Liberal Concern for Toilet Tissue but not Human “Tissue”

Everyday we are assaulted with another mandate from global-warming scare- mongers and environmental high priests about what we must do or can’t do in our daily lives if we are to “save the planet”. Recently, Laurie David, wife of comedian Larry David, added to this comedy by oh-so-seriously calling for the end of our use of light bulbs. A liberal legislator in the California Assembly wishes to even enact a law to that effect. No doubt, liberals are ready to add Thomas Edison to their long list of Dead White American Males who for the sake of “greed” have contributed to mankind’s destruction.

The hypocrisy of Hollywood types traveling in private limousines and jets and living in mansions whose square-footage and energy consumption dwarf those of the average American they are chiding is by now quite obvious.

Another doomsday prophet from the entertainment world has warned us not to use more than one square of toilet tissue per outing as a way to conserve the forests. Our first response to such meddling in our lives is to begin telling these people to mind their own business.

That their suggestions are inane is one thing. However, when evaluating their positions in light of their other pronouncements, it becomes clear that their values are skewed and, worse, dangerous. For this set of people so concerned about toilet tissue are the very set who demand the right under any circumstance to abort what they call “merely tissue” and what you and I call the human embryo Evidently, the “right to choose” extends only to killing the fetus, not, however, to how many squares of toilet tissue I may use. What twisted logic gives rise to such perverted thinking that cares more for toilet tissue than human tissue, more for trees than God’s whiff of breath into the womb?

It is the value system of selfishness, so pervasive among our pampered who decide the value of something based exclusively on that which makes them feel good about themselves and which gives primacy to their needs over any moral obstacle. It is a selfishness that uses one of modern mankind’s most banal and fraudulent clichés, the right of a woman to control her body, to deny the reality that once that baby has a beating heart of its own, can feel pain, and can if necessary live outside the womb, it is simply a guest inside a woman’s body but not her very own body.

In the pursuit of its own conveniences, the fetish of narcissism defies historic moral codes, even the definition of marriage itself. It is paganism.. Not believing in an actual Creator who actually created this world, it feels free to grant primacy to trees over the scripturally enunciated hierarchy of humankind over everything else. Apparently, for liberals, the soon-to-be-born fetus is not part of our environmental edifice.

Paganism is defined not so much as a system that is immoral but one that is amoral, namely, an inability and unwillingness to distinguish between that which is right and that which is wrong. In other words, to place everything and every form of conduct on equal footing. And does that not, in fact, most aptly describe today’s liberal outlook? Isn’t today’s liberalism simply a neo-paganism, rewashed for modern sensibilities?

Many in today’s environmental left care more about the self-aggrandizement of themselves, who are made to feel superior to those who they are admonishing. They seem indifferent to the difficulties their edicts impose on regular people so long as they feel good when propounding them. I feel good about myself therefore I am. It is an indifference rooted in selfishness….

The spokesmen for today’s environmental movement have taken on a religious-like zealousness that is far more fanatical than anything I’ve seen in normative Judaism or Christianity. They are tunnel-visioned to the point where they can not see any other competitive imperative beyond their own doctrine. They lack any sense of balance and nuance.

In fact, two salient news items illustrate how the fanatical environmentalists have themselves become like the religious figures liberals like to excoriate. We have heard about the 24,000 square foot house of John Edwards, the over-sized mansion of Al Gore, the houses and private planes of John Kerry, the Brentwood and Malibu estates of Barbra Streisand and Martin Sheen: all of whom preach global warming alarmism. Are they not practicing “Do as I say, not as I do”? How are they any different from the televangelist clerics they love to excoriate who were caught doing things inconsistent with what they were preaching to their audiences?

So as to continue their extravagant use of energy for their own comfort desires, many wealthy spokesmen in the environmental movement are part of a “carbon- trading” program where they can exploit their energy overuse through buying and trading in the carbon market. In other words, if you have the financial wherewithal, you can ignore global warming and “dis” the very doctrine you impose on others, and emit all you want. Doesn’t that seem eerily similar to the much criticized system of “indulgences” cast aside by the Catholic Church decades ago because of its inherent unfairness and hypocrisy?

The wealthy politicians and Hollywood types in the cozy enviro/ global warming fraternity have developed a system and theology of “Green for Those with the Green”. That is the true face of today’s left liberalism: elitism coupled with neo-paganism.

Posted in ARTICLES, Global Warming, Politics and tagged , .

Rabbi Spero, who also served as a pulpit rabbi, has been invited to inform policy-makers, candidates, and elected officials in the halls of Congress, and in the Executive, regarding the moral and religious dimensions of policies and legislation under consideration.

Leave a Reply