About Me

Name:CRB
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 

Nathaniel Frank: The Anti-Liberal

Posted by CRB on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 6:39:38 AM
 Have you ever considered tolerance to be the very reason to reject tolerance? It looks like things are coming to that. The recent column by Nathaniel Frank on Huffington Post takes that very position.

This is one of those situations where the movement can often fail to meet the fundamental standard of self-referrential integrity (ala Dr. Feinberg @ TEDS). The argument is entirely circular and easily diagnosed on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis:

1. The Catholics wish to opt out of the new law's requirements.
2. The apparent irony is the perception of returned discrimination.
3. This is branded as disingenuous through misrepresention of both scripture and doctrine.
4. So he equivocates the sympathies regarding discrimination, concluding that now the church should be more understanding.
5. And he bulds his case by framing religious liberty as a "special status".
6. Then the real leap is made, equivocating religious beliefs with sexual passion.
7. And we should not forget that religious liberty is dangerous.
8. Justification of restricted liberty is also need for the collective benefit of the whole of society, since homosexual adoption is presumably of no danger.
9. Then the conclusion is clarified: This disagreement justifies a restriction of religious liberty.
The ability of Mr. Frank to restrict liberty for the sake of liberty is astounding. And inexcusable.

One component that is worthy of further discussion is the idea of religious liberty and danger. The issue of liberty, based on the content of one's faith, is now, according to Mr. Frank, worthy of governmental review and selective discrimination.

But what is at stake here is not the specific of religious liberty alone; it's the general principle of liberty. Let's face the fact that Liberalism is changing. Recognizing that you can't tolerate everything (the matter of self-referrential integrity), and following closely along the enightenment extrapolations of Marx and Lenin, the intolerance is now aimed directly at matters of faith. (At least Marx and Lenin were honest about their intolerance.) The old Liberalism is not long for this world and will shortly be replaced with something more heavy-handed and resembling the patterns begun in the late 19th century.

Another noteworthy item, the equivocation of religious faith to sexual passion, feigns sex worship. I make mention for the sake of clarifying something about their system of reason. Thepurpose of a statement such as this is a substitution of sex for faith and a desire to secularize society in general -- well beyond just asking for tolerance. He's asking for a new "religion" for England, and nothing less.

A final concern is that law should be above religious belief and practice. This is a fundamental matter to liberty in the Liberal world that has existed from the foundation of the Liberal movement. Mr. Frank rightly makes reference to Jefferson and Locke, who had no problem with religious liberty (contradicting his essential employment of their respective positions). What is being advocated here goes beyond the founders and the regular "separation" principle that would be applied in the United States. And we're not talking about the mixture of church and state that would be seen traditionally in England. Instead Mr. Frank promotes the principle of what I'll call lex theo, that the law and state are before God, the church, and religion in general.

Even with its shortcomings, our liberal society has granted more freedom to more people than any other society in history. A return to something more generous is needed instead of proposing more restriction. At this Mr. Frank fails miserably.

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Liberal World's Death Results

Posted by CRB on Saturday, January 27, 2007 4:10:35 PM
 
Here's a chart of the philosophical heritage of Liberalism and its death results.   (It's certainly simplified but clear enough.)

 
http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/LiberalWorldandDeath.jpg

Given the numbers, it's hard to imagine why *anyone* would be afraid of a Christian government, let alone a Christian influence on government. Nothing in history has been as bad as what the Liberal and Left world have provided over the past century.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wean Them Heifers

Posted by CRB on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:05:26 PM
 Most of the discussion of ESCR is oriented around the ethics of Life.  But another concern is the money.  And that's at least half of the equation.
 
In my younger days, growing up in a small town in Wisconsin, my summers were spent working for, for the most part, dairy farmers.  One thing that I learned about bovine is that the cow is really, really attached to the calf.  And weaning has as much to do with the heifer as with the calf.
 
And that's the way it is with ESCR.  These Left-wing money-grubbing heifers have been suckling their calves just a little too long.  Time to wean 'em!

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Two Reasons Why the Left is So Tiring

Posted by CRB on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 8:48:11 PM
 
1. The first 100 hours are closing soon. Mission Nothing (meaningful or non-political) Accomplished.
2. If nothing sticks on that one, they can always claim that the Bush administration is into ethnic cleansing. (And they say M/M has no credibility. Sheesh.)

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another Perspective on Iraq

Posted by CRB on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 8:46:49 PM
 
There are somethings we know for certain:
1. Victory is not what we expected.
2. The enemy is as unrelenting, and larger, than any other we've ever faced.
3. The enemy is patient.
4. The enemy is philosophical and religious, transcending national boundaries. They've got a very effective internal news system.

There are some things we don't know, despite what the Left is saying:
1. Victory cannot be attained.
2. It's just like Viet Nam. (The Left should know. They got failure in 'Nam and they're pushing for the same failure [withdrawal, aka "redeployment"] here.)

There's one thing that stands out which we need to learn:
1. How do we communicate to the broader community of their supporters and properly persuade for support?

But no matter what we do, let's not give into the Left or to the enemy. Neither defeat is acceptable.

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »