After Liberalism?
Feb 27, 2012
R.R. Reno
Can we sustain a vibrant, free, pluralistic society without the liberal dogmas of neutrality and diversity? Is there a vision of justice and international cooperation that does not lead us toward a thin and shallow cosmopolitanism? Are we able to defend the dignity of the individual without liberalism’s commitment to the isolated, autonomous, and atomized self?
Today, with the support of the Simon/Hertog Fund for Policy Analysis, the Institute on Religion and Public Life, publisher of First Things and host of firstthings.com will gather a group of nearly twenty scholars for the After Liberalism Seminar. Our goal will be to answer these questions, or at least outline some approaches.
After liberalism? Isn’t that a far-fetched idea? In the universities and media liberalism seems dominant. Perhaps, but it is also decadent. Over the last few decades, American liberalism has turned against its historical strengths, becoming so parochial and negative that it has difficulty functioning as a governing philosophy:
• A confident liberal patriotism has become an anxious, hand-wringing, and sour stance of perpetual critique. Liberals tend to agree with, or at least accept the superior moral authority of those who deny the importance of Western culture, holding it responsible for racism, class differences, and national chauvinism
• An earlier sympathy for religious convictions has turned into a deep antagonism toward their expression in the public square.
• Post-sixties liberalism continues to support the expansion of the welfare state, but to a great degree the unifying ideals of liberalism have shifted from economic fairness and welfare to social and cultural liberation. As a consequence, most contemporary liberals either support or provide no resistance to the extremists who attack the traditional cultural norms that underpin a healthy civic culture—the culture liberalism itself requires.
• The liberal virtues of tolerance and support for social institutions that transcend politics have declined. The family, for example, is treated as a source of oppression, and the institution of marriage is redefined to serve the goal of equality. An aggressive, authoritarian mentality now prevails among liberals that will not tolerate conservative political, moral, and religious views. Legal activists treat the law as an instrument of attack. Universities and art museums have become largely partisan institutions.
• Instead of a cosmopolitan sensibility capable of a sympathetic grasp of opposing views and political competitors, liberalism now encourages an insular mentality. Those who wish to remain faithful to theological orthodoxy or who call themselves conservatives, for example, are not engaged in debate, but rather are denounced as “fundamentalists,” “mean-spirited,” and “divisive.”
These changes and others indicate that liberalism now trends toward a sectarian mentality. For example, when deciding a case concerning abortion, Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have written: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
This notorious formulation amounts to the bald assertion of a metaphysical prejudice akin to a pious judge basing his jurisprudence on the explicit claim that at the heart of liberty is our perfect obedience to God’s law. Neither can provide a basis for a democratic, pluralistic, and tolerant society, but it seems that today only conservatives recognize this fact.
Another sign of extremism is the self-purifying impulse in contemporary liberalism. For a long time liberals themselves affirmed conservative strands of thought. Walter Lippmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, Lionel Trilling: the middle years of liberal ascendancy in America saw important voices of restraining moderation. However, those voices have become far less common and less effective. In recent decades American liberalism has expelled those who have tried to moderate liberalism—e.g., Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Richard John Neuhaus.
The insouciance of liberalism—its lack of self-criticism, its insular quality, its increasingly aggressive use of state power—has moved America rightward. Today, the dominant tone of our politics is reactionary, a reaction against the decadence of liberalism.
However, reaction lacks real political and social consequence, because it defines itself in terms of what it is against. Is there an alternative to liberalism? Can we envision something after liberalism?
To a great degree, as religious believers, we already have. For example, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have reaffirmed the humanizing authority of God’s revelation—an affront to liberalism and its exaltation of free self-determination as the highest good. Many in other religious traditions have expressed similar commitments. Harvey Cox’s fantasies of a secular city no longer have currency. Men and women of faith in the West are in an important sense living after liberalism rather than against liberalism.
But what about culture and public life? Here we need a similar confidence. Perhaps this will involve a restoration of the patriotic, self-critical, and humane dimensions of liberalism. Burke and Tocqueville provide examples of a conservatism that seeks to save liberalism from its excesses. Or perhaps it will be a different way of thinking about the dignity of the individual and the common good, one more willing to give public currency to the concepts and categories of Aristotle or St. Thomas.
One way or another we need a governing new consensus in America, one that either reforms the decadent liberalism that has for too long predominated, or sets it aside for something new. The After Liberalism seminar seeks to see how far we can go in formulating this consensus.
We won’t be keeping the results a secret. The seminar papers and responses will be published in First Things in the upcoming months. Another good reason to subscribe.
R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
2.27.2012 | 8:38am
ferd says:
After Liberalism is raw coercion. We already see the Left (including President Obama) yearning for the governmental "freedom to get things done" of China. Just this year, the President openly bemoaned the constraints of the US Constitution.
2.27.2012 | 9:14am
Joe DeVet says:
Many good reasons to subscribe! I look forward to the points of view.
However, one of the premises presented here I rather doubt. Dominant tone of our politics is reactionary? I don't see it. To me the dominant tone of our politics remains an entitlement mentality, with the assumption of the supreme power of the national government as the first locus of action in all spheres of life. For example, the assumption is that anyone opposed to Obamacare must not just be opposed, but must proffer his alternative solution--which if it does not involve the government's supreme control over things, will not be recognized as a valid alternative at all.
I don't see much evidence that free market ideas are recovering their place in the public square, or that individual responsibility for one's actions and their consequences is at all on the political radar. These certainly must be among the features of a life "after liberalism."
However, one of the premises presented here I rather doubt. Dominant tone of our politics is reactionary? I don't see it. To me the dominant tone of our politics remains an entitlement mentality, with the assumption of the supreme power of the national government as the first locus of action in all spheres of life. For example, the assumption is that anyone opposed to Obamacare must not just be opposed, but must proffer his alternative solution--which if it does not involve the government's supreme control over things, will not be recognized as a valid alternative at all.
I don't see much evidence that free market ideas are recovering their place in the public square, or that individual responsibility for one's actions and their consequences is at all on the political radar. These certainly must be among the features of a life "after liberalism."
2.27.2012 | 9:49am
DVO says:
Perhaps one of your first tasks, since you have identified a post-liberal landscape, will be to quit applying the term "liberal" to groups and individuals who have long ceased to be (if in fact they ever were) anything of the kind. Words matter, and it's well past time to stop misusing this word to describe the practitioners of political, cultural and spiritual misanthropy. It is an honor they have neither earned nor deserve.
2.27.2012 | 11:36am
Tristian says:
It’s hard to be optimistic about a conference predicated on such a cliched caricature of modern liberalism, but good luck anyway—I hope some good stuff comes out of your efforts.
To respond to just one of the numerous oddities in this depiction of liberalism, I was at first utterly baffled by the claim the Justice Kennedy’s famous declaration about liberty amounts to a “bald assertion of a metaphysical prejudice.” I suppose this would make sense, however, if we miss the point that the “liberty” in question is political liberty. So read, and surely Kennedy meant no more, the claim is simply that it’s not the state’s job to settle questions about “existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” If denying that the state has the competence to legislate such matters isn’t at the heart of religious liberty—about which we’ve been hearing so much lately—what is?
