Yesterday’s Chik-fil-A Appreciation Day—organized by Mike Huckabee to support the company amidst criticism from same-sex marriage activists and Democratic officials—created historic, record-breaking sales for the company. Good for them. I’m not one for expressing my politics through my dining (which is why I haven’t “dumped Starbucks”), but I’m glad to see people support corporations seen as dissenting from the mainstream. My hope is that some of those people who visited Dan Cathy’s chain yesterday actually disagreed with him, but wanted to support a more varied public conversation.
I didn’t dine at Chik-fil-A, by the way. Instead I met a friend at Murray’s Falafel, a small, family-owned restaurant on New York’s Lower East Side. We had brought a couple of beers to go with our meal, but the waiter we asked to open them apologetically expressed doubt over whether or not they were kosher by the standards of the restaurant’s supervising rabbi. We told him it was fine, that we were Christians and understood the claims made by faith.
A minute later, a waitress came out and, after we googled the beer, told us that she was sure it was kosher and that we could drink it. Which we promptly did, feeling grateful to the waitress and respectful of the conscientiousness of the waiter. You might say that we were toasting pluralism and particularity in the marketplace. We didn’t share the moral outlook of our servers, but we respected their ordering their lives according to certain commitments.
There is probably little hope of such respect emerging among liberals for the views of men like Dan Cathy. As I’ve argued before, in America liberals and conservatives, secularists and Christians, understand themselves as sharing a common moral inheritance. They are not members of two cultures who can come to respect, even if not quite accept, each others’ foreign ways. They are people contending over one and the same culture. Pluralism is the recognition that others have a seat at the table, but our various culture skirmishes are about two people fighting for the same seat—not incidentally, the one at the head.
August 2nd, 2012 | 11:11 am
It would seem that some people sincerely believe that the Constitution has been replaced by the idea that only ideas ok’d by the Democratic Party are acceptable.
I’m not sure when that happened, but the idea has caught on hard. People genuinely feel that the founder of Chik-fil-A doesn’t even have the right to think thoughts that offends gay right activists.
August 2nd, 2012 | 11:28 am
There is probably little hope of such respect emerging among liberals for the views of men like Dan Cathy.
I wish we could avoid the sweeping generalizations here, as if every single liberal thought the same thing. The words and deeds of some politicians in Chicago and New York have been very disappointing, but other politicians (for example, Mayor Bloomberg) and other liberal bastions (for example, the New York Times) have spoken out in favor of Chick-fil-A’s rights.
I am not sure if the implication is that liberals would insist on drinking non-kosher beer in a kosher restaurant. I would point out that Jews themselves are much more likely to be liberal and Democratic than conservative and Republican.
There is a difference between respecting a person’s views and respecting a person’s right to hold those views. I certainly respect the right of Dan Cathy not only to hold his views against same-sex marriage, but also to promote those views without government officials trying to discriminate against his business. But it is foolish to expect same-sex marriage advocates to respect Dan Cathy’s views, just as it would be foolish to expect Dan Cathy to respect the views of same-sex marriage advocates. The people who believe what Dan Cathy believes hold that God himself has spoken on the issue. God has said that marriage is only between one man and one woman, and that homosexual acts are acts of “grave depravity” (to borrow a phrase from Catholics). Can it honestly be said that those who oppose same-sex marriage on these kinds of grounds respect the views of same-sex marriage opponents? Certainly not. The best we can hope for is that they respect the right, in our pluralistic democracy, of those to advocate views that are at odds with their own, or that they respect the people who disagree with them, but not the people’s views.
Some people who write here expect gay-rights advocates to approach people like Dan Cathy and say, “We know you believe homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God, we know you believe it is God’s command that only a man and a woman must marry, and we know you believe we are bringing down God’s judgment on our nation by advocating our position. Let us reason together.” That is just totally unrealistic.
