Posted on 06/08/2005 12:26:29 AM PDT by Liberty Wins
Well I can see why literacy is not something you would speak highly of. A literate society does consider the human body and spirit as its own. Belief in God or whatever higher being one may choose does not require the forfeiture of the independence of the human spirit.
Its manifestations are abortion, certainly, but also birth control, dissolution of marriage, wars, state-worship and social experimentation
I believe human sacrifices go back thousands of years. As for wars, wonder how many were started in God's name? Birth control kills nothing or no one. Most Catholics use birth control regularly. It's here to stay, and I can see nothing that could ever reverse the trend. Not sure I follow state worship. If anything, people today are far more ready to question their governments than ever before. As for social experimentation, again, be specific. I'm sure even you would approve of some of the improvements afforded society in general that might be classified as social experimentation.
Godlessness is the common denominator in all this, -- and idea with destructive consequence.
So you say, but so far, the only thing you can show is a parallel drop in church attendance, not a cause and effect relationship.
Wow. Printed and read this on my busride to work. I must read it again just to take in everything there.
I was in a hurry to leave, and since I knew your would have questions, left it rather cryptic.
Literacy is fine by me, but it can lead toward truth or away from it, depending on the reading material. The self-ownership hypothesis is not a fact one picks up from books, -- nor is God-ownership, for that matter. The corollary of self-ownership is that only men can be arbiters of life and death: the society can, through some political mechanism (democratic or not) assign or withdraw the right to life. Typically, it does so in the name of a common good, and what is or is not a common good comes from the prevailing culture. If a right to life is withdrawn, we get a human sacrifice. Whether pagan priests do it or General Moltke is a matter of decorum.
None of that is possible with the same ease if man is seen as an icon of God and as property of God. Sure, Christianity knew wars, but it also developed a doctrine of just war, wages defensively against an armed aggressor. Total war that does not distinguish milatiry and civilian target, like WWII, or a senseless global meatgrinder unrelated to any concept of justice, like the Great War, would be not possible in concept.
What are these human sacrifices that modernity offers? Examples of human sacrifices in the name of common good are, firstly, wars. A common good is understood as national interest, and a war ensues. It is also abortion, -- the common good being the good of the "parents". Communism is a systematic human sacrifice in the name of class war; Nazism -- a human sacrifice in the name of a state-god. Both, of course, are big on social engineering of all kinds: public (mis)education, euthanasia, relocation of nations, state-approved esthetics, and so on. State-worship is a necessary ingredient of these social systems.
It is a hopeful thing that Europe has worked out the worst overt excesses of secular humanism: Nazism and Communism. The culture of death lingers on, because the public square remains empty, churchless. We have a dangerously low trigger for wars; abortion is rampant, appetite for state-run social engineering unsatiable.
Contraception, deliberate childnessness and evisceration of marriage are new phenomena. It is true that no one dies as a result, but, of course, nearly no one gets born either, -- rather than death, we get depopulation. The Christian view of marriage is that it is a indissoluble union of three persons: husband, wife, and God, -- which is ordered toward procreation and is, in the sexual experience, a foretaste of heaven. Contraception (even if not-abortifacient), as well as divorce, is then closing the door not just on procreation but also on God. The contraceptive mentality leads to the notion that marriage is cohabitation, and a child is a failure of birth control. Abortion becomes a way to correct the failure. As long as we view contraception as morally-neutral, we shall not get rid of abortion politically.
Is it getting clearer? It is a big topic. I'll be back tomorrow.
Yes, I better understand your thinking. Nonetheless, I do of course, have a few comments and question.
Literacy is fine by me, but it can lead toward truth or away from it, depending on the reading material.
Yes, I purposely did not try and link attitudes and knowledge with literacy. Literacy stands by itself as a critical quality in the development of any peoples.
The corollary of self-ownership is that only men can be arbiters of life and death: the society can, through some political mechanism (democratic or not) assign or withdraw the right to life. Typically, it does so in the name of a common good, and what is or is not a common good comes from the prevailing culture.
I agree with you. Since abortion is the topic, most societies that permit it are doing so in the name of the common good. Since virtually all of these are democracies, don't the people have a right to establish and develop laws which reflect the culture they wish? Specifically, with respect to birth control, how does the Church halt its usage when most Christian religions actually encourage its use? If the people believe it serves the common good, shouldn't they be the arbiters of their own culture? We've discussed Europe, but not Africa. Don't you believe that at least some use of protection is necessary there both to control births in these economically devastated areas, and of course, control of HIV/AIDS, which is the real black death that you compare with Europe?
The self-ownership hypothesis is not a fact one picks up from books, -- nor is God-ownership, for that matter
Where is this reflected officially in Church teachings? The belief that the Creator endowed man with inalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness rings hollow if we are not owners of our own personality and spirit. Finally, if we are not the owners of our spirit, then the concept of a free will is simply words without meaning.
Christianity knew wars, but it also developed a doctrine of just war, wages defensively against an armed aggressor
Do you have a reference for this? How and when was this doctrine developed? Certainly it must have been after the crusades in which many horrendous acts were perpetrated in the name of God. The Holy Roman Empire attempted to consolidate all of Europe as a Christian state. I'm sure that was not defensive, and in doing so, much destruction was wrought. And of course, we now know the the Vatican provided much support to Nazi Germany, which we both agree was a completely horrendous state.
Total war that does not distinguish milatiry and civilian target, like WWII, or a senseless global meatgrinder unrelated to any concept of justice, like the Great War, would be not possible in concept.
I would imagine that the crusades would have used the modern day weapons quite effectively had they had them. With the weapons systems available prior to the 20th century, it was much easier to simply have armies fighting each other without necessarily involving innocent civilians, though we know the crusades certainly made exceptions.
What are these human sacrifices that modernity offers? Examples of human sacrifices in the name of common good are, firstly, wars. A common good is understood as national interest, and a war ensues. It is also abortion, -- the common good being the good of the "parents". Communism is a systematic human sacrifice in the name of class war; Nazism -- a human sacrifice in the name of a state-god. Both, of course, are big on social engineering of all kinds: public (mis)education, euthanasia, relocation of nations, state-approved esthetics, and so on. State-worship is a necessary ingredient of these social systems.
I agree, and Europe was the principal recipient of these social atrocities, which to me explains why Europe is moving in the direction it is, to prevent these kinds of things in the future. As for social re-engineering, yes Europe is doing that (with the approval of its people), and the US is involved in it. But if you think back in history, every change of political leadership which also resulted in basic philosophical changes began a period of social re-engineering. That was the whole purpose of the crusades in addition to recovering lands believed lost to another faith. I'm just saying that this is nothing new.
The Christian view of marriage is that it is a indissoluble union of three persons: husband, wife, and God, -- which is ordered toward procreation and is, in the sexual experience, a foretaste of heaven. Contraception (even if not-abortifacient), as well as divorce, is then closing the door not just on procreation but also on God. The contraceptive mentality leads to the notion that marriage is cohabitation, and a child is a failure of birth control. Abortion becomes a way to correct the failure. As long as we view contraception as morally-neutral, we shall not get rid of abortion politically.
You say Christian, but you really mean Roman Catholic don't you. Most Protestant religions accept and endorse contraception and many accept divorce. So the question comes about: Which of those religious philosophies does God support, and how does anyone know for sure?
As for contraception, the Catholic Church always accepted the rhythm method, which I always found to be hypocrisy of the highest order. Contraception is forbidden because the purpose of sex is procreation, but the Church will look the other way if you attempt to have sex without procreating by using a "natural" method of birth control. Hard to take such things seriously for many. In fact, most Catholics simply ignore this whole requirement.
BTW, PBS has a piece on the Dominionists tonight at 9. Have to check it out.
I won't be able to get to it till sometime during the weekend. Good questions.
NO problem. I understand. Hopefully you're not taking offense at the discussion. I'm not.
Yes, people have a right to self-govern, as long as man-made laws permitting things that are intrinsically evil are not promulgated. These are the five non-negotiables on the political horizon today that the Church considers intrinsic evil and will fight tooth and nail, regardless of the emerging majorities in favor:
Laws that permit contraception (or pornography, prostitution, adultery, homsexuality) are indeed in a different domain because an argument can be made that these activities do not necessarily violate rights, while banning these activities, no matter how unwise they are, will violate rights. The Church is aware that the distinction between unwise but permissible laws, and impossible laws, such as the above non-negotiables, exists, even though the line is hard to draw sometimes. Overall, we want laws that promote morality and uphold moral order, but we don't want draconian laws that cause resentment. Some things are binding on Catholics only, like the proverbial fish on Friday, and we cannot ask the civil governemnt to follow there. Laws that restrict contraception, pornography, blasphemy, adultery, divorce are on the wish list but we can live with a level of permissiveness we wouldn't have chosen ourselves.
More on contraception. At the present time, only the Catholic Church has a consistent teaching on contraception. The Orthodox, probably, don't disagree with us, but the Orthodox do not have a mechanism of developing a unified political doctrine similar to our papacy. The Protestants taught against contraception till the 30's, then without much debate or explanation stopped their opposition.
We recognize that corner cases exist where the use of a condom might prevent a greater sin. For example, if one is determined to commit a rape, he still might avoid a greater sin of transmitting a deadly infection if he uses a condom. The Church is of the opinion that the use of condoms is of value only after the horse is out of the barn. Therefore we teach that contraception is intrinsically evil, and the only way to progress is through a restoration of the standard of chastity.
The Church considers the rythm method the only one permissible when economic or genetic reasons exist to avoid pregnancy. It is different from artificial methods in that it utilizes the means of sexual life naturally ordained by God, who designed the woman to be periodically infertile.
Regarding inalienable rights, -- the US constitution is light years ahead of the contemporary French anti-clericalism that drove the French revolution. But it is still written from a position of a deist who believes in a clockmaker God who sets the life on earth in motion and does not interfere with it. The Catholic view on the free will is that is it in constant interaction with Divine Grace, which is outpoured from a everpresent loving God. Our freedom is then bracketed by Divine Law, which is summarized in the commandments to love God and love one another. To have laws against murder is not to deny freedom, and so to have a legal system that proclaims God's ownership of human life is not to deny freedom. In fact, when the libertarians maintain that individual rights bracket freedom, we agree with them; but we disagree that these rights can be bargained away by willing dealmakers. That is because these rights are God-given rather than man-asserted.
Real briefly, a few points. Thge Crusades were defensive operation against the expansion of Islam in the traditionally Christian Middle East and North Africa. The concrete grievance was the closing of routes of pilgrimage to the Holy Land. This is not to excuse the behavior of the Crusaders in all cases, but merely to point out that the Crusades do not necessarily negate the doctrin of Just War.
A good primer on Just War is, for example, The Just War Theory
There is probably more in your post that I am leaving unanswered, so feel free to reiterate your questions. I enjoy discussing these things and certainly take no offense.
This of course, is where the difficulty arises. At what point does this religious freedom become a legal imperative? The 1st Amendment does little to help. One must read the Federalist Papers to know how strongly the founding fathers felt about the dangers of a mandated religion. Still, as we have discussed before, many of the early states attempted just that by establishing a ruling class composed only of Christians.
I am a newspaper collector and just last evening was looking at a 1822 paper concerning the new town of Austin in Texas. The article said that reports were coming out that only Catholics were allowed to remain; all others were told to leave. Of course at that time Texas was not part of the US, nor even an independent nation, but still....
Yes, people have a right to self-govern, as long as man-made laws permitting things that are intrinsically evil are not promulgated.
Who decides what is intrinsically evil if not for the self-governed? Your list is a popular one among the Christian right, but not inclusive of all things one might consider intrinsically evil, nor would all people consider everything on your list such, or at least would look at exceptions.
The Church is aware that the distinction between unwise but permissible laws, and impossible laws, such as the above non-negotiables, exists, even though the line is hard to draw sometimes.
"Permissible laws" is where the rub comes in. Who should make those determinations in a society founded on the freedom of the electorate? If it's the Church, then which church? And of course, the electorate is not really free, is it? Empowerment is a tremendous word. Many people use it incorrectly. If someone is empowered to make a decision, then they are also empowered to make a decision that others would disagree with, or they are not empowered at all. So it is with an electorate.
Laws that restrict contraception, pornography, blasphemy, adultery, divorce are on the wish list but we can live with a level of permissiveness we wouldn't have chosen ourselves
That's a step in the right direction. But you do know that many on the Christian right would insist that such laws permitting these things should be unconstitutional.