To respond to just one of the numerous oddities in this depiction of liberalism, I was at first utterly baffled by the claim the Justice Kennedy’s famous declaration about liberty amounts to a “bald assertion of a metaphysical prejudice.” I suppose this would make sense, however, if we miss the point that the “liberty” in question is political liberty. So read, and surely Kennedy meant no more, the claim is simply that it’s not the state’s job to settle questions about “existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” If denying that the state has the competence to legislate such matters isn’t at the heart of religious liberty—about which we’ve been hearing so much lately—what is?
2.27.2012 | 12:10pm
Howard Kainz says:
A distinction has to be made between classical liberalism, which supported basic human and natural rights, and the liberalism that emerged in the 60s, which championed the "right" of women to abort their babies, the "right" of gays to marry, the "right" of pornographers to free speech, etc. Contemporary liberalism has gone far beyond the rights enumerated in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. I wrote about this in http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/classical-versus-contemporary-liberalism.
2.27.2012 | 2:23pm
mcasey says:
"Are we able to defend the dignity of the individual without liberalism’s commitment to the isolated, autonomous, and atomized self?"
That's a great question, except that liberalism is not committed to "the isolated, autonomous, and atomized self", at least not as most liberal people understand it. Just the opposite. Most "liberal" people I know are engaged in a struggle against the intense individualism that is so emphasized by modern American capitalism. Since Reagan (and this includes Clinton years for sure) the focus has been on the individual making it on his own, pulling himself up by his bootstraps. Competition has replaced cooperation as a general public ethos. All true.
But be assured, liberal people are as upset about this as conservatives. Most liberals assume, in fact, that this individualism and lack of collective concern are conservative ideals. Most liberals I know loath consumerism and selfishness, even if they practice them both. Funny, both sides identify the same problem and assume the other side is in favor of the situation.
I think the confusion comes from definition of terms. Liberals feel under assault from fundamentalist religious forces that, worldwide in the last 20 years, have gained enormous power. Even in America, the rise of evangelicals and fundamentalists to power (and $) has been startling to folks who see what such forces have done in places like the middle east. If you are not a religious person, the Bush years were a pretty frightening time. They believe they have their backs against the wall and are in a desperate fight against forces committed to destroying their beliefs and way of life- sort of an American Sharia law is what they fear.
As liberals have struggled to fight these forces, conservatives have formed a counter-narrative that tells of godless liberals sweeping away all the things that once defined our moral society. The one benefit (from a liberal perspective) of modern capitalism is that individual freedom in finance has to allow individual freedom in social behavior or it won't really work. You can't have economic laissez faire without social laissez faire.
I think this is the crux of the modern problem in America, especially that facing the Republican party right now. Since Reagan the gospel has been "free market", a belief in the freedom of the individual to pursue happiness as the ultimate good of society. But religious conservatives can't abide that logic because it leads to a breakdown of religious control, family structure, and singular morality. Basically, this is Romney vs. Santorum. I'm curious to see if anyone can find a way to either bridge this divide or throw one side under the bus. Time will tell.
That's a great question, except that liberalism is not committed to "the isolated, autonomous, and atomized self", at least not as most liberal people understand it. Just the opposite. Most "liberal" people I know are engaged in a struggle against the intense individualism that is so emphasized by modern American capitalism. Since Reagan (and this includes Clinton years for sure) the focus has been on the individual making it on his own, pulling himself up by his bootstraps. Competition has replaced cooperation as a general public ethos. All true.
But be assured, liberal people are as upset about this as conservatives. Most liberals assume, in fact, that this individualism and lack of collective concern are conservative ideals. Most liberals I know loath consumerism and selfishness, even if they practice them both. Funny, both sides identify the same problem and assume the other side is in favor of the situation.
I think the confusion comes from definition of terms. Liberals feel under assault from fundamentalist religious forces that, worldwide in the last 20 years, have gained enormous power. Even in America, the rise of evangelicals and fundamentalists to power (and $) has been startling to folks who see what such forces have done in places like the middle east. If you are not a religious person, the Bush years were a pretty frightening time. They believe they have their backs against the wall and are in a desperate fight against forces committed to destroying their beliefs and way of life- sort of an American Sharia law is what they fear.
As liberals have struggled to fight these forces, conservatives have formed a counter-narrative that tells of godless liberals sweeping away all the things that once defined our moral society. The one benefit (from a liberal perspective) of modern capitalism is that individual freedom in finance has to allow individual freedom in social behavior or it won't really work. You can't have economic laissez faire without social laissez faire.
I think this is the crux of the modern problem in America, especially that facing the Republican party right now. Since Reagan the gospel has been "free market", a belief in the freedom of the individual to pursue happiness as the ultimate good of society. But religious conservatives can't abide that logic because it leads to a breakdown of religious control, family structure, and singular morality. Basically, this is Romney vs. Santorum. I'm curious to see if anyone can find a way to either bridge this divide or throw one side under the bus. Time will tell.
2.27.2012 | 5:44pm
Gil says:
TomD,
"Don't you really mean 'Leftism' or 'of the Left' and not 'Liberalism.'"
It's kind of like here in Washington State when they passed gay marriage legislation, and I asked, "What about sad marriage?" You see, the gay lifestyle is all happy happy joy joy. The same as all things liberal are no longer what you want them to be. Whoever is in power as a liberal defines liberalism, not you or anyone else.
"Don't you really mean 'Leftism' or 'of the Left' and not 'Liberalism.'"
It's kind of like here in Washington State when they passed gay marriage legislation, and I asked, "What about sad marriage?" You see, the gay lifestyle is all happy happy joy joy. The same as all things liberal are no longer what you want them to be. Whoever is in power as a liberal defines liberalism, not you or anyone else.
2.27.2012 | 6:57pm
Start of List says:
MacIntyre
Deneen
Medaille
Cavanaugh
Fleming
Kalb
Gottfried
Kraynak
Kozinski
Feser
DB Hart
Reno
Arkes
Long
Kreeft
Lawler
Cessario
George
Levering
Beckwith
Esolen
Berry
Walsh
Eberstadt
Hamburger
Stoner
Elshtain
Tushnet
Stork
M.B. Gross
Carlson
Scruton
Blond
Kurth
Deneen
Medaille
Cavanaugh
Fleming
Kalb
Gottfried
Kraynak
Kozinski
Feser
DB Hart
Reno
Arkes
Long
Kreeft
Lawler
Cessario
George
Levering
Beckwith
Esolen
Berry
Walsh
Eberstadt
Hamburger
Stoner
Elshtain
Tushnet
Stork
M.B. Gross
Carlson
Scruton
Blond
Kurth
2.27.2012 | 9:04pm
Patrick says:
Tristian, just because it is outside the competance of the state to decide such things, doesn't mean that there exists a right (presumably that must be honored by the state) to define them. Particularly "the universe," is it a right to define that, or would be probably be wiser to say that we are the ones defined by it?
