There’s a sentence in an article written for Christian Post by Timothy George, Robert George and Eric Metaxas that got me thinking. It’s just about mid-way through the article, in a paragraph describing Obamacare’s assault on religious freedom:
With the narrowest of exceptions, all organizations are required to comply, regardless of any conflict with the mandates of conscience.Now, the dictionary defines conscience as follows: ‘The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong’ and/or ‘A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement’ and/or ‘Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct’. And most people view it those ways.
But the progressive liberals in power - by virtue of leadership positions, wealth, and prestige – really embrace that last definition: they definitely conform to their own sense of values, even though they’re completely inverted from what a majority of their countrymen and women believe. Most progressive liberals have the morals of your local alley-cat; a great many of them are as ethical as, oh, say, Josef Mengle or Gordon Gekko; still others couldn’t figure out right from wrong if their choices were labeled with great big ‘R’s and ‘W’s.
And yet these folks (whom I call ‘movers and shakers’, or MS’s for short) manipulate words and tickle the ears of the gullible with promises of utopia on earth, don’t they? And the gullible fall for it every time. Take, for example, the abortion mandate in Obamacare (since that’s where my above sentence came from): those who still understand ‘conscience’ the way the first two definitions define it call it ‘abortion’; the MS’s who embrace the third definition call it ‘a woman’s right to choose’. All that is, is fluffy words for something defined as ‘termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival’. ‘Termination’ and ‘expulsion’ – pretty strong words, which is why ‘pro-choice’ (actually, ‘pro-abortion’) folks don’t like the word ‘abortion’ – it’s too harsh, too honest, too truthful.
Anyway, let’s get back to ‘conscience’ and conscience-clauses. To the progressive liberals, a ‘conscience clause’ – in ‘conformity to [their] own sense of right conduct’ – would say that abortion is okay and every business should provide free ones (which is precisely what they’re saying). They can’t (or, as far as I’m concerned, won’t) accept any other definition of ‘conscience’ – if it’s doesn’t conform to their definition of right and wrong, it’s unconscionable.
Same thing applies in a slight variation with everything else the progressive liberals in government, Hollywood, and on Wall Street have been doing ever since, well, forever, it seems: re-defining terms to conform to their sense of right and wrong. Therefore, we have things like the following: borrowing and spending will get us out of debt (try that one at your bank), banning certain guns will make everyone safer (particularly the criminals), abortion is a ‘choice’ (not murder), welfare is a safety net (no, it’s a hammock), you have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it (I want to sell Pelosi a house or car that way), we don’t need a debt-ceiling (S&P sure thinks so), we’re in a recovery (eight million unemployed people who’ve given up won’t agree), global warming is an immediate danger (to thermometers in the north freezing solid) and so on and so on.
Re-defining words for fun and profit. Or, in this case, misery and bankruptcy.