What’s Wrong with the World

Absolutely, Lydia. We spent a good share of our time Friday, marching toward Capitol Hill at the March for Life, walking alongside the Lutheran LCMS Life Ministries people. The more, the merrier, I say. Literally: not only is the march more effective the more people present, but the more we spread good cheer, uplift spirits, and encourage men and women of good will by having more share in the work and help each other along.

Fortunately, I guess, I have seen little of that mean-spirited feeling at the March, although I have heard it expressed outside of the March on occasion. It makes me wonder: what are we about if we even bother to ask "who was here first"? What's "first" got to do with "right"? Goodness knows I am a sinner in need of grace, and if the One who was righteous from the first kept that righteousness to Himself, I would be out in the cold, a sinner condemned to go on being wrong forever. Jews had the truth of monotheism first, before the Gentiles, but St. Paul makes it clear that before God there is neither Jew nor Greek, etc.

I think, though, Lydia, that a still better analogue might be the Prodigal Son's stay-at-home brother. But that's not a perfect analogue either.

Is there a good, robust definition of "Mere Christianity" available?

Graham

Tony, I've always kinda wished that I had gone at some point to a March for Life in DC. One person reported on it recently and said, "It shows that we're not going away." That's a heartening thought in itself. And you make an excellent point about "the more the merrier."

Here's another point about "who got there first." Not only should it not matter, but the more that time goes on the more it is only abstractly connected with most people alive today. Speaking for myself, I was too young to influence the course of any denomination during the 1970's, and there are plenty of people out there a lot younger than I am, so it becomes an entirely impersonal point-scoring at some point.

I also want to say here that the man who probably deserves the greatest credit for bringing the Protestants into the pro-life cause almost singlehandedly is Francis Schaeffer. When I went to college in the 1980's, his influence was being felt on this issue in a huge way.

Graham, well, there's this book by a guy named C.S. Lewis... :-) :-)

For any of my fellow Catholics who want to play that game, my answer is simple: Where was the Catholic Church in the 1970's? I seem to remember an incident involving a garment whose seams went missing, and lot of Catholic politicians who started ordering said garment by the pallet-load.

Seriously, if I say what I really think out loud on this particular issue, I'll be accused of being a non-Catholic troll just posing as a genuine mackerel-snapper. So I'll just shut up now.

Your mackerel-snapping creds are well-verified here, Sage. :-)

I don't actually mind a little historical perspective as long as it's done in an objective and charitable spirit and have been careful to pass this bit of history along to my own kids. For one thing, so many people from all Christian denominations as well as the secularists were just scientifically ignorant during that decade. It took a while for the ultrasound pictures to start making their impact.

What Nazism and Communism had in common was that both systems sanctioned the killing and torturing of innocent people and, if one saw that, all else that was sayable about the nice ideological differences of the two systems was, well, trivial.
The Story of Henry Tod (William F Buckley),
continued ...
"... a larger view of the natural law entitled the individual to deny the civil authority of those who exercised power in East Germany , and that such was the existing situation. After all, did Stefan Schweig believe that those who had met to murder Adolf Hilter on July 20 had violated the civil law about which the Scholastics had spoken?"

Where was the Catholic Church in the 1970's?

Here?
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

Good points, Sage. I was at the March For Life, and I actually got into it with a very nice but poorly catechized ex-Catholic. The only people speaking out with passion at the time were the dissident bishops and priests along with the Sister Gaia Moonbeams of the world.

"I also want to say here that the man who probably deserves the greatest credit for bringing the Protestants into the pro-life cause almost singlehandedly is Francis Schaeffer."

Although Francis Schaeffer may have had a profound influence, apparently, it was a chance meeting of Bishop Fulton Sheen and Billy Graham on a golf course in the (late?) 1950's that brought the pro-life cause to the attention of the Evangelical community. From there, it spread, rapidly. Sorry, I don't know in what book I read that. It was an academic book, so I, assume, in charity, the anecdote was well-researched.

The Chicken

Scott W., do I really have to explain that I am perfectly aware the CDF promulgated that document? Do I really have to explain that I am perfectly aware that the Church has adopted a formal stance on abortion?

I'd never heard that anecdote, Chicken. That's fascinating.

Untenured, my recollection is that there were bishops in the late 60's and 70's who were orthodox and pushed the standard Catholic teaching on abortion right from the beginning of the Roe regime. Certainly my parents saw the problem right away, and they were aware of some priests and bishops who never wavered in speaking the truth.

But they were generally drowned out in the wider culture by the mass influx of new voices who made it their business to speak out "for" Catholicism. The "periti" of the Council, for example, who rendered the documents of Vatican II dead on arrival and replaced them with the "spirit of Vatican II". By and large, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the bishops were still laying low over contraception, busily inventing reasons not to teach the truth with courage, to do an about-face and take on the abortion crowd. The contraception war had taught them how to keep a low profile, and the new battle over abortion didn't give them any reason to learn a new forthrightness for orthodoxy. Apparently (from the effects visible) the mandate for choosing new bishops during the 50's and 60's must have had a very high premium on managers with a "go along to get along" style of management, instead of wise men, prophets and holy men. As far as I can tell, keeping hold of those 50's and 60's criteria of bishop selection is one of the gravest failures of the JPII papacy.

Lydia, although our family goes to the March for Life nearly every year, I don't think of it as one of those "must do" types of events. It clearly will not bring about the kind of political change that marches are intended to generate. They do help maintain the momentum of the cause to some degree, but that cause needs many, many other coordinate supports as well - like what is done so frequently here on W4 and for which yours is an eloquent voice. For my money, people farther away than, say, Ohio, should mostly put their time and effort into more local events, and maybe just once try to get to the Washington March to maintain solidarity between the national event and local ones. Although I have to admit, it is really amazing when we see whole groups from Louisiana, Colorado, and Montana.

Tony, I don't doubt that there were many faithful and orthodox priests who spoke out at the time and resisted the downward spiral of the culture. But they were not the ones who shouted the loudest or bothered to relentlessly push their message upon the layman. My impression is that they taught a generic and ecumenical version of the gospel at the same time that the "progressives" were aggressively doing their absolute worst and without serious challenge. And the cumulative effect of the "spirit of Vatican II" and the liberalization of the culture initiated a sea-change in American Catholicism. The younger generation of priests and bishops is much, much better. But it is going to take a long time to undo the damage. The sooner the liberal baby-boomers shuffle off this mortal coil the better.

Scott W., do I really have to explain that I am perfectly aware...

No, you don't, Sage. You just need to learn how to use the term "Catholic Church" with more precision.

We're all grown-ups here, William, and smart ones, too. I don't think I'll go to bed feeling sheepish about using the shorthand expression "Catholic Church," when my implication was quite clear to anybody not in a fighting mood.

Gents, please, back off on Sage. I think what he said was quite well-understood. Sheesh, sometimes you Catholics are awfully hard on one another. It's enough to make anyone want to stay a Protestant; you cut us more slack than you do each other.

Lydia,
just scientifically ignorant during that decade.
Still a matter of science?. How come benighted savage Hindus three thousand years ago were able to call abortion the Great Sin?
Or as Jesus said, if they do not believe what Moses and Prophets wrote, they would not believe one back from the dead himself.

Do you know if these ultrasound pictures are decisive?. I saw those of my infant and I was not impressed. Could not really make out much.
And in any case, the pictures would support the personhood of a mature-ish baby and not of a day-old embryo.

It's enough to make anyone want to stay a Protestant

Oh. You were thinking of becoming something else?

Nope, Bill, that's why I said "anyone" rather than "me." I just don't think Catholics picking on other Catholics in public is an edifying thing, from any perspective.

Yes, Gian, ultrasounds have saved the lives of unborn children and have converted the hard-hearted.

Since surgical abortion is a major target, and since surgical abortion is not performed until the child is recognizable, ultrasounds have been especially helpful.

It's interesting: My thesis adviser in graduate school was (and remains) a very old-fashioned gentleman. He is a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy from Episcopalianism. When I was pregnant with one of my daughters I told him over the phone that we had discovered she was a girl from an ultrasound. He felt obligated to say that he didn't really approve of ultrasounds. I gather he thought of them as bringing to light the mysterious realms of the womb and the developing child which should remain in sacred darkness. But then he also said, "But they're helping us against the abortionists."

Moreover, anyone with an even _somewhat_ philosophical mind is forced into a situation of tension when he realizes that the unborn child is _visibly_ a baby from quite early and that he can find no _scientifically_ non-arbitrary line prior to that from conception onward. It is an argument that should convince many and does convince some.

Also, those who want to attack the personhood of the unborn in our own day want to attack it also _well_ after the unborn child is visibly a child. They merely _start_ by making a song and dance about the newly conceived embryo as a way of trying to shake up the pro-life position. I just had a lengthy debate with a materialist pro-choicer who more or less admitted this. In other words, people who deny the humanity of the zygote rarely stop there. Their agenda usually goes beyond to the killability of those with "not enough brain" or "not enough consciousness." This makes it all the more relevant to point to pictures as a kind of ethical reductio of their position. With those not thoroughly perverted by bad philosophy, this technique can and sometimes does work.

It's interesting, though, Gian, that _right here_ on a thread on co-belligerency you are still snarking against making the pro-life case. If you want to sit on the side, that's your own decision. But you shouldn't therefore make these comments against others who are willing to be in the trenches.

My wife spends a great deal of time arguing with pro-abortionists online. She tells me that there’s a sizable number of them that don’t care if it’s a child or not. They have hardened their hearts that much.

Then there’s some that refer to the child as “the parasite”, “the tumor”, etc. in order to dehumanize it enough to be able to justify the child’s killing.

Then there’s a lot of them that aren’t sure if it’s a child or not but feel that the woman’s autonomy or “choice” trumps all else.

That's absolutely true, Bruce. Hard-heartedness is growing. But ask those who run crisis pregnancy centers about the effectiveness of showing a woman the unborn child within her. It has saved many lives. That's why the pro-aborts have resorted to such desperate tactics against the mandatory ultrasound laws in some states.

I wouldn't be surprised if ultrasounds prevented more abortions in one year than all the abstract personhood debates ever have. The 85IQ pregnant woman doesn't abort because of some incomprehensible-to-her idea of personhood, but because a baby is expensive and will make her less attractive to men. Seeing an ultrasound might awaken that maternal instinct within her which normally prevents women from doing things like killing their own children.

Crisis pregnancy centers and ultrasound laws and parental consent laws are good things that can actually be done, unlike the abortion bans which are usually discussed and which are precluded by Roe v Wade from ever happening. The entire political strategy there is to vote for Republicans so that they might appoint Supreme Court justices that might one day overturn RvW. Pretty thin gruel, so maybe it would be better to redouble efforts at the state and local levels and de-emphasize the increasingly hopeless national stage.

I have no doubt that at least 95% of pro-aborts don't actually care about all this personhood stuff, and merely argue that as a socially acceptable way to justify abortion. If it suddenly became OK to kill people, they would just concede it, it not being useful anymore. In many ways, the two camps aren't even part of the same "people" anymore.

The conservative fundamentalists were always anti abortion. I recall hearing the Rev. Carl McIntire speak out against tolerance of abortion in his 20th Century Reformation Hour radio broadcast in the mid 1960s.
When is the last time you heard of a Roman Catholic office holder being excommunicated for advocating legalized euthanasia or abortion? Some conservative Reformed Churches actually do practice Church discipline in this regard.

Thomas, it's certainly true that the Catholic hierarchy could and shd. do more to discipline the Pelosis of the country (and to support faithful priests rather than giving them a hard time, and all kinds of things). On the other hand, our fellow Catholic pro-lifers are generally more heartsick about those failures than we Protestants are, so I try to avoid rubbing salt in the wound.

Thomas, there are a few cases. Bishop Bruskewicz of Lincoln, NE excommunicated a group of people associated with "Catholics for Choice"(sic), the bishop of Orange CA (I think it was Orange, at least it was southern CA) excommunicated a woman politician for being rabidly pro-choice, and the bishop of Phoenix excommunicated (or at least publicly reprimanded and told her not to receive the sacraments) a nun who was in charge of ethics at a hospital, who approved an abortion to save the mother.

The fact that I can name the cases, instead of having pages and pages of cases, is certainly deplorable. They could do much more. On the other hand, at least the Catholic Church has a bona fide mechanism for dealing with people who need to be shown the door. Some Protestant groups haven't even got a mechanism, all they can do if they disapprove is say "I disapprove" as a personal matter and that's as far as they can go.

The Catholic Church has a fantastic opportunity in hand right now: they should be ready to excommunicate Secretary of HHS Sebellius, or maybe they should have done it already, over the contraception mandate. I suspect that the main reason bishops haven't insisted to her bishop that he do something is that most of the bishops have egg on their faces from having supported the Obamacare bill instead of opposing it as contrary to Catholic principles. And they still think it is mainly good except for the contraception mandate. Well, eventually they will find out their mistake, but I do wonder if it will happen while they are still alive.

The idea of excommunicating pro-abortion Catholic politicians like Pelosi and Sebelius is, naturally, much-discussed. I've been surprised to discover that the canonical hurdles actually to doing so are prohibitive. That, as much as any other thing, is the real scandal. The reality is that Church law does not give local bishops as much of a free hand, and as many tidy options, as we would like to imagine in dealing with this issue.

Some interesting commentary on this by Fr. Z. (and others, linked and excerpted) here:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/01/ny-gov-andrew-cuomo-excommunication-can-915/

When Sebelius was still in Kansas, she was instructed by her bishop not to present herself for the sacraments. What has followed since she left for DC, I don't know.

Lydia,
Perhaps you can justifiably call it snarking but I do think the Self-ownership argument has not received a secular answer, if it has one.

It often has, Gian. You are inattentive. And that (fairly obvious) answer is closely bound up with the fact that the unborn child is an innocent human being from conception onward. But I'm not going to bother with your side-swiping, because it is a mere time-waster.

On 26 January 1564, [Lydia did the anniversary of the decree on Trent prompt this post?] Pope Pius IV approved the decrees of the Council of Trent thereby dividing the Western Church and defining those who held the Protestant position on faith and grace as being outside of the one true Church. The information I have is that Pius IV actually did not issue his written decree on the matter, Benedictus Deus, until 30 June of 1564.
The result of Trent is that; Protestants can not be allies with adherents of the Church of Rome, they can and should, as Lydia has said, be co-belligerents on many social matters.
I am happy to hear that some Church of Rome Bishops are taking action against those who have apostatized on the question of abortion.
Tony is right that some Protestants, especially liberals, have no method for exercising Church discipline. As a general rule conservative Reformed Churches teach that the three marks of the true Church are' the right preaching of the Word, rightly administering the sacraments, and properly exercising Church discipline including excommunication. Lutherans are in general agreement with the Reformed on this matter.

Sage, I have read a lot of learned commentary on the canon law issue of applying the excommunication penalty of canon 1398 (against abortion), but most if not all of that commentary harbors a large, gaping hole that leads one to wonder whether the conclusion - that the canon does not apply to politicians - might be revised were they to take additional factors into account.

What's the gaping hole? That voting to legalize abortion, or publicly speaking in favor of legal abortion, is not the only sort of moral error a politician falls into. Yes, both of these acts are gravely wrong, and with either of them a Catholic politician ought to refrain from receiving the sacrament. But canon 1398 isn't about "legalizing" abortion, nor about "speaking out in favor of" it. It's a penalty levied on procuring it.

Now, how may one participate in "procuring" an abortion? Well, obviously the mother who consents to it is procuring. Equally valid but perhaps less directly, the boyfriend who drives her there, the grandmother who pays for it, and the nurse who preps the procedure. Wait, did you notice the "pays for it" part? Yes, anyone who specifically pays to have an abortion done is guilty of procuring an abortion, even if she is not the baby's mother, the doctor, or the nurse. The assistant who cooperates by intentionally paying for the abortion is morally guilty of cooperation with the act of the mother and the doctor, her assistance is formal cooperation with the act of abortion. By formal cooperation, the moral quality of the primary agent's act becomes the defining moral condition of her act of cooperation.

What about a politician who introduces a bill to pay for abortions for poor women, and pushes successfully to get that bill through to law? There can be no doubt that morally he is guilty of each abortion thus paid for in the very same way the grandmother is above: by a formal cooperation, he is by intention adjoined to the moral event of each such abortion. The fact that he uses STATE funds instead of his own does absolutely nothing to separate him from the moral condition of his cooperation with the abortions: whether his own or someone else's, that money is being used for abortion SPECIFICALLY because he chose to make it so. Some specific persons are responsible as procurers for those abortions. We already know that paying for them is part of "procuring". It is not the civil servant cutting one more check in a series of "health care" reimbursements as provided by law, he is not morally responsible for what the law says. It is inescapable that the politician who willing voted specifically to add abortion coverage to the law is morally responsible for procuring abortions. The fact that his responsibility for the abortions is in a sense wholesale rather than retail, not individually under his specific care, is completely irrelevant, just as it matters not that Hitler didn't know each individual time a Jew was killed, but he was responsible for each such murder, and the proper moral guilt is that of murder, not something like "advising others to commit murder".