2.27.2012 | 9:30pm
Gil says:
mcasey,
The "[Liberals] believe they have their backs against the wall and are in a desperate fight against forces committed to destroying their beliefs and way of life- sort of an American Sharia law is what they fear."
But this fear-based liberal perception of this “American version of Sharia law” is in fact constitutional law designed to protect life, liberty (a liberty that does not negate the first right to life) and the pursuit of happiness (you can’t pursue happiness if you’re dead). Most modern liberals want to protect the right to murder the innocent, the right to promote the lie in children's sex education classes that deviant sexual acts are normal and healthy and somehow expressions of intimacy when they do irreparable harm and sometimes cause death to an other, and a host of other rights-beliefs that run counter to the right to life and a liberty founded in a first right to life, and now supporting a crazed version of "liberty" that is even espoused by Supreme Court Justices and quoted by Reno here: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” This is utter madness through and through, and the scariest philosophical principle ever uttered in American history, running counter to everything we have valued as Americans up until now.
This crazed notion of liberty is the ground that grows crazed notions like the killing of babies and destroying the lives of children serves a greater good, as well as undermining the institution of marriage, the pillar of our society, and even digging deep into undermining basic common courtesy and respect for others; as, for example, what it is now the norm, a common disrespect for the elderly, a matter not of any general concern, but rather better left to the discernment of one’s own concept of existence, including a determination if those elderly actually have any dignity worth acknowledging (I don’t see youth or adults giving them seats on public transportation), including an ultimate determination whether it is best that we should euthanize them. I just don’t see the vast network of liberal institutions, including the vast liberal media network, coming out against this madness. And when was the last time you read in any liberal newspaper a letter to the editor from a liberal who is in fundamental disagreement with this madness?
The "[Liberals] believe they have their backs against the wall and are in a desperate fight against forces committed to destroying their beliefs and way of life- sort of an American Sharia law is what they fear."
But this fear-based liberal perception of this “American version of Sharia law” is in fact constitutional law designed to protect life, liberty (a liberty that does not negate the first right to life) and the pursuit of happiness (you can’t pursue happiness if you’re dead). Most modern liberals want to protect the right to murder the innocent, the right to promote the lie in children's sex education classes that deviant sexual acts are normal and healthy and somehow expressions of intimacy when they do irreparable harm and sometimes cause death to an other, and a host of other rights-beliefs that run counter to the right to life and a liberty founded in a first right to life, and now supporting a crazed version of "liberty" that is even espoused by Supreme Court Justices and quoted by Reno here: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” This is utter madness through and through, and the scariest philosophical principle ever uttered in American history, running counter to everything we have valued as Americans up until now.
This crazed notion of liberty is the ground that grows crazed notions like the killing of babies and destroying the lives of children serves a greater good, as well as undermining the institution of marriage, the pillar of our society, and even digging deep into undermining basic common courtesy and respect for others; as, for example, what it is now the norm, a common disrespect for the elderly, a matter not of any general concern, but rather better left to the discernment of one’s own concept of existence, including a determination if those elderly actually have any dignity worth acknowledging (I don’t see youth or adults giving them seats on public transportation), including an ultimate determination whether it is best that we should euthanize them. I just don’t see the vast network of liberal institutions, including the vast liberal media network, coming out against this madness. And when was the last time you read in any liberal newspaper a letter to the editor from a liberal who is in fundamental disagreement with this madness?
2.27.2012 | 9:32pm
PJC says:
Reminds me of an excellent book I read many years ago by the same name. The authors name was Paul Edward Gottfried
2.27.2012 | 10:09pm
Matt says:
TomD, DVO, and Howard Kainz all in different ways try to disassociate leftism from liberalism, but I suspect Reno worded the announcement carefully. I would suspect that one of the topics for this meeting will be to discuss whether the more classical liberalism of American conservatism can in fact provide a real alternative to leftist liberalism, or whether its own internal dynamics lead to capitulation to the left. There are certainly more communitarian conservatives who argue for the latter. I think they raise some important critiques, although so far I believe they have failed to provide an adequate defense of "a vibrant, free, pluralistic society" and the dignity of the individual.
2.28.2012 | 12:12am
Tristian says:
Patrick, I think it does mean that actually, and this is precisely to say that the state should respect such a right. What else would it mean to insist that the state respect the demands of conscience?
Now, to say I have a political right to define for myself the meaning of life and all that isn't to say that any ideas I come up with are as good as any others, or that there are no facts of the matter when it comes to these kinds of questions. I think people confuse the Rawlsian kind of point Justice Kennedy was making here with relativism of some sort or another. But that's just a mistake.
Now, to say I have a political right to define for myself the meaning of life and all that isn't to say that any ideas I come up with are as good as any others, or that there are no facts of the matter when it comes to these kinds of questions. I think people confuse the Rawlsian kind of point Justice Kennedy was making here with relativism of some sort or another. But that's just a mistake.
2.28.2012 | 4:06am
David says:
A critique of Rawls and the Rawlsian which is also a meditation on 'liberalism' (attending especially to Rousseau, but also, for example, to Calvin(ism), Augustine/ianism, and Plato(nism) ) and its possible alternatives well worth reading in this context is George Parkin Grant's English-Speaking Justice (1974).
2.28.2012 | 5:21am
Michael PS says:
The contradiction at the heart of liberalism lies in its simultaneous assertion of popular sovereignty and universal human rights. In the brief interlude between the absolutist state of the Ancien Régime and modern mass democracies, this was achieved by 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.
But, 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.
The old-fashioned liberal believed in the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting positions, but this is an illusion, since any rule – even an ostensibly fair one – merely represents the victory of one political faction over another. As Carl Schmitt pointed out, the political comes into being when groups are placed in a relation of enmity, where each comes to perceive the other as an irreconcilable adversary to be fought and, if possible, defeated. “every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms itself into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively as friends and enemies.” The state is merely the stabilised result of past conflicts.
Rousseau saw this very well. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
But, 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.
The old-fashioned liberal believed in the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting positions, but this is an illusion, since any rule – even an ostensibly fair one – merely represents the victory of one political faction over another. As Carl Schmitt pointed out, the political comes into being when groups are placed in a relation of enmity, where each comes to perceive the other as an irreconcilable adversary to be fought and, if possible, defeated. “every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms itself into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively as friends and enemies.” The state is merely the stabilised result of past conflicts.
Rousseau saw this very well. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
2.28.2012 | 8:00am
TomD says:
@Matt: my observation is that these terms . . . liberal, conservative, Right, Left, libertarian . . . have often been used without precise definitions . . . and clarity about the distinctions between European usage and applicability to the United States. Perhaps the After Liberalism Seminar will address these issues.
In some sense, today's conservative is yesterday's liberal. Leftism is a European phenomenon imported into the United States in an attempt to "transform" us. "All men are created equal," is very different from the Left's view of equality.
Liberals privilege liberty . . . Leftists privilege equality. In the American context, those on the left in America have always understood that they needed to couch their preference for equality in the language of freedom . . . i.e. FDR's four "freedoms" and freedom from want, for example. This is, in a sense, turning the traditional American notion of freedom on its head.
