From jk Thu Mar 14 20:57:15 1996 Subject: Re: Your mail To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 20:57:15 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To:from "Liz R Robinson" at Mar 14, 96 06:59:31 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 456 Status: RO > > No such thing, Liz, as a "righteous infidel." John Lofton. > > > OK everybody. Listen up. See how easy it is under fundamentalism to > dehumanize the "other"? > Here we see the "enabling" of religiocide in the name of religion. John > would have made such a great Crusader! No conscience! Is there such a thing as a righteous fundamentalist? -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Bombard a drab mob. From jk Thu Mar 14 21:03:44 1996 Subject: Re: Socrates' Impiety To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 21:03:44 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Liz R Robinson" at Mar 14, 96 07:01:48 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 634 Status: RO > But nothing here excludes this from happening from within the realm of > religion i.e. in the "name" of religion. Remember that this "secular humanism can lead to megadeaths" stuff started as a response to a suggestion that rejection of the current interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment can lead to executions as in Iran. It does seem to me though that if political catastrophes are what you're worried about rejection of a transcendental standard should worry you more than acceptance of one. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Bombard a drab mob. From jk Sat Jan 13 13:20:16 1996 Subject: Re: Let me try a re-entry To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 13:20:16 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199601131540.KAA04244@ctc.swva.net> from "Seth Williamson" at Jan 13, 96 10:39:30 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2249 Status: RO > I know a few men who went there, and it's my understanding that they > eventually had to accept female ordinands, not to mention having to concede, > at least implicitly, that people like Morse and Spong had a right to be > bishops in their church. In fact, I seem to remember seeing a photograph of > a tiny class at Nashotah House that included a few women. I thought I heard > that Nashotah House either went under or was in serious financial > difficulties. Don't have any new information on them. I gathered from the discussions on ANGLICAN that they accept woman students on the theory that anyone might want to study theology and the like, but they don't recognize female priests as priests. After they decided they didn't like the idea of female priests half the faculty left and they have far fewer students than formerly. They're still around, though -- while I was a subscriber one of the posters on ANGLICAN, a token traditionalist, was heading off there to study (this was last year). While I was on ANGLICAN someone posted a recent speech by Spong (why does that remind me of Cheech and Chong?) in which he complained that after he was allowed to speak at an Episcopal seminary students and faculty put on some sort of ceremony of exorcism, purification, or whatever. I don't know if it was Nashotah, but it does show that there are seminaries that have reservations about the man. > I used to be on the ANGLICAN list. Briefly. It was my impression > there aren't any really orthodox people left in ECUSA, but I could be wrong. My impression that discussions on ANGLICAN, like most public discussions carried on by Episcopalians, tend to be from the viewpoint of comfortable and well-placed people who want to stay up-to-date and in good taste, however those things defined by comfortable and well-placed people. On the other hand, ECUSA has its marginal types like everyone else, and in 1996 those include the orthodox. A refugee from ANGLICAN who is determined to remain within ECUSA has set up a counter-list for traditionalists, Common-Prayer. It's not particularly active, though. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Murder for a jar of red rum! From jk Sat Jan 13 20:04:53 1996 Subject: Re: Let me try a re-entry To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 20:04:53 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199601131918.OAA04553@ctc.swva.net> from "Seth Williamson" at Jan 13, 96 02:16:54 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1129 Status: RO > But surely they must know that the females they get nowadays are going > to be ordained somewhere, n'est-ce pas? That sounds reasonable, but I don't know how it works. I remember one of the lesbians on ANGLICAN complaining about how Nashotah House kicked women in the teeth, but that might have been because they wouldn't let female priests lead services in their chapel. I don't know where that will go given the current lopsided majority among the bishops who want to make recognition of female priests mandatory. > Do you have the address? I would like to check it out. Send the message "Subscribe Common-Prayer" to common-prayer-request@covert.enet.dec.com John Covert runs the list by hand and distributes messages in packets when he thinks there are enough. It'll probably be a while (it could be weeks) before you get one. The discussions have been slow lately. In the past he was reluctant to distribute "let's all leave ECUSA" messages but he seems to be loosening up on that point. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Murder for a jar of red rum! From jk Fri Mar 15 15:00:32 1996 Subject: Re: A Common Moral Basis? To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 15:00:32 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3149AF94@mailgate.brooklyn.cuny.edu> from "Edward Kent" at Mar 15, 96 12:59:00 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1108 Status: RO > In the second we have Paul defending the very worst abuses of political > authority -- that of a pagan Roman emperor in his own time -- as being > instituted by G-D???? What abuses is he defending? Is it your point that Paul thought it was impossible for Caesar to command something that was wrong or that it could never be his duty to disobey Caesar, for example if commanded to burn incense to Caesar's image? The Roman Empire as such was not a colossal political abuse. Paul wrote his letters to guide ordinary Christians and churches in their ordinary day-to-day life, and his point as I understand it is that as an ordinary thing the laws of the state are morally obligatory. If all moral obligation is from God then that must mean the state in some sense gets its power to command from God. I really don't see the conflict with what Jesus said. In order for there to be things that are Caesar's, Caesar must somehow hold those things in accordance with the moral order created by God. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Bombard a drab mob. From jk Fri