Category: Attitude
Don’t let your dogma mess with my dogma
It fell to Sen. Dianne Feinstein … to explicitly declare Barrett part of a suspect class. “Dogma and law are two different things,” Feinstein lectured. “And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. . . . When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.” Translation: Don’t let your dogma mess with my dogma.
…
[T]he deeper problem is a certain type of liberal thinking that seeks to declare secular ideas the only valid basis for public engagement. A neutral public square, in this view, must be a secular public square. Because religious ideas and motivations are fundamentally illiberal, they must be contained entirely to the private sphere.
This is a thin and sickly sort of pluralism. It is permissible, in this approach, to advocate human rights because John Locke says so, but not because of a theological belief that the image of God is found in every human being. If your views on a just society are informed by John Stuart Mill, they are allowed to triumph in politics. If your views on a just society are informed by your deepest beliefs about the cosmos, you can never prevail, because this represents the imposition of religion. This is hardly “neutrality.” It is a conception of pluralism that silences millions of people and reaches back into history to invalidate the abolition movement, the civil rights movement and many other causes informed by boisterous religious belief.
In effect, Feinstein would make her secularism the state religion, complete with its own doctrine and Holy Office. A judge is bound by the Constitution, not by any creed — as Barrett has affirmed again and again. But having a conscience and a character shaped by faith is not a problem; it is part of a rich and positive American tradition. Someone should inform the grand inquisitor.
(Michael Gerson, Senate Democrats show off their anti-religious bigotry)
* * * * *
“Liberal education is concerned with the souls of men, and therefore has little or no use for machines … [it] consists in learning to listen to still and small voices and therefore in becoming deaf to loudspeakers.” (Leo Strauss)
There is no epistemological Switzerland. (Via Mars Hill Audio Journal Volume 134)
Labor Day, 9/4/17
I heard a podcast homily Sunday that brought me up short.
I have been fastidious about keeping politics out of Church — as in “don’t bring it up at coffee hour, and don’t join in if someone else does.” It’s not worth dividing the church or alienating my brother or sister in Christ. The Church is not a political player.
So why should I do that on Social Media or in blog?
The Right has its Alt-Right problem. The Left has an Antifa that they’ve been as loathe to condemn as Trump was to condemn unequivocally the white nationalists and neo-Nazis. Those of us who are sane, whether leaning Left or Right, have our work cut out healing a mighty rift.
Digital political detox may mean I don’t have much to say for a while. At least if I resume engaging politics, I want it to be considered and principled, not sheer reflex.
You may take it for grated that:
- I think Donald Trump is an unsuitable President.
- I was not a Hillary supporter.
- My party affiliation, not especially strong (as I have minimal hope for politics) is the American Solidarity Party.
- Until January 2005, I was Republican.
- I will most rarely vote Democrat because I oppose abortion and the sexual revolution in general.
- I appreciate Neil Gorsuch and every other Trump judicial nominee I know about.
- I understand, when I stop and think about it, that there are people in the country for whom Donald Trump was a rational choice, even if it was a forced “Flight 93” choice. Some of that comes from widening gaps in wealth and income, leaving a lot of Americans hurting economically and getting their noses rubbed in it whenever they turn on the TV.
- I am utterly baffled by anyone who thinks Trump was good choice rather than the least bad choice, but baffled doesn’t imply hatred.
If anything I have written has ticked you off, I can’t truthfully say I’m sorry. But if anything I’ve written has sounded like I was saying “you’re an idiot/fiend/fascist/Nazi,” forgive me.
What pops up when you visit Le Monde:
En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez nos CGV et l’utilisation de cookies pour vous proposer des contenus et services adaptés à vos centres d’intérêts et vous permettre l’utilisation de boutons de partages sociaux. En savoir plus et gérer ces paramètres.
Google Translates:
By continuing your browsing on this site, you accept our Terms and Conditions and the use of cookies to offer you content and services adapted to your interests and allow you the use of social sharing buttons. Learn more and manage these settings.
Internet bureaucracy: an international language.
Real men: get serious about your vocation. Discern the priesthood, or discern marriage. But stop mucking about! https://t.co/0ik7U3uaKj
— C. C. Pecknold (@ccpecknold) September 3, 2017
* * * * *
There is no epistemological Switzerland. (Via Mars Hill Audio Journal Volume 134)
Total Eclipse 2017
Monday 8/14/17
More on the Google Memo & Firing
Saturday, 8/5/17
Ees Outrage!
The insanity we’re up against, part 1:
Protesters are demanding that the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston remove an exhibit by a white female artist because she once painted a picture of Emmett Till — even though the exhibit does not even contain that Emmett Till painting.
Some background: The artist, Dana Schutz, initially came under fire for Open Casket after the painting appeared at the Whitney Biennial in June, according to an article in Art World. The painting depicted the open-casket funeral of Emmett Till, a black boy who was murdered after a white woman accused him of flirting with her, and critics said it was offensive because it amounted to a white woman’s profiting off of the tragedy of a black boy …
[So the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston decided not to show that Emmett Till painting.]
The critics’ letter claims that the ICA’s showing any of Schutz’s work essentially amounts to both it and Schutz benefiting financially from the tragedy of Emmett Till. Now, of course, some people might suggest that the fact that the painting of Till will not even be in the exhibit means that neither the museum nor Schutz could possibly be making money from the tragedy that it depicts. You know, because it’s literally not even going to be there.
But the critics have a different view. They claim that it still amounts to the museum’s taking an opportunity to “capitalize on the notoriety of said painter, not only directly benefiting her access and future opportunities, but also the institution’s,” and that the museum did something very wrong by refusing to meet all of its demands.
Read between the lines: If you once paint someone of a different race, you are guilty of an artistic capital crime and should never be allowed to exhibit anywhere again.
The insanity we’re up against, part 2:
By a margin of over two to one, Republicans support using the courts to shut down news media outlets for “biased or inaccurate” stories, according to a recent poll from The Economist and YouGov.
When asked if cracking down on the press in this manner would violate the First Amendment, a narrow majority of Republicans agreed that it does, seeming to create a contradiction. However, a further question gave them a chance to clear the air and reaffirm the primacy of principle over political expediency: “Which is more important to you?” it asked, “(A) Protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories; (B) Punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press; (C) Not sure.”
Shockingly, a full 47 percent of Republicans support “punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press,” versus just 34 percent who support “protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories.”
Because these Republicans are presumably fully adult, this is more obnoxious than the students of Madison, in my last episode, who at least hesitated about throwing principle under the bus.
* * * * *
There is no epistemological Switzerland. (Via Mars Hill Audio Journal Volume 134)
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 