Skip to main content

God Is Great, Beer Is Good...

You finish it. I know that Dr. Murray has been telling us that class divisions are becoming more pronounced, and technology allows us to wall ourselves off from ideas and people we don't like. This is the reason our politics is so nasty: we lack a shared culture, and we are not motivated by reason, but by emotion.

Each coalition looks over and says, "They aren't like us," and so no method or tool of destruction is off the table. One side thinks the president is a secret Muslim who hates all that we stand for, and the other side thinks their opponents are constructing gulags for racial minorities, gays, and poor people. That's what really bothers me: I don't have to exaggerate that much.

I wish it were just a plea for civility, but it can't be. The Democratic Party is the abortion party. That's what they exist to defend. Democratic elected officials can compromise nearly every other tenet of progressive thinking, but not that one. This is why Republicans will have to take the lead on traditionally liberal issues like criminal justice/capital punishment; pro-lifers not unjustly throw the high-sounding rhetoric right back in the Democrats' faces. This is why interventionism is now a "conservative" thing. The party that can't be bothered to defend defenseless babies has no moral authority to advocate for the victims of genocide. I have trouble listening; I'm just being honest.

That one remaining blunt instrument for the progressive is the apparent hypocrisy of conservative religiosity, combined with the robust defense of an obviously broken, unjust economic order. But with "liberalism" being the driving force behind the destruction of the family, they bear some of that guilt as well.

One the one hand, no amount of sermonizing on virtue will wish our system of social support out of existence. One the other hand, no degree of devotion to that system will make it work on behalf of free people, in the absence of virtue.

You will forgive me if I state the obvious. What's obvious isn't terribly popular these days.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...