What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Zero-Sum Game: Example #353

In the comments thread, below, I said this, to a liberal commentator:

I've had this go-round with your side before. Here's how it goes:

Homosexual agenda advocate: What do you conservatives care? How does it harm you? Why are you trying to control other people?

Conservatives: Here are 352 examples of the fact that when this stuff is in place, your side gets to control other people--namely, people who think like me--and punish us for not agreeing with you. That's why, just for starters.

HAA--Well, those are all _reasonable_. If people choose to deal with the public, they should _have_ to go along with this. And when we've passed homosexual "marriage," then it really _is_ legal marriage, and it's just acknowledging _reality_ to call it "marriage," so people should be forced to do so.

Conservative: I rest my case.

HAA--[Silence]

Well, courtesy of SpeakUp University blog, here comes example #353.

Joshua Wolff is an openly homosexual alumnus of Biola University. Stripped of verbiage, his proposal here amounts to this: Because students with homosexual feelings feel their feelings hurt and upset by policies at Christian schools barring acts of homosexual sex (not, as he implies but can't quite bring himself to lie and say outright, homosexual inclinations), accreditation boards should deny accreditation to Christian schools unless they repeal these policies and allow homosexual students to engage in all the homosexual acts they want.

Poor Joshua Wolff felt dreadfully upset and worried that he would be expelled from Biola because of their student code of conduct barring homosexual acts. Well, gee, I wonder why. I realize this is a wild conjecture, but one guesses that perhaps this was either because Wolff was breaking that rule or because he wished and intended to break that rule. And maybe because if he "came out" he understandably thought that people would (reasonably) believe that he was breaking the rule against homosexual acts.

In the course of telling his piteous tale, Wolff reveals that there were actually faculty members at Biola who "support[ed]" his learning "to love myself as an openly gay man."

You know, those of us who think that homosexual acts are, you know, wrong and contrary to what a Christian school should be endorsing might think that that is the story. Not, "Joshua Wolff felt tense and upset because of a policy on the books at Biola, from which policy he suffered no penalties whatsoever," but, "Some faculty members at Biola apparently support the morality of homosexual acts."

In any event, I'm just waiting for all the liberal lovers of liberty who are opposed to "trying to control other people" to jump in here and deplore Wolff's proposal about accreditation agencies.

Or maybe not.

Comments (120)

Hi. I'm a liberal and read your blog regularly. Probably our only general points of agreement are economic. However, I do think that religious institutions ought to be able to determine student and faculty codes of conduct, and that anyone who finds themselves in Joshua's place ought to transfer to a different university. This not just because I am wary of accreditation agencies (which I am), but also because I firmly believe that religious communities ought to be able to live in accordance with their commitments. And many of my liberal colleagues, invisible though they may be on the blogosphere, agree.

Thanks, "a." Sorry they're so invisible. (I'm waiting, somewhat resignedly, for the B.L. trolls to show up on this thread. I'm sure they're much in favor of Wolff's proposal.)

The commenter who suggested, in the other thread, that there is a liberal form of Taqiyya at work, is onto something I think. Perhaps it is just another way of describing the Hegelian Mambo: the left-liberal side will embrace things like religious exemptions, civil unions instead of "gay marriage", etc. for the time being, as a way of bringing along their right-liberal partners in an otherwise relentlessly leftward dance. Without its right-liberal dance partner, left-liberalism would rather quickly commit suicide via its own nihilistic energy. With its right-liberal dance partner though a relentless yet stable march leftward is assured.

This is the real issue: egalitarianism militates against any possibility of true human community. You cannot have any community at all without a substantive set of shared values, norms, interests, and ideals. And you cannot sustain those values, norms, interests and ideals unless those who do not share them are either not allowed to participate fully or are actively excluded. You can make the world "fair" or you can have the kinds of communities that make human life tolerable for the majority our species, but you cannot do both. For when the liberals are done making everything "fair", they will have completely destroyed every inegalitarian arrangement constitutive of a human culture. Then we finally get our utopia. A utopia where the only social goods left are private consumer goods and the only human interactions left are contractual and consensual. And, of course, the only institutions with any social power will be governmental, regulatory and law enforcement institutions. But the good news is that the Government will subsidize your antidepressant medications!

You can make the world "fair" or you can have the kinds of communities that make human life tolerable for the majority our species, but you cannot do both.

I'm not even sure you can make the world "fair." Because of course the lock-step liberal "communities" (e.g., Cisco, which apparently will fire people for opining off-the-clock that marriage is between a man and a woman, or EMU, which kicked Julea Ward out for refusing to engage in homosexual-affirming therapy) embody substantive sets of shared values and norms, etc. So it's just _those_ groups that will be allowed to exist anymore in the Brave New World.

To what extent the majority of human beings will find those communities tolerable...I'm not sure.

This is the real issue: egalitarianism militates against any possibility of true human community.

Yes: the problem is that right-liberals believe in political freedom and equality as the highest politically authoritative principles. After all, it was the collective decision to set religious and other metaphysically substantive differences on the back burner which allowed political issues to be resolved without bloodshed, through liberal political institutions like democracy. So every reasonable modern person, including every reasonable modern conservative person, is some sort of political liberal.

The only way for the relentless leftward march to stop though is if enough people stop being liberals. That means outright unequivocal rejection of freedom and equal rights (and their institutional concomitants, e.g. democracy) as the most politically authoritative principles. Tolerance is only tolerance when it is a subordinate virtue. When it becomes insubordinate, tolerance is no longer tolerance: it is the tyranny of nihilism.

@Lydia:

Well, it gets applied like economic Marxism did in the Soviet Union. The party elites can get fantastically wealthy; everybody else gets to enjoy the wonders of economic equality. Likewise: Rich white liberal cultural enclaves can exclude people. Everyone else must sacrifice their culture to the Gods of equality. So trendy corporations, universities, legal firms, and newspaper editorial boards can discriminate against "bigots". Non-trendy corporations, Churches, country clubs, and charities must admit as full participants those who decisively reject their deepest values.

Part of the problem is that we've all become too attached to our, "stuff," so that few are willing to risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to stand up for objective truth. Is it a wonder that most correct and successful cultural changes are started by the poor? Make no mistake, I don't think we would be having this conversation if homosexuals as a class were poor. It is the rich who are pri stilt fueling the issue.

The Chicken

The only way for the relentless leftward march to stop though is if enough people stop being liberals.
How many is 'enough'? It's not the number of liberals that matters, but the political and social influence they exercise from positions of authority.

It may be that liberals are really in a minority. Minorities can get the upper hand and control the situation if they have the power. Power is the key factor.

Zippy,

Welcome back!

This is interesting: "The only way for the relentless leftward march to stop though is if enough people stop being liberals. That means outright unequivocal rejection of freedom and equal rights (and their institutional concomitants, e.g. democracy) as the most politically authoritative principles." So has your time in the wilderness turned you into a monarchist?

I guess you are no fan of the Declaration's natural law principles?

Of course, what about the numerous Christian universities that proscribe sexual acts regardless of the participants' sex? Surely this tiny Christian school of which I've never heard of does not have a policy prohibiting sodomy, but not a policy prohibiting coital fornication.

You're correct, Titus. The policy also prohibits heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage--a point homosexual activists persistently ignore.

Back when the whole American Philosophical Association policy dust-up was happening (you can find articles here at W4 about it) that issue was brought up to the leftists on some liberal blogs. I stayed off of them, but this is what was reported to me: In essence, in order to avoid the charge of being discriminatory, the leftists demand that the Christian schools who want to prohibit heterosexual fornication must invent the notion of homosexual marriage! Then, if they recognize some homosexual unions as licit, they would be "allowed" in the liberal mind to tell both homosexuals and heterosexuals that they may not have intercourse outside of "marriage," thus defined.

Okay, Lydia, I'll bite.

This case is terrible. It's a complete mess. I'm actually with you here.

See, the problem with the way things are often framed on this site is that you lump all "liberals" together. But like any group, that's probably inaccurate. There're many shades of grey.

Some folk think that feelings are good indications of problems. Whereas many of us think that feelings aren't a good indicator of much at all. Do I think Biola should have the code of conduct they have? Not if they're getting state funding. If they're not, however, I could care less. If they want to have what I'd regard as silly policies, more power to 'em.

The leap from "They're icky and hurt my feelings" to "don't accredit them" is huge. I don't see it. And I doubt that many would see it.

All that said, I do feel badly for Mr. Wolff. That one can find (or put) themselves in a situation in which they'll be miserable is too bad. But then again, some of us chose to get married...

Finally, I don't see how this case relates at all to NY's allowing gay marriage. (Note the lack of quotation marks there! I'm so sassy!)

Finally, I don't see how this case relates at all to NY's allowing gay marriage.

If you don't see it, there are plenty of people who support it who do. Hint: "Non-discrimination" against people who engage in homosexual acts is the common thread.

But I appreciate your disagreeing with Wolff's proposal. Kudos for that.

Hint: "Non-discrimination" against people who engage in homosexual acts is the common thread.

Yeah, see, that's not what I think is at issue in the marriage case. State sanctioned discrimination is what's at issue. NY is a state, so they shouldn't discriminate. Biola, as I understand it, is a private college. So the two cases are quite different.

Your beef seems to be with those WAY to the left, who think that any discrimination whatsoever is problematic. But I agree with you that such a view is seriously problematic. But those folks are few and far between, and are probably mostly on hippie communes. So why bother with them? Why not address the issue as it's most reasonably presented, instead of saddling all "liberals" with a silly view?

"has your time in the wilderness turned you into a monarchist?"

Zippy said only that they must be rejected as "the MOST politically authoritative principles", not rejected outright. This is perfectly acceptable -- think of Burke, for instance, who, while an Enlightenment man, obviously didn't accept it whole hog, and was fine with a constitutional monarchy.

Somewhere he said that those who promoted the idea that democracy was the only acceptable form of government were no more correct than those who defended the divine right of kings in the same manner.

But those folks are few and far between, and are probably mostly on hippie communes.

You've got to be kidding me. I see you don't hang around much in the world of the university campus. But that's not all. In my _relatively_ conservative Midwestern city, a "non-discrimination" law was passed for private businesses just a couple of years ago including not only homosexual acts but also "gender identity." I pounded the pavement opposing it. Had very nice, ordinary people, nothing remotely like hippies on communes, tell me they didn't want to oppose the ordinance because they "didn't want to seem to be against the gays."

Tod:

"Do I think Biola should have the code of conduct they have? Not if they're getting state funding. If they're not, however, I could care less..."

Of course they get state funding. Most college students would be unable to go to college if they couldn't get government grants and/or student loans.

So has your time in the wilderness turned you into a monarchist?

I am neither more nor less monarchy-friendly than I've always been. What I am though is a guy who observes that if you want to get out of a hole - whatever good reasons you may think you had to start digging in the first place - the first step involved is to stop digging.

The key to resisting liberalism has little to do with what left liberals will do in aggregate. What left liberals will do in aggregate is as predictable as if they had no free will at all.

No, the key to resisting the inexorable Hegelian march leftward lies with those of a conservative disposition abandoning, rather than conserving, their right-liberal commitments. You can see the problem with that though.

I guess you are no fan of the Declaration's natural law principles?

To the extent the Declaration is understood to be a statement of Jefferson's liberal "Enlightenment" understanding of natural law, that's right, I've never been a fan. Furthermore, the relentless leftward march is inevitable until conservatives are willing to stand astride Jeffersonian freedom and equal rights as supreme political principle and shout "stop!" That is, the leftward march is inevitable until conservatives/right-liberals are willing to confront their liberal inner child and strangle the little bastard.

Well you'll find lots of liberals who say so-and-so can do whatever they want provided they aren't receiving government funds of any kind. At least, to a point--I am aware of no movement within the liberal camp to repeal the Civil Rights Act. And then there are the 'Fairness Acts' that cities sometimes pass. And some liberals even say that if you do something so benign and unavoidable as use public sidewalks you must follow the latest greatest version of antidiscrimination law. But liberals do often say that so-and-so can do whatever they like provided etc...etc...

But...part of the liberal paradigm is the grand expansion of government services to many more areas of life. They would like for many more people to receive public funds, and will balk at any proposal to provide less of these funds or cut the taxes that pay them. So...connect the dots. If receiving government funds entails a loss of freedom, and ideally everyone is receiving government funds in some way or another...where are we at? It's almost as if it were all planned.

"the leftward march is inevitable until conservatives/right-liberals are willing to confront their liberal inner child and strangle the little bastard"

Truer words were never spoken, but how would you recommend one start that procedure? I can predict all sorts of protests from right-liberals once you get to the point of critiquing Enlightenment economics (capitalism, iow).

The reason I ask is that I myself came to a suspicion of Enlightenment political thought by a very circuitous route, starting a number of years ago with a combination of, of all things, patristic Biblical hermeneutics and Weaver's critique of nominalism. Rather like going from D.C. to Philly via Greece and North Carolina.

It's entirely contrary to my experience that advocates of homosexual "marriage" are in favor of allowing private discrimination against open homosexuals. On the contrary. Laws prohibiting private discrimination are in my previous experience universally regarded as _moderate_ by comparison to the state recognition of homosexual couples as "married." Indeed, those who oppose such non-discrimination laws sometimes try to rally the mushy middle by arguing that this is a step on the way to homosexual "marriage" (which is undoubtedly true).

Moreover, given the existence of any sort of non-discrimination laws concerning homosexuals whatsoever, or any such laws that can be construed to cover them, the prohibition of discrimination and homosexual "marriage" are entirely entangled. Of course a New York businessman (yes, including one "not receiving government funds") who gives spousal health benefits to his employees will now be required to give such benefits to his homosexual employees who contract "marriages."

Zippy and CTY,D --

I guess my problem is that I don't understand the distinction you are both trying to make between conservative (is this even the correct term?) and "right-liberal" ideas. For example, as far as I know, someone like Robert George considers himself a good American conservative who believes in American constitutional principles (and therefore Enlightment economics and political thought) and yet here he is eloquently defending traditional marriage:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270662/sex-and-empire-state-interview

... how would you recommend one start that procedure?

I don't think there is any one way for a given individual. Since most everyone in the modern West is a more or less deeply committed political liberal, typically without even being aware of it (and oftentimes, in the case of right-liberals, deluded that the contrary is the case), something has to happen to each person which jars him loose from his presuppositions. At the same time, the sort of alienating "jarring loose" which takes place often enough isn't sufficient, and the person adopts anarcho-libertarianism or Marxism or one of the other extremes of modernity as his refuge. The big moat around it all is the fact that to a modern person, it is difficult to conceive of abandoning liberal principles without becoming a Nazi.

One the other hand, the fact that everyone is where they happen to be personally in daily life as it actually is lived doesn't have to be a bad thing. To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt's son on D-Day, when he discovered that his men had landed more than a mile away from where they intended, "we'll start the war from here."

The reigning mythology is powerful and almost unbelievably resilient. But liberal modernity is also ultimately anti-human, tyrannical, and decadent. The fact that so many people are willing to go to the mat for anal sex is, at least from a certain point of view, quite comical. All that to make the world safe for buggery and masturbation and suchlike!? Really!?

So live life as it should be lived, go to Church, have children, be manly men and womanly women, celebrate the Good, the True, and the Beautiful; because ultimately (and sooner in the case of particular individuals) its enemies will be reclaimed by the dust from whence they came.

Jeff Singer:

I am aware that there are lots of right-liberals who think they are doing the world a favor by trying to negotiate a peaceful coexistence between liberal modernity and traditional morality (that is, the Good, the True, and the Beautiful). I think they are wrong: all of them. Their efforts to uphold traditional morality (G/T/B) are much appreciated; their attempts to make peace with modernity are wrongheaded and counterproductive, in my view. I know they don't agree, and they think that the march of history cares about their nuances and attempts to rationalize and such. But it doesn't. They've never been right and never will be right. I present to you the modern world and the four or five decades of my own lifetime as decisive counterexample.

If you don't want more of the same of what you have been getting, you have to do something different.

I appreciate your answer, Zippy, but I should have been more specific. Are there specific things you'd recommend reading to help begin that "jarring loose" process? I have my recommendations but no doubt they wouldn't suit everyone, coming as I did to my positions in such a roundabout way. Plus, I'd like to know if there were things I've missed along that way.

Jeff Singer, I'd say that one difference between a conservative and a right-liberal, is the difference between a person who, although finding some elements of good in Enlightenment modernity, remains skeptical of it as a whole, and one who, although finding elements of it he dislikes, remains supportive of it as a whole. As Zippy said, it's all about whether one makes peace with modernity or not.

The Tyranny of Liberalism by Jim Kalb is a good book on the subject which I can recommend wholeheartedly. As you might imagine, there are few respectable sources which fundamentally question modernity; but reading Chesterton and Belloc seems to have a salutary effect on some Catholics. Alisdair Macintyre is another. Also frankly some modernity-sympathetic types like David Stove ... but it really depends on where the person is coming from. "What books should I read/give to Bob to catalyze an existential crisis?" is a difficult question to answer under the best of circumstances, and given liberalism's stranglehold on modern thought it becomes almost impossible to answer.

Liberalism is false: it is a Big Lie, and as such the crisis for a given person, where he starts to realize the incoherence of it all, can be precipitated by almost anything. Could be a work of fiction or a trip to the Zoo.

In my case one "aha!" moment came when I was arguing with a mathematician about fifteen or more years ago about how "equal rights" is in practice self-contradictory, because "equal" requires an absence of authoritative discrimination while every "right" when actually possessed by a person (that is, an ownership right to that particular piece of property for example, not merely the potential to acquire such a right) requires some kind of authoritative discrimination. He suggested that logical contradictions like that aren't especially interesting because they entail everything and its opposite all at the same time, at least in mathematical reality. Then it hit me that, bang, in actual human reality lived out in time, this kind of contradiction - when treated as the highest principle of political authority - would work itself out as a kind of truth-and-authority corrosive, destroying every authority standing in the way of what people want at the moment and constrained only by inarticulate "common sense" or "unprincipled exceptions", as Lawrence Auster might call them. It doesn't happen all at once; the Lie works itself out in time, through history and living, not as a platonic mathematical result.

Sure, in "platonic" mathematical reality you get everything and its opposite all at once; in lived reality though when human beings express allegiance to incoherent principles of authority you get the continual destruction of whatever is in the way of the human will at the present time, whatever it happens to be, through a process of list-making which I discussed here (among other places).

I rather expect though that my own experience was unique. So again, I really don't have a signpost I can point to to say "send right-liberals this way and they will be enlightened".

Zippy,

Thanks for the response (to me and to CTY,D). I lot of smart people I admire keep recommending Kalb's book -- just another one I need to add to my growing pile of "to read".

I think your best argument against those you call "right-liberals" and those who "make peace with modernity" is this:

"I present to you the modern world and the four or five decades of my own lifetime as decisive counterexample."

However, as a counter-counterexample, I could suggest the enemies of the modern liberal state: Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, modern Islamic states, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, etc. In comparison, the 21st Century U.S.A. (and the rest of the West) seems like heaven on Earth.

I asked you about monarchy earlier because I read a lot of reactionary blogs these days and my own faith in Constitutional representative democracy has gotten shaky...Mencius and gang still haven't convinced me, but they have certainly made me question some of my long-held assumptions.

I read your old blog post -- it seems like your whole argument with "liberalism" or more accurately the idea of "equality" is that we need to be careful to qualify what we mean when we talk about and legislate for equality. And I and most conservatives would agree with you -- we want equality before the law, not equality of outcome -- which is why we disagree with the liberals. But I guess your argument, although maybe I'm wrong here, is that once you start talking about equality it is like opening Pandora's Box and you can't control it -- so you start with laws that treat rich and poor alike when they mug a old lady and you end up with gay marriage. Is that your argument with the Declaration and Constitution?

FWIW, Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences was a big one for me. Also Andrew Louth's Discerning the Mystery, and on what might be called a more 'contemplative' level, The Silence of Angels by Dale Allison (republished not long ago under the title The Luminous Dusk). And Marion Montgomery has been huge for me.

I read your old blog post -- it seems like your whole argument with "liberalism" or more accurately the idea of "equality" is that we need to be careful to qualify what we mean when we talk about and legislate for equality.

The problem with zippy's analysis, is what on earth does he mean by "outright unequivocal rejection of freedom"? As if equality were an idea cooked up by the Founders, rather than a feature of life in the world that God made.

Hume said "Nature will always maintain her rights, and prevail in the end over any abstract reasoning whatever." I know, I know, it's Hume. People talk equivocally about political and legal aspects or ideas, but I honestly think the expression "outright unequivocal rejection of freedom" is incoherent.

The problem is when we stop seeing that we must steer between extremes. There are excesses in the conservatism direction too. Unless fleshed out in some "between two extremes" sort of way, does "rejecting freedom" means reject hints at something anti-rational. But societies that lean heavily on taboo can be horrible. No, I'm afraid throwing the baby out with the bath won't do.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn't so abstract as what is in the Declaration. As the Hume quote points out, people don't consult the Declaration to live their lives. The fact is that societies that don't replenish themselves fairly fast or expand into new territory don't have a lot of hope of not going liberal. Look at the liberal bastions: large cities. If the US had not expanded west the whole small nation would be like Massachusetts. This trend was in play two centuries ago. Aging societies get increasingly liberal. Non-expanding and aging societies turn liberal. Are there any exceptions? Do you really think if the Declaration had never been written that we wouldn't have these problems? Though we aren't expanding as fast as we could and should, for reasons we all know, we are increasing population faster than other developed nations. We have much more usable and desirable-for-living land than other nations. These two advantages help in undermining a lock-step march to liberalism. That makes it harder for the liberal elites to impose their will on those who disagree. If we don't avoid this fate, and I have hopes we will, it will be because we are expanding and other nations are not.

Leftists lie like rugs? And "liberals" collude with leftists?

Whodda thunk?

Do I think Biola should have the code of conduct they have? Not if they're getting state funding. If they're not, however, I could care less. If they want to have what I'd regard as silly policies, more power to 'em.
Of course they get state funding. Most college students would be unable to go to college if they couldn't get government grants and/or student loans.

I actually think that state funding of loans is quite pernicious. Hillsdale and Christendom college are the wise ones because they know that even $1 of state assistance means they aren't really independent. Honestly, I think many Christian colleges would change their policies rather than lose state funding if and when it comes to that. I would like to think otherwise, but I don't. If they aren't preparing contingency plans for saying no, what makes us think they will? But then when the ed bubble pops I think there will be a number of salutatory effects, and I think one will be that the feds lose some influence over higher ed.

While there may be many shades of grey, in the end, *all* the pretty shades of grey are but black and white which someone has failed -- or declined -- to distinguish.

If they would term it honestly--Imitation Marriage--they might actually gain more forbearance from some traditionalists.

Mark:

The problem with zippy's analysis, is what on earth does he mean by "outright unequivocal rejection of freedom"?

One of the more tedious aspects of blogging and blog-commenting - and one of the reasons I don't invest much of my time in it anymore, and have no plans to up the investment - is that whatever one says, it is inevitably subjected to careless reading and egregiously bad paraphrase. I like to think I advance my propositions rather carefully; but few people even bother to actually read what I say, let alone attempt to understand it, before reacting. I understand why that is the case; but it makes the whole exercise a tremendous waste of time.

Jeff:

However, as a counter-counterexample, I could suggest the enemies of the modern liberal state: Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, modern Islamic states, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, etc.

That's that "moat" I was talking about: as though in order not to favor the gulags and gas chambers, one simply must be an (at least right-) liberal. Of course in my understanding those things aren't all that different from America's brand of liberalism. The main difference lies in who happens to be the (implied or explicit) untermensch. (All liberalisms and their close modernist cousins - you mention a few, with the possible exception of Islamic states[*] - have to develop an untermensch, if only implicitly, as a way of dealing with their disconnect from reality).

In comparison, the 21st Century U.S.A. (and the rest of the West) seems like heaven on Earth.

Well, yeah, as long as you aren't the untermensch. Don't jump to the conclusion that the modern liberal USA has no untermensch until you have carefully considered the question of whether or not tens of millions of innocents have or have not been mass-murdered on the altar of liberal pieties.


[*] Islam of course is the old enemy of Christendom, not the new.

Heaven on earth? With legal Gay Marriage?
With Legal partial-birth abortion?

The social contract theories must be discarded and the conception of State as a development of ancient patriarchy, ultimately to the authority of Adam over his sons, put into its place.

Calmer Than You, Dude: This is the first time I have seen Dale Allison's "The Silence of Angels" mentioned in this space. Yes, that gem of a book deserves to be much more widely read - and re-read.

One of the more tedious aspects of blogging and blog-commenting - and one of the reasons I don't invest much of my time in it anymore, and have no plans to up the investment - is that whatever one says, it is inevitably subjected to careless reading and egregiously bad paraphrase. I like to think I advance my propositions rather carefully; but few people even bother to actually read what I say, let alone attempt to understand it, before reacting. I understand why that is the case; but it makes the whole exercise a tremendous waste of time.

Well, you can express yourself over drinks at the local pub with your chosen group of like-minded friends any time you wish. They'll nod and smile even if they have no idea what you mean, and sometimes even when they don't agree, so it's very gratifying. Or you can offer your opinions in public for analysis as you have here. Each has its rewards, but you can't have it both ways.

Great to "see" you again, Zippy! Please consider returning to the roster. The management here might be poor but, from what I hear, is not is above certain forms of bribery.

The reason I ask is that I myself came to a suspicion of Enlightenment political thought by a very circuitous route, starting a number of years ago with a combination of, of all things, patristic Biblical hermeneutics and Weaver's critique of nominalism. Rather like going from D.C. to Philly via Greece and North Carolina.