I am willing to grant that politicians who "merely" legalize the act, or who promote legalization, do not fall under canon law 1398. I am not willing to say the same of those who procure abortions by paying for them, and nothing I have seen in at least 15 articles by canon lawyers and the like shows otherwise. They simply have sidestepped the question. They note the moral complexity of many votes (such as votes for a large budget bill that has lots of other features), but they don't note that SOMEONE is responsible for adding the abortion-paying provision to a specific bill.

No, Thomas, if I'd timed the post for a specific anniversary, you can bet that I couldn't have kept quiet about my cleverness in doing so. :-)

The work of prayer and individual conversion go on but what is being proposed politically?
Is the hope of judicial overthrow of Roe still seriously entertained?
Does anything believe that when Republican heroes could not appoint reliable votes in SC, now it may be done?
Even the way through fetal pain laws, is the way secure through the Courts?
You are not yet politically defeated when your arguments are found wanting-it happens all the time. But you are defeated when your premises are dismissed as unreasonable.. And it means that no argument you ever produce, howsoever subtle or Thomist, would satisfy the Courts or what amounts to the same, The State.

So what do you do then, politically?

Tony,
he is not morally responsible for what the law says
To be sure, but the bureaucrat that cuts the cheque is to be responsible for implementing the law, otherwise what we have is Nuremberg Defense-I was just following the orders

Gian, that's neither here nor there to the point I was making. Don't muddy-up the waters.

That the pro-lifers accepted Roe does not oblige them to accept Anti-Roe. Here the wisdom of those that stopped Bork is not generally appreciated. They acted to preserve the union. Since it was clear that the pro-lifers would accept all that is meted to them for the sake of nation, but there was no telling what the other party would do. Again, the wisdom of those that stopped Bork-they realized that abortion rights are really much more fundamental that senate procedures so they had no hesitation in sacrificing the lesser to the greater. One hopes for similar realization to dawn in the pro-life party.

Oh, yes, because of Judge Bork had been appointed, the union would have fallen apart. HOw _wise_ they were. Sheesh.

I think Gian is using a little black humor there. But he brings up an interesting question, which is: why did the states just meekly accept Roe v Wade? Here you have a revolutionary decision, completely fallacious in its reasoning and in total bad faith, against the moral beliefs of all but 4 states (according to Wikipedia, and Alaska seems like an outlier there, as though they just never bothered to pass a law against it), and every one of them just went along with it. There's probably some lesson here.

In my opinion, the only lesson is that Americans have mostly decided that revolution, secession, and other options that create true constitutional challenges or radically challenge the rule of law, are not an option.

I'm not sure they're to be blamed for that. It may be that the people's having the option of getting uppity helps to keep the government honest, but if people decide that being law-abiding citizens trumps keeping the government honest, that's understandable too.

People very, very often (both on the right and the left) underestimate the real scope of what it would have taken to have "done something" about Roe v. Wade other than what we have tried to do. Our founders built, very carefully and deliberately, a judiciary that doesn't easily lend itself to being tossed out on its ear. Add that to the implications of Marbury v. Madison--which some of the founders themselves viewed with dismay but which was water long under the bridge by the time of Roe--and we have a situation ripe for judicial overreach with little the people can do about it short of truly radical solutions.

There are some, and frankly, I don't think much of them, who imply that anyone not willing to overthrow the government by arms or engage in non-peaceful demonstrations and the like isn't, or wasn't, "really serious" about thinking abortion is murder. To my mind, such sentiments only sap our strength, wasting it in unjustified bitterness at the serious and hard-working pro-lifers who built the (lawful) pro-life movement in the immediate wake of Roe.

Good heavens. Judge Bork's confirmation to the Supreme Court would have instantly imperiled the Union? Well, what about Scalia's confirmation some months earlier?

Judge Bork's confirmation to the Supreme Court would have instantly imperiled the Union?

Bork did play a pivotal albeit temporary role in Watergate, which was a defining scandal for a generation.

Well, what about Scalia's confirmation some months earlier?

Scalia was nominated for Rehnquist's seat after he was elevated to Chief Justice. Bork was nominated for the seat of a judge who was widely considered a moderate and a consensus builder, Justice Lewis Powell. Plus Scalia has a sense of humor, always a good qualification in my book.

Bork did play a pivotal albeit temporary role in Watergate, which was a defining scandal for a generation.

You should have said, "Bork did play a pivotal albeit temporary role in Watergate, which was a defining scandal for a generation of leftists."

Bork was nominated for the seat of a judge who was widely considered a moderate and a consensus builder, Justice Lewis Powell.

Step2, presidents don't harbor (and neither the Constitution nor general past practice) any intention of keeping some kind of unstated "balance" to the Court by nominating moderates for "moderate seats" and dyed-in-the-wool" immoderates for "immoderate seats". They nominate people they think they can get on the bench who satisfy them (the presidents). If a president wants to nominate an extremist after a moderate retires, he can and will.

Plus Scalia has a sense of humor, always a good qualification in my book.

Agreed. That is probably a part of why Scalia and Ginsberg have become good friends, even though their politics are 540 degrees apart.

There are some, and frankly, I don't think much of them, who imply that anyone not willing to overthrow the government by arms or engage in non-peaceful demonstrations and the like isn't, or wasn't, "really serious" about thinking abortion is murder. To my mind, such sentiments only sap our strength,

Hear, hear. Well put. These people presumably would have said the same thing about slavery, (or at least should have for logical consistency) but generally the abolitionists didn't say that, they worked to change law, over decades of time. Given the horror of the Civil War, and the unwelcome aftermath of it, we should be vary wary indeed of suggesting civil war for life principles.

More generally: Matt, for many decades now our schools have taught children that (a) Marbury vs Madison "proves" or establishes that the courts have the final say. They have also taught that (b) the rule of law in a democracy (or in a democratic republic for that matter) requires being willing to obey even when you don't agree with the law. Few if any even question the inherent difficulties to those two tenets of our system, or try to parse out the limits inherent in (a) if (b) is true, and vice versa, in light of the fact (just to pick one) that the Supreme Court is not actually a democratic body, it was designed to be insulated as much as possible from democratic pressures.

Still more reason that we need a new constitutional amendment: that if 66% of the states think a federal act exceeds the federal powers, it is null and void. It ought to be easier to nullify an act of the federal government than it is to pass a constitutional amendment, because making it just as difficult to POINT OUT THE CONSTITUTION NEVER GRANTED A POWER as it is to grant a new power to the federal government inherently lays waste to the "reserved powers" of the states.

Still more reason that we need a new constitutional amendment: that if 66% of the states think a federal act exceeds the federal powers, it is null and void. It ought to be easier to nullify an act of the federal government than it is to pass a constitutional amendment, because making it just as difficult to POINT OUT THE CONSTITUTION NEVER GRANTED A POWER as it is to grant a new power to the federal government inherently lays waste to the "reserved powers" of the states.

That's the first time I've heard this idea, and I'm a BIG fan. Gonna have to favorite this page to remember this one.

Here the wisdom of those that stopped Bork is not generally appreciated. They acted to preserve the union.

This is pure bull-oney. Unadulterated hogwash. Before Roe, laws against abortion was generally "the law of the land", and where were the protests about that? They were staying away in droves. There was no available basis for thinking that "if we keep things the way they are now, the pro-abortionists will go to war over it." The status quo WAS the status quo, it WAS accepted, it would have gone on being accepted, mostly.

MarcAnthony, I came out with this idea about 2 years ago in these pages, and have mentioned it from time to time here. So far I have not heard anyone lay down an argument that it is bad idea.

George R., presidents resign all the time and for trivial reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Aftermath

Step2, presidents don't harbor (and neither the Constitution nor general past practice) any intention of keeping some kind of unstated "balance" to the Court by nominating moderates for "moderate seats" and dyed-in-the-wool" immoderates for "immoderate seats".

Okay, but I was giving reasons why there was such a big difference among Democrats in the nominations of Scalia and Bork.

the rule of law in a democracy requires being willing to obey even when you don't agree with the law.

This is no such obligation. You disregard vital distinction between ordinary political disagreements such tax rate or tariff etc and foundational matters such as personhood-slavery, abortion- establishment of communism or a theocracy or general seizure of private firearms.

The rule of law demands the citizens resist irrationality in the state, by force if necessary, a fact well understood by the Founders. Otherwise it is to worship the idol of democracy.

the abolitionists didn't say that, they worked to change law, over decades of time.

And did they succeed?
Didn't the slavery ceased to exist only because of trial by war and not because of trial by argument or elections?

The story of abolition, in fact, shows clearly, that foundational questions are only resolved by force. How can it be otherwise when diametrically opposite world views are clashing?

Hasn't it been said that Either you accept your opponent's premise or you must kill him?

The story of abolition, in fact, shows clearly, that foundational questions are only resolved by force. How can it be otherwise when diametrically opposite world views are clashing?

The Civil War was a perfect example of what *not* to do when you're trying to make a societal change.

What do you think, then, of the civil rights era of the 60s? Or Ghandi's civil disobedience in India?

Right. Or Britain's abolition of slavery over a period of decades, without civil war.

In fact, the abolitionists made some real headway in non-war efforts, and THAT'S why the slave states tried secession: they feared that abolitionists would continue in their path toward success. As is often the case when war isn't about simple theft writ large, the first party to resort to arms does so out of

fear

the rule of law in a democracy requires being willing to obey even when you don't agree with the law.

This is no such obligation. You disregard vital distinction between ordinary political disagreements such tax rate or tariff etc and foundational matters such as personhood-slavery, abortion- establishment of communism or a theocracy or general seizure of private firearms.

Actually, Gian, I didn't disregard that distinction. I was recounting what is taught in schools, and in the schools this is disregarded. You are correct that some disagreements are matters where you don't obey out of democratic allegiance to the will of the majority. But you are incorrect about where to place that division. If the correct division was on slavery, then the Founders never should have, nor could have, gotten the US off the ground to begin with. It was impossible while dealing with and solving the slavery issue, and their choice was to go ahead and found the union with slavery held off for a 20 year period (see the Constitution), because they found that the constitutional issues were unresolvable as long as slavery was on the table. The Founders themselves disagreed with your assessment.

Generally, the right place to refuse to accept the law made by majority is when the law requires you to do something yourself that is immoral. A law permitting slavery doesn't require you to hold slaves. That's why Founders who rightly abhorred slavery could vote for the Union's Constitution that left slavery alone.

Secondarily, another place to refuse to abide by the law made by majority is when it is right next door to, and generally will almost inevitably lead you to, having to do something yourself that is immoral. But this is an area where non-compliance is permissible rather than obligatory, and thus is subject to prudence about the right time, place, persons, and anticipated outcomes.

Hasn't it been said that Either you accept your opponent's premise or you must kill him?

So persuasion is a lost art form. Everyone must agree with Gian on foundational matters or else it is a duel to the death. History shows the Founders were willing to compromise on slavery but they did go to war over taxation without representation. I guess they made an idol of democracy.

Persuasion can only work when at least some premises are shared.
the civil rights era of the 60s?
Mencius Moldberg says that the segregationists were already lost.
Britain's abolition of slavery over a period of decades
Britain was not a slave state. There were no slaves in Britain.

It's false that there were no slaves in England. Just not anywhere near as many as in America. Hence the long series of common law cases in England about the status of slaves. One of the most famous was in 1763 when a court ruled that anyone who set foot on English soil was no longer a slave. However, this did not settle the matter once for all, as there were more cases thereafter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_at_common_law

Mencius Moldberg says that the segregationists were already lost.

Actually, this proves our point, doesn't it? Over the course of several decades the segregationists lost power until the Civil Rights activists finally ended that era.

No to mention, this certainly addresses no point with Gandhi. And anyway, given the many competing theories, what reason do I have to accept Mencius Moldberg's over any other?

I looked him up and couldn't find him, so if you can give me any type of source I'll look him up.

(About the abolition of slavery in Egnland-all of you watch the movie "Amazing Grace". Good movie, and the song itself has an interesting history as well.)

I'm taking a Civil War class right now (BTW, I'm also by far the most conservative, heh). Could the war have been avoided? The consensus of the class seems to be no, but I'm not so sure. Looking at history in hindsight is always a dangerous game. Everything seems inevitable when you haven't lived through it. Polk and Buchanan's bungling certainly didn't help matters.

...and the song itself has an interesting history as well.

That story has more twists and turns than a detective novel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace

MarcAnthony,
My mistake. It is Mencius Moldbug at unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com.

He has many erroneous opinions but he is very correct about USA being the epicenter of the world progressivism.

Gandhi had no moral conflicts with establishment British, in fact, he took his ideas of political nonviolence and civil disobedience from the West, the Hindus having no such concepts.

Over the course of several decades the segregationists lost power until the Civil Rights activists finally ended that era.

But they were militarily defeated first.