R.R. Reno on how liberal elites betray their bohemian ideals:
It was not a bohemian group, not by a long shot. Yes, the reunion program genuflected to the usual multi-cultural concerns, but only with the most cursory bow. And, yes, some classmates spoke of their “partners.” But twenty-five years down the line the overwhelming majority of Yale ’87 are organizing their lives by fairly conventional bourgeois concerns. They have been advancing their careers, accumulating wealth, and worrying about their kids. Most of these Yalies were engaged by their jobs, ambitious and successful in ways that you would expect from people who as children and young adults won the competition for Ivy League acceptances.
Also today, Tomas Bogardus on Peter Singer and religious freedom:
One catches a glimpse of Singer’s utopia, full of vegetarian Muslims and Jews and Christians who employ no one. And all under compulsion of the state. His argument for this utopia has three steps. One: if a policy does not compel religionists to violate a teaching of their religion, then the policy is not an improper infringement on the practice of their religion. Two: if a policy does not unduly infringe upon the practice of a religion, it is not a violation of religious freedom. Three: since e.g. the Obama Administration’s mandate does not require Catholics to violate any Catholic dogma, Singer concludes that the mandate doesn’t violate Catholics’ religious freedom. Q.E.D., as philosophers are said to say.