The anti-Enlightenment crowd is a big tent, so I'd be careful about concluding much from suspicion alone. There was a great review by Bruce Thornton of Martha Nussbaum's "Cultivating Humanity," called "Cultivating Sophistry" in the journal Arion, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Fall - Winter, 1998), pp. 180-204 Here's a couple of excerpts:

Multi-cult, then, is not really about just tolerating diversity within the big tent of liberalism. Rather, it is a form of history as therapeutic melodrama: it provides victim-narratives that bolster the self-esteem of those groups who have been designated as "others" oppressed by Western science, capitalism, political ideology, etc. As such its roots–ironically, given its anti-Western bias–lie in that nineteenth-century Teutonic fit of anti-Enlightenment pique that found expression in inter alia Germanic romantic nationalism. Just as Germans resented the cool Gallic "universal man" for ignoring what was distinctly vital about the unique Volk, so today's multiculturalists define their identities in opposition to a soulless Western culture and its destructive values of rationalism and individualism and materialism. The anti-Enlightenment, identity-politics roots of multiculturalism seriously challenge Nussbaum's attempt to sugar-coat it as an expression of universal liberalism.

. . . the traditionalist straw man . . . is the favorite bogey of the postmodern philosopher and multiculturalist apologist alike, a caricature that feeds the self-serving illusion that anti-traditionalist professors are embattled, cutting-edge minorities fighting powerful establishment anxiously bent on repressing the "other" and protecting its power and privilege . . . anybody who criticizes multiculturalism is committed to inequality.

Anti-Enlightenment suspicions come in all varieties, as do victim narratives. Honestly, the anti-democratic Conservatives bear some strong similarities to other anti-Western groups, including multi-cults. Suspicions of Western ideas, strong victim-narratives, and a traditionalist straw man. Anybody who defends the Declaration is committed to the radical idea of equality of outcome . . . The story is quite similar.

"Honestly, the anti-democratic Conservatives bear some strong similarities to other anti-Western groups, including multi-cults."

Yes, and anti-corporate Conservatives bear some strong similarities to other anti-capitalist groups, including Marxists. So what?

Is a Weaver-esque critique of modernity verboten because it happens to overlap on certain points with that of, say, Lionel Trilling? What do you do then with guys like Lasch and Rieff who can't be pigeonholed? What percentage of homologous thinking with Leftists is allowed? Do we disallow older thinkers on the Right who have some elements of thought that are correspondent to that of "liberals"? Is Kirk out because in his critique of modernity he occasionally sounds like a postmodernist?

No, sorry, but this modern conservative wagon-circling won't do. What we don't need is some sort of Fox/Weekly Standard echo chamber.

I read your old blog post -- it seems like your whole argument with "liberalism" or more accurately the idea of "equality" is that we need to be careful to qualify what we mean when we talk about and legislate for equality. And I and most conservatives would agree with you -- we want equality before the law, not equality of outcome -- which is why we disagree with the liberals. But I guess your argument, although maybe I'm wrong here, is that once you start talking about equality it is like opening Pandora's Box and you can't control it -- so you start with laws that treat rich and poor alike when they mug a old lady and you end up with gay marriage. Is that your argument with the Declaration and Constitution?

I once pointed out to Zippy that perhaps the fundamental problem is that it is human nature to take even a good idea to a wicked end. The divine right of kings is a good idea in some ways. We know from practice that kings often took it as a license to simply shaft their populations with an attitude that was barely restrained by the possibility of eternal damnation. Likewise, equality can be a good thing. Humans have also taken it to a similarly absurd end.

I don't remember if Zippy really responded to my point about human nature making a beeline for the corrupt path in any given idea, but it would be topical here.

Gentlemen, to bring us back to the main topic of the post (I occasionally worry that my really liberal commentators will think I'm uneven in imposing on them a standard of sticking to the topic that I don't even remotely impose on my conservative brethren), I'd like to ask for a show of hands. Commentator Tod, above, indicated that he believes that private businesses who don't receive public funds should be able to have what he regards as "silly rules"--presumably concerning discrimination against active homosexual behavior, as in the case of Biola in the main post. He also implied that only a few "hippies living in communes" really want to take active steps to stop such private discrimination.

Considering all the existing anti-discrimination policies in states and locales all over the nation that include homosexual acts, and considering the continual energy on the part of the homosexual lobby that goes into expanding such laws, this seems to me obviously, blatantly false. Tod also implies that support for homosexual "marriage" is _less_ extreme than support for punishing private businesses and organizations that discriminate against homosexual behavior (because the former has to do only with opposing state discrimination), but, again, this seems to be completely backwards, since temporally non-discrimination laws including homosexuals come _before_ and provide the backdrop for attempts to pass homosexual "marriage."

Do you, other commentators, agree with me on these observations?

Lydia:
I agree with your observations.

Mark:

Well, you can express yourself over drinks at the local pub with your chosen group of like-minded friends any time you wish. They'll nod and smile even if they have no idea what you mean, and sometimes even when they don't agree, so it's very gratifying. Or you can offer your opinions in public for analysis as you have here. Each has its rewards, but you can't have it both ways.

And when you comment in public, you can spout errant nonsense and attack ideas that not only bear no resemblance to what I actually said, but demonstrate your own complete incapacity to read; or you can engage me in a discussion. But you can't have it both ways.

Mike T:

The divine right of kings is a good idea in some ways. We know from practice that kings often took it as a license to simply shaft their populations with an attitude that was barely restrained by the possibility of eternal damnation. Likewise, equality can be a good thing. Humans have also taken it to a similarly absurd end.

I would suggest that when either "divine right of kings" or "equal rights" is taken to be a supreme political principle, both are lies. (You are right though to point out the tendency of both to be abused by fallen human nature, because just about anything has a tendency to be exploited by fallen human nature).

The authority of kings (as the aristocrat with the most authority among a group of aristocrats) and a subordinate concept of equality (that certain facts must in justice be ignored in certain circumstances) don't necessarily have to be nonsense; though in the latter case once you've gotten concrete and particular enough about what kinds of facts must be ignored, and under what circumstances they must be ignored, the abstract concept disappears.

I'd say you're right on the money, Lydia. If there's one thing that contemporary liberalism has demonstrated, it's the unwillingness to tolerate opposition to what it considers its forward march. It's very much a "get with the program or get out of our way" endeavor.

Zippy,

You say to Mark "One of the more tedious aspects of blogging and blog-commenting - and one of the reasons I don't invest much of my time in it anymore, and have no plans to up the investment - is that whatever one says, it is inevitably subjected to careless reading and egregiously bad paraphrase."

But he was responding directly to a very provocative statement you made: "The only way for the relentless leftward march to stop though is if enough people stop being liberals. That means outright unequivocal rejection of freedom and equal rights (and their institutional concomitants, e.g. democracy) as the most politically authoritative principles."

Now perhaps you were disappointed in Mark that he left off the end part of your sentence "as the most politically authoritative principles." So be it. On the other hand I can understand his frustration as you seem to have turned into what your one-time co-blogger likes to call a "lumper" rather than a "splitter", which makes for bad analysis. Yes it is horrific that the West allows the slaughter of unborn children. But this carnage is of a different degree and type than what was unleashed by the totalitarian movements of the 20th Century. To compare the two is sort of crazy. Furthermore, to ignore the ways in which the West and especially America has used certain Enlightenment ideas (I would argue with Himmlefarb that we are properly heirs to the British Enlightenment, not the French one) to defend and expand civilization around the world also seems crazy. And finally, to dismiss the work of people like Robert George and the democratic and Constitutional efforts to defend marriage and roll back the monstorous abortion regime in the U.S. also seems crazy.

But I guess folks like me and Mark are still left scratching our heads in confusion at what you specifically mean by rejecting "freedom and equal rights" as the "most politically authoritative principles". Personally, I always thought America's politically authoritative principles were "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and the big difference between liberals and conservatives in America was how to define those terms. But I suppose I'm a hopeless Robert George admiring right-liberal.

I once pointed out to Zippy that perhaps the fundamental problem is that it is human nature to take even a good idea to a wicked end. The divine right of kings is a good idea in some ways. We know from practice . . .

Mike, this is exactly right. I've been trying to point out the same thing. Zippy's program, like others commonly expressed here, don't sound conservative at all and share a good bit with the Liberalism they're decrying. There is precious little acknowledgement that humans have a nature in such talk, and it really sounds like what they are imagining a large reeducation program to oppose the supposedly evil principles in the Declaration. What camp typically thinks that education is the answer to every problem, even moral ones? There is nothing remotely Conservative about such talk, and why traditional Conservatives don't see this for what it is is beyond me. I'm not saying they are Liberals, just that they've accepted all the Liberal assumptions and gone off in the weeds.

I vote with you Lydia, and that is why I say Christian colleges that take federal money are whistling past the graveyard.

Well, liberals are humans, and human nature never changes, so naturally they wish to legislate against certain behaviors. Which behaviors they wish to ban and which they wish to permit are not based on any principle, but rather how onerous the liberal in question finds the behavior in question. Discrimination, especially racially based, is the supreme evil of our day so it must be banned. Adultery, on the other hand, while not particularly liked is not particularly cared about either.

"Personally, I always thought America's politically authoritative principles were "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness""

I'm curious as to what has taken place in the last 50 years that would make you think such a thing? If I had to define America's politically authoritative principles they would probably be American Exceptionalism, multiculturalism/diversity-as-highest-good, and egalitarianism uber alles.

Jeff:

Now perhaps you were disappointed in Mark that he left off the end part of your sentence "as the most politically authoritative principles."

Disappointed that people waste my time by misquoting me and attacking straw men? No; that's par for the course in Internet discussions. But if someone wants to talk to me, he has to engage what I actually said.

But I suppose I'm a hopeless Robert George admiring right-liberal.

From what I've seen and recall, yes. Though not one without hope, and clearly a fellow it would be a pleasure to share a beer or a glasss of scotch with some time.


Mark:

Zippy's program, ...

There you go again. Hint: making forensic observations about liberalism and modernity does not constitute a "program". Forensic observations are either true or not true, independent of what follows from them.

Anyway, thanks for chatting, y'all. This has obviously, and once again, reached the point of diminishing returns.

I'm curious as to what has taken place in the last 50 years that would make you think such a thing? If I had to define America's politically authoritative principles they would probably be American Exceptionalism, multiculturalism/diversity-as-highest-good, and egalitarianism uber alles.

I've never understood the concept of American Exceptionalism. It's so transparently ridiculous that it's almost a litmus test for how foolish someone is, politically. There have been dozens of "exceptional" civilizations. Some even more than us. We still can't claim that utterly profound influence on the world that ancient Rome did in literally changing the very fabric of most of Europe's culture.

"I'm not saying they are Liberals, just that they've accepted all the Liberal assumptions and gone off in the weeds."

Would you list three liberal assumptions that such traditional conservatives accept?

Tod, above, indicated that he believes that private businesses who don't receive public funds should be able to have what he regards as "silly rules"--presumably concerning discrimination against active homosexual behavior, as in the case of Biola in the main post. He also implied that only a few "hippies living in communes" really want to take active steps to stop such private discrimination.

WHOA! I didn't ever say that! I said I didn't care what Biola did. I didn't ever say anything about private businesses in general.

Look, I'm happy to draw distinctions like crazy. Here's one--the way Biola defines itself means it's committed to certain things. Private businesses in general aren't committed to those same things. So I'm happy to have the state tell private businesses who have nothing to do with "morality" to behave in certain ways. But it doesn't follow from that that I think that the state should tell any entity not to behave in certain ways, even if that entity isn't receiving state funds.

Here's an analogy. Smoking tobacco is clearly very bad for those who do it (even though it's cool as all get out!). So I'm fine with the state saying, "Hey, let's curtail that in public places so's to preclude harms from those who choose not to smoke, unless the point of the business is directly related to smoking." Notice the distinction there. Smoke shops, therefore, are immune from the ban. (This analogy is merely meant to illustrate the drawing of distinctions in a certain way--it is NOT meant to be analogous to this debate in any other way.) So just because one business is told to behave a certain way, it doesn't follow that all such must.

Here's a way to think about my view. Rand Paul got in trouble for saying that the civil rights movement "went too far". But those who were cranky at him for that were interpreting him uncharitably. What he was driving at was that the state has no business telling businesses what to do. His view seems to be that the market would have straightened out the civil rights issues of the day. This is where he and I disagree. I like the market, but I don't trust it to settle important social matters fairly (what evidence was there to think that racism would have improved in the south without state intervention?). Thus, state intervention is sometimes necessary. Also, people ought not be discriminated against in ways unrelated to the activity in question. So, for instance, one ought not be precluded from a job as a grocery store manager simply in virtue of being a Christian. Why? Presumably, one's being a Christian is irrelevant to running a grocery store. Likewise, one ought not be precluded from going to a Red Sox game simply because one has a criminal record for car theft. Why? Being a car thief isn't relevant to attending a BoSox game. LIKEWISE, one shouldn't be precluded from getting certain benefits simply because one is a homosexual. Why? Being a homosexual isn't relevant to getting those benefits!

This is a tricky business. For instance, what about Augusta National Golf Club? They define themselves as a golf club for men. I'm up in the air on this one. But this is what makes political philosophy fun. The answers aren't easy, unless you adopt the view that a particular metaphysics determines how the state should behave. I find such a view dubious.