To privilege equality is, of necessity, to subvert real freedom. To paraphrase Hayek . . . to make people equal, you must treat them unequally. Traditional notions of freedom are simply not part of the equation. Liberty transforms into libertine-ism and "equality" becomes the operative political and cultural standard. This is, I would contend, a very a-American idea.
In some sense, today's conservative is yesterday's liberal. Leftism is a European phenomenon imported into the United States in an attempt to "transform" us. "All men are created equal," is very different from the Left's view of equality.
Liberals privilege liberty . . . Leftists privilege equality. In the American context, those on the left in America have always understood that they needed to couch their preference for equality in the language of freedom . . . i.e. FDR's four "freedoms" and freedom from want, for example. This is, in a sense, turning the traditional American notion of freedom on its head.
To privilege equality is, of necessity, to subvert real freedom. To paraphrase Hayek . . . to make people equal, you must treat them unequally. Traditional notions of freedom are simply not part of the equation. Liberty transforms into libertine-ism and "equality" becomes the operative political and cultural standard. This is, I would contend, a very a-American idea.
2.28.2012 | 8:24am
Gail Finke says:
Tristian wrote: "I was at first utterly baffled by the claim the Justice Kennedy’s famous declaration about liberty amounts to a “bald assertion of a metaphysical prejudice.” I suppose this would make sense, however, if we miss the point that the “liberty” in question is political liberty. So read, and surely Kennedy meant no more, the claim is simply that it’s not the state’s job to settle questions about “existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” If denying that the state has the competence to legislate such matters isn’t at the heart of religious liberty—about which we’ve been hearing so much lately—what is?"
No, the "liberty" in question was when and if it is permissible to kill another human being for any reason you choose. This bizarre political opinion states that the State cannot answer questions of “existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” But this is nonsense. If these things are solely up the individual to define, anyone could kill anyone else. You could kill me because my political opinions made me, in your mind, not quite human. And as preposterous as such a statement is, the Supreme Court opinion backs it up. Because who are they to say that your conception of the mystery of life and the universe are wrong? If I find disabled people don't fit my personal definition of human, or poor people, or elderly people -- who are you to say I'm wrong? And who can arrest me, because the government certainly has no ability to say I'm wrong? If a woman can kill her own innocent child up until the moment of its birth for any reason at all, or no reason, then there's no reason I can't kill someone who has in fact done something wrong, or inconvenienced me, or gotten in the way of my career or personal happiness. In fact, this opinion negates the entire concept of law.
Your assertion that you might, in fact, come up with a worse opinion about other people and that the opinion doesn't mean that there are no facts doesn't hold up. If the court can't determine the facts about who has the right to kill whom, which is exactly what the opinion says, then who is left to determine which conception of them is better than others, or which one the law should back up? You are left, if you are to have law and government at all, with whoever has the biggest numbers or the most power. And that has nothing to do with truth or justice.
No, the "liberty" in question was when and if it is permissible to kill another human being for any reason you choose. This bizarre political opinion states that the State cannot answer questions of “existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” But this is nonsense. If these things are solely up the individual to define, anyone could kill anyone else. You could kill me because my political opinions made me, in your mind, not quite human. And as preposterous as such a statement is, the Supreme Court opinion backs it up. Because who are they to say that your conception of the mystery of life and the universe are wrong? If I find disabled people don't fit my personal definition of human, or poor people, or elderly people -- who are you to say I'm wrong? And who can arrest me, because the government certainly has no ability to say I'm wrong? If a woman can kill her own innocent child up until the moment of its birth for any reason at all, or no reason, then there's no reason I can't kill someone who has in fact done something wrong, or inconvenienced me, or gotten in the way of my career or personal happiness. In fact, this opinion negates the entire concept of law.
Your assertion that you might, in fact, come up with a worse opinion about other people and that the opinion doesn't mean that there are no facts doesn't hold up. If the court can't determine the facts about who has the right to kill whom, which is exactly what the opinion says, then who is left to determine which conception of them is better than others, or which one the law should back up? You are left, if you are to have law and government at all, with whoever has the biggest numbers or the most power. And that has nothing to do with truth or justice.
2.28.2012 | 9:29am
Durin says:
"If you are not a religious person, the Bush years were a pretty frightening time. They believe they have their backs against the wall and are in a desperate fight against forces committed to destroying their beliefs and way of life- sort of an American Sharia law is what they fear."
Wow. I hope you meant this as hyperbole, because it sure sounds like you mean it literally. How do you get to the point that you are afraid of your neighbors?
In some places in the middle east Xians are afraid of their neighbors b/c a significant number are willing to murder them, eg, see the Copts. Are you afraid that your neighbors will murder you?
I do not know your intent, but I will share how your words impacted me. Do you realize how it sounds when you say that "they" are taking over to destroy your "way of life"? What type of person that makes you sound like?
Durin
Wow. I hope you meant this as hyperbole, because it sure sounds like you mean it literally. How do you get to the point that you are afraid of your neighbors?
In some places in the middle east Xians are afraid of their neighbors b/c a significant number are willing to murder them, eg, see the Copts. Are you afraid that your neighbors will murder you?
I do not know your intent, but I will share how your words impacted me. Do you realize how it sounds when you say that "they" are taking over to destroy your "way of life"? What type of person that makes you sound like?
Durin
2.28.2012 | 3:55pm
Howard Kainz says:
@Durin: Actually I don't think the statement is hyperbole. I am surrounded by non-religious persons and liberal Catholics who view any kind of a seriously Christian president as a threat -- especially to the "right of women to choose." For many in the Abortion Party, the Christian Right is comparable to Sharia. Of course, they've never lived under real Sharia.
2.28.2012 | 5:23pm
Don Roberto says:
Gil, you're right on the money. Libertinism is the conscious or unconscious search for self-justification by those who do not accept the will of the Father. Satan was the first libertine. They may believe they are Buddhists or atheists, but they are actually (99% of them) pagans. All they need to do to determine which of the usual gods they worship is to consider one thing: what do they say to themselves or fantasize about in the dark of night, to comfort themselves, to ease back into sleep.
†
†
2.28.2012 | 7:55pm
Woody says:
Start of List, I think you would want to add at least Archbishop Javier Martinez, of Granada, Spain, to your list, which presumably is more inclusive than the actual attendees at the seminar. See his "Beyond Secular Reason" here:
http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/martinez.htm
I will certainly be waiting to read the papers.
http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/martinez.htm
I will certainly be waiting to read the papers.
2.28.2012 | 11:07pm
Gil says:
From: Howard Kainz:
“@Durin: Actually I don't think the statement is hyperbole. I am surrounded by non-religious persons and liberal Catholics who view any kind of a seriously Christian president as a threat -- especially to the "right of women to choose." For many in the Abortion Party, the Christian Right is comparable to Sharia. Of course, they've never lived under real Sharia.”
Thank you Howard Kainz for your recapitulation of a general fear shared by a vast majority of Catholic liberal Americans, probably best captured by description in its mundane essence as Pelosi Catholicism, which, I believe, has its roots in the pious and devout Catholic Locke, whose fundamental flaw was his philosophical tenet of blank slate that was quietly buried in his truly great and Catholic inspired notions of liberty and justice. This forgotten blank slate tenet quietly continued its dominant undercurrent right up to our times in working its alchemical magic, transforming the ground of societal patterns of relating, politically and otherwise, into patterns of self-aggrandizement, which in essence affirmed all the mad adventures into extricating Christians from the Body of Christ and placing them squarely in the realm of high ethical abstraction. And, as I stated earlier, Locke, too, had his roots in Descartes, who was the first major Catholic philosopher of the Western world to center reality outside the Body of Christ in his famous phrase, “I think, therefore I am.” Unwittingly he centered the gestalt of human essence in the cognitive processes, the “I Am” of the human existent no longer an image and likeness of God in an imitation of Christ, but an idolatrous observing of one’s thought processes (gazing at, the gaze constituting the dynamic of idolatry, which turned our thinking itself into a god), and Kant was the first to recognize the terrible danger in this (for example, carrying this idolatry to its logical conclusion, it would be easy to kill fetuses, infants and humans who were radically impaired in their cognitive abilities), and tried, as a pious and devout Christian, to halt this dilemma, but unwittingly affirmed it, actually carved it in stone in his categorical imperative, thoroughly extricating Christians from the Body of Christ and centering them exclusively in Practical Reason, which amounts to centering the essence of humanity in the cognitive processes!, and, as Hannah Arendt rightly claimed, no philosopher has escaped Kant’s grip; they are, in fact, all his children, including Nietzsche. And the best critique of this tragic death of God With Us as the Body of Christ is in the first 35 pages of Dostoyevsky’s first great novel, “Notes From Underground”.
What us Christians who stress being the Body of Christ, with Christ as our Head, are adamant about is imitating Christ, and this way of life, this living as the Body of Christ, “affects my life, not my speculations, fantasies, my religious and theological daydreams, but my real life.” (Hans Urs von Balthasar). All else is secondary, including political life, yet secondary phenomenon is what Christians must be committed to, for in not being of the world in Christ, we must commit to being in it, living out an incarnational commitment, for God desires that all be saved. That’s the point.
Because the philosophical entrenchment of most liberals viewing the imitation of Christ as an opposition to a woman’s right to kill her child persists, Christ then becomes a threat to America, and the envelope is pushed: to be a committed liberal, one must either renounce Christ, or manufacture another one, a Christ in the image and likeness of the ideas of liberalism, and this new Christ will demand an unconstitutional right to kill (abort or euthanize, or just let die through intentional neglect in ICU rooms at government funded hospitals), control children in our public schools, empowering state bureaucrats to indoctrinate them into embracing lies that threaten their lives and the lives of others, and a host of other commitments designed by liberal state functionaries of a secular religion who will only embrace Christians who bow to the state’s Christ, and who publicly, in some fashion, must deny or denounce the real Christ.
A quote from Von Balthasar’s book “Prayer” (179-180):
“Christian Liberalism…will never cease finding fault with the New Testament’s narrowing down of the contemplation of God. Here we see heaven standing open in Jesus Christ….He is the one to whom we must listen; it is in him that the great diversity [multi-cultural] (‘in many and various ways’, Heb 1:1) of the former revelations of God, both inside and outside of Israel, in history and nature…have been summed up. ‘In these last days’ all these revelations have been narrowed down and channeled toward the only Son ‘whom he appointed the heir of all things’…The tremendous affirmation contained in the Christian message inevitably casts a shadow, a negation: ‘No one who denies the Son has the Father’ (1 Jn 2:23). ‘He who has not the Son of God has no life’ (1 Jn 5:12). ‘He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him’ (Jn 5:23). ‘No one comes to the Father, but by me’ (Jn 14:6). ‘You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also’ (Jn 8:19)….(‘The Father abides, dwells in me’ Jn 14:10)…
“Christianity owes it to the world to make a clear connection between its testimony to the sole Redeemer, in whose name it takes ‘every thought captive to obey Christ’ (2 Cor 10:5), and the witness of the Holy Spirit, which causes the entire world to awake to a religious freedom and universality which, left to itself, it could never attain nor imagine.”
Do you see? Religious freedom, guaranteed by our Constitution, and genuine, all-encompassing multiculturalism (universality) is not possible outside of Christ, although that’s where liberals futilely search for it. And the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would never condone the killing of the innocent. Liberalism begins its trek in the pious and devout Descartes, takes on its political dimensions in the pious and devout Locke, and is carved in stone by the pious and devout Kant. And in this process God is deposed. Karl Barth called this process “an idol factory”.
Liberalism in all its manifestations, although contributing a multitude of Christian values that altered the world in a good way forever, in essence chose the realm of high abstraction over the Body of Christ, which in essence is self-glorification. This is the fundamental flaw of Liberalism, its ethical brilliance and contributions (which it received from Christ) notwithstanding.
“@Durin: Actually I don't think the statement is hyperbole. I am surrounded by non-religious persons and liberal Catholics who view any kind of a seriously Christian president as a threat -- especially to the "right of women to choose." For many in the Abortion Party, the Christian Right is comparable to Sharia. Of course, they've never lived under real Sharia.”
Thank you Howard Kainz for your recapitulation of a general fear shared by a vast majority of Catholic liberal Americans, probably best captured by description in its mundane essence as Pelosi Catholicism, which, I believe, has its roots in the pious and devout Catholic Locke, whose fundamental flaw was his philosophical tenet of blank slate that was quietly buried in his truly great and Catholic inspired notions of liberty and justice. This forgotten blank slate tenet quietly continued its dominant undercurrent right up to our times in working its alchemical magic, transforming the ground of societal patterns of relating, politically and otherwise, into patterns of self-aggrandizement, which in essence affirmed all the mad adventures into extricating Christians from the Body of Christ and placing them squarely in the realm of high ethical abstraction. And, as I stated earlier, Locke, too, had his roots in Descartes, who was the first major Catholic philosopher of the Western world to center reality outside the Body of Christ in his famous phrase, “I think, therefore I am.” Unwittingly he centered the gestalt of human essence in the cognitive processes, the “I Am” of the human existent no longer an image and likeness of God in an imitation of Christ, but an idolatrous observing of one’s thought processes (gazing at, the gaze constituting the dynamic of idolatry, which turned our thinking itself into a god), and Kant was the first to recognize the terrible danger in this (for example, carrying this idolatry to its logical conclusion, it would be easy to kill fetuses, infants and humans who were radically impaired in their cognitive abilities), and tried, as a pious and devout Christian, to halt this dilemma, but unwittingly affirmed it, actually carved it in stone in his categorical imperative, thoroughly extricating Christians from the Body of Christ and centering them exclusively in Practical Reason, which amounts to centering the essence of humanity in the cognitive processes!, and, as Hannah Arendt rightly claimed, no philosopher has escaped Kant’s grip; they are, in fact, all his children, including Nietzsche. And the best critique of this tragic death of God With Us as the Body of Christ is in the first 35 pages of Dostoyevsky’s first great novel, “Notes From Underground”.
What us Christians who stress being the Body of Christ, with Christ as our Head, are adamant about is imitating Christ, and this way of life, this living as the Body of Christ, “affects my life, not my speculations, fantasies, my religious and theological daydreams, but my real life.” (Hans Urs von Balthasar). All else is secondary, including political life, yet secondary phenomenon is what Christians must be committed to, for in not being of the world in Christ, we must commit to being in it, living out an incarnational commitment, for God desires that all be saved. That’s the point.
Because the philosophical entrenchment of most liberals viewing the imitation of Christ as an opposition to a woman’s right to kill her child persists, Christ then becomes a threat to America, and the envelope is pushed: to be a committed liberal, one must either renounce Christ, or manufacture another one, a Christ in the image and likeness of the ideas of liberalism, and this new Christ will demand an unconstitutional right to kill (abort or euthanize, or just let die through intentional neglect in ICU rooms at government funded hospitals), control children in our public schools, empowering state bureaucrats to indoctrinate them into embracing lies that threaten their lives and the lives of others, and a host of other commitments designed by liberal state functionaries of a secular religion who will only embrace Christians who bow to the state’s Christ, and who publicly, in some fashion, must deny or denounce the real Christ.
A quote from Von Balthasar’s book “Prayer” (179-180):
“Christian Liberalism…will never cease finding fault with the New Testament’s narrowing down of the contemplation of God. Here we see heaven standing open in Jesus Christ….He is the one to whom we must listen; it is in him that the great diversity [multi-cultural] (‘in many and various ways’, Heb 1:1) of the former revelations of God, both inside and outside of Israel, in history and nature…have been summed up. ‘In these last days’ all these revelations have been narrowed down and channeled toward the only Son ‘whom he appointed the heir of all things’…The tremendous affirmation contained in the Christian message inevitably casts a shadow, a negation: ‘No one who denies the Son has the Father’ (1 Jn 2:23). ‘He who has not the Son of God has no life’ (1 Jn 5:12). ‘He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him’ (Jn 5:23). ‘No one comes to the Father, but by me’ (Jn 14:6). ‘You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also’ (Jn 8:19)….(‘The Father abides, dwells in me’ Jn 14:10)…
“Christianity owes it to the world to make a clear connection between its testimony to the sole Redeemer, in whose name it takes ‘every thought captive to obey Christ’ (2 Cor 10:5), and the witness of the Holy Spirit, which causes the entire world to awake to a religious freedom and universality which, left to itself, it could never attain nor imagine.”
Do you see? Religious freedom, guaranteed by our Constitution, and genuine, all-encompassing multiculturalism (universality) is not possible outside of Christ, although that’s where liberals futilely search for it. And the Father, Son and Holy Spirit would never condone the killing of the innocent. Liberalism begins its trek in the pious and devout Descartes, takes on its political dimensions in the pious and devout Locke, and is carved in stone by the pious and devout Kant. And in this process God is deposed. Karl Barth called this process “an idol factory”.
Liberalism in all its manifestations, although contributing a multitude of Christian values that altered the world in a good way forever, in essence chose the realm of high abstraction over the Body of Christ, which in essence is self-glorification. This is the fundamental flaw of Liberalism, its ethical brilliance and contributions (which it received from Christ) notwithstanding.
2.29.2012 | 1:23am
Howard Kainz says:
@Gil: Sorry, I didn't finish my last message. John Locke was a Protestant. His "blank slate" theory was epistemological, and didn't have much obvious relevance to politics. His classical theory of liberalism, which greatly influenced our Founders, is found primarily in his Second Treatise.
2.29.2012 | 12:52pm
Gil says:
Howard Kaina,
I stand corrected on Locke's Christian heritage. Epistemologically speaking, though, Locke insisted on the tabula rasa in his limiting sources of knowledge. I would argue that a knowing via the Holy Spirit, independent of language and verifiable cognitive activity required for intellectual discernment, is a spiritual reality. Even recent intrauterine studies of fetuses are determining there is cognitive activity in the fetus which signifies a type of human knowing, which, from my point of view, points to an activity of knowing that resides in the Holy Spirit (Descartes argued that there are innate ideas, what Locke rejected, that have not yet arrived at consciousness), and an argument against the possibility of this latter kind of knowing (presence of the Holy Spirit, what we might call the knowledge of Love) supports the Cartesian notion that being, or rather "relative being", the "I am" of the individual existent, doesn't occur until there is recognizable cognitive activity where thought can think about thinking, which alters the course of ontology; whereas in the past our being, or relative being, was established in the image and likeness of God (Being), it is now established in the cognitive processes, high abstraction. That’s where we began our descent away from our actual relative being.
I named these epistemological notions as undercurrents in forming political ideas.
I stand corrected on Locke's Christian heritage. Epistemologically speaking, though, Locke insisted on the tabula rasa in his limiting sources of knowledge. I would argue that a knowing via the Holy Spirit, independent of language and verifiable cognitive activity required for intellectual discernment, is a spiritual reality. Even recent intrauterine studies of fetuses are determining there is cognitive activity in the fetus which signifies a type of human knowing, which, from my point of view, points to an activity of knowing that resides in the Holy Spirit (Descartes argued that there are innate ideas, what Locke rejected, that have not yet arrived at consciousness), and an argument against the possibility of this latter kind of knowing (presence of the Holy Spirit, what we might call the knowledge of Love) supports the Cartesian notion that being, or rather "relative being", the "I am" of the individual existent, doesn't occur until there is recognizable cognitive activity where thought can think about thinking, which alters the course of ontology; whereas in the past our being, or relative being, was established in the image and likeness of God (Being), it is now established in the cognitive processes, high abstraction. That’s where we began our descent away from our actual relative being.
I named these epistemological notions as undercurrents in forming political ideas.
3.3.2012 | 2:08pm
mcasey says:
"This crazed notion of liberty is the ground that grows crazed notions like the killing of babies and destroying the lives of children serves a greater good, as well as undermining the institution of marriage, the pillar of our society..."
Lot of straw men here, but I'll try. I know many people of liberal bent and not one has ever advocated killing babies- some even work hard to save children from the brutal cruelties of rampant capitalism. Of course, they tend to think of babies as actual (post-partum) not potential (fetus). Most think of abortion as a necessary evil, to be undergone only in extreme cases. But I'll grant you that point, at least by your definition.
As for destroying the lives of children, that's a pure (impure) fantasy. There is nothing whatsoever about contemporary liberalism that in any way shape or form aims at destroying children's lives. In fact, the aim is exactly the opposite (Head Start, affordable health care, workplace day care for moms etc). All these programs were designed to help the modern family survive and prosper. So this claim is just Santa Clause stuff. Liberal love children as much as conservatives do. Period.
