- Define Disingenuous, Please.
- Use it or lose it.
- Rod ♥ Paris.
- Traditional Marriage crash course.
- The Right’s problem with narrative.
[British political Journalist Matthew] Parris is arguing that people who have faith-based convictions should declare this to be the case when they speak publicly on issues where their faith might have some bearing … To say that someone only takes a certain position because they are a Christian or a Jew or a Sikh or a “bigot” is just an excuse for not engaging in serious debate about the issue in hand. It is disingenuous, cowardly and disrespectful … [E]veryone who expresses an opinion in this debate is doing so from one world view perspective or another[.] There is an element of hypocrisy in Parris demanding that the former bishop declare his faith, whilst he himself is seemingly not under an equal obligation to confess that he is a practising (sic) homosexual or an atheist, when both almost certainly are informing his own views on the issue. Personally I don’t think that either of them should be required to reveal their personal convictions. But if it is to be demanded then let’s have a level playing field.
Peter Saunders, Define Disingenuous, Please.
Something of a controversy broke out at the prospect of a Church building being sold to Muslims for a mosque.
That “strong cement” of France’s Christian roots has not been undermined by Muslims, but by many decades of hostility and indifference. You want to recover the roots of your civilization and build a strong bulwark against its dissipation and decline? Go back to mass. Be converted. Learn something from French Muslims about the importance of having and practicing faith.
I do get intemperate about this stuff. On Saturday, I visited the huge St-Sulpice church, which is so beautiful and inspiring, and is so important in French cultural and religious history. Such treasures the French have, and they’ve almost wholly abandoned them as living places of worship. St-Sulpice is still there, and still open. But for how long, without a community of believers?
Rod Dreher, Use It Or Lose It, Frenchie.
Rod Dreher has been traveling in France with his wife and children. You’d never know if from his blogging, of course.
I have hesitated for several days to share this because I’m only about 98% in agreement with The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage in 5 Minutes:
I fear that it will sound quaint when I recall law school profs leading probing discussions about the government’s interest in this or that area of life. Government needs a legitimate (adj.) interest to legitimate (v.) it’s regulation – to promote or prohibit rather than to tolerate, for instance.
Having endured the bloodless lobotomy of law school, I just cannot escape those kinds of questions in favor of gauzy sentimentality about equality or the misdirection about the “right to love who I want.”
We collectively concluded, in most states about 40 years ago, that the state lacks sufficient interest to prohibit all but a very few consensual adult sexual relationships. I concurred and I think I would concur again were the question posed anew. But I’m having trouble with the state promoting same-sex pairings.
Have we strayed from the purposes of marriage? Sure.
Is the straying irreversible? Maybe, though I’m inclined to think the pendulum will swing back.
If it is irreversible, why don’t we get government out of regulating marriages of any kind, then? [Insert cricket sounds here.] Maybe just give generous tax credits to couples that have dependents, including children? [More cricket sounds here.]
That’s why I’m baffled at an apparent plurality of law school profs (or maybe its just the vocal ones – but what muzzles the others, then?) supporting SSM and the trend of courts saying there’s no rational basis not to
extend marriage to promote same-sex pairings.
A talented reporter, given enough time and space, could craft a narrative that illustrates how rent control ultimately makes poor families worse off. His job is relatively difficult, however, for he can hardly write a pithy anecdotal lead about the hundred families that won’t occupy a non-existent apartment building because a foolish policy eliminated an unknown developer’s incentive to build it.
The right, in other words, has a problem with narrative ….
Conor Friedersdorf, quoted by Rod Dreher.
* * * * *