Now, am I sneaking a particular metaphysics in the back door? No. The view endorsed above is compatible with any kind of metaphysics (for instance, you'll recall that above I cited Audi's view and he is, as I understand it, a theist). Thinking about the state's role need not depend on a particular metaphysics. Any of you could, for instance, think that homosexuality is wrong, wrong, wrong, but still think that it's not the state's business to impose your view of morality.

Anyhow, I don't really have time to respond to everything that's been said. Just thought I'd clear things up a bit on my end. Y'all have fun!

"I would argue with Himmlefarb that we are properly heirs to the British Enlightenment, not the French one"

True enough. And thus we should stop ignoring Burke (and by extension, Kirk, and that whole stream of conservatism) and we also shouldn't forget that the English Enlightenment was still the Enlightenment. The fact that it was less extreme than the French doesn't make it non-problematic.

Well, thanks for the clarification, Tod. In that case, I do think that you are interested in controlling what other people do in line with your rather strong (and to some of us, counterinteruitive) ethical views about what sort of discrimination should be allowed, etc.

I certainly don't agree that your views have nothing to do with some kind of metaphysics. Apparently you think it would be _wrong_ for an employer to discriminate against an active homosexual under certain circumstances and that this wrong should be outlawed in those circumstances. Now, I don't know how you can get that notion of wrongness without some kind of metaphysics or other--something about equality, relevant and irrelevant differences among human beings, and of course just the basic notion of the existence of real right and wrong, which certainly sounds somewhat metaphysical to me.

Tod, let me add this. Here was your comment above, including your quotation from me:

Hint: "Non-discrimination" against people who engage in homosexual acts is the common thread.
Yeah, see, that's not what I think is at issue in the marriage case. State sanctioned discrimination is what's at issue. NY is a state, so they shouldn't discriminate. Biola, as I understand it, is a private college. So the two cases are quite different.

Your beef seems to be with those WAY to the left, who think that any discrimination whatsoever is problematic. But I agree with you that such a view is seriously problematic. But those folks are few and far between, and are probably mostly on hippie communes. So why bother with them? Why not address the issue as it's most reasonably presented, instead of saddling all "liberals" with a silly view?


Notice that, even though it need not be taken strictly literally as I took it, what you say here gives the, "We normal liberals are harmless and you conservatives shouldn't have a beef with us" impression. But I think you should realize that if you support the general anti-discrimination laws concerning homosexuals that are going up all over the country, we conservatives _do_ have a beef with you and do _not_ consider the things that are forbidden there harmless. As I alluded to both here and elsewhere, one can cite case after case after case of traditionalists being given a hard time as a result of such laws--small-business printers being required to print material advocating homosexuality, photographers being fined for not celebrating a lesbian commitment ceremony, people being fired because their employers say that their adherence to state non-discrimination policy requires them to fire anyone who says something critical about homosexuality. And on and on and on. I myself believe that property owners should be free not to rent to homosexual couples (or to a guy living with his girlfriend, for that matter). So from my conservative perspective, your comment above that I have a beef only with some kind of extreme and rare type of liberal looks misleading, like, "Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly." Unfortunately, there are conservatives who get confused by such reassurances.

Just so you realize how such statements can, probably unintentionally, mislead.

Jeff Culbreath:

'This is the first time I have seen Dale Allison's "The Silence of Angels" mentioned in this space. Yes, that gem of a book deserves to be much more widely read - and re-read.'

I agree -- I recommend it to people all the time, and was very glad when Eerdmans reprinted it a few years back.

Private businesses in general aren't committed to those same things. So I'm happy to have the state tell private businesses who have nothing to do with "morality" to behave in certain ways. But it doesn't follow from that that I think that the state should tell any entity not to behave in certain ways, even if that entity isn't receiving state funds.

You can't make this work with freedom of religion unless you take the cynical step of saying that freedom of religion means that you have a right to simply believe whatever you want, but the state can regulate your actual religious actions even when they pose no immediate threat of grave harm to life or property.

As I alluded to both here and elsewhere, one can cite case after case after case of traditionalists being given a hard time as a result of such laws--small-business printers being required to print material advocating homosexuality, photographers being fined for not celebrating a lesbian commitment ceremony, people being fired because their employers say that their adherence to state non-discrimination policy requires them to fire anyone who says something critical about homosexuality. And on and on and on.

What is ironic about this is that it proves that liberals don't care about individual freedom as an authoritative principle. Forcing a printer to print what he or she doesn't want to print is like a form of eminent domain carried out for private benefit (Kelo v New London opened bold new territory on this one). You have all the requisite pieces:

1. Seizure of a good for public use (the time and materials of the printer).
2. "Just compensation" for them, required in the takings clause.
3. An unwilling property owner being coerced.

In every practical sense, non-discrimination laws here are exercises of eminent domain, but with a twist of slavery thrown in there in that the good being seized contains a component of direct labor being compelled in the public interest.

(This further reinforces my theory that democracy is a political opiate of the masses that makes them tolerate burdens that would have been intolerable under a non-democratic government).

Zippy:

One of the more tedious aspects of blogging and blog-commenting - and one of the reasons I don't invest much of my time in it anymore, and have no plans to up the investment - is that whatever one says, it is inevitably subjected to careless reading and egregiously bad paraphrase. I like to think I advance my propositions rather carefully; but few people even bother to actually read what I say, let alone attempt to understand it, before reacting. I understand why that is the case; but it makes the whole exercise a tremendous waste of time.

I certainly can relate.

Would you list three liberal assumptions that such traditional conservatives accept?

I did, and I count four similarities that I listed, but here it is again with numbers:

1) Suspicions (sometimes rejection) of Western ideas, 2) strong victim-narratives, 3) and a traditionalist straw man. Anybody who defends the Declaration is committed to the radical idea of equality of outcome . . .

Another candidate for inclusion I mentioned later. Namely, a lack of conviction that humans have a nature and a belief that some new form of reeducation in abstract ideas (apart from the classical education) would turn people away from Liberalism. But these folks seem not to be talking about the classical education because they hold it do have been radical and misguided on the fundamental matters of liberty and equality.

Frequently this crowd seems to subscribe to a belief that we'd be better starting over and creating a new political system from scratch rather than opposing and defeating the excesses that have occurred. This is a symptom of "1". This is also a shared feature of extreme Liberalism. I call this the "let's start over on a napkin from scratch" approach. This is also an expression of doubt about Western foundational ideas.

Of course they get state funding. Most college students would be unable to go to college if they couldn't get government grants and/or student loans.

Actually, my experience has been that the vast majority of student funding does not come from the state funding in the traditional sense. What they get is state guaranteed loans. Private banks issue the loans, and private citizens pay them back. I really do not see much "state" funding involved. It is not like medicare where the state actually pays for it out of its tax revenues.

1) Suspicions (sometimes rejection) of Western ideas.
All Western ideas? If not, which ones? There is a difference between Western ideas rooted in Christendom and Western ideas that are not.

2) strong victim-narratives
Like what? I don't see any tradcon victimhood narratives floating around.

3)a traditionalist straw man. Anybody who defends the Declaration is committed to the radical idea of equality of outcome . . .

Definitely not. As Zippy said above, you can defend the Declaration without making it the source of your "most authoritative political principles."

4) a lack of conviction that humans have a nature and a belief that some new form of reeducation in abstract ideas (apart from the classical education) would turn people away from Liberalism

Again, definitely not. Traditional conservatives believe in an unmalleable human nature that is, in fact, fallen. No "reeducation in abstract ideas" will turn people away from liberalism, which goes wrong precisely because it doesn't believe that humanity is fallen.

Frequently this crowd seems to subscribe to a belief that we'd be better starting over and creating a new political system from scratch rather than opposing and defeating the excesses that have occurred

So traditional conservatives have become revolutionaries? You need to read Burke, friend. I have no idea where you're getting this stuff, but it's not traditional conservatism.

C. Matt,

I think the Federal Government issues the loans directly nowadays (since last year).

Regardless, guaranteed loans are a traditional form of state funding. Banks are or have been substantially involved in the process (they put up the principle) but the state guarantees the loan. That is a very valuable guarantee and a private insurance company would charge a lot of money for it.

More to the point, when it comes to attaching strings the government does treat guaranteed student loans as a form of state funding. That is why students at Hillsdale college cannot get GSLs.

"You can't make this work with freedom of religion unless you take the cynical step of saying that freedom of religion means that you have a right to simply believe whatever you want, but the state can regulate your actual religious actions even when they pose no immediate threat of grave harm to life or property."

Homosexuality may be a sin and an abomination and all that but it seems to me that unless you can establish that Christian businessmen are absolutely forbidden to engage in neutral commercial transactions with sinners, you are merely using your religious action claim as a cover for personal prejudice.

I went to the Biola rules and couldn't find any mention of homosexuality. A private school has and should have broad discretion as to the rules of behavior required of their students.

As a policy driver, ephemeral things like hurt feelings and offense should count for little and that cuts both ways for gays and fundies alike.

If one desires an active sex life pick an appropriate school. If one wishes to have a business, be prepared to do business and forget your princess-and-the-pea sensitivities. Once we are outside of bullying and the like, folks should more or less suck it up.

BTW, there was also a reply in the same mag.,

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/05/23/essay_defends_the_way_christian_colleges_treat_gay_students#Comments

Al, here's the relevant quotation from the code of conduct:

[S]tudents at Biola commit to refrain from practices that Scripture forbids, such as sexual relations outside of marriage, homosexual behavior, theft and dishonesty

Here is the student conduct document:

http://studentlife.biola.edu/page_attachments/0000/0989/HandbookV5d.pdf

A footnote (#11) also defines "homosexual conduct" (along with heterosexual sexual activity outside of marriage between husband and wife) as a violation of university policies.

Homosexuality may be a sin and an abomination and all that but it seems to me that unless you can establish that Christian businessmen are absolutely forbidden to engage in neutral commercial transactions with sinners, you are merely using your religious action claim as a cover for personal prejudice.

On economic issues, I tend to be very left-libertarian on worker autonomy. I don't believe equality is worth a [edited, LM] compared to the right of workers to freely contract their labor and equivalent rights for their employers.

1) Suspicions (sometimes rejection) of Western ideas. All Western ideas? If not, which ones? There is a difference between Western ideas rooted in Christendom and Western ideas that are not.

You are acknowledging in your statement that you don't think classic Western political ideas are informed by Christianity. Obviously, the crux of the matter for Zippy is the idea referenced in the Declaration that men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. So if these classic political Western ideas aren't informed by Christianity, which ones can you tell me that you think are? Any?

You want to say that Zippy is only talking about extremes, yet this is doubtful in light of the statements he's made. See below.

2) strong victim-narratives Like what? I don't see any tradcon victimhood narratives floating around.

See this exchange:

Someone: This is the real issue: egalitarianism militates against any possibility of true human community.

Zippy: Yes: the problem is that right-liberals believe in political freedom and equality as the highest politically authoritative principles. After all, it was the collective decision to set religious and other metaphysically substantive differences on the back burner which allowed political issues to be resolved without bloodshed, through liberal political institutions like democracy. So every reasonable modern person, including every reasonable modern conservative person, is some sort of political liberal.

There could not be a more clear statement that Zippy is *not* leveling his condemnation at extremes. Note the connecting "after all . . ." He implies that most people not in the anti-Democratic conservative camp are the problem, but this is hyperbole right? Well then he explicitly confirms it with "every reasonable modern conservative person." I don't know how one could imply a more powerful lobby than that, or longer odds that the valiant few can save the world.

Now this could mean simply the debt we owe to "classical liberalism," since traditional Conservativism encompasses this, but I think Zippy doesn't accept this. I don't think he sees "classical liberalism" as anything good. That is another way of stating the same problem with Western culture. Whether consent of the governed is a viable option or not, or whether we'd be better off with philosopher, or some other, kings.

In this exchange he's rejecting the core principles of the nation, quite obviously. Unless he wished to distinguish classical liberalism from its extreme forms, the statement "liberal political institutions like democracy" is telling. He isn't merely rejecting the extreme "separation of church and state" liberal ideology, and trusting and depending on a vibrant church infusing the culture by participation to oppose an extreme secular agenda. That would be what most traditional Conservative position.

As Zippy said above, you can defend the Declaration without making it the source of your "most authoritative political principles."

Sure. But do the above statements about "right-liberals" and such sound like they are compatible with this position?

So traditional conservatives have become revolutionaries? You need to read Burke, friend. I have no idea where you're getting this stuff, but it's not traditional conservatism.

You are using "traditional conservative" in a highly expansive way. I read Burke just fine, friend. Traditional conservatism encompasses "classical liberalism." Hayek, like most, placed Burke within that tradition. You might want to reflect on the fact that the question of freedom and equality goes back to the Greeks.

Actually, my experience has been that the vast majority of student funding does not come from the state funding in the traditional sense. What they get is state guaranteed loans. Private banks issue the loans, and private citizens pay them back. I really do not see much "state" funding involved. It is not like medicare where the state actually pays for it out of its tax revenues.