As for gay marriage undermining traditional marriage, that is a claim I have heard many times and have yet to see one shred of even peripheral evidence that it is nothing but bigotry. We (my wife and I) have gay friends who are married and their commitment has had absolutely no effect (well maybe a little positive happiness) on our marriage at all. Why would it? We didn't get married to show off or prove our social worth or enforce some religious belief. We got married because we love each other and wanted to make a permanent commitment, same as gay couples who make that choice. I don't define our marriage by denying the same opportunity to others, nor do we feel remotely threatened by any other pair of consenting adults who want to tie the knot. So, try as I might, I can see no clear reasoning for this claim, except the same bigotry noted above.
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” This is utter madness through and through, and the scariest philosophical principle ever uttered in American history."
This one stumps me utterly. How else is one to authentically figure out the meaning of one's life except by personal discernment? Asking another person to define the meaning of my life is asking someone else to breath for me. Not only does one have the liberty to do this, one has, I think, the obligation. Now that doesn't mean that one should just think up a meaning out of no where (although you can if you want), but that one has the ability to read and learn and think and observe life in an honest fashion so as to eventually understand one's purpose. But just to take someone else's word for it blindly- whether that person be a parent, a sergeant or a bishop- is dangerously irresponsible. Figuring out your life and why God put you here is your job, not someone else's. Shirking that responsibility to me is a nihilistic, cowardly denial of the very essence of life. The fact that one is able to actually do this without persecution is one thing that makes America such a great place.
Lot of straw men here, but I'll try. I know many people of liberal bent and not one has ever advocated killing babies- some even work hard to save children from the brutal cruelties of rampant capitalism. Of course, they tend to think of babies as actual (post-partum) not potential (fetus). Most think of abortion as a necessary evil, to be undergone only in extreme cases. But I'll grant you that point, at least by your definition.
As for destroying the lives of children, that's a pure (impure) fantasy. There is nothing whatsoever about contemporary liberalism that in any way shape or form aims at destroying children's lives. In fact, the aim is exactly the opposite (Head Start, affordable health care, workplace day care for moms etc). All these programs were designed to help the modern family survive and prosper. So this claim is just Santa Clause stuff. Liberal love children as much as conservatives do. Period.
As for gay marriage undermining traditional marriage, that is a claim I have heard many times and have yet to see one shred of even peripheral evidence that it is nothing but bigotry. We (my wife and I) have gay friends who are married and their commitment has had absolutely no effect (well maybe a little positive happiness) on our marriage at all. Why would it? We didn't get married to show off or prove our social worth or enforce some religious belief. We got married because we love each other and wanted to make a permanent commitment, same as gay couples who make that choice. I don't define our marriage by denying the same opportunity to others, nor do we feel remotely threatened by any other pair of consenting adults who want to tie the knot. So, try as I might, I can see no clear reasoning for this claim, except the same bigotry noted above.
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” This is utter madness through and through, and the scariest philosophical principle ever uttered in American history."
This one stumps me utterly. How else is one to authentically figure out the meaning of one's life except by personal discernment? Asking another person to define the meaning of my life is asking someone else to breath for me. Not only does one have the liberty to do this, one has, I think, the obligation. Now that doesn't mean that one should just think up a meaning out of no where (although you can if you want), but that one has the ability to read and learn and think and observe life in an honest fashion so as to eventually understand one's purpose. But just to take someone else's word for it blindly- whether that person be a parent, a sergeant or a bishop- is dangerously irresponsible. Figuring out your life and why God put you here is your job, not someone else's. Shirking that responsibility to me is a nihilistic, cowardly denial of the very essence of life. The fact that one is able to actually do this without persecution is one thing that makes America such a great place.
3.5.2012 | 4:11pm
Gil says:
mcasey,
Also, when Justice Kennedy wrote in "Planned Parenthood v. Casey", "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” he was specifically referencing the "reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."
Do you see how high abstraction has very specific and concrete results? What Justice Kennedy missed in a glaring way was that at the heart of liberty is not what he espouses, but its prerequisite, the right to life, for without life there is in fact no liberty for the person at all, and with legalized abortion every person’s life is threatened. This is the danger when you exit the real world in idolizing ideas, especially ideas that justify killing, what in fact Kennedy was doing. And I would add that Christianity, being incarnational, always resides in the real world. In the end we must insist that Christianity is about the Life of Christ, and how we live in him. Lincoln, not Kennedy, got it right about freedom (there is no liberty without freedom): life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can't reverse that hierarchical order or dismiss any element without mangling the gestalt that constitutes freedom, not if you are serious about the truth of liberty, what its essence is, the promotion first of life itself.
“You aborted me when you aborted what you viewed as the least.”
Also, when Justice Kennedy wrote in "Planned Parenthood v. Casey", "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” he was specifically referencing the "reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."
Do you see how high abstraction has very specific and concrete results? What Justice Kennedy missed in a glaring way was that at the heart of liberty is not what he espouses, but its prerequisite, the right to life, for without life there is in fact no liberty for the person at all, and with legalized abortion every person’s life is threatened. This is the danger when you exit the real world in idolizing ideas, especially ideas that justify killing, what in fact Kennedy was doing. And I would add that Christianity, being incarnational, always resides in the real world. In the end we must insist that Christianity is about the Life of Christ, and how we live in him. Lincoln, not Kennedy, got it right about freedom (there is no liberty without freedom): life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can't reverse that hierarchical order or dismiss any element without mangling the gestalt that constitutes freedom, not if you are serious about the truth of liberty, what its essence is, the promotion first of life itself.
“You aborted me when you aborted what you viewed as the least.”
3.5.2012 | 4:36pm
Gil says:
Justice Kennedy, immersed as he was in high abstraction, also affirmed in Lawrence v. Texas that the practice of anal sex was a right, even though in every instance it does harm to the body, and this decision was sought by gay activists because it was a practice they believed was a high expression of intimacy when in fact it is always a sadomasochistic act (where it is enjoyed; if not, it’s an assault), and when someone is physically hurt and/or humiliated, it is not intimate. It can be titillating as an S&M practice, but not intimate. Cutting is becoming epidemic among teens. Should we also fight to give them the right to cut themselves as we have given them the right to harm their bodies in a sexual act, as well as lying to them that it is perfectly normal and an expression of intimacy? This is what this ongoing liberal accommodation of gay culture is doing to the youth. I know you probably find Christian websites anathema, but what about ABC News (at least that liberal outlet won’t offend by explaining what is being taught in sex education classes, and thus they with us remain dumbfounded)?:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6428003&page=1
It's also interesting that more and more gay persons don't want to talk about sex, a sexual movement birthed in the sexual revolution where sex could finally be talked about! I'm certain that is because lies are best promoted when we are encouraged not to talk about the truth.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6428003&page=1
It's also interesting that more and more gay persons don't want to talk about sex, a sexual movement birthed in the sexual revolution where sex could finally be talked about! I'm certain that is because lies are best promoted when we are encouraged not to talk about the truth.
3.13.2012 | 4:37pm
mcasey says:
"this decision was sought by gay activists because it was a practice they believed was a high expression of intimacy when in fact it is always a sadomasochistic act (where it is enjoyed; if not, it’s an assault), and when someone is physically hurt and/or humiliated, it is not intimate."
I try hard not to judge other peoples' sexual habits, as I would not want them to judge mine. If gay people who do this (and many straight people as well) feel it is an expression of intimacy, then the discussion is really over. Intimacy between two adults is whatever they feel together, period. It is categorically impossible (not to mention deeply prideful and judgmental) to claim your type of intimacy is the only type of real intimacy. Intimacy is a shared feeling between people, a feeling which any outsider is by definition not privy to (that's why it's intimate). Since this concept is obvious and self-evident, I have to wonder where all the judgement is coming from. It will be a grim day when I spend time sitting and thinking about the ways other people are practicing sexual intimacy, and a cold day in hell when I decide that my way is the only way. I'm arrogant, but not that bad yet. I still have a trace of decency and humility, enough to know that I don't know all there is to know about human love.
I try hard not to judge other peoples' sexual habits, as I would not want them to judge mine. If gay people who do this (and many straight people as well) feel it is an expression of intimacy, then the discussion is really over. Intimacy between two adults is whatever they feel together, period. It is categorically impossible (not to mention deeply prideful and judgmental) to claim your type of intimacy is the only type of real intimacy. Intimacy is a shared feeling between people, a feeling which any outsider is by definition not privy to (that's why it's intimate). Since this concept is obvious and self-evident, I have to wonder where all the judgement is coming from. It will be a grim day when I spend time sitting and thinking about the ways other people are practicing sexual intimacy, and a cold day in hell when I decide that my way is the only way. I'm arrogant, but not that bad yet. I still have a trace of decency and humility, enough to know that I don't know all there is to know about human love.
3.15.2012 | 9:44pm
Gil says:
mcasey,
“If gay people who do this (and many straight people as well) feel it is an expression of intimacy, then the discussion is really over. Intimacy between two adults is whatever they feel together, period."
I understand the logic. It's like what Justice Kennedy wrote: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life...” I remember reading the account of how a gay man while anally penetrating his lover was also strangling him, something they apparently had done in the past to heighten the orgiastic experience, but this time the lover died, and the murderer's plea of innocence was precisely what you write, that they were mutually involved in an act of intimacy, and the lover’s death was simply an accident. But even if the person being strangled had objected during intercourse, at least one of the partners was involved in an intimate act by HIS definition and his lover’s former definition that he had decided to alter on this particular occasion, following yours and Justice Kennedy’s logic, that is.
What my argument has been for years is that if adults want to believe these sexual acts that in every instance cause harm are intimate, even though they defy the traditional psychological understanding of what intimacy is, that’s one thing, Orwellian in its implications as so much is in gay culture, but it is quite another to teach children in our schools that these acts are not only intimate, but, as is the widespread case today, teen girls now, through gay logic, have no logical argument against their boyfriends’ desire to anally penetrate them. The girls are in fact made to feel like they have the problem when they refuse this “intimate” experience. After all, the authority of sex educators has declared that these are intimate acts that are quite normal, making the girls the ones illogically refusing an intimate expression during a sexual encounter. And they are left on their own to try to figure out exactly what they did wrong, whether they agreed to the act and experienced abuse or illogically refused he act in defiance of the new intimacy rules of sexual encounter. Their teachers and counselors simply can’t help them, and they know this, and why they move into adulthood abused and confused. This of course leads to what is described in the ABC News article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6428003&page=1
This is one of many prices paid to accommodate gay culture.
If you desire the last word, be my guest. But understand that this fight from my view is a fight to save the children, not dictate to consenting adults who can delude themselves into anything they want. In other words, stop indoctrinating children into practicing sadomasochistic sex and leaving the victim with no recourse when she realizes she has been violently violated.
Your way is the tenaciously liberal way, compassion outstripping logic, medical science and a desire to protect our children.
“If gay people who do this (and many straight people as well) feel it is an expression of intimacy, then the discussion is really over. Intimacy between two adults is whatever they feel together, period."
I understand the logic. It's like what Justice Kennedy wrote: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life...” I remember reading the account of how a gay man while anally penetrating his lover was also strangling him, something they apparently had done in the past to heighten the orgiastic experience, but this time the lover died, and the murderer's plea of innocence was precisely what you write, that they were mutually involved in an act of intimacy, and the lover’s death was simply an accident. But even if the person being strangled had objected during intercourse, at least one of the partners was involved in an intimate act by HIS definition and his lover’s former definition that he had decided to alter on this particular occasion, following yours and Justice Kennedy’s logic, that is.
What my argument has been for years is that if adults want to believe these sexual acts that in every instance cause harm are intimate, even though they defy the traditional psychological understanding of what intimacy is, that’s one thing, Orwellian in its implications as so much is in gay culture, but it is quite another to teach children in our schools that these acts are not only intimate, but, as is the widespread case today, teen girls now, through gay logic, have no logical argument against their boyfriends’ desire to anally penetrate them. The girls are in fact made to feel like they have the problem when they refuse this “intimate” experience. After all, the authority of sex educators has declared that these are intimate acts that are quite normal, making the girls the ones illogically refusing an intimate expression during a sexual encounter. And they are left on their own to try to figure out exactly what they did wrong, whether they agreed to the act and experienced abuse or illogically refused he act in defiance of the new intimacy rules of sexual encounter. Their teachers and counselors simply can’t help them, and they know this, and why they move into adulthood abused and confused. This of course leads to what is described in the ABC News article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6428003&page=1
This is one of many prices paid to accommodate gay culture.
If you desire the last word, be my guest. But understand that this fight from my view is a fight to save the children, not dictate to consenting adults who can delude themselves into anything they want. In other words, stop indoctrinating children into practicing sadomasochistic sex and leaving the victim with no recourse when she realizes she has been violently violated.
Your way is the tenaciously liberal way, compassion outstripping logic, medical science and a desire to protect our children.
6.26.2012 | 6:25am
HomEins says:
Philosophical entrenchment of most liberals viewing the imitation of Christ as an opposition to a woman’s right to kill her child persists, Christ then becomes a threat to America, and the envelope is pushed: to be a committed liberal, one must either renounce Christ, or manufacture another one, a Christ in the image and likeness of the ideas of liberalism, and this new Christ will demand an unconstitutional right to kill (abort or euthanize, or just let die through intentional neglect in ICU rooms at government funded hospitals), control children in our public schools, empowering state bureaucrats to indoctrinate them into embracing lies that threaten their lives and the lives of others, and a host of other commitments designed by liberal state functionaries of a secular religion who will only embrace Christians who bow to the state’s Christ, and who publicly, in some fashion, must deny or denounce the real Christ.
Don't you really mean "Leftism" or "of the Left" and not "Liberalism." The Left today has abandoned the core tenets of Liberalism and we really should not let them use this term for themselves, and we certainly should not designate them as liberals. They are not liberals, they are leftists. There is all the difference in the world between the two.
John F. Kennedy was a liberal, Barack Obama is a leftist.