August 2nd, 2012 | 12:52 pm
Unfortunately too many liberal politicians view those who differ with them on the great social issues of our day as reactionary neanderthals — no different than George Wallace and Bull Connor and other segregationists of the 1960s. And they believe the same solutions that broke the back of segregation need to be applied today — in other words government power must be brought to bear against those opposed to gay marriage or other so-called ‘civil rights’ issues. And when that happens polarization results and discourse dies, because you have essentially criminalized the conduct of traditional believers.
Liberals are fond of celebrating diversity regarding race, gender, sexual ‘expression,’ etc., but they tend to view traditional Christian beliefs as a threat to these preferred forms of diversity. These traditional beliefs must be relegated to the sidelines of the public sqaure, and the weight of government power must be applied to protect the prefered expressions of diversity. That is the issue, and that is the danger to liberty as defined by the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment. Religion is explicitly protected in that amendment, while gay marriage, sodomy, or LGBT rights are nowhere to be found. And yet in the year 2012 the rights of those who advocate traditional religious beliefs are subjected to the denial of building permits and deemed as hate mongers. Remarkable.
August 2nd, 2012 | 2:40 pm
publius,
A great many “traditional believers” supported slavery and segregation. And when slavery was abolished, and civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s, it “essentially criminalized the conduct of traditional believers.” The Ku Klux Klan was, after all, a Christian organization.
Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that “traditional believers” today who oppose same-sex marriage are comparable to the Ku Klux Klan, but it does mean that it take more to justify a position than to call it religious. The United States did not recognize the religious liberty of Mormons to practice polygamy. The United States did not decide Bob Jones University should continue to get federal funds when it prohibited interracial dating.
And yet in the year 2012 the rights of those who advocate traditional religious beliefs are subjected to the denial of building permits and deemed as hate mongers. Remarkable.
I deplore the talk of some of the politicians that have spoken out against Chick-fil-A, but they are a minority, they have been answered, and so far all we have had is talk. If there is actual discrimination by government against Chick-fil-A because of the Cathy family’s religious or political beliefs, let me know, and I will make just as big a stink about it as you do. But so far what we have had is pandering by a handful of very misguided politicians and, of course, a record-breaking day of sales for Chick-fil-A. As I have said before, I think they are in a better position than they would otherwise have been before this unfortunate conflict. No government official or body will dare do anything against them now that might even be mistaken for discrimination.
Here’s an interesting and not altogether unrelated matter from Religion Clause Blog:
Now, let’s suppose DeWitt Thomas does indeed practice Vedism Braminism, and is indeed religiously obliged to avoid “striking hands” with an “Untouchable.” What rights of Mr. Thomas should the government guarantee?
August 2nd, 2012 | 4:51 pm
“The United States did not decide Bob Jones University should continue to get federal funds when it prohibited interracial dating. ”
Actually, the dispute in Bob Jones University did not concern the receipt of federal funds, but rather with the question of whether the institution qualified for tax exempt status like all other non-profit universities. The IRS held that it did not qualify because it was not in the “public interest” to grant tax exempt status to a university with rules against inter-racial dating among the students.
Draw your own conclusions about what the future holds for schools not permitting same-sex couples to live in their married student housing. Loss of tax exempt status for Catholic Universities and charities will mean that many of them will not be able to continue in existence. But don’t worry, we all know how friendly the federal government is to Catholic institutions.
August 2nd, 2012 | 5:02 pm
Sally Rogers,
Thanks for the correction.
Was the IRS wrong?
Loss of tax exempt status for Catholic Universities and charities will mean that many of them will not be able to continue in existence.
Could you give us a timeframe? When do you predict Catholic universities will begin losing their tax-exempt status? I think when people make dire predictions like this, it is not unreasonable to ask when will they come true.
August 2nd, 2012 | 5:34 pm
I already engaged in a lengthy explanation of my views of the actions of the IRS in the Bob Jones case in the comments of First Things about 3 months ago. You were my interlocutor, so I would hope you recall what I said. You can look it up.
The Catholic Church will lose its tax exempt status on February 16, 2021. Thanks for asking.
August 2nd, 2012 | 6:59 pm
The Catholic Church will lose its tax exempt status on February 16, 2021. Thanks for asking.
Sally Rogers,
That will be in Obama’s fourth term. Do you really think it will take him that long?
No need to be snappish. It makes a difference, when making political predictions like this, whether it’s two years, or five years, or ten years, or in some indefinite future where you can claim fifteen years from now that it’s still going to happen.
August 2nd, 2012 | 10:12 pm
David,
“A great many “traditional believers” supported slavery and segregation. And when slavery was abolished, and civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s, it “essentially criminalized the conduct of traditional believers.” The Ku Klux Klan was, after all, a Christian organization.”
Once again your knowledge of American history seems to be wanting. You need to read more before you make sweeping generalizations such as the one you make above. There are a number of good books on the abolitionist movement, which if you were to read them you would discover that this movement was organized and led by Protestant ministers in New England and throughout the northeast. Churches in the 19th century provided the manpower and the letter writing/editorial campaigns designed to bring slavery to an end. You also need to read about the REVEREND Martin Luther King and the SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE which led the civil rights movement of the 1950s and the 1960s. The non-violent civil disobedience that brought Jim Crow to its knees was organized and directed by the African American Christian churches of the south. So again, you need to do some more reading before you make the kind of sweeping and inaccurate statement that you make above.
Your statement that the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian organization is patently false, since Christian organizations do not condone the taking of innocent life through the use of terror [additionally, most Christians are not fond of burning crosses as a symbol of their "traditional" Christianity] . Some members of the Klan considered themselves “Christians,” but this is as misguided as some members of the Nazi party thinking they were doing Christ’s bidding as they marched Jews into Auschwitz. So please, in the future, try to avoid making such sweeping and historically inaccurate statements in an attempt to bolster your progressive agenda.
August 3rd, 2012 | 12:32 am
“Churches in the 19th century provided the manpower and the letter writing/editorial campaigns designed to bring slavery to an end.”
I know you are referring to US history, but this was true elsewhere as well. I just re-read Alan Moorehead’s “White Nile”, which handles the European exploration of the upper Nile. The focus is on the explorers, but slavery frequently crops up as a topic, because it was practiced in and from Africa on a massive scale. The explorers and other British officials were generally opposed to slavery but were willing to look the other way when expedient—sometimes they needed the cooperation of slavers. Not so the missionaries, who persisted in their opposition and were a constant thorn in the side of all involved in slavery. Unlike anyone else on the scene, they refused to compromise. They were motivated by their Christian faith and said so. Wasn’t this true of most abolitionists: they opposed slavery because they were Christians? It is sad and unjust that this is not credited today.
August 3rd, 2012 | 12:52 am
Once again your knowledge of American history seems to be wanting.
publius,
I am not saying all (or most) Christians supported slavery and segregation while non-Christians opposed them. I am saying many Christians supported slavery and segregation. I am well aware of who led the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.
Your statement that the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian organization is patently false, since Christian organizations do not condone the taking of innocent life through the use of terror . . .
This is the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
August 3rd, 2012 | 8:32 am
Christians recognize that from The Beginning, God created every human individual (definition of person) equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female. One cannot be Christian while professing that God created us according to sexual desire as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, polysexual…, which would sexually objectify the human person, and thus be a violation of God’s own Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery.
August 3rd, 2012 | 8:37 am
Nor can one claim that the KKK was a”Christian” organization because Christians recognize that every human individual, regardless of race or ancestry, has been created equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female.
August 3rd, 2012 | 8:43 am
As Carl Schmitt points out, every realm of human endeavour is structured by an irreducible duality. Morality is concerned with good and evil, aesthetics with the beautiful and the ugly, and economics with the profitable and the unprofitable. In politics, the core distinction is between friend and enemy. That is what makes politics different from everything else. “Every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms itself into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively according to friends and enemies.”