Um, there was an election? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405154157021052.html

But even if a 50/50 mix private/public were still going to be there, if you accept government aid you are subject to their rules of what you can do if you accept them. I don't think you have to be a conspiracy theorist to think . . .

A footnote (#11) also defines "homosexual conduct" (along with heterosexual sexual activity outside of marriage between husband and wife) as a violation of university policies.

Lydia, you know one tactic targeting this wording is about the "celebate homosexual." As long as they don't practice homosexual sex it's ok, right? That's the argument. You and I know what's wrong with it, but that's it.

Mark, with all due respect, you're don't know squat about Zippy, a founding editor of this blog whom all the rest of us respect and even revere, even if we do not always agree with him. Your oddball elisions and abbreviations, based on little more than the bare testimony of a dozen comments in this thread, betray a stridency and impudence unbecoming of republican discourse. The fact that you have completely ignored Zippy's point about forensic observation crowns your folly.

Folks, archives of Zippy's posts are readily available here, where greater elucidation of his forensic estimate and moral judgment (the two are rationally distinguishable) of "freedom and equal rights" can be gained.

Al and Aaron and Tod,

Even if I were to grant, as a hypothesis and for the sake of the argument only, that the state has the conceptual authority to extend the meaning of "marriage" to include gay "marriage" as a new definition of marriage, there would STILL be rather severe reasons not to.

Let's take the simple matter of contract law. A contract holds the meaning that the two parties to the contract intend and which they - in common with their culture - understand by the ordinary sense of the terms. Until recently, everyone understood by marriage a kind of union of a man and woman. Tons and tons of contracts in every state are written where this is what the term means, because that's what the culture meant by the term. If you by legislative fiat expand the meaning of the word "under law", you change the meanings of all the contracts that were written before you changed the meaning. This legislative fiat, then, has the effect of a government taking - by force, taking away contract rights that have not been negotiated and made reasonable and valuable exchange for.

Just for example, an employer may negotiate with an employee to provide a pension that includes a spousal benefit. The employer and employee understand by "spouse" something specific when they agree on the contract. They negotiate the contract understanding the worth each is bringing to the table by understanding what "spouse" means. If the law comes along and changes the meaning out from under them (by expanding the class of persons who can be a "spouse"), it changes the value of the benefit, it takes money away from the employer - a government taking. Same goes for health benefits - a government taking.

If a government thinks it can change the meaning of contractual rights unilaterally and without consequence, it is wrong morally and wrong pragmatically. At the least, employers and others will re-figure their costs, and will come to different conclusions about the values. It is not without price. Some employers will stop offering benefits like that because of increased costs.

Secondly, if I were an employer (and maybe even though I am not), I would instigate for an association of employers who (a) sue against the whole enterprise as a government taking, demanding to be reimbursed for the cost, and would (b) refuse to honor the new "marriage" definition as being contrary to sound contract law, and would (c) insist on re-negotiation of all contracts with explicitly worded concepts that enshrine "marital unions of one man and one woman only" for certain benefits, based on a company mission statement to further explicitly Christian principles as part of the core meaning of the company itself. Let a judge find that "discriminatory", his finding would defy the explicit 1st amendment protection of freedom of religion.

Paul, your "crowning folly" I have noticed over time is referring to text as proving a point that you refuse to state. I never do that, and would be embarrassed to do so. Zippy has shown more disrespect for the readers and the general public than I would stand for if I were editor. I fail to see how piously condemning the intelligence or abilities of one's readers is somehow acceptable, while challenging the views of a public expression dispassionately is disrespectful as you imply.

Mark:

Zippy has shown more disrespect for the readers and the general public than I would stand for if I were editor.

By "the readers and the general public" I have to presume that you mean, well, yourself. And yourself. And ... and ... yourself. Yes, anyone who doesn't show deferential respect for Mark's ... whatever it is he wants to call what he writes ... should be edited off the blog.

Your "conclusions" that I'm all for massive reeducation programs and reject the idea of human nature are just priceless:

Zippy's program, like others commonly expressed here, don't sound conservative at all and share a good bit with the Liberalism they're decrying. There is precious little acknowledgement that humans have a nature in such talk, and it really sounds like what they are imagining a large reeducation program to oppose the supposedly evil principles in the Declaration. What camp typically thinks that education is the answer to every problem, even moral ones? There is nothing remotely Conservative about such talk, and why traditional Conservatives don't see this for what it is is beyond me. I'm not saying they are Liberals, just that they've accepted all the Liberal assumptions and gone off in the weeds.

Go buy yourself some reading comprehension and critical thinking skills before you hurt yourself. Seriously.

Right, Mark. Zippy says you're not reading him accurately while you entertain yourself with conjectures on his "reeducation program"; and I'm a miserable editor for permitting his disrespect while embarrassing myself by not emulating your methods. Gotcha.

Just me? It seemed like only yesterday you were "inevitably subjected to" what you now attribute to me only, and you thought "few people even bother to actually read what I say, let alone attempt to understand it, before reacting."

Paul, I talked of what he was "imagining." I did not say he was "all for massive reeducation programs." That is not what I meant at all. You can have the last word, or insult if you like.

It is surely true that jackassery goes for a dime a dozen on the Internet. Cheaper even. Who could disagree? If the j'accuse is just that I don't treat specific instances of jackassery with respectful deference, well, heck, I've gotta plead guilty.

The theory and practice of liberalism, the follies of liberalism, the roots of modern liberalism, apocalyptic liberalism, etc., etc., are subjected to endless analysis and critical commentary. It doesn't make a scrap of difference. What we need to mollify our wrath is satire. Liberalism must be mocked, mercilessly. Is there a Jonathan Swift in the blog?

'Traditional conservatism encompasses "classical liberalism." Hayek, like most, placed Burke within that tradition. You might want to reflect on the fact that the question of freedom and equality goes back to the Greeks.'

Traditional conservatism does not 'encompass' classical liberalism. If anything the former might be considered one version or manifestation of the latter. Remember that the term "classical liberal" was coined so that old-style liberals could differentiate themselves from progressives, who, after the term "progressive" fell from favor, began using the term liberal to describe themselves. In any case, it's a huge oversimplification to say that all traditional conservatives are classical liberals. There are degrees and nuances here which you are missing. One might, for instance, consider both Hayek and Kirk to be classical liberals in a broad sense. But Kirk is more conservative and consequently less liberal than Hayek.

What should be realized is that today's mainstream conservatism, strongly influenced as it is by neo-conservatism, isn't very conservative at all. It's actually a species of liberalism. Ironically, this is what makes trad-cons look like "liberals" to mainstream conservatives. There are real, truly conservative critiques of Lockeanism and capitalism out there, and have been for decades, but because they sound like "liberalism" to mainstreamers, they are dismissed.

So we find ourselves in this strange situation where libertarians, who are liberals, are considered conservative, while traditionalists, who are conservative, are considered liberals.


Mark, cool it a bit, please. Zippy's comments are not totally outrageous, they just need more unpacking than he is willing to put into them here. Admittedly, this may make them kind of frustrating. Let's concentrate on the topic here, which is gay "marriage", not the proper definition of "liberal" and whether there is any non-"liberal" thread of Western political thought that promotes good principles.

Since most everyone in the modern West is a more or less deeply committed political liberal

Zippy, while there are a lot of right-liberals out there, it is a bit extreme of you to suggest that virtually the entirety of the conservative movement consists of right-liberals who are so in depth and by principle, rather than (say, just for example) people who hold a smorgasbord of views some of which are quite right-liberal while others are rather sound, and they don't notice the incompatibilities. If you want to suggest that people who try to inform their perspective on modern Western political thought with teachings of the Church and the thought of Pope Leo XIII and St. Robert Bellarmine are, by and large, "right-liberals", then you need to present your ideas with a lot more detail and unpacking than you have above, and until you do you will be critiqued by the likes of Mark. But, again, let's concentrate on SSM issues in this thread rather than the general nonsense of right-liberalism.

Paul, Zippy is a big boy, I would let him defend himself if I were you.

Al, you are far, far more willing to let go behavior that makes distinction about sexual orientation and sexual activity than the average "gay-pride" sort of homosexual is. There are lots of examples of Christians being persecuted for trying to make their outward behavior fit with their inward understanding that homosexual acts are inherently wrong, and that homosexual orientation is a defect - in matters that are not simply "failing to let gays be" in public, but personal actions that should be permitted to be subject to private judgment. Do you seriously think that these sorts of persecution of Christians are going to diminish with SSM being legalized, rather than the reverse? Would you be willing to help establish that passing laws in favor of SSM should also preclude persecuting those who use their personal judgment about homosexuality to infuse their actions that are not governmental in nature? Should a man who rents 1/2 of his duplex house and lives in the other half be able to refuse to rent it to a gay couple? Why not? The pro-gay lobby says that if he advertises - even to the extent of putting up a note on his church's bulletin board - his rental, he MUST accept gays. And believes that it would not be wrong for there to be a law to prohibit his exclusionary decisions even if he never advertises and only rents by word-of-mouth.

Tony's point about contracts above is brilliant. I hope some employers get that idea and sue the pants off the state government for trying to force them to cover same-sex "spouses."

Tony, don't let Al fool you. That comment of his about "not engaging in commerce" with homosexuals covers a multitude of the very persecutions we're talking about. Paul and I have run them past him on other threads, and he always ends up shrugging and saying, "Hey, if you're going to deal with the public..." or "The judge was just applying the law there..." etc. In fact, he's the perfect example of the HAA in the main post at the top.

Traditional conservatism does not 'encompass' classical liberalism. . . . So we find ourselves in this strange situation where libertarians, who are liberals, are considered conservative, while traditionalists, who are conservative, are considered liberals.

Calmer, I have no trouble with the idea that "Libertarians are liberals." It has been said many times before here, and other places, and probably by me. This is a different issue, and doesn't support your statement about "classic liberalism."

Mark and Zippy,

I'm going to say something _brief_ about your dispute at the risk of offending both. Zippy knows that I disagree with him about the American founding. Now Mark knows it too. I don't think the founders really set something up with a "fatal flaw" that somehow contained within it the seeds of the abortion holocaust. That doesn't meant the founders were perfectly wise; it just means that I don't agree with the type of condemnation that some trad-cons level against them. I tend to be something more of a "modernist" myself and in that sense might be understandably considered a "right liberal" on some issues. On the other hand, I wouldn't _now_ use phrases like "everyone is equal" or "everyone should have equal rights," because _now_ such phrases have all these connotations with which I heartily disagree, and I think them sloppy to use in contemporary times. Mark knows this, because at one time I said that I wished (with hindsight) such phrases hadn't been used at the founding because of the way they have since been used, and Mark was annoyed with me and was concerned that this meant I was going the paleo-trad route on the founding.

So my own position isn't quite exactly where anyone else is here.

Be all that as it may, and partly out of respect for Zippy, whom I'm very happy to see show up on my thread after a long absence, I'd prefer not to debate the issue of the founding in this particular thread. I particularly think that a debate between Zippy and Mark on that topic is likely to be unprofitable.

By the way, perhaps I shouldn't do this but...

I'm going to ask the commentator calling himself "Calmer than you, dude" to change his handle on, at least, my threads. For those who do not know, this handle was originally used on a thread of mine as an intentional insult to, among other people, me--because I was angry at some union and NLRB activity. (If someone wants to debate that issue, find the post called "This is Wrong" and debate it there. I bring it up here only to explain the first appearance of this commentator.) At this point this commentator apparently wants to hang around here and fit right into the paleo-trad oeuvre of some of the other people around here and get pally on the basis of his liking for Kirk, Weaver, et. al. and a shared dislike for "right-liberals."

Sir: If that's what you want to do, I request that you use a different handle rather than the one you originally cooked up for the purpose described above.

I'm perfectly happy to change the handle, although I fail to see how the subject matter of the two discussions is unrelated. In any case, I did not choose the handle as a "personal insult," but because I happen to be a fan of The Big Lebowski; as fans of the film would know, the handle is a well-known quote from same.

If/when I reappear I'll use a different handle. Seems that trad-cons aren't particularly welcome around here anyways.


Actually, trad-cons are welcome. Indeed, some trad-cons are my present and former blog colleagues. Just ask Mark about the atmosphere here. It's what seems so alien to him.

That's exactly why I'm making it clear to those who may not know that, in the past, you have been not simply a trad-con but a jerk, and that's why I'm asking you to change the handle. Not to mention the fact that it's awkward to use it to address a human being.