The Church considers the rythm method the only one permissible when economic or genetic reasons exist to avoid pregnancy. It is different from artificial methods in that it utilizes the means of sexual life naturally ordained by God, who designed the woman to be periodically infertile.
For most of us, this appears to be the epitome of hypocrisy. The Church considers sex to be only for procreation, therefore we are dealing with a distinguishing between a purpose and a method. If someone uses any method of birth control, then they are engaging in an act for other than procreation. If the Church accepts that, then the nonacceptance of an artificial means is hypocritical.
More later.
No one is forced to be Catholic. So there is never a legal imperative. Catholics are informed by their Church and vote accordingly. Disobedience to the Church's teaching is, of course, common as well. The Catholic Church does not want to run the civil government. But it has a position, which comes from its unique insight into the Divine Law. If the government through whatever civil mechanisms, -- elections, courts, constitutions written and rewritten, -- promulgates the laws that are intrinsically evil according to the Church, these laws have to be disobeyed, or one ceases to be Catholic.
The five non-negotiable points represent the current issues where the Church sees the battle line drawn and clarity is needed. It is binding on the Catholics to vote according to that list. Some things are not on the list, not because the Church has no position on them, but because the position is not reducible to a simple unconditional yes or no. For example, the death penalty, progressive taxation, or the war in Iraq are issues where a good Catholic can favor either side (and be with the left or with the right as he does so). Permissive laws regarding pornography, divorce, and birth control are unfortunate but are in the area of personal behavior that tends to only impact the actor.
Let me comment on the Catholic view on the biblical law and its interaction with the civil government. The Church teaches that the law of the Old Testament, -- so called Law of Moses -- was given by God to the Jews in a unique covenantal way. Jesus gave us Christians another set of laws, which are not to be understood legalistically. For example, where the Old Testament commands not to commit adultery -- a legally significant act -- Christ teaches us to keep a chaste attitude, which is not something you can legally prosecute. The Old Testament commandments, even the famous ten of them (they are over 600 in all) are either obeyed because Christ repeated them approvingly (honor your parents), or they are corollary to the two commandments of Christ to love God and to love one another, or we deduce them through reason as a part of the Natural Law (such are the prohibitions on the contraception). Or finally, we have rescinded them as the entire body of Jewish ceremonial and dietetic law. Besides, our attitude is different. For example, both the Jewish law and the Natural Law condemn adultery, but when the Jewish elders were ready with the stones Christ called for charity and self-examination, and removed the matter from the legal environment the Old Testament had placed it.
Not all Christians have the same understanding of the Old Covenant. Some would hold a theonomic view that Christians are to reconstruct a society run by the Jewish Law of the Bible. We consider it heretical because it is pharisaic and condemned by Jesus in principle, -- even when He agreed with the law's intention. Moreover we do not read the Bible in the literalist way as a book of laws, so we could not even agree with the theonomists on what these laws are.
The Church considers sex to be only for procreation, therefore we are dealing with a distinguishing between a purpose and a method. If someone uses any method of birth control, then they are engaging in an act for other than procreation
Regarding the alleged hypocrisy of allowing natrual family planning but not artificial non-abortifacient birth control. The general Christian teaching is that means matter. If a permissible or even laudable result is achieved through the evil means, then the act remains wrong. So we are comfortable allowing for non-procreative sex when prudential reasons exist not to have another child for the sake of marital unity, yet forbidding certain means to that end.
A more narrowly Catholic thing is the thinking in symbols. Barrier contraception is denial of God's design of human sexuality on a symbolic level, as it puts a barrier between what is ordained to be unity. Marital embrace that reflects the unity ont he symbolic level but utilizes the natural fertility cycle is God-fearing simply because it is natural.
Populism and Nationalism Versus Globalism
The new constitution is dead. New Europe has been rejected by the people in whose name it is being advanced. Repudiated, as well, were the political elites who campaigned for that constitution. But though Brussels is unloved and Jacques Chirac has lost France, this was no vote of affection for or confidence in Bush’s America.This was a nationalist-populist protest demanding that France be France and Holland be Holland, and to blazes with the world. It was a vote against the free-trade globalism of George Bush and the Reagan-Thatcher economic model the European Left decries as “savage capitalism.”
It was a victory of the Old Right
[...]
But this Right-Left backlash against globalization and integration of Europe cannot save Europe. For the de-Christianized EU does not contain a single nation where the birth rate is sufficient to replace the population. Europe has begun to die.
[...]
In the rout and humiliation of a European establishment that is committed to open borders and free-trade globalism, by a Left-Right coalition, they may be staring at their own future. For that same Left-Right coalition is forming in the United States—against free-trade globalism, CAFTA, open-borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security reform and American empire.
all the "isms" of the last century spring from this well, and it seems to me the courageous, innovative and creative souls that could have been leading Europe into the 21st and 22nd century were never born because their courageous, innovative and creative grandfathers died when ordered by stupid french (british, german and russian) generals to rise out of the trenches and advance against machine guns in WWI, and the grim reaper had WWII waiting in the wings to make sure it caught those who got away the first time...
I have seen nothing indicating a vote against the global economy as Buchanan says. After all, the votes for the Euro and the European Union pretty much blows that theory apart. Buchanan has always hated Bush and any of the economic agreements entered into by the US.
He is right on open borders and the need to curb illegal immigration. He will lose on the amnesty issues as well as social security and a host of others he opposes. Whether we like it or not, we have gone past the fail safe point in joining the world economic community. There is no turning back...we are totally committed.
But that is an issue for another thread. Suffice it to say that time has passed Buchanan by. He will continue to be simply a small fly in the ointment, and never again will he command the audience of any but the most strident of the right.
And his report of the death of Europe may be a bit premature. And if it happens (which it won't), it certainly cannot be attributed to a decline in Christianity. Throughout history, every great power has ultimately declined for a variety of reasons, some attributable to religion, many not.
If we are to look at the demise of Europe, we must also consider Assyria, Egypt, Rome, Greece, England, Spain, France, Germany, The Holy Roman Empire (the other attempt at unifying Europe), and others. The current state of Europe exists because of a multitude of issues. You and Buchanan are certain it's predominately a religious (or lack thereof) issue, most analysts believe it's far too complex for such simplicity, and in either case, far from a done deal.
As long as there is no "test" of Christianity to hold office.
f the government through whatever civil mechanisms, -- elections, courts, constitutions written and rewritten, -- promulgates the laws that are intrinsically evil according to the Church, these laws have to be disobeyed, or one ceases to be Catholic.
Yet Kerry was given Communion.
Marital embrace that reflects the unity ont he symbolic level but utilizes the natural fertility cycle is God-fearing simply because it is natural.
But is still hypocritical in that it permits pleasure over procreation only under "natural" means. Seems somewhat petty to observers. In other words, the intent of having sex without procreation is the same in either case, so why place this obstacle in the way? But I'm not Catholic any longer, so our two perspectives will never come together on this.
Depopulation, civilizational suicide, and invasion all happened when Europe was being Christianized so it cancels out evenly.
I, predictably enough, like Buchanan. I am glad his quixotic presidency quest is over and he is back to where he does most good, being a pundit.
I would agree that the rejection of the Euroconstitution shouild not be viewed from a conservative prism. Their house is falling apart and they are in disarray. The common denominator is de-Christianization, but I am not convinced Buchanan understands it as clearly as Weigel does.
The uniqueness of the tragedies of the 20 century -- which I, and Weigel, enumerated several times, -- militates against your assertion that this one is just a normal ebb and flow of history. Here is one anecdote to illustrate. During the battle of Somme the British Expeditionary Force attacked the German positions under the incorrect assumption that the preceding artillery fire disabled the German infantry and shredded the wire entanglements. It did not: their ordnance could not cut wire, and the Germans nerved themselves to hunker down in their bunkers and re-emerge on the firing line as soon as the barrage was over. BEF marched on, and got stuck in the uncut wire. The Germans brought up the machine guns and wiped a good portion of them out. The rest struggled to retreat. At this point, the German infantry held their fire, letting them retreat and pick up the wounded. This was contrary to all military sense, as the retreating Brits lived to fight them another day. It was not a case of individual soldiers surreptitiously holding fire, it was the decision of the commanding officers. It was a plain act of Christian charity.
The Great War was remarkable for the little civilian damage as well, as you know. This was the last war fought according to the Christian principles. The cause of that war was, of course, insufficient, but the methods were still reminiscent, at times, of medieval chivalry. It is impossible to imagine any military commander during the Second World War to spare lives of enemy soldiers; in fact, little distinction was made between the combatants and the civilians by all sides.
This is what we lost, and this is why death is at the door.
The Church does not insist on a test of Christianity. I personally think, it would be a good idea, and some other time we could discuss why.
There is a distinction between formal excommunication, refusal of communion by priest, and loss of spiritual communion. A priest is instructed to assume that the communicant is free form grave sin and offer communion, even if he suspects otherwise. It is scandalous for a priest to withhold communion when asked for. Most priests would want an instruction form the bishop before they do so. US bishops, are, for most part, spineless weasels; in my opinion, they should have instructed the priests to withhold communion and perhaps also should have excommunicated all prominent anti-life politicians. Nevertheless, Kerry was warned not to show up in certian dioceses, and he was careful to go to most liberal parishes he could find. His loss of communion was inward, as he was, by his advocacy of abortion, internally separated from the Church. Taking communion in that state was another sin, for which he will be answering to the Eternal Judge.
The intent of having natural sex during a period on unfertility is to sustain the marital unity between spouses and with God for the benefit of existing and future offspring, or if infertility is permanent, other manifestations of fruitfulness. The intent of having contracepted sex a tleast removed God from the union, and is therefore an act of disordered passion, akin to very many other occasions when we act, perhaps, well-intentionally, out of touch with the Holy Spirit. So the intent is not the same.
I also liked him once, and even voted for him in the primaries. Those days are long gone, and he has since become only a shadow of his once vibrant leadership. Hopefully he will remain a pundit, and as such is at least entertaining if not educational.
Their house is falling apart and they are in disarray. The common denominator is de-Christianization,
I guess I'm still trying to find that linkage. Weigel shows a drop in organized religion in Europe at the same time as a drop in the growth rate projections. To somehow tie the two together without a definitive cause and effect relationship is what I am seeking. For example, it's a known fact that virtually all rapists and other sexual predators are fans of pornography. Some erroneously then conclude that pornography is a cause of such behavior. Clearly it's not as tens of millions of others view pornography without any such adverse effects.
But those who want to ban pornography will try and establish that link.
Another example is the pro choice crowd. When violence is perpetrated against doctors and clinics, they want to blame the whole pro-life movement because the few such criminals have all been members of the movement. Poor linkage.
At this point, the German infantry held their fire, letting them retreat and pick up the wounded. This was contrary to all military sense, as the retreating Brits lived to fight them another day. It was not a case of individual soldiers surreptitiously holding fire, it was the decision of the commanding officers. It was a plain act of Christian charity.
I agree that it was a plain act of human charity if not Christian charity. But the atrocities committed by both sides in the Great War are well documented. In fact the Canadians and Australians were most apt to engage in atrocities against the enemy.
In every war in the 20th Century you will find such stories, both of atrocities and of humanitarianism. The first Geneva Convention was in 1864 and was the first real attempt to govern and spell out humanitarian treatment. It came about because of the seemingly inhumane wars that were being fought and how non combatants were being treated--hardly in a Christian fashion.
Don't forget two of the most egregious Christian efforts were the Crusades and the Inquisition, both of which the Vatican apologized for.
Today civilized nations try and conduct military operations in the most humanitarian manner possible. It may be related to Christianity, but Europe seems to be the most sensitive to humanitarian conduct today, and yet Weigel and Buchanan have written them off because of their de-Chrianization, which does seem somewhat inconsistent.
I agree with this statement as part of the reason for the economic stagnation of Europe. The reason for depopulation is more complicated, and it is related to selfishness, (kids cost money that can be spent on self), casual sex and birth control (including abortion)
Selfish humans ,who can still have sex but not make babies, often choose not to. When they realize later that they have given something important up, it is too late to catch up.
Once in a while, we have Wars, and the normal rules of peacetime are placed on hold for the duration so the time of War can be as short as possible. It is the attempt to fight a nice War that causes many more deaths and greatly more suffering through dragging out the conflict. We are seeing this now as our niceness and internal discord emboldens the enemy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.