Liberals love discussion, but no amount of discussion, compromise or exhortation can settle issues between enemies. There can be no genuine agreement, because in the end there is nothing about which to agree. Dominated as it is by the friend-enemy alternative, the political requires not discussion but decision.
Liberals believe in the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting positions, but this is nonsense. There is no such neutrality, since any rule – even an ostensibly fair one – merely represents the victory of one political faction over another and the political order is simply the stabilised result of past conflict. Its rules are only as strong as the political will to enforce them.
Liberals believe in a neutral sphere of “civil society, but mass politics, with competing interests demanding action means that everything is potentially political, characterised by the friend-enemy relationship.
August 3rd, 2012 | 11:22 am
David,
Could you please explain what you meant by your statement that “And when slavery was abolished, and civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s, it ‘essentially criminalized the conduct of traditional believers.’ The Ku Klux Klan was, after all, a Christian organization.” Could you please explain how, after all, the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian organization? And also, how did the civil rights legislation of the 1960s criminalize the conduct of traditional Christian believers?
August 3rd, 2012 | 11:25 am
Michael PS: Schmitt’s is a fascinating perspective to bring to this conversation. As you’re probably aware, a good many present-day critics (e.g., Chantal Mouffe, Giorgio Agamben) find his work compelling enough to set aside reservations about Schmitt’s own, ah, problematic political alliances. These writers use his theories to ground their own criticisms of the present-day tendency to shy away from the reality of deep, irreconcilable differences within the political sphere.
I wonder, however, if or how Schmitt’s central friend/enemy distinction works when refracted through a Christian ethos of “love your enemy” or “do good to those who persecute you.” To be sure, scripture provides some examples where Christ offers a view that could be read as similar to Schmitt’s (Luke 11:23, for example). But I would say that in the most of the examples we have of Jesus’s interactions with his enemies, he confounds human expectations of the right or savvy way of categorizing friend and foe. For the most part, Jesus appears committed to treating those who would be his enemies as neighbors, even when doing so seems to result in negative consequences for him and his cause.
I have doubts about whether Jesus would have been considered a good culture warrior were he to have been born in the present day. He keeps treating enemies as friends.
An abiding question, then: Is a Schmittian Christian politics viable? What would it look like? If Schmitt is right that politics requires decision rather than dialogue, what decision regarding our enemies ought conservative Christians to choose in culture wars such as the same-sex marriage debate?
For me, one of the strengths that Christians have is an appreciation of just what it means to have and live out deep, can’t-just-agree-to-disagree-with-everyone commitments. We are compelled to believe and do things that may not always dovetail with a polite social order. But, at our best, we balance this understanding with a commitment to pursue a loving, even welcoming and persuasive relationships with those who stand on the other sides of worldview gaps, even when such people do not return the favor. We would rather see our enemies converted than destroyed.
I’m not sure Schmitt would see that as any kind of sensible political posture, nor am I sure (on a larger level) how compatible “love your enemies” is with the mentality of a culture war. I am curious to know your thoughts on this. Thanks.
August 3rd, 2012 | 4:21 pm
Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that “traditional believers” today who oppose same-sex marriage are comparable to the Ku Klux Klan,
The KKK engaged in specifically non-Christian behaviors, and that – the bricks and fires and murders – are why they are reviled today.
There have been bad conservatives. There have also been bad liberals. How would you like it if gay marriage advocates were constantly compared to the most virulent communists, based on flimsy circumstantial similarities?
If you agree that it would be wrong for people to belittle gays based on superficial similarities to murderous left wing terrorists, then please recognize that the constant attempt to compare gay rights advocates with the most vicious, murderous opponents of black civil rights is not honest and it’s not fair – no matter how sweetly we bat our eyes and make grand “don’t hold me accountable for what I’m saying” statements (“Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that “traditional believers” today who oppose same-sex marriage are comparable to the Ku Klux Klan, but …”)
Technically, I believe that’s an ad hominem coupled with a straw man.
