Letter writer disputes response
In reference to Sharon Jackson’s letter, titled “What is wrong with having a political agenda?”, it is interesting that in the initial paragraph she states, “What she does not tell us is how, without some sort of political agenda, one decides in what causes to exercise one’s social conscience.” Oddly enough, this statement suggests that one requires a political agenda in the first place in order to exercise one’s social conscience. That’s completely ridiculous. Nobody needs a political agenda to exercise their social conscience. The sheer notion of that is absurd in that one’s social conscience is personal; it needs no top-down political agenda to function. This should not be difficult to understand, yet here we are.
The second paragraph of the letter suggests that the juxtaposition of political socialism versus the value of one’s innate social conscience “is based on deep conservative notions and that one should accept society and institutions as they are.” Where does this extrapolation come from? Certainly not from me. Also, where do her religious connotations come from in quoting “Sermons from the Mount”? Certainly not from me.
As for the references used in said letter: William Wilberforce’s renowned philanthropy and facilitating the passing of the Slave-Trade Act was due to his innate social conscience. By the way William Wilberforce was an evangelical Christian and an independent Conservative MP. Not that this is pertinent, but I mention that because those two topics were brought up by Ms. Jackson as referenced in the previous paragraph here. John Brown’s abolitionist achievements were also facilitated by his innate social conscience in his fight for the freedom of souls from the Confederate democratic south. Just as a side note, Joseph Stalin was a member of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party before spiraling into communism.
Once again, I reiterate a paragraph from my first letter: “Social conscience,” however, is different. It is pure. It has no political agenda and seeks to control no one. It’s just compassion. It is merely motivated by a sense of concern for our fellow human beings, independent of government power and any attempt to inhibit one’s freedoms. We can all participate in exercising our “social conscience”. A sense of unrestricted empathy, purely given, without conditions.
So now one is left to ponder Ms. Jackson’s closing. What is meant by “following Ms. Moen’s lead” (what lead? Surely this is not a race), and “that it may be emotionally satisfying…” Really? Let’s all just follow our own social conscience, that idea of knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the resolve to do no wrong.