Mark, on your comment above about "celebrating homosexuality," you have a very good point. In fact, this is a major problem developing at some of these Christian schools, as I hint in the main post. On the one hand, they're being attacked by the left for even having on the books a "discriminatory" policy against homosexual acts. On the other hand, they have _faculty_ who affirm the wonderfulness of homosexuality and encourage students in doing so, and no discipline is meted out. It seems to me that it would be easy enough to remedy this, in a couple of ways. First, add to the statement of faith professors have to sign some ethical statements about the wrongness of various things, including homosexual acts. Then if professors are "celebrating homosexuality" they can be fired for teaching contrary to the statement, for having signed it in bad faith, etc. Second, make it clear that, where the student conduct requirements clearly indicate that particular acts are not merely unwise or forbidden to students for prudential reasons (e.g., drinking alcoholic beverages) but are actually _forbidden by Scripture_, it will also be considered a violation of the student and faculty code of conduct to "celebrate" such acts or to teach that they are morally good. This would, of course, be considered a no-brainer if teachers or students were holding a "celebrating swingers" event in which, say, married students and faculty go about talking about how they have "come to accept and love themselves as open swingers," but somehow it's not so obvious when it comes to homosexuality!

Messiah College has recently come under pressure to change its code of conduct (I forget right now who is pressuring them--I think some homosexual alumni, IIRC). So far they aren't budging on the code. _But_ they have a professor who has written an article called, I kid you not, "Heterosexuality is an Abomination." I doubt she will suffer any repercussions for this. One can only imagine what she teaches in her classes. Obviously that sort of thing just undermines the college's whole stance from within.

Tony:

Zippy, while there are a lot of right-liberals out there, it is a bit extreme of you to suggest that virtually the entirety of the conservative movement consists of right-liberals who are so in depth and by principle, rather than (say, just for example) people who hold a smorgasbord of views some of which are quite right-liberal while others are rather sound, and they don't notice the incompatibilities.

Well, we can at least test-by-thought-experiment the idea that there is a large plurality of modern conservatives who are not right-liberals. Lets suppose I made the following statement:

"Freedom and equal rights are just heuristic rules of thumb that help people get along without fighting. As rules of thumb they rank about where platitudes like 'be nice to strangers' ranks, and should never be allowed to interfere with important decisions. They are not important founding principles of our country. When more important matters come up, they need to be set aside."

A right-liberal is someone who finds it difficult to agree with that proposition. He doesn't have to find it impossible: just difficult enough that his own orientation, discourse, and decisions in practice assign freedom and equal rights the priority of governing principle rather than heuristic. His internal conflicts and reservations and such are irrelevant: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc.

How many modern conservatives could agree to that statement at all, let alone without vast quantities of hemming and hawwing?

Also, I would suggest that "not noticing the incompatibilities" glosses over the fact that liberalism is a social phenomenon. If liberalism is the default position that Bob goes along with in his public speech and action - if he only makes antiliberal choices about the small list of issues he specifically cares about, and simply takes a default liberal position on things he hasn't thought through - then he is functionally liberal. Functionally, his exceptions - even though they may be the most important things to him - are just quirks: he is feeding the engine of liberalism along with all the other pieces of coal, and just suffers from a few impurities. Those impurities will be lost in the cleansing fire.

If people don't want more liberalism - this can be viewed as a simple observation, not a prescription - they need to explicitly reject liberalism's status as the default principle of appeal in politics. That is, they need to eschew appeals to freedom and equal rights to resolve political issues, and treat such appeals by others as illegitimate: not as wrong interpretations of what freedom and equal rights "really mean": different kinds of liberals agree with each other that freedom and equal rights are supreme political principles, and disagree with each other over the implications. That simply perpetuates the problem: we've established what we are, and are merely haggling over the price.

I see very little to convince me that there is any significant body of conservatives willing to do that.

So yes, American conservatism is, functionally, as it actually operates as a social force, comprehensively right-liberal. A few fruitcakes like myself here at W4 are the exceptions which prove the rule.

"in the past, you have been not simply a trad-con but a jerk"

What can I say? The continuous corporate apologias of the modern American right make me prickly.

In sticking with the Lebowski theme, if I'm around in the future I'll be 'Nice Marmot'

Homosexual rights are the only battleground where the supposed victim has to inform people of what or who he is. Necessary because only then can he accuse them of bigotry, a sort of post-modern parlor game and a reflexive boost to one's ego as well as assuring one of his moral superiority.
It also provides liberals,anxious of not having enough causes at hand, with yet another opportunity to fight, as they put it, for justice. Society being as flawed as it is, what else can the dears do?

Zippy: Since most everyone in the modern West is a more or less deeply committed political liberal.

Well, we can at least test-by-thought-experiment the idea that there is a large plurality of modern conservatives who are not right-liberals.

Is it just me, or is there a noticeable gap in size/coverage between "most everyone in the modern West" and a "large plurality". And between "deeply committed political liberal", and someone who opposes liberals on the few topics that he has thought deeply about, and fails to explicitly oppose liberals on topics that he has not thought deeply about and maybe can be called a "default liberal".

But in any case, as Lydia, who actually owns this thread, has recommended, I'd prefer not to debate the issue of the founding in this particular thread. There is probably a good way to have that discussion, but the middle of a discussion about gay "marriage" is not necessarily that way. It would entail bringing in discussions of the roots of phrases like "liberal" that stem from pre-modern times, including "liberal arts" that grounds the meaning of "liberal education" which was taken to mean "the education of the free man" where freedom includes the explicitly Christian sense of the freedom Christ referred to when he said "the truth will set you free." In other words, it's a discussion worthy of a whole nother thread, guys. Zippy, I invite you to put up a new thread that places your thesis in thorough and careful terms, instead of a too-abbreviated approach in the midst of the gay "marriage" topic.

Nice Calmer Marmot: I for one never saw The Big Lebowski and really know nothing at all about it, so your usage completely escaped me. Good chance it passed by others as well.

"Good chance it passed by others as well."

No doubt. I was merely hoping to provide any lurking fans with a chuckle.

Tony:

Is it just me, or is there a noticeable gap in size/coverage between "most everyone in the modern West" and a "large plurality".

First, I think you misinterpreted the statement. At issue is whether there exists a significant component of what you termed "the conservative movement" in America which is not right-liberal. I say that there is not - that almost all of the conservative movement in America is right-liberal: certainly enough so that right-liberalism completely dominates American conservatism.

I don't care what words you use to describe the reality; I care about the reality.

Second, people can be and typically are deeply committed to things that they haven't thought through comprehensively. You seem to be focused on how people represent themselves to themselves internally, and how you think that doesn't cohere with my account. But I don't care about that, and am not discussing that. I thought I made that clear by using the term "functional" several times. For my purposes if someone sides with the liberals and feeds the engine of liberalism, even if he has a few quirks or exceptions (which he usually tries to frame as being the "right way" to think about political freedom and equality) he is a liberal.

Because the default way of thinking and being in the modern West is liberalism, only someone who explicitly rejects political freedom and equal rights as principles, who at the very least explicitly relegates liberalism to the same sort of heuristic status as 'be nice to strangers' (the importance of which shouldn't be underestimated by the way) and explicitly rejects appeals to it as principle, is not a liberal.

In the modern Western world, in the context of politics and political speech/action, if you aren't explicitly against liberalism you are for it. Most modern conservatives aren't explicitly against liberalism (freedom and equal rights as principles of political authority); the great majority attempt to claim it as their own, and cast proggies as heretics from the RealTrue(tm) understanding of freedom and equal rights.

Disagree with that if you like; but trying to poke niggling holes in precisely how I said it is silly and tiresome.

As far as the thread focus on modern simulcrums of marriage and current events goes: what I have to say is that as long as the conservative movement is dominated by functional right-liberalism, we are just going to get more and more of that, good and hard. Folks can make chicken soup for the patient all they want, and it might even take away some of the sniffles brought on by his suppressed immune system here and there. But if the cancer isn't killed the game is over.

Zippy,
from your post above. I really like this:

"So live life as it should be lived, go to Church, have children, be manly men and womanly women, celebrate the Good, the True, and the Beautiful; because ultimately (and sooner in the case of particular individuals) its enemies will be reclaimed by the dust from whence they came."

Can I use it??

But if the cancer isn't killed the game is over.

Well, we agree on that, at least. Can you point to a method for killing the cancer?

Hmyer:
By all means. (Any donations in appreciation should go to the Little Sisters of the Poor, hah).

Tony:

Can you point to a method for killing the cancer?

Not a method or technique or strategy, no. (Well, other than the quote Hmyer likes).

From my POV obviously a huge proximate roadblock is the fact that the conservative movement is always attempting to claim liberalism (political freedom and equal rights) as its own core principles, casting proggies as heretics, rather than simply rejecting liberalism. If we propose that "the conservative disposition" is a social force of sorts out there in the culture, that social force is being channeled right now to fuel the engine of liberal modernity.

But I don't know of ways to change things which would please the impatient. Bringing up lots of illiberal children is one way; the proggies know this, which is why the schools are such a battleground. They want those conservative rubes to generate and pay for the next generation while maintaining the power of indoctrination: thus all the hostility toward homeschooling. From my POV there are still issues with how patriotic conservatives homeschool their children, since patriotism is often wrongly connected to propositional liberalism; but it is about a thousand times better than the alternative of public schooling.

Here I'm venturing into things that folks already know though.

But if the cancer isn't killed the game is over.

Why?

Cancer can, sometimes, be contained by starving it of blood vessels so it can't get nutrition and stays small. I am not sure of the political equivalent.

The Chicken

I must need sleep. Seriously, when I read:

casting proggies as heretics,

I spent five minutes trying to figure out how polish sausages fit into the discussion.

Proggies, perogies - no wonder Zippy claims that no one reads carefully :)

The Chicken

"As far as the thread focus on modern simulcrums of marriage and current events goes: what I have to say is that as long as the conservative movement is dominated by functional right-liberalism, we are just going to get more and more of that, good and hard. Folks can make chicken soup for the patient all they want, and it might even take away some of the sniffles brought on by his suppressed immune system here and there. But if the cancer isn't killed the game is over."

Zippy,

I hope you pass through Chicago sometime soon -- this "right-liberal" not only will enjoy showing you some of our wonderful churches, but I look forward to arguing long into the night over a good beer, scotch, or maybe even a crazy drink at this place:

http://timeoutchicago.com/restaurants-bars/14782123/bar-review-the-aviary

Alternatively, a return to blogging here with a couple of posts making your case for the kind of political principles we should be implementing instead of "freedom and equal rights" would be a lot of fun.

We'll pencil something in if I get out that way, Jeff. :)

"Cancer can, sometimes, be contained by starving it of blood vessels so it can't get nutrition and stays small. I am not sure of the political equivalent."

The political equivalent is what happens to groups like American Renaissance, where leftist thugs prevent them from even having a place to meet. Ann Coulter also encountered this in Canuckistan, if I recall correctly.

For all the high minded leftist platitudes, they are downright vicious to those they consider a threat.

Curious, Zippy. What's your opinion of those conservatives who, while happy to embrace such things as freedom and equality as practical modi operandi for the lubrication of society, reject them as abstract concepts and foundational principles? I'm thinking of guys like Weaver and his intellectual descendants, and even Chesterton and Belloc.

But I don't know of ways to change things which would please the impatient.

I don't think we need to "please the impatient". At the moment, I see no prognosis on the horizon but the death of the patient. Is there any practical change good men and women in America can instigate that alters that prognosis? (The activity Hmyer approves of won't change the prognosis - it will merely assure that either you, or your kids, have the opportunity to die martyrs. I have been telling my kids for years to prepare for that eventuality.) It is all very well to think: if the political order we have now undergoes full death, we might be able to found a Christian society after that. Such a "might be" is pretty indistinct, and doesn't tell us whether we ought to think that achieving a Christian society might be a valid goal without going through such a full death.

I am confident, since we have never yet HAD a fully Christian society, that it is acceptable in political prudence to aim proximately for a society that only exhibits Christian standards in a better manner than the current state of affairs, even if that improvement leaves defects in the principles and philosophies that drive the polity. "live life as it should be lived" presumably includes exercising prudence about the polity, doesn't it?

Nice:

What's your opinion of those conservatives who, while happy to embrace such things as freedom and equality as practical modi operandi for the lubrication of society, reject them as abstract concepts and foundational principles? I'm thinking of guys like Weaver and his intellectual descendants, and even Chesterton and Belloc.

Well, I'm not sure with the benefit of hindsight that they fully appreciated the extent to which liberalism tends to ascend to the lofty pillar of principle-hood, even among those of conservative disposition. At the level of platitude liberalism basically says "live and let live": a perfectly admirable American sentiment with understandably wide appeal. Elevated to principle, it politically asserts the abolishment of politics. And it doesn't seem to stay very stable, at least in our society, as mere platitude.

"Do you seriously think that these sorts of persecution of Christians are going to diminish with SSM being legalized, rather than the reverse?"

Using the term "persecution" is rather inapt. In times past you Christians were so many happy meals on legs for the lions because of what you believed and professed. This is America and you all are free to believe and, for the most part, profess away as you see fit.

"Al, you are far, far more willing to let go behavior that makes distinction about sexual orientation and sexual activity than the average "gay-pride" sort of homosexual is."

I doubt that. Most could likely care less about beliefs and behavior that is mere (and petty) social aversion.

"Would you be willing to help establish that passing laws in favor of SSM should also preclude persecuting those who use their personal judgment about homosexuality to infuse their actions that are not governmental in nature?"