And the constant insistence that gay marriage is like interracial marriage is also a cheap rhetorical trick: it is a false equivalence coupled with begging the question (since the question is, after all, whether gay marriage is a constitutional right as interracial marriage is).
August 3rd, 2012 | 4:26 pm
Incidentally I am astonished at how so many “mainstream” news sources are comparing Chik-fil-A to Oreos, as if the same people who were organizing boycotts of Oreos are now outraged at the idea of someone boycotting Chik-fil-A.
They report the comments of individuals who feel that the Constitutional rights of Chik-fil-A are being violated, but they don’t mention the mayors or city councilmen or other officials who are the actual reason for this sentiment. The clear impression is that people are claiming that private calls for boycotts are being construed as a violation of Chik-fil-A’s Constitutional rights, when in fact the real argument is that the Constitutional rights come into play only at the point where city officials speak on behalf of the city in question and/or use (or vow to use) government power to interfere with Chik-fil-A’s business.
August 3rd, 2012 | 4:57 pm
Your statement that the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian organization is patently false, since Christian organizations do not condone the taking of innocent life through the use of terror . . .
This is the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
It actually isn’t.
The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is about misinterpreting what we can and can’t use to judge whether someone belongs to a given category. One is or is not a Scotsman based on nationality, place of birth, ethnic origin, or other such categories. The “No True Scotsman” fallacy misrepresents the true determining characteristics of what makes a person Scottish or not-Scottish.
You are the one who is making the errors in categorization. You are essentially arguing that every group that uses the word “Christian” – no matter how they use that word, and no matter whether they actually accept the Bible – has to be counted as Christian when it comes to blaming Christianity for its sordid past (for the purpose of discounting Christianity’s claims in the present – specifically, to discount its right to religious freedom claims).
But there is no reason to believe the KKK is “Christian” except that they like to call themselves that. Worse, when they use the word “Christian”, they aren’t talking about what Christians are talking about: they use the word demographically – as a euphemism or code or shorthand. Good Christians are anything that belongs to or in the community; heathen or pagan or un-Christian is anything that should be driven out.
If claiming a title – incorrectly – is all it takes to belong to a given community, then anti-vaccine alarminsts (and other pseudoscientific crackpots who call themselves scientific) are as much a part of the scientific community as anyone – and we should remember that when it comes time to allocate public funds.
August 3rd, 2012 | 5:32 pm
“Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that “traditional believers” today who oppose same-sex marriage are comparable to the Ku Klux Klan”
Just like secular humanists today who disagree with or dislike Catholics are not necessarily comparable to the No Nothing Party. That goes without saying, so I probably shouldn’t say it and float the comparison out there.
By the way, the KKK historically victimized Catholics, a largish and well-known group of Christians.
August 3rd, 2012 | 10:08 pm
Peg (and others),
There’s no getting around the fact that the KKK was a Christian (Protestant) group. I think everyone has tried to distort my point in bringing that up. Some people believed, on religious grounds, that integration was against God’s will. The KKK was one such group. I am not saying all Christians are like the Klan.
By the way, the KKK historically victimized Catholics, a largish and well-known group of Christians.
And, at various times in various countries, Protestants have victimized Catholics, and Catholics have victimized Protestants. And both groups thought they had religious justifications for doing so.
The point is—and I don’t know how anyone can disagree with this—just because you have a religious motivation for doing something doesn’t guarantee you are right.
August 3rd, 2012 | 10:22 pm
Blake,
Denying that the KKK was a Christian group on the grounds that Christians wouldn’t do the bad things the KKK did is a classic example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. It would be difficult to think of a better example. They were no doubt (especially by today’s standards) very bad, very misguided Christians, but they were Christians.
