Recent Comments
Fellow Travelling
Comment posted by Foxfier on Sep 3, 01:22:
At the risk of getting what I ask for... what is "human bio-diversity"? I can't find any decent source for it-- the one result I thought might have some sort of an explanation launched into a lecture on how horribly homophobic Mr. Derbyshire is; the bits I've been able to find say 'new eugenicist' or 'looking into the effects of genetics on culture'? ... [More]
Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory
Comment posted by M.A. Roberts on Sep 2, 23:28:
Lydia: "I do not know whether liberals will be the long-term beneficiaries of the resultant soft totalitarianism." Good post. I agree with everything you say. Traditional mores or taboos would, in a sense, prohibit someone from doing something. Modern legislation has undermined these mores as much as possible (at least the ones liberals do not like), creating tacit approval of the acts. Thus, in a sense, by not forbidding something the state is encouraging it. As a corollary to your observations, ... [More]
Fellow Travelling
Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 2, 22:26:
For the record, I'm a member of a high Anglican church but am as an individual so low and so Protestant as practically to be dropping out at the bottom. As a joke-that-isn't-quite-a-joke I sometimes refer to myself as a high church Baptist. ... [More]
Fellow Travelling
Comment posted by Edward Feser on Sep 2, 21:23:
Gay? Yeah, gay -- you know, merry, prone to high spirits, etc. What did you think he meant? But really, Steve, you are so old-fashioned! No one has used the word that way for ages! ... [More]
Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory
Comment posted by George R. on Sep 2, 20:56:
Al, sorry to hear about your health problems. And if it makes you feel any better, I think you should be allowed to take all the death-hastening pain medication you want. ... [More]
Cianfrocca takes on all comers
Comment posted by Paul J Cella on Sep 2, 20:29:
I haven't a clue as to what this [liberal coyness on the subject of democracy] means or how it was derived from Thoma's article or anything I've written. I refer to the ready instinct of most modern liberals -- especially if they are also economists -- to recommend rule-by-the-few forms of government, while still treating haughtily with anyone (like a traditionalist) who is simply more frank about his preference for rule-by-the-few. But I forget myself. Whenever I try to introduce the common terminology o ... [More]
Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory
Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 2, 20:27:
So I figure, too, Steve. ... [More]
Fellow Travelling
Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 2, 20:23:
It's fine to be worried or even horrified by the trajectory of contemporary Christianity, Steve. But that doesn't change the question of truth. If Christianity is _true_, then those of us who see that have to critique it while sticking to the fact that it is true. It is but a poor argument against Christianity (I would assume that you, as a philosopher, can see this) to point out that it has many people within it who are extremely muddle-headed and liberal on various political issues. As it would be a poor ... [More]
Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory
Comment posted by steve burton on Sep 2, 20:06:
obviously, our al is doing his best to dramatize a hypothetical case. ... [More]
Fellow Travelling
Comment posted by Bruce on Sep 2, 20:05:
Well I guess I hadn't read you as frequently as I thought had. Knew the agnostic and bio-diversity thing but not the other thing (or I forgot). Justin Raimondo is too and he writes for Rockford. I always wanted to question them about it but figured I'd get smacked down real hard. ... [More]
Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory
Comment posted by Bruce on Sep 2, 19:51:
This isn't the same thing that you describe in the entry but the title made me think of it (yes, I'm picking on modern Christians again). Many of our Christian friends take an attitude that anything that isn't explicitly (in direct language that a 10-year old couldn't confuse) forbidden in the Bible is permissable. And if you say otherwise you're adding to God's law. I don't know what you call this but it doesn't seem right to me. I can give a direct example but it's not something I'd say (or write) in fro ... [More]
Cianfrocca takes on all comers
Comment posted by c matt on Sep 2, 18:08:
The conservative party is dedicated mainly to acquiring power First, what conservative party? Second - because we all know liberals are not at all about acquiring power. ... [More]
Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory
Comment posted by c matt on Sep 2, 17:21:
I am sorry to hear you are not doing well al. Oh, that was a hypothetical? I guess some cancer ridden patient who needs dangerous levels of pain killers residing in a remotely populated area does exist (if she is in such poor condition, shouldn't she be closer to medical attention?). Can't your doctor make arrangements for the visiting nurse to bring your meds? Your home hospice can stock then for the winter. IF the pharmacist is aware of these circumstances, I don't see why he can't fill the scrip. S ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by steve burton on Sep 2, 17:17:
To Bruce @ 8:36 & Paul @ 9:34 last night: sorry, guys - I'm teaching introductory philosophy classes at the local Jesuit University on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so from Monday evening through Thursday afternoon I tend to be too preoccupied preparing for & conducting classes to make much of any contribution to anything else. Ten years ago, I could have lectured on the Euthyphro & the Apology & the Crito & the Phaedo in my sleep - but, coming back to them after a long hiatus, I find them more...difficult than ... [More]
Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory
Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 2, 17:15:
If all of this is real rather than hypothetical, my prayers for your soul, Al. Yes, it is her business. Her "job" is not to be a robotic medicine dispenser. In fact, part of what we need to get back to is a realization that just because some activity is a "job" or an economic activity, it is not therefore devoid of moral content and meaning. In fact, notions like health, doing no harm, etc., are part of what it _means_ to be a professional in medical areas. When liberals are talking about "green" stuff, t ... [More]
Happy Consequentialism Day!
Comment posted by Stuart Koehl on Sep 2, 16:56:
But I'm not aware that the East accepts consequentialism. The entire principle of oikonomia means that it does. Consequentialism is at the heart of stewardship. ... [More]
Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory
Comment posted by al on Sep 2, 16:53:
"Conservatives, however, would do well to consider the benefits of greater freedom and, in particular, of a public space in which purely social penalties can exist." There is only one pharmacy where I live. The next closest one is a hundred miles (and a mountain range) away and we have winters. I have terminal cancer and am in home hospice (a nurse from the state visits on a regular basis). The local pharmacist has serious concerns about the levels of pain medication I now require as she feels they migh ... [More]
Happy Consequentialism Day!
Comment posted by pb on Sep 2, 16:46:
Rob G, thanks for the correction. ... [More]
Happy Consequentialism Day!
Comment posted by Rob G on Sep 2, 16:34:
Actually pb, I'm Orthodox and Stuart is Byz. Catholic. But I'm not aware that the East accepts consequentialism. ... [More]
Cianfrocca takes on all comers
Comment posted by al on Sep 2, 16:32:
"The liberals ought to come clean with their belief that self-government has failed, that Americans are not capable of living and ruling in equality." I haven't a clue as to what this means or how it was derived from Thoma's article or anything I've written. The "come clean" aspect of this belief would seem to indicate that it is something we liberals discuss amongst ourselves once the password of the day and double secret handshakes are exchanged. The actual concerns, easily discovered by reading easily ... [More]
Happy Consequentialism Day!
Comment posted by pb on Sep 2, 16:25:
Stuart Koehl: Whatever tradition you accept may tolerate consequentialism, but the Catholic Church does not. (iirc, Rob G is Catholic, as well as many of the others writing on this thread.) Challenge their assumptions all you want, but they will not disagree with the Church. ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by Bruce on Sep 2, 15:44:
For inquiring minds, I confess the Apostle's, Nicene, and Anathasian creeds and mean it. I was baptized Anglican Catholic (TAC) and was an active layreader. My issues have with TAC and my parish nothing to do with this topic (although my priest was a left-winger who would say nothing when an abortionist-lady communicant declared "no man's gonna tell me what to do with my body" but then jumped all over an older lady for saying something mildly bigoted). There are no other continuing Anglican parishes in my ... [More]
Happy Consequentialism Day!
Comment posted by Stuart Koehl on Sep 2, 15:40:
Fine. My initial impression have not been altered: few people here have any understanding of the underlying historical fact of the issue, and fewer still care, because their "non-consequentialist" outlook renders such mundane things irrelevant and unnecessary. Attempts to redirect the discussion to "first principles" are consistently rebuffed. Specifically, every time I ask the simple question, "If Hiroshima was immoral, what would be the moral alternative?", I get blown off. I suspect this is due, on ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by Bruce on Sep 2, 15:36:
I don't understand the argument that the spreading of the Gospel to third world nations is detrimental to Western nations. In other words, why? I don't follow. Spreading the social gospel would be detrimental but I don't think we're talking about that. More detail please. ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by Bruce on Sep 2, 15:32:
I don't think race realist is a smear. Heck, I don't think white nationalist is a smear in that it's not inaccurate. ... [More]
Happy Consequentialism Day!
Comment posted by Rob G on Sep 2, 15:23:
You are correct, pb -- thanks for making the call. Sometimes we're too close to the roadblock to see it for what it is, I guess! I'll bow out here and let Mr. Koehl have the last word if he wants it. ... [More]
Happy Consequentialism Day!
Comment posted by pb on Sep 2, 14:56:
Rob G, I think the discussion is at an impasse, as first principles have been reached. Either one thinks consequentialism/proportionalism is right and judges all other moral systems accordingly, or doesn't. Having a discussion at that level is unlikely to yield any result. ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 2, 14:47:
Lydia, no I do not want to retract my statements. From the perspective of Western identity, I do believe Third World missionary work is detrimental to the West. And therefore, it would be better if it stopped? Right? As I've said numerous times on here, I am a Protestant. You haven't _exactly_ said that. You've said you have not long ago attended a Protestant church and are active in a Christian organization. What you _haven't_ said--and it's a pretty striking omission--is that you are a Christian and ... [More]
Sri Lankan pastor being dehydrated to death without consent in Canada
Comment posted by al on Sep 2, 14:43:
"I said that? If I said that I renounce the saying of it and denounce myself for saying it." Apologies, BTW, if it was someone else, but at some point, in some cases, effective pain management becomes, in effect euthanasia as the levels of pain medication affect respiration. "One could hang, draw, and quarter someone under general anesthesia and the death would not be a peaceful death." Actually it would be very peaceful, quite messy, but peaceful. I've had abdominal surgery and recall not one thing abo ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by M.A. Roberts on Sep 2, 14:35:
Lydia: Lydia, no I do not want to retract my statements. From the perspective of Western identity, I do believe Third World missionary work is detrimental to the West. Bruce: I agree that people should try to steer Christianity away from open-borders globalism and back to more particularist moorings. Jeff Singer: Thanks for the understanding. As I've said numerous times on here, I am a Protestant. I agree that we should try to get these Christian leaders back on the bus. Regardless, as long as ... [More]
Happy Consequentialism Day!
Comment posted by Rob G on Sep 2, 14:09:
"Even your name-calling is becoming a bit formulaic." OK, so maybe "shill" was a tad uncharitable, but I don't recall any other name-calling. "So far, not even the inklings of a serious moral discussion have been advanced on your part." Says you. I apologize if the moral discourse doesn't rise to your standards, but I refuse to be lectured to on morality by someone who thinks total war is just peachy, provided it's we who wage it. ... [More]
Happy Consequentialism Day!
Comment posted by Stuart Koehl on Sep 2, 13:43:
One's attitude towards Israel is neither here nor there in this instance. The simple knee-jerk, indiscriminate support of the U.S. military is perfectly sufficient. I will reiterate: So far, not even the inklings of a serious moral discussion have been advanced on your part. Even your name-calling is becoming a bit formulaic. You should look up the "North Korean Insult Generator" on the web. Now, want to make some substantive contributions, here? ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by Jeff Singer on Sep 2, 13:40:
M.A., Thanks for that link to the NumbersUSA article. There was certainly stuff in it to get me angry (just about any quote from Jim Wallis is bound to get me riled up) -- the quotes from the Episcopal Bishop were smarmy and intellectually bankrupt. But both Sojourners and the Episcopalians are fairly small left wing Christian organizations -- the more worrying quotes were from the Southern Baptists and Catholics. However, their quotes are in support of immigration amnesty and however misguided we both ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by Bruce on Sep 2, 12:34:
I suppose another way to phrase the general critique would be that the leftism/liberalism attempts to out-Christian the Christians and a lot of modern Christians feel the need to keep up. Or the left often occupies the moral high ground (in the popular imagination) and modern Christians have to be co-occupants. Fairly simplistic and ignores some things but that's my thought. To anti-Christians right-wingers I usually say that most all major Western institutions have absorbed a lot of left/liberal thought p ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by Bruce on Sep 2, 12:22:
ANd while we should be realistic about the likelyhood of mutual antagonism we shouldn't embrace mutual antagonism. ANd in addition to intractable racial AND cultural differences there's simply the conflicting interests of distinct peoples. ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by Bruce on Sep 2, 12:18:
"Race realist" is about as vague and meaningless as "racist." It's what the milder white nationalists call themselves to avoid a name with both "white" and "ist" in it because that sounds scary. For example, Peter Brimlelow uses the label race realist even though he's obviously interested in the fortunes and future prospects of white people. Better to just say what we believe rather than use meaningless labels. ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by Bruce on Sep 2, 12:04:
I don't disagree with a modest modification of September 2, 2010 11:04 AM. I don't know why MAR recoils from it. "LaRaza is fine, for the Mexicans, and that the White Race should have its own La Raza, and that mutual racial antagonism between the Mexicans and the Whites is always unavoidable, due to deep and intractable racial differences, and that's why we belong in separate countries." How about: We should have our own organization(s) to defend our interests (don't think it should be patterned after L ... [More]
Whither Christianity?
Comment posted by Lydia on Sep 2, 11:47:
I don't disagree with everything you're saying, but aren't practical concerns important? If you take the Bible completely literally and give up all practical considerations, why not be like some of the early non-European Christians, forsake all worldly obligations, and live as desert monks? Didn't St. Augustine say that people have worldly, practical obligations? MAR, this is kind of shallow as a slide away from your statements about missions. (And I could ask for a citation on St. Augustine, but never min ... [More]