The Gay Science
The California Supreme Court is now hearing arguments on the state's Proposition 8, which forbids same-sex marriages. Rather than rail, one more time, at the turpitude of California or the perversity of homosexuals and liberals, I would like to look very briefly at some of the more prominent arguments being used. This is an addendum or, because of the timing, an anticipation of a Chronicles piece that will be posted in a week or so.
The opposition to homosexual marriage generally relies on religious arguments drawn from the Scriptures or from the traditions of the various churches and sects that drummed up money and votes against same-sex marriage. I hate to pour cold water on good intentions, but religious arguments are of no great validity in a country without a national religion. Many Protestant sects--Obama's pseudo-Christian United Church of "Christ," for example--endorse Gay Marriage, and of the groups that oppose it, e.g. Mormons and Catholics, they agree on so little else, beginning with every item of the Nicene Creed, their united opposition amounts to nothing more significant than a single-issue tactical alliance whose members are united only in what they reject and not what they affirm.
Such incoherence, I would suggest, not only cannot be made the basis for a practical long-range strategy but also confuses the simple and weakens their convictions. If Christians can join forces with Mormons, why not Muslims (as some self-declared conservatives do)? Why not Voodoo practitioners or Moloch-worshippers, who want more live babies to sacrifice in their abominable ceremonies. In some parts of the South, the Baptists and bootleggers worked together to maintain prohibition, and it is hard to see how conscientious Catholics can join forces, especially on a marital issue, with a polygamous sect that has only temporarily suspended the right to take multiple wives. If we are once clear that America is not a Christian nation, we can give up futile crusades based on a fantasy.
Catholics will retort that this is a natural law question, but this, again, is a futile argument in a country where 1) there is no widespread acceptance of natural law theory, and 2) even advocates of natural law disagree. Such arguments may well be binding on our conscience--though hardly as much as the universal Christian tradition against homosexuality--but they can play no effective part on the political stage. If natural law is what Robert George and George Weigel say it is, then it is as often a tool of leftist revolution against Christendom as it is a weapon of defense.
The question, as both sides really know, is a political one. But what political principles are at stake? None, it would seem. Each side is willing to appeal alternately to the voters, by way of referendum, or to the Courts, in appeals to the principles of equality and human rights, or to the direct action, in stirring up the less stable elements in public demonstrations.
This time round, the issue is fairly narrowly drawn. Supporters of Proposition 8, including former special prosecutor Ken Star, who has presented a brief on their behalf, argue that the people have spoken through a referendum, and that in appealing to the Courts, Gay Marriage advocates are ignoring the will of the people.
Leading opponents, like Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco mayor who gained notoriety for "marrying" homosexual couple, argue that the principle of equality should prevent a whimsical majority from denying fundamental rights rooted in the principle of equality.
Now, I freely admit that both sides are misrepresenting themselves. If the shoe were on the other foot, Newsom would be arguing for the right of the majority to legalize Gay Marriage and Star would be appealing to the wisdom of the Court to prevent this exercise of mob law. But let us look only at the merits of the respective arguments.
If we set aside the obscenity of his point of view and the absurdity of his appeal to speculative principles of equality and human rights, Mayor Newsom is clearly correct. Fundamental questions of right should not and, in a moral sense, cannot be solved through elections in which ignorant and unreflective people, stirred by media campaigns, vent their opinions at the ballot box. It must be admitted that the vote on Prop 8 is as close to democracy as anything we are likely to witness in the United States. With a 79% turnout of registered voters, roughly 7 million voted for and 6.4 million against. Of course, the State's population is about 34 million, which makes the turnout about 40% of the population, and the victorious majority only about 20% of the population. I know there are bigots who will argue that children, lunatics in asylums, and criminals doing life sentences should not be able to vote, but the same arguments were once used to deny blacks and women the right to vote.
This is not a joke. Many (most?) opponents of same-sex marriage agree with Mike Huckabee that marriage rights are universal and rooted in the principles of equality and human rights, which is why they can never win a rational argument with an intelligent leftist. [On Huckabee's pathetic showing on the Daily Show, read my current "Perspective" in Chronicles.]
If we generalize Mayor Newsom's argument, I think we can agree. Should basic moral principles be decided either a democratic political process, whether the decision is made by a direct referendum or by democratically elected representatives or judges or by judges appointed by democratically elected public officials? Let me just draw up a random list of moral violations that have either been decriminalized or trivialized by legislators and judges--sodomy, rape, public use of profanity--or new moral and legal rights that have been discovered--women's, children's and animal's rights, the right to rent a room from someone who does not like you because of your ethnicity or sexual misconduct....
The list of both sorts of outrages would be endless. If a monarch had done these things, he would have been proclaimed a tyrant. But when 20% or the population or less--or officials whose authority rests on these small percentages--overturns a longstanding custom, the usual response is to seek redress through the political processes that are responsible for the tyranny.
Marriage, until very recently, was never a mere contract between individuals or a government-created institution. Legitimate societies have always been interested in regulating inheritance laws, discouraging a decline in the reproduction of citizens, and in preventing dilution of the citizen ethos by marriage with non-citizens, but government has not, typically, defined marriage and the family, much less redefined them. The exceptions are the Jacobins of the French Revolution and the ideological states of the past 100 years, principally Marxist and democratist states.
Who made Gavin Newsom or Ken Star or Mike Huckabee, Barney Frank or James Dobson prophets or philosopher-kings that they should presume to define marriage? We have suffered enough from venal and ignorant politicians who think they are economists or patriarchs. Until people who regard themselves as conservatives are willing to find some moral and spiritual solvents to set them free from the tarbabies of political parties and ideologies, they will never even begin to resist the tyranny that Americans accept so willingly.
It is not just, as I have so often argued in the past, that politicians cannot be trusted to solve moral problems, but that there is a realm of human moral responsibility into which legislators and judges should either not enter or, if they do, their actions should be limited to preserving an ancient tradition. Democracy, in declaring that every moral issue can be determined by majoritarian politics, is a corrosive and revolutionary force that first destroys the social, then the cultural, and now the moral order. It is on the verge of attacking the natural order: Do not be surprised if Congress, while outlawing pet chimpanzees, permits intermarriage among all primates.
Entries(RSS)
Dr,
I think this is a more generalized version of a basic point you've made before. Previously, you discussed this wrt nationalizing these types of moral issues. If we're realistic about where most people are at, maybe we don't want government at any level involved in legislating basic moral issues.
"Until people who regard themselves as conservatives are willing to find some moral and spiritual solvents to set them free from the tarbabies of political parties and ideologies, they will never even begin to resist the tyranny that Americans accept so willingly."
As christian civility continues to dwindle to a few back islands here and there and the parched earth of that resulting desert continues to encroach, one psalm that I think may become of particular interest to the surviving remnant is the following:"As the hart panteth after the fountains of water, so my soul panteth after Thee, O God! When may I see your face? My tears have been my bread day and night, while they say to me daily: Where is thy God?"
Yes, I know that Mr. Derbyshire (A man I respect somewhat more than most of the common writers today ) might refer to such quotes as another conservative "pounding on about God", and as Dr. Fleming states," If we are once clear that America is not a Christian nation, we can give up futile crusades based on a fantasy" but simply for its abiding truth, I think the above psalm still has a future.
Dr. Fleming thus explains the problem with democracy, the problem with voting to decide moral issues. And it is why all real conservatives oppose democracy.
I once read one of the professional educationists saying that the purpose of public education is to create good democratic citizens. Well, I don't want my kids to be good democratic citizens. If one of my sons walks into a room and eight of the 10 occupants have voted to approve something that is clearly sinful or morally wrong, I don't want him concluding that because eight of the 10 voted thusly, what they voted for is acceptable.
I have corrected, revised, and amplified hte above. Two significant additions are :
Many Protestant sects--Obama's pseudo-Christian United Church of "Christ," for example--endorse Gay Marriage, and of the groups that oppose it, e.g. Mormons and Catholics, they agree on so little else, beginning with every item of the Nicene Creed, their united opposition amounts to nothing more significant than a single-issue tactical alliance whose members are united only in what they reject and not what they affirm.
Such incoherence, I would suggest, not only cannot be made the basis for a practical long-range strategy but also confuses the simple and weakens their convictions. If Christians can join forces with Mormons, why not Muslims (as some self-declared conservatives do)? Why not Voodoo practitioners or Moloch-worshippers, who want more live babies to sacrifice in their abominable ceremonies. In some parts of the South, the Baptists and bootleggers worked together to maintain prohibition, and it is hard to see how conscientious Catholics can join forces, especially on a marital issue, with a polygamous sect that has only temporarily suspended the right to take multiple wives. If we are once clear that America is not a Christian nation, we can give up futile crusades based on a fantasy.
Catholics will retort that this is a natural law question, but this, again, is a futile argument in a country where 1) there is no widespread acceptance of natural law theory, and 2) even advocates of natural law disagree. Such arguments may well be binding on our conscience--though hardly as much as the universal Christian tradition against homosexuality--but they can play no effective part on the political stage. If natural law is what Robert George and George Weigel say it is, then it is as often a tool of leftist revolution against Christendom as it is a weapon of defense.
And this final paragraph:
It is not just, as I have so often argued in the past, that politicians cannot be trusted to solve moral problems, but that there is a realm of human moral responsibility into which legislators and judges should either not enter or, if they do, their actions should be limited to preserving an ancient tradition. Democracy, in declaring that every moral issue can be determined by majoritarian politics, is a corrosive and revolutionary force that first destroys the social, then the cultural, and now the moral order. It is on the verge of attacking the natural order: Do not be surprised if Congress, while outlawing pet chimpanzees, permits intermarriage among all primates.
Dr. Fleming's points are very good and well-made. However, the only tyranny he assails is democracy: a dictatorship that can at any juncture be benevolent or malevolent--albeit unintentionally--depending on the issue and the decision made by voters.
He ignores the unambiguously evil tyranny behind "gay marriage" advocacy: that of mortal sinners who, not content with loving their own evil, are intent to force not only their sin on others, but also the love of it. Or at least to punish the hatred of it.
If secular law is to bestow blessing on sodomy, its opponents are better off using the political process not to prevent "gay marriage" and similar travesties, but to insulate themselves from, e.g., having to rent to open sodomites, hire them, allow them to teach their children, etc. It is these consequences--not the unholy unions that cause them--from which the remnant needs greater protection.
Mark Higdon is making an apples and oranges argument, or rather is switching from apples to oranges. For the sake of clarity and coherence--to say nothing of brevity, it is best to take up one argument at a time. I would say this, though, that there have been pre-Christian societies that did not criminalize sodomy per se and yet would never have dreamed of promoting, much less enforcing gay marriage. It may be rhetorically effective to refer to gay rights advocates as tyrannical, but the rhetoric misses the point. It is precisely because we have entrusted the state with the power to regulate marriage and housing and set up government schools that a new gan of degenerates is able to impose on us. They always use the same argument--the abuse of blacks and women who needed to be liberated, i.e., made wards of the state. This vision of the state as the owner and guardian or the weak and enforcer of morality is what needs to be eliminated. It is not homosexuals who are the problem so much as homosexualists and the advocates of human rights.
Dr. Fleming @6: I apologize for unintentionally suggesting that you missed making a point that you should have. I readily acknowledge that you thoroughly made the points you intended to make, and were under no obligation to make mine, too. I also readily admit--without apology--to introducing oranges to your apple party. I appreciate your thought-provoking response to my tangerine, er, tangent.
"This vision of the state as the owner and guardian of the weak and enforcer of morality is what needs to be eliminated."
I tend to agree with this in theory but the Church is so weak these days, and the veneer of simple decency so thin, that the next step upon the collapse is the darkness of savagery.( whole commnuities of the Christopher Hicthens types trying to "help.") In our civilization the Church has always protected the sick, the suffering, and those possessed with demons but even until fifty or a hundred years ago the church still informed the state through its diminishing cultural effects, schools, hospitals,etc. but now with the total triumph of a mean secularism which has completely replaced the Church in cultural effects and educational ends, and a large state that has completely replaced the local community in terms of law and order, I fear for folks when it all collapses completely. Joseph Campbell was at least correct when he said,"A Church reduced primarily to representing "a historical personage,a country wise man of the semi-oriental past who preached a benign doctrine of 'do to others as you would want others do to you' is an empty revelation", it is a religion with the life gone out of it." A state informed by such anemic truths is a danger to itelf and others --such food as husks, and we have become the swine who feed on it. "Sure, welcome to dinner, Christopher. Oh,you are bringing friends too?"
So, forgive me if I sound simple, one of your main points is that conservatives ceded the argument before it even started it by granting the premise that governments have the ability to interfere or regulate marriage?
If this is the case, then is there any Christian argument saying that the state has a positive obligation to the common good? I hear the argument used by the pro-life movement all of the time: "The mother's responsibility to her child is primary, but, nevertheless, the state has an obligation to protect the lives of the unborn."
Although the current focus is marriage redefinition, the real issue is how a society can continue with the breakdown of the nuclear family: mom, dad, and kids. I don't think anyone could argue that it's good not have families undergirding society. Then the question becomes, rather than the union of 'gays' as an economic unit with governmental benefits, what 'good' is the union of two men to society.
"I don’t think anyone could argue that it’s good not to have families undergirding society."
Actually, Dennis, Marx and Engels did attempt such a futile argument and a whole bunch of folks volunteered for the experiment. The results are being disclosed to the public as we speak. Preliminary results indicate the experiment was successful and the ancient superstitions were confirmed: " You can't have a society without families."
The other option is to expel California from the union and let the Mexicans decide whether or not they want wedded fruits. That would mean having to take a star off the flag, though.
On anti-Family arguments, most modern leftist and even liberal political theorists have called either for the elimination of families or the reduction of their significance. Freud sees the family as a neurotic reenactment of the primal crime that led to the Oedipus complex, and many feminists have called for the abolition of the family or for doing away with rules on incest. From Locke to modern libertarians, classical liberals have viewed the family as a mere contract between individuals, who are free to dissolve it so long as (according to conservative liberals) it does not impose a burden on others: Locke, for example, though in his usual trivial way that parents should be free to divorce once the children were grown. This is a very long story, one that I began to outline in my first book and will be a large part of my next one, supposing anyone will publish it.
The right-to-life ideology is hopeless and is best ignored. They are well-intentioned people but entirely muddle-headed. What do they imagine the state to be? Is it a universal form of organization found everywhere and possessed of the same duties and rights? Obviously not. Since this is the subject of the book I am at work on, I will confine myself to a few brief points: 1) The state is an historically invented phenomenon, and, depending on definition it was either invented in the ancient Near EAst (a proposition I do not accept) or at the end of the Middle Ages. In either case, political organizations is a varied phenomenon. In general, the household has been a castle into which rulers do not intrude except in extreme cases--treason and great crimes like murder. 2) In the Christian world, it was the Church's job to regulate marriage, not the state's. 3) The transfer of authority from Church to state has been one of the great mistakes of the Renaissance/Reformation, and the consequences include state education, child protection statutes, no-fault divorce, and Gay Marriage. Enough is enough. 3) The language of the common good being invoked is Marxism with a human face. Decent societies never entrusted the rulers with some authority over private and family life as modern states possess. The most aggressive states--say Renaissance Florence and Venice--did establish mechanisms (e.g., a dowry fund or laws on dowries and inheritances) to promote marriage and procreation for the purpose of avoiding a decline in the citizenry (a legitimate concern), but Christian marriages were arranged between the families involved. In much of Europe, by the 11th century, the Church had begun to play a more aggressive role, partly to eliminate the irregularities that persisted among the barbarian French and Germans. In Tuscany, however, marriage did not even involve the presence of a priest, much less a Church ceremony, until the Council of Trent.
Finally, let us be clear about what we mean by terms like state and common good. If the state is a permanent institution, separate from the people it presumes to rule, and the judge of its own authority, we must suffer it without necessarily trusting or respecting it. If the state is simply an organic expression of the way people live together and work out their problems, it should not really be called a state but something else, like commonwealth, republic, politeia, or civitas. In either case, it does not exist to create or enforce virtue, as Thomas says, but to maintain conditions favorable to a virtuous life. Does anyone think that the states of the USA or the Federal Government are even making a feeble attempt at doing that? If not, then the state cannot be entrusted with teh power to regulate marriage or the rearing and educating of children.
I am not suggesting, Robert, that the Church is in a position today to reassume its historical powers. I am saying that working to build up an anti-Christian immoralist regime is the last thing that Christians should be doing. As much as it is possible, one can rely on private resources, on local communities and parishes. Where this is not possible, we must go the law and treat our neighbors as gentiles, as Our Lord instructed. There is no simple solution, but there are broad outlines of the direction in which we should be going.
Tom,
I was not critiquing your post as I am not qualified or disposed to do that. (Neither is that younger jackass on the other thread who heckles Dr. Wilson every time the old professor rubs his sore spots) My point was that for Christians who want to "do" something, the best thing and first thing to "do" is to learn who and what Christians are before going to Washington to "serve"--- uh, serve as in dulia not latria.
The Hobbesian state has made itself "indispensable" to the Lockean "autonomous" individual and the abstract fundamental rights which he as a new-found god "creates" ex nihilo. Both are abstractions embodied by the same people - products of the anti-culture flowing out of the Enlightenment and its antecedents in European humanism; that is, their whims, their desires, their lusts and their compulsions are unrestrained and unchecked. The state allied with the "autonomous individual," which is really the alienated, estranged and shriveled individual, is making war on culture which is the set of symbols, institutions and processes that RESTRAIN the whims, compulsions, lusts and desires of the individual so that he can be FREE (free from the aforementioned) to fulfill his duties and obligations to God, to his family, to the Church and to the intimate commonwealths into which he is born and in relationship to which he has meaning.
We are, even we conservatives, are embedded in the anti-culture and it in us. We are often tempted to use "its" instruments to defend ourselves against it. Thus, Dr. Fleming's point about supporters of Proposition 8 is on target. God and the cosmic order which He has created and which is expressed in Holy Writ and lived out through His Church cannot be revoked or countermanded by any edict of man: executive order, legislative statute, judicial decree, or "democratic" resolution, proposition or convention.
Christians have but one weapon: the Christ and His incarnation and all that flows out of it as articulated in the Nicene Creed. We have but one mission: to be as the Church, the Body and the Bride of Christ, the very presence of Christ who says that if He is lifted up, i.e. lived out by the Church, He will draw all men unto Himself. When they are drawn to the Christ through His Church, they will respond in one of three ways: they will drop to their knees in humility, repent and convert, thereby beginning the long road from the barbarian life to civilized life - to become more like Christ and in tune with their function in His Body; they will turn away disappointed as did the rich young ruler; or they will lash out in anger as did the crowds, including the Pharisees, on Good Friday.
The Christian cannot use the weapons of the enemy because is is quite adept at turning any of his weapon back on the Christian.
Robert, you stated that you tend to agree with Dr. Fleming in theory. The state is not an alternative to God nor His Church. When the Church is weak, and She is now very weak, then sin in all forms, including in the form a fundamental right, ever so protected by the state, abounds. My hope is the fact that God delights in using the weak to overthrow the strong. Let us, therefore, pray in humility that Christ will use His Church in one of Her weakest moments, to overthrow once again the apparently strong!
Thanks for the background on anti-family arguments, which seem mostly crazy. Do feminists have anything positive to add to society? All I'm picking up is hate. Must we all suffer for their miserable existence? Dr.Fleming, I look forward to your book. (I think I have the other one.)
Let me assure my good friend Robert that I took no umbrage at his well-aimed remarks. My response was aimed to avoiding possible misunderstanding. We do not live in Plato's Republic or the Civitas Dei and must make the best deals we can with the powers-that-be. What I am trying to underscore is that whatever tactics we adopt for personal survival, we must keep our minds clear about what the Church has taught for 2000 years and what the Church preserved of an earlier understanding of the relationship between families and communities, on the one hand, and the rulers, on the other, whether the ruler is a king, an emperor, an aristocracy, or a media-manipulated oligarchy claiming to be a democracy.
Dear Dr. Fleming -
Is there a word missing in your sentence:
"Where this is not possible, we must go the law and treat our neighbors as gentiles, as Our Lord instructed."
Do you mean "go against the law"? or "go beyond the law" or something else? Thanks for your patience, and for the great education this site provides.
My sentence was clumsily written but basically correct. What I mean is that in dealing with people we know--friends, family, members of the parish--we should avoid involving government if we can, applying Christ's teaching on forgiveness, but if they persist in aggression and folly we must go to the law, as the last resort, to seek protection and redress.
A friend living in Europe just called, seeking clarification. Am I arguing, he wanted to know, against every using the law to enforce or reinforce morality? And, he added, is it really wrong for decent Californians to try to protect themselves by way of referenda? The answer to both is no. My broad point has to do with the proper relationship between government and other more basic institutions--family, church, community. Laws may and should buttress the common sense of morality inherited from our ancestors. When foolish or tyrannical rulers try to destroy our moral institutions, we should use the legal remedies available to us, including referenda. What I am objecting to is the blanket assumption that moral questions can be settled by an appeal to the principle of majority rule. Our goal should be to protect what we have left of our moral traditions from the intrusion of government, and therefore we should be very chary about appealing to the state and federal courts, if only because they gain power from every appeal--like the SciFi monsters that gain strength from attacks on them.
So, I gather from your perspicacious observations and prescriptive comments (and I definitely agree with your points) that what needs to happen to restore moral and social order in our country (implied at least in your argument) is as near a total conversion to Christ as is possible of citizens of America. Of course, I am assuming for this conversion to be effective, that is unified in the Truth, it would pertain to the Catholic Church, which is the Church of Christ. If this should ever occur, then, this country would then be defined as Christian and the so-called gay-marriage thing, and other moral aberrations, could have no official existence or even a public hearing. Until that day comes, God please that it happen, you are suggesting that there is no real solution. I believe you are right. However, one solution may be a divine chastisement of our nation (it is the one I would not have chosen). Possibly it's implementation is in the initial stage (economic disaster) as I write.
In a spiritual sense, absolutely. Only a profound religious upheaval and the conversion of a least a majority would restore the moral order. Short of that, the best we can do is to imitate the ways of the pre-Christian (as opposed to anti-Christian) orders in which the state had not assumed the divine status and absolute powers it now enjoys as successor to the Church. Sensible early Christians, like St. Paul and Justin Martyr, while acknowledging the defects and sins of the Empire, still saw in it the crude and flawed embodiment of a divinely sanctioned order. Such a society would not make abortion illegal, only put the decision into the hands of both parents. It would not legalize gay marriage first, because its legal powers would extend only to the fringes of marriage, and second, because from the state's point of view the main interest is in preserving the rights of legitimate heirs and protecting the body of citizens. Neither interest is at all served by pretending to marry people who cannot, in the course of nature, produce either heirs or citizens.
Dr. Fleming @ 21
Thank you. You have succinctly given voice to what I have understood but could not properly articulate.
Dr.Flemming, thank you very much for this discussion. You have many points that are hard to make in daily conversation with the "upside down people" ( as G. K. Chesterton put it )that we live with. I will use what I have read here as one of the tools to help the Church put people right side up. Excellent conversation!
Deacon Steve
"The Hobbesian state has made itself “indispensable” to the Lockean “autonomous” individual and the abstract fundamental rights which he as a new-found god “creates” ex nihilo. Both are abstractions embodied by the same people - products of the anti-culture flowing out of the Enlightenment and its antecedents in European humanism; that is, their whims, their desires, their lusts and their compulsions are unrestrained and unchecked. The state allied with the “autonomous individual,” which is really the alienated, estranged and shriveled individual, is making war on culture which is the set of symbols, institutions and processes that RESTRAIN the whims, compulsions, lusts and desires of the individual so that he can be FREE (free from the aforementioned) to fulfill his duties and obligations to God, to his family, to the Church and to the intimate commonwealths into which he is born and in relationship to which he has meaning."
Very well said Mr.Peters and worth repeating also. This will go in my tool box of ways to explain to the "asleep people" what is going on in our world. One of the problems with this day and age is that the vast majority of Western society does not even know the "language" of truth.
Deacon Steve
The modern Evangelical Christian, egged on by Christian broadcasting, operates under the principle that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. So they busy themselves with dead-end causes like the Human Life Amendment, and resisting sodomite marriages. They mean well, and I wish them success, but I don't get my hopes too high as they'll invariably align themselves with the Republican Party and then get dragged down into the pig-swill of modern politics.
As Monty Python once suggested, the best way to fight the current zeitgeist is through satire. However, I don't see too many writers on the Christian book circuit, let alone enough intelligent readers who'd understand, striving to be another Juvenal. Perhaps, the modern Christian is reluctant to "sit in the seat of the scornful." But our post-modern age is screaming for a wise-guy to attack each goofy new policy which, only 20 years ago, was the stuff of stand-up comedy.
I suppose for now we're stuck with Rush Limbaugh. Anybody willing to finance Taki on the increasingly Mexican AM radio band?
Etienne,
"But our post-modern age is screaming for a wise-guy to attack each goofy new policy which, only 20 years ago, was the stuff of stand-up comedy."
Keep up the good work. From reading your posts here at Chronicles, I would use the phrase of the juvenile sports fanantic and say, "You're da Man." But seriously I do enjoy your combination of wit, satire and faith in seperate but equal portions.
In the tradition of my Latin forefathers,one of whom wrote,Timeo Danaos et dona Ferentis,I'd like to coin a little phrase of my own,if I may be so graciously allowed.It goes a little something like this,beware majorities converting to the moral order.
Swift mass conversions dissipate as quickly as they arise.It took centuries of hard work to convert ancient Italy to Catholicism.The results are imposing.(Though I do not call myself a Christian,I gladly answer to the appellation Catholic).Contrast that with the "burnt-over district" in upstate New York,progenitor of so much Anglo-Protestant lunacy in Americano life.The crowd is notoriously fickle,and any future enthusiasm they might engage in is likely to lead straight down the Islamic drain hole.
Plus ca change,plus c'est la meme chose,as they say way down south,in Dixie.
What we need are cool heads,not hearts afire.Dont know 'bout you,but I'm rubbing my hands in subdued but hopeful anticipation of a new Diocletian bursting upon the scene.If he does manage to show up,he'll surely learn us real good.A few more Christians to the lions just might do the trick.
Sempronius,
"What we need are cool heads,not hearts afire"
No, what we need are cool heads with hearts afire, or folks "gentle as doves and wise as serpents." But so much of our religious sesibilties have become connected and promoted by carpet biteing hype that I certainly understand your concern. Nothing more revolting to me than a "good" christian who always wants to win on the world's terms.
Robert,the classic formulation is,"heart on fire,brain on ice."That is what I strive for.But mass conversion will not solve our problems,it will exacerbate them.I'll take a smart s.o.b. over a pious dummy any day.I'd also much rather have a Machiavel at the helm than a Jimmy Carter.
Out of curiosity mate,who were you referring to up above?
I don't know without looking back (I think Leo) but it doesn't matter. I am thinking of giving up posting for a while. I am not a big fan of Machiaveli because I am not familiar enough with his work to admire. Tom respects him for his analysis of power and I reespect Dr. Fleming so there must be something there. As for the pious dummy or smart S.O.B.? The last person I supported for any national office was that pious S.O.B. Pat Buchanan and that was a whole lot of fun but never really serious.
Part of me thinks that posting what I’m about to say will be a complete waste of time, but another (and obviously bigger) part of me can’t resist at least attempting to address not only some of the comments herein posted but also an underlying “theme”, if you will, that seems (with all due respect) a bit hypocritical (but which I may also be misunderstanding). Hope you have your favorite drink in hand and are in a comfy chair, this is long (sorry).
First a few of the comments:
#5 by Mark H: “…evil tyranny behind “gay marriage” advocacy…intent to force not only their sin on others, but also the love of it. Or at least to punish the hatred of it…”
Although Christians may rightly (from their perspective) see “evil” in “gay marriage”, and I would certainly agree that a segment of the pro “gay marriage” crowd seem bent on not only wanting all to accept the idea but to also rub our faces in it, there can be no tyranny without authority. And as far as I’m aware there has been no effort to force, through legislation or otherwise, everyone to marry someone of the same sex. Mark, you go on to make an excellent point about utilizing the political process to insulate or protect Christians from being forced to hire / be taught by / rent to / etc. those you find to be sinners. The importance of the principle behind this point cannot be overstated. I don’t believe though that a law supporting, or at least prohibiting discrimination based on, some form of sin is equivalent to a blessing (although I understand your meaning).
#6 by TJF: “It is not homosexuals who are the problem so much as homosexualists and the advocates of human rights”
OK…so what you are saying is that advocates of human rights are a problem?! So advocating for the very freedom that allows for the practice of Christianity means that its followers are a problem? Really?
#10 by Dennis B: “…what ‘good’ is the union of two men to society…”
Not the issue at all Dennis! The issue is should two men (or women) have the right to marry and have that union recognized in the same legal manner as a more traditional marriage. Or maybe more accurately, have the legal prohibitions against that right and recognition removed. (Yes, I do firmly believe in the right, call it natural, God-given, birth, whatever, in the individual’s freedom to associate with whomever they please. And when you get right down to it a marriage, regardless of its traditional religious import, is at its foundation a willing association between two persons. Period). Having said that, this recognition issue would not even be an issue if not for gubmint sticking its nose in places it should not be sticking it.
#13 by TJF: From Locke to modern libertarians, classical liberals have viewed the family as a mere contract between individuals, who are free to dissolve it so long as (according to conservative liberals) it does not impose a burden on others:…”
See above…
“…In either case, it does not exist to create or enforce virtue, as Thomas says, but to maintain conditions favorable to a virtuous life.”
Not entirely accurate. The state, at least in the view of the writers of the constitution, was charged with protecting the inalienable rights granted us by our Creator, NOT maintaining conditions favorable to virtue (although that could certainly be viewed as a direct result of protecting said rights).
“I am not suggesting, Robert, that the Church is in a position today to reassume its historical powers”
This is indicative of the “theme” I alluded to at the beginning, and which I will address at the end.
#15 by Robert: Minor issues aside (and they are minor), I think Robert, in this post, makes some excellent points and provides great context to my comments at the end of this post.
#19 by TJF: “…using the law to enforce or reinforce morality? And, he added, is it really wrong for decent Californians to try to protect themselves by way of referenda? The answer to both is no…Laws may and should buttress the common sense of morality inherited from our ancestors”
I can’t agree with either point here. Laws against murder do not stop murderers and never will, and although some “may” buttress common sense or morality (solely as a by-product of their passing), that should not be a primary goal. Laws can be viewed as indicative of a society’s general moral compass, but even that has its flaws due to the fact that most laws are passed by a legislature bent on attempting to influence or control something. I think you go on to make a great point about the SciFi monster that is our gubmint. LOL
#21 by TJF (in response to #20 by J Meng): I won’t paste the full exchange here; I will only say that I agree in principle with the theory and ideas being espoused in it…until the last two sentences:
“…because from the state’s point of view the main interest is in preserving the rights of legitimate heirs and protecting the body of citizens. Neither interest is at all served by pretending to marry people who cannot, in the course of nature, produce either heirs or citizens”
Who exactly are legitimate heirs but those that the person in question identifies?! Are you honestly suggesting that the state or the Church is the proper authority to decide such a thing? I personally would never agree to allow either the state or any church decide for me who the legitimate heirs to my fortune…er, things should be. Either way, and I go back to my response to #10 by Dennis above, whether or not a union can physically produce an heir (biologically is probably a more accurate description as there are still avenues by which gay couples, married or not, can adopt) is simply not the issue (from any perspective but the Churches’), it is a matter of the freedom to associate with whomever a person wants to associate with. And in whatever form that association takes, I might add.
This provides a perfect segue into my comments on the “theme” I mentioned in my opening. Throughout this thread a lot of the comments rightly argue against the utilization of the states’ authority to pursue or push an agenda (albeit in this thread it refers mostly to the “gay marriage” and other sinful endeavors), yet consistently most seem to imply that if / when the Church regains some prior status or level of influence that things will be set “right”. Are you saying here that using the states’ power to push abortion, “gay marriage”, or any other abhorrent (to a Christian) agenda is out of bounds, but for the Church to use that same power to push a “righteous” agenda is somehow acceptable? I would argue that both are tyranny. Intent does not validate or justify state sanctioned slavery to an ideology. The difference being that if “gay marriage” were “allowed”, it would have no practical effect on anyone reading this post, but when laws are passed banning something found repugnant to a Christian, there will be people who are directly affected. I would add here that any effect “gay marriage” might have on you or I, in terms of taxes, gubmint benefits, etc., is more an indictment of the tax system / gubmint program vice the principle of freedom of association. Might does not equal right, regardless of who the mighty are.
I will end here with one more observation. This is more a question I seek an answer to than anything else. If I am correct in assuming that your “job” as Christians is to spread the word of God and seek the salvation of those that are “lost”, then I certainly understand, and even empathize, with the spiritual pain (if that’s a correct description) things such as abortion and homosexuality bring you. But is there not any consolation found in the fact that at some point these sinners must face judgment? Not to say you are not saddened by this idea (otherwise you wouldn’t pursue their salvation), just that at some point there has to be acknowledgment that the responsibility ultimately lays at the feet of the sinner. Live and let live so to speak. Further, if this is the case, and going back to the point I just made regarding tyranny, how can you justify the use of tyrannical authority in the pursuit of this noble goal? All it does is taint the message and the messenger. You CANNOT legislate morality. That comes from the heart, and can flourish (or not) regardless of the existence of, or the intent behind, a law. To be frank, from my perspective it is equally frightening to have a gay feminist in power as it is an evangelical Christian, because both will attempt, through force of law, to make me do things, make me believe things, and / or subject me to things that I otherwise might have nothing at all to do with. Both sides of these types of arguments (as represented by the TV pundits anyway) need a little moderation. And I for one scream at the typical pro “gay marriage” supporter on TV to stay off my side as much as I scream at the typical anti “gay marriage” crowd on TV to let people make their own choices and suffer what consequences may stem from those choices…including eternity.
Thanks for reading my rant. Any disrespect was unintentional and probably more the result of ignorance vice malice. Tom