I am not saying they were representative of Christians. I am not trying to denigrate Christianity by pointing out the KKK was a Christian group. I am using them as an example of a religiously motivated group that we now disapprove of.
August 4th, 2012 | 7:19 am
John Fletcher
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Schmitt was a particularly vile individual, but he was an incisive critic of liberal democracy.
His friend-enemy distinction refers, not to personal malice or ill-will, but to irreconcilable opposition. Now, liberals are accustomed to peak of “problems” or “questions,” rather than conflicts. Thus, they think in terms of “solutions” or “answers” ; but conflicts do not have solutions or answers, but outcomes.
Sometimes, a conflict can only be resolved, when one side imposes its will on the other. Christians have always recognised the civil magistrate’s power of the sword and the Church, too, cuts off implacable opponents of her authority from her communion. Even the “Throne & Altar” conservative, who demands for a confessional state, where public policy reflects Church teaching (although peaceful dissent, compatible with public order is tolerated) is more rational than the classical liberal.. Of course, the Hard Left desiderates a secular version of the confessional state, for they, too, believe in the possibility of truth..
August 4th, 2012 | 3:03 pm
Michael PS: I appreciate your response.
As you noted, Schmitt uses friend/enemy not in an interpersonal sense (I like them/I hate them) but as a coldly political calculation (who is with us/who is against us).
I suppose I would add that, likewise, Christian agape for the enemy does not describe some maudlin affect of naive good will (not that you suggested such–I’m just drawing a contrast) but an eyes-open set of actions and decisions in which the well-being of the enemy is placed above cultural, political, or martial victory over the enemy.
For this reason, I’m still struggling with whether the enemy designation, even when distinguished from hatred or personal animosity, works within a Christian ethic. I suspect Schmitt and Christianity are after entirely different, possibly even irreconcilable goals (“victory” and “loving God/loving others” respectively). Don’t get me wrong: I think there are any number of social/political struggles that Christians must engage in. Certainly I’m invested in “winning” these struggles. But I think Schmitt provides a one very cold-blooded schema for what “winning” a political struggle might involve– and I’m not sure I see how to reconcile that with other core Christian commitments.
Good point about the Church’s ability to enforce its own friend/enemy boundaries, at least internally. Certainly scripture contains instances where the early church drew lines about what viewpoints or practices it could or could not accept, imposing its will by casting out heresy. I suppose, however, that I see such examples as playing out in a different register than do more general “culture war” conflicts, which tend to occur (not only) within a single community but between communities all co-existing within a plural democratic society.
It is in this broader context of multiple competing conceptions of the true/right/beautiful society that I have a few (well, “few” is a stretch) questions:
A) I wonder if and how Schmitt’s zero-sum, winner-take-all version of political conflict actually works in a liberal democratic context (I mean “liberal democratic” in a technical sense, i.e., “balances/checks majority will with minority rights,” not “left-leaning”). Unlike Schmitt’s native political situation, neither side in present-day culture wars has recourse to imposing its will on the other through, say, quick and brutal use of force. (I’m assuming we would not endorse the kind of outcomes Schmitt did for his enemies, right?) What then? When excommunication is impossible and brute force illegal or undesirable, how does a “friend” treat an “enemy”?
B) How should Christians specifically engage in these cultural competitions? That is, how ought we treat the “enemy” down the street, beyond the boundaries of our own worship communities? For instance, what flows from seeing someone on the other side of the same-sex marriage conflict as “an enemy” in Schmitt’s sense? How would a Christian’s engagement with such an enemy be different than a non-Christian’s?
C) I also wonder whether Schmitt’s definition of politics can in some cases become like the guy who has a hammer and now sees everything as a nail. I value his argument that some conflicts really aren’t matters of “just talking things out” or “agreeing to disagree” (Thinkers like Stanley Fish advance similar criticisms from different directions.) But surely some cultural disagreements can be dealt with through compromise. In other words, the existence of some legitimately irreconcilable conflicts does not mean that every conflict or disagreement is irreconcilable, right? The real question, then, is what calculus helps us distinguish between authentically “political” (in Schmitt’s sense) conflict versus a more mundane squabble or misunderstanding?
These are still open questions for me. I’d appreciate your thoughts if you have the time–but thanks in any case for providing the opportunity for me to get these into writing.
August 4th, 2012 | 8:09 pm
Denying that the KKK was a Christian group on the grounds that Christians wouldn’t do the bad things the KKK did is a classic example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
The No True Scotsman fallacy is where one argues that someone must not truly be Scottish because they don’t love haggis; this argument is the reverse of that – you appear to be arguing that the KKK must be Scottish because they claim to love haggis.
I will readily grant that they are “Christian” in the demographic sense that they use the word. I’m not sure when the term “Christendom” fell out of use (late 19th – early 20th century, I think), but clearly they continued to use that term well into the 20th century and maybe to this day.
But we aren’t talking about demographics, we are talking about religion, and I have yet to see one single shred of evidence supporting the idea that the KKK is an organization that is somehow related to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I am disappointed, though, that you ignored the arguments I made, in favor of simply repeating your assertion as if I hadn’t offered anything at all rebutting it (this is itself another fallacy: the argumentum ad nauseum). I am particularly disappointed that you did not see fit to respond to what I wrote about the Golden Rule.
August 4th, 2012 | 8:17 pm
For this reason, I’m still struggling with whether the enemy designation, even when distinguished from hatred or personal animosity, works within a Christian ethic.
I think love the sinner but hate the sin is what Christians need to keep in mind.
It is not loving to do nothing about error. Error must be resisted. But it is wise to remember (or at least try to remember: in real life it’s hard) that the error and the person committing the error are not the same and must be kept separate. We all make errors – sometimes grievous ones – and as we would wish others to be helpful to us while we are in error, and generous with forgiveness, that is what we must seek in our own responses to those who are in error.
My own experience has been this: that the more I get involved with a particular actual error and the consequences of that error, the more I find it easy to be generous toward those who commit the error – but I find it more difficult to be generous toward those who promote the error.
It must be remembered that simply butting out and letting someone else worry about it is not an adequate solution: failure to fight against sin causes harm to innocent people; doing nothing in the presence of error, when you could do something and/or your conscience tries to call you to do something, is itself a form of error.
August 6th, 2012 | 7:58 am
John Fletcher
Thank you for your reflections.
Yes, of course people can agree to differ. Thus, in the 19th century, the new parliamentary democracies were successful, for a time, in achieving the separation of the public sphere of state activity and the private sphere of civil society. The state provided a legally codified order, within which social customs, economic competition, religious beliefs, and so on, could be pursued without interference. These things lay outside the realm of the political.
But what Schmitt is saying is that, when the social consensus on which the distinction rested breaks down, liberalism has no way of defining or defending the boundaries of this sphere; everything becomes potentially political. Thus, from the late 19th century on, the lower orders used their numbers at the ballot box and the economic power of organized labour together to impose pay and conditions more to their liking on their employers. This was a political struggle, for each side sought to use the levers of state power to enforce its demands, rather than trying to win their opponents over to their point of view. Here, what we now see is, for the most part, “the stabilised result of past conflicts.”
Nowadays, the attitude of the middle class is paradoxical: on the one hand, the middle class is against politicization – they just want to sustain their way of life, to be left alone to get on with their work and to lead their life in peace. This is why they tend to support the authoritarian coups which promise to put an end to the political mobilisation of society, so that “things can return to normal.”. On the other hand, they – in the guise of the threatened, patriotic hard-working, moral majority – are the main instigators of grass-root mass mobilisation, in the form of Right-wing populism – the “direct pressure of the people.” So, in France today, the only force truly disturbing the post-political technocratic-humanitarian administration is Marine le Pen’s National Front.
Of course, for Schmitt, there is no “normal,” just new conflicts on different fronts.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact