 · answered by New Dog Owner 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The word would be "their" and not "there" and "what's" not "whats."
When we get in power we will force all of you to learn to spell.
2007-05-17 03:45:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't really understand what you're saying. First of all, it's "their," not "there." Secondly... what are you asking?
2007-05-17 03:46:48 · answer #6 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That doesn't sound paranoid at all.
Nope. Not a bit.
2007-05-17 03:48:00 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