Leaving aside the misuse of the term "persecution", the basic concept is usually part of most public accommodation laws. Again, unless you can establish why this sin should be treated differently than other sin, we are not dealing with belief but other, more personal, issues.

"Should a man who rents 1/2 of his duplex house and lives in the other half be able to refuse to rent it to a gay couple? Why not? The pro-gay lobby says that if he advertises - even to the extent of putting up a note on his church's bulletin board - his rental, he MUST accept gays. And believes that it would not be wrong for there to be a law to prohibit his exclusionary decisions even if he never advertises and only rents by word-of-mouth."

I believe all jurisdictions exclude roommates and should. California includes duplexes, I personally wouldn't have much of a problem excluding owner occupied buildings up to three or four units but don't see including them as a big deal. What pro-gay lobby and what bulletin board?

Some may find this interesting.

http://www.mbglaw.com/news/Mother%20Doe.pdf

This is I believe, the current state of California law.

(BTW, you all, regardless of your feelings about homosexuality, might want to consider how you would like your minor children being questioned by ANY adult about their sexuality without your knowledge and consent.)

Lydia, no fooling here. I'm very clear. If one seeks to take advantage of the business opportunities provided by civil society then one will, with very limited exceptions, serve all of the members of that society that peaceably seek to patronize that business. Those who see that as "persecution" need to butch up.

"If a government thinks it can change the meaning of contractual rights unilaterally and without consequence, it is wrong morally and wrong pragmatically."

Nonsense. Governments do it all the time. There are still deeds in California with racial, religious, and national origin covenants. Those restrictions were abrogated in 1949 but the land didn't revert to the Indians

In 1934 the United States went off the gold standard and devalued the dollar. Many contracts and all mortgages at that time had gold clauses. Those clauses became unenforceable. The other terms of the contracts were still valid.

Changing competence to contract from 21 to 18 had no effect on those who had entered into contracts previously.

As for your takings example: Would you have held the same for inter-racial marriage as it seems to me the effect would be the same?

And one might just as well argue that, due to the externalities, etc. created by excluding gay couples and singles from benefits granted to heterosexual couples, our employer was freeloading on their labor. The takings arguments is bogus.

Tony, you haven't demonstrated actual harm from the change. You have a materiality problem. Hurt feelings and outrage aren't actionable harms.

"Mark, cool it a bit, please. Zippy's comments are not totally outrageous, they just need more unpacking than he is willing to put into them here. "

Actually they are. If we take this,

"That is, they need to eschew appeals to freedom and equal rights to resolve political issues, and treat such appeals by others as illegitimate:"

and this,

"The fact that so many people are willing to go to the mat for anal sex is, at least from a certain point of view, quite comical. All that to make the world safe for buggery and masturbation and suchlike!? Really!?"

While a kind person might find the innocence touching, we might ask a simple question or so. Under what sort of government might the world not be safe for such consensual activities? How far would we be willing to go? To the extent that the unpacked makes any sense at all, it seems rather sinister to moi.

"39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

"40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice."

I guess its been a downhill slide since 1215.


First, add to the statement of faith professors have to sign some ethical statements about the wrongness of various things, including homosexual acts. Then if professors are "celebrating homosexuality" they can be fired for teaching contrary to the statement, for having signed it in bad faith, etc. Second, make it clear that, where the student conduct requirements clearly indicate that particular acts are not merely unwise or forbidden to students for prudential reasons (e.g., drinking alcoholic beverages) but are actually _forbidden by Scripture_, it will also be considered a violation of the student and faculty code of conduct to "celebrate" such acts or to teach that they are morally good. This would, of course, be considered a no-brainer if teachers or students were holding a "celebrating swingers" event in which, say, married students and faculty go about talking about how they have "come to accept and love themselves as open swingers," but somehow it's not so obvious when it comes to homosexuality!

Lydia, It's interesting you mention that, because I was thinking the same thing --the code of conduct needs work in these institutions, though I'm not sure how I'd change it exactly. But I'll tell you what I was thinking, which may or may not be reasonable.

I think the objection to your proposed amendment will be "Hey wait a minute. Joe's says he's gay, but he's fully committed to being celibate for the duration of his time here. Oh and I (Mr. gay advocate) don't celebrate homosexuality. All I do is say the university is wrong to think they can exclude Joe on his conduct when he's promised not to engage in homosexual acts. I am within my rights to advocate that the university needs to change their policy. This is far different from celebrating homosexuality." Something like that.

This may be entirely unreasonable, but it seems to me there is something wrong in conduct statements about homosexuality that cannot exclude those who publicly identify as gay, conduct or no. I take it that a person who says "I'm gay" is making a public declaration that is unacceptable. And you know where it goes from there. "You see, Joe was born gay and that's the way he is." I think this needs to be denied explicitly. If we can't, then we might as well give in now.

And as you may know, I take a dim view of a number of the expressions in vogue now regarding genetic predispositions to moral behavior generally. I'm not going to go there now, but suffice it to say I think that these expressions involving around "genetic predispositions" are somewhat naive, and a lot more turns on this issue than most people are willing to accept. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear if you think a code of conduct could be modified to account for the position I've sketched out. This argument is out there, and I've heard it and argued against it.

Wait, publicly identifying as something is conduct, isn't it? I just think codes of conduct should be able to exclude that.

Mark , at least at an educational institution, there is PLENTY of rational basis to write a code that sets off limits expressing a point of view that is contrary to the Gospel (or, any other standard you wish to maintain, assuming it's your own organization to set up). The old saying "example is the best teacher" is all the basis we need to not hire out-of-the-closet gays, because to call yourself gay (and not "with a homosexual orientation") is to say that you identify yourself as being appropriately ordered toward sex with others of the same gender. Choosing to identify yourself that way makes you, by the fact itself, a poor example as teacher or any other position of authority in the educational institution.

If, on the other hand, you say "I have a homosexual orientation but I have no intention of giving in to it", that would NOT be cause for precluding you from an office of authority or teaching - not by itself, at least. Having a student is a gray area: while a small number who suffer (and fight) the disordered orientation is not harmful to the institution, it could happen that having an abnormally high number of them COULD harm the institution, because they would defeat a sense of normalcy for heterosexuality. Might be a poor reason to kick a homosexual out, but it shouldn't be illegal to do so.

I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Tony, here, Mark. That is, I think that such institutions should require faculty at least and probably students as well to indicate that they think homosexual behavior is morally seriously wrong. Now, I really doubt that a student who says, "I'm gay" and makes a big song and dance about "coming out" and all that is going to be able to sign such a statement in good faith. Because it's clear that he _doesn't_ think that behavior is morally wrong. He thinks it's natural, that it is the natural outcome of the "way God made him." So I think if someone goes around making this announcement he could legitimately be called in and asked, "Do you really believe this behavior is wrong? Convince us, because it sounds like you don't."

Let's face it: If they really believe the behavior is wrong they're _usually_ either going to stay in the closet or else disclose their problem only to people who they think can help them. The exceptions are pretty few and far between, though unfortunately too many Christians think such exceptions are common as dandelion fluff.

Then there's the question of dormitory arrangements. Even an orientation that one is fighting is an issue here, because it's completely understandable for people not to want to have assigned roommates with an orientation to desire them sexually. It's a matter of privacy there.

I don't have a completely good solution there except to say that if there were good reason to keep a homosexually oriented student at a Christian school, if such a student convincingly indicated that he believed actually acting on his inclinations would be wrong, every effort should be made to give him a single room, bathroom facilities, etc., possibly off-campus, and to protect both his and other students' physical privacy. This might result in making his orientation more widely known via the conjectures of other students, but c'est la vie. If he wants to stay, he has to take that chance.

By the way, gentlemen: New post above. Hopefully I won't regret it. :-)

Zippy knows that I disagree with him about the American founding. Now Mark knows it too. I don't think the founders really set something up with a "fatal flaw" that somehow contained within it the seeds of the abortion holocaust. That doesn't meant the founders were perfectly wise; it just means that I don't agree with the type of condemnation that some trad-cons level against them. I tend to be something more of a "modernist" myself and in that sense might be understandably considered a "right liberal" on some issues. On the other hand, I wouldn't _now_ use phrases like "everyone is equal" or "everyone should have equal rights," because _now_ such phrases have all these connotations with which I heartily disagree, and I think them sloppy to use in contemporary times. Mark knows this, because at one time I said that I wished (with hindsight) such phrases hadn't been used at the founding because of the way they have since been used, and Mark was annoyed with me and was concerned that this meant I was going the paleo-trad route on the founding.

So my own position isn't quite exactly where anyone else is here.

Lydia, your very rough paraphrase of Zippy's understanding (and others) is identical to mine. I was only trying to get Zippy to acknowledge that. I've gone down the same road with Jeff C with similar paraphrases. I think the one I've used in the past was "original sin narrative," rather than "fatal flaw." The issue is whether one can affirm freedom and equality properly understood, or not? In other words, is there a proper understanding of freedom and equality in accord with truth and right reason? For some reason, many people aren't comfortable just stating that they don't, probably because doing so opens one to certain challenges that are very difficult to answer. I don't see how pointing out the similarities between this view and that of those in the Liberal camp is somehow out of bounds. Discussion on the merits shouldn't be.

And you misunderstand what you called my "annoyance" here, and generally. I didn't like your expression about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" not because I considered it some article of faith to any group, but because I think it has a long philosophical tradition, and I'm up for that debate, and I don't think you were at the time. My view was and is that it all depends on whether one thinks happiness is life lived according to virtue (the original meaning known to Western culture,) or a pleasurable sense of satisfaction (a more recent corruption.) So if one wants to say "bah! happiness . . . what a load of crap to aim at in life" one needs to be prepared to debate the question of what happiness is. I admit I am quite perplexed by the idea that one may meaningfully condemn something without a shared meaning on what is being condemned. *That* was my annoyance. The same basic issue as above: Is there an understanding of happiness properly understood, or not? Not meaning to restart the conversation, but I just don't think you understand the problem I had with that.

Likewise, the issue for me isn't what zippy thinks, but that he wants to say I've done a poor job of paraphrasing him, without refusing to supply his own paraphrase. Ditto for Paul. Honestly, I don't respect that, and I don't know why I should. Steve nailed it a year ago when he said "The minimum requirement for an academic discussion is to formulate a paraphrase that the other party would accept." Exactly right. Refusal to state a paraphrase that one would accept is tantamount to refusal to submit to academic discussion.

Actually, trad-cons are welcome. Indeed, some trad-cons are my present and former blog colleagues. Just ask Mark about the atmosphere here. It's what seems so alien to him.

It was alien in the beginning. It isn't now I think, though I did forget this time still until too late that the term trad-con has very different meanings and I have to remember others don't mean what I mean when I say it. I guess we all think we own the term. But other than a possible disagreement over happiness (I have suspicions that we really might not actually disagree on that,) your position as paraphrased above, and as I've come to think, on the American Founding and principles so far as I understand seems identical to mine. So contrary to what you said above, I don't think your position is unique among the community here. I don't see myself as any more alien here than you. I see myself as merely more argumentative than you.

If, on the other hand, you say "I have a homosexual orientation but I have no intention of giving in to it", that would NOT be cause for precluding you from an office of authority or teaching - not by itself, at least. Having a student is a gray area: while a small number who suffer (and fight) the disordered orientation is not harmful to the institution, it could happen that having an abnormally high number of them COULD harm the institution, because they would defeat a sense of normalcy for heterosexuality. Might be a poor reason to kick a homosexual out, but it shouldn't be illegal to do so
.

I think it is untenable to accept a "homosexual orientation" as synonymous with "homosexual urges." I don't have a problem with someone acknowledging the latter. But saying "I'm gay" I think is different. A Christian seminary wouldn't accept someone who said "I'm damned, but I hope to do enough works to avoid this somehow." Now they would as a missionary project: someone honestly seeking. Adoniram Judson was admitted on just such a trial basis. They'd say "Ok, you seem to misunderstand the basic tenets of Christianity, and we don't admit people with your understanding on a normal basis." Likewise, they could admit someone struggling on any number of fronts on an exceptional basis. But "homosexual orientation" I think is problematic language.

Look, when I'm at heights I have this strange urge to jump off the edge. Seriously. I don't know if it is just wondering what it is like to know I have seconds to live, self-loathing, repressed dreams, or what. It is an urge that I'll never entertain, but that isn't the point. Even if it was an urge I could entertain, and it was a more live option to accomplish, it's just an urge. An urge is not an orientation in a meaningful and relevant sense in my estimation. Now if I had urges towards men, I'd say that is what it is, and Christians wouldn't be immune from any urges of course. But saying "I have an orientation" simply has some baggage that needs to be discussed, and in my view the truth of what is going on has a more accurate expression.

Mark writes:

The issue is whether one can affirm freedom and equality properly understood, or not? In other words, is there a proper understanding of freedom and equality in accord with truth and right reason?

The answer, which I have given in the past numerous times, is that yes, it is possible to state true moral propositions using the language of equality. It is unwise to do so without carefully stating all the concrete particulars in the process, as Lydia did in her new post. Once one has done so, though, the term "equality" itself becomes superfluous. So continuing to insist on its use merely validates it as a more generalized abstract principle expansive beyond those carefully enumerated particulars: the generalized abstract principle which drives political liberalism.

Ergo a right-liberal is any conservative who refuses to disavow political equality as an authoritative principle.

Have a great weekend all!

I'm in general agreement with you Lydia. My only comment is to share details from a co-worker about issues I never would have thought of myself.

My co-worker went to a well-known conservative Christian university with a conduct statement almost identical in relevant parts to the one you linked above, and had a roommate who "came out" after graduation. He said that from what he now knows, he thinks the university will bend over backwards to accommodate students who say they are "struggling" with homosexuality, and he now thinks he shared that with the administration to innoculate himself from consequences and to make room for semi-open behavior without fear of consequences, at least in certain communities. In other words, he was likely never "struggling" and the way to work the system is known. I could have some facts mixed up since I can't have my co-worker refresh the details until Monday, but I think the university kept the struggling student's secret while he shared a room with my co-worker.

I don't know what to make of this, but it came as a surprise to me to find out how different reality at these places is from the "intolerance" alleged.

In other words, he was likely never "struggling" and the way to work the system is known. I could have some facts mixed up since I can't have my co-worker refresh the details until Monday, but I think the university kept the struggling student's secret while he shared a room with my co-worker.

I don't know what to make of this, but it came as a surprise to me to find out how different reality at these places is from the "intolerance" alleged.

I think I know what to make of it: The schools are becoming rather seriously compromised. The leftists hammer at them from outside for the last visible vestiges of their Christian moral stance, but that's because leftists aren't satisfied until you have formally bowed to the Beast. Eventually, such schools probably _will_ bow to the Beast, because they have been quietly (or not so quietly) rotting from within for years.

Look at Calvin College. One fine day a couple of years ago or so the Board of Trust woke up to the fact that some professors were teaching the legitimacy of homosexual "marriage." They tried to say that this wouldn't be allowed anymore. As I recall, no one was _actually_ fired, but the Trustees just said that this kind of teaching was contrary to their understanding of the professors' commitment in teaching at this Christian school. Bang! _Huge_ dust-up. Turned out the faculty were nearly _unanimous_ in their support of professors' being allowed to teach the goodness of homosexual "marriage." (By the way, prior to this time Calvin had already had a homosexual student group recognized on campus. When a friend of mine inquired about it, he was told that it was just to "help" students and that it shouldn't be any problem because all sex outside of marriage was forbidden anyway.) The faculty, including those who said they were opposed to homosexual "marriage," took this all to be about "academic freedom."

My impression is that what the school ended up with was a kind of unsatisfactory detente. The Trustees didn't officially back down, but any energy they might have had was siphoned off into meetings and discussions and negotiations with the faculty and clarifications and blah, blah, and presumably the same profs. have gone on merrily teaching the students about the goodness of homosexual "marriage."

But the very fact that it went this way shows that Calvin had been quietly for years hiring and retaining professors who taught something morally at odds with the position of the Christian Reformed Church, from which they draw their students, their money, etc.

There's one more thing it means, Mark: It means that these schools have never dealt satisfactorily with the privacy issue. And I know why. Because if the person really is struggling, it is to some degree going to cause him hurt and embarrassment if you try to get him out of the dorms. And what if you are a small Christian school and don't allow _any_ of your students to live off-campus, as some don't, or don't allow underclassmen to live off-campus, and he is? A mess, right? They don't want to be cruel, and in some ways the situation of a young person in that situation who is really struggling _is_ cruel. It's a painful situation, and if they take what I would consider to be proper account of the privacy of his roommates and suitemates (who share the showers, etc.), they're probably going to have to do something that's painful for him. Under some circumstances they might even have to kick him out of the school altogether--e.g., if all student are expected to "live in community," and he has this special psychological problem that makes that impossible for him to do without being subject to temptation and subjecting other men to being the objects of his fantasies, etc.

Now, it's been many decades since schools were willing to go that far, if some of them ever were. It just seems too "mean." So now if a student claims to be "struggling," they just keep it quiet and let him stay and live in the dorms and everything. As you say, this does open the door later for more and more open admission and retention of students who claim to be homosexual even if they are not "struggling," even if, like Joshua Wolff, they have "learned to love themselves as openly gay."

I would like to think you're wrong Lydia, but I'm not betting against you. It does seem to me that the faculty and staff of the organization I know best does seem solidly traditional and many aware of and determined to let such a process play out that way, truth be told I only know small slice of them. What's the line about the lib that couldn't believe Nixon was elected? "But nobody I knew voted for him?" A process you described at Calvin could be more advanced than I think.

Two things make me think you'll be right in the end:

1) New students are increasingly politically liberal I think, and increasingly see the issue as one of fairness. You cant reason with them. It's just how they feel, and aren't you so mean? They've taught it's not a choice in the relevant sense or some such, you know the story. Just following the culture, students are consumers now, and the consumer is always right. I won't bore you with evidence of admin thinking of students as consumers because I doubt you need any.

2) I was disappointed I that in this institution where I have acquaintances that a few students were allowed to dominate a "discussion" on a trivial matterfairly recently over the issue of "diversity". I was disappointed and surprised at how much I could see the diversity agenda and race politics had become advanced, unbeknownst to me. I know people at a Midwestern Christian school and they told me "yeah it's about the same here too". I was amazed. It only takes.a few. Last I heard they were evaluating the curricula. I'm sure it's nothing to worry about though. ;)

Not the homosexuality issue, but pretty strong reasons not to bet against your account in a few more years.

As for your takings example: Would you have held the same for inter-racial marriage as it seems to me the effect would be the same?

Al, you jumped over the facts of my hypothesis: that it is admitted that this change in government constitutes an expansion of the meaning of "marriage", beyond the historical and culturally known meaning.

There is much less of any sense of a taking for the government to say that an action we considered illegal is now legal - they are not talking about changing the meaning of the action "inter-racial marriage." As far back as ancient Hebrew times, and Roman times, there was inter-racial marriage that was recognized as marriage - the cultural meaning of the term "marriage" didn't deny that marrying someone of a different race was, actually, marriage. It might have been considered weird, or disgusting, or damaging to the common good, but those didn't constitute thinking that it wasn't marriage.

It's like a law that outlaws dumping mercury in a river, after we discover that mercury is a poison: the law "taking away" the right to dump mercury isn't a taking of real economic right, it is the declaration that you never really had a real economic right to dump, we just didn't know it at the time. Now that we know it, we are using the law to make it clear to you. But a law expanding what we are now to mean by marriage beyond what it used to mean implies taking away economic benefits.

Me: "If a government thinks it can change the meaning of contractual rights unilaterally and without consequence, it is wrong morally and wrong pragmatically."

Al: Nonsense. Governments do it all the time.

Al, of course governments do it all the time. That doesn't make it right or just that they do so. Further, my point was that WHEN they do so, there are consequences of such changes that governments cannot "disown," because the consequences are part of the law of nature, like gravity. You can jump off a cliff with no mechanical aids, but you cannot so choose to jump off a cliff AND choose to not fall - that's not available.

Lydia, no fooling here. I'm very clear. If one seeks to take advantage of the business opportunities provided by civil society then one will, with very limited exceptions, serve all of the members of that society that peaceably seek to patronize that business. Those who see that as "persecution" need to butch up.

First of all, Al, I am not aware of a meaning for "butch" in such a context that is other than very offensive here. You need to retract that.

Secondly, I see now what Lydia was telling me - you really aren't in favor of "live and let live" in this matter. You really are just like the heterophobes who want to persecute hetero-normality.

Let me unpack this a bit: A mall is a public accommodation: creating a mall means creating a use for a private property that provides an assumption that the public at large - without significant discrimination - is welcome to come. Same with a shopping center parking lot. Although the land is private property, you have indicated that you are willing to have strangers use (in a limited use) the property for specific purposes you set out: parking (and not a bonfire), for example.

A house is NOT a public accommodation, standing as itself. You do not present a house as a piece of your property that you invite any old strangers to come in and take up a very limited use for an hour or two - the rental is a much more involved handing over of your property rights, but to a much more selected person. That's true even if you choose to move to a new house and rent out your old: the owner has every natural right to seek to limit the renting to someone he believes will leave his property intact and use it appropriately, and this means he has a right to inquire into the character of the potential renter. In renting out his property, he is going to be taking on a relationship with the renter (developed while making sure mail and bills get delivered properly, making sure the utilities are in good order, checking the roof, cutting the lawn, clearing the drainage pipes, doing annual maintenance inside and out, asking for preferences for paint colors when he has to re-do the paint, etc.), and he has a right to not choose to take on that kind of relationship with a renter that he doesn't want to have such a relationship with , even it is because he believes they are living an intrinsically immoral lifestyle. It SIMPLY DOESN"T MATTER whether his objection to such a lifestyle has anything to do with the economic exchange at hand - the selling of the use of the house - because there is more to the relationship than a mere economic exchange. The people are not mere business units. You cannot reduce the issue to "is he refusing an economic good based on a non-economic distinction?"

More generally, being in business does NOT, of itself, constitute providing a public accommodation. A consultant, for example, has every right to screen his or her potential consultees and refuse to take on a person whom they do not wish to do business with. Legally, it SHOULD NOT MATTER why he doesn't wish to do business with them. Morally, it would be highly offensive to God to refuse to do business with, say, ugly people, merely on account of their looks, if your business had nothing to do with looks. But that doesn't mean that the law ought to punish such a morally offensive act.

Much less, then, does making available to one or two people something that has economic value, but isn't really your "business", constitute a public accommodation, automatically. If your intent is to open up your offering to many people indiscriminately because you WANT to focus on the transaction as merely an economic exchange only, then yes, you are probably creating something that can be called a public accommodation. But if your intent is much more limited, much less dispersed, and much more personal than that, then you ARE NOT creating a public accommodation.

Yes, Al, it constitutes persecution if a man is held to do something illegal (and punished) in choosing to not rent out his second (free-standing) house to gays on account of his not wanting to build a relationship with people he knows are living an intrinsically immoral way of life.

For some entities (like a country club) taking special public benefits (tax benefits, for example), then perhaps they ought to be open to rules forbidding discrimination. But if a private club receives no special public benefits and wants to discriminate, the law should leave them alone. (Yes, such discrimination might be morally offensive.) And other entities, like a church, should be able to discriminate even though it receives public benefits - it is of more importance to the common good to permit the church to follow its tenets (even its discrimination) than it benefits the common suppress the church on account of its discrimination.

It's like a law that outlaws dumping mercury in a river, after we discover that mercury is a poison: the law "taking away" the right to dump mercury isn't a taking of real economic right, it is the declaration that you never really had a real economic right to dump, we just didn't know it at the time.

Nice analogy. I would only add that it isn't necessarily that we didn't know we had no right, but that it was just not explicitly declared that we did. And anti-sodomy laws were on the books in most of the states until recent decades. Now we can debate whether these are a good idea as a practical matter, but they are pretty clear evidence that the law did say something about it. Moreover, we can't use their dismissal as evidence of acceptance of homosexuality, when it may have just been an understanding that the state had no interest in prosecuting private acts.

Yes, notice how Al concentrates on "public accommodation." Tony has shown problems with that in areas like renting and consulting. We can show problems with it in areas like making wedding cakes, taking wedding photos, printing, and the like. Many businesses have an intrinsically _meaningful_ component, so that printed material carries meaning, photographs help to celebrate an event, and the like. "Doing business with" is a nice neutral phrase, but when it means that I have to make a cake that has two men on the top and celebrates their homosexual union, it starts to sound a little different.

Then we get to the new "gender identity" aspects of non-discrimination law, where "public accommodation" means that Sears must allow biological males to use the women's changing rooms if they self-identify as women and wear women's clothing, something the women who use the store might understandably object to.

Moreover, employment is yet a different matter. The people I employ as a small business owner will be working with me day in and day out and will define the oeuvre of my business to the public. I can imagine all _sorts_ of legitimate "discrimination" that could occur there. For that matter, I could fully understand an auto mechanic's shop that would prefer to have only males working there, even if a talented female mechanic applied. There's something about the atmosphere and their comfort with one another in a physical and messy business that could understandably lead to a desire to keep it all-male.

All of this, of course, is lost on Al. He thinks he can make justice come out to just his set of opinions by uttering a few platitudes about "dealing with the public."

"public accommodation" means that Sears must allow biological males to use the women's changing rooms if they self-identify as women and wear women's clothing, something the women who use the store might understandably object to.

I think that someone who is about to be "frisked" by the TSA security people in an intimate manner should insist that they be frisked by someone of the same gender. And then inform the guard that "its" gender is TMfHm: That is, someone who is "oriented" sexually toward having sex on Tuesdays, as a biological male but referencing interiorly as female, only with a partner who is a biological hermaphrodite "cross" (someone who exhibits aspects of BOTH male and female genitalia, pretty rare but does exist), but references as male only. If they cannot come up with a guard that gender, they can't touch you.

Surely we can have some fun with this, can't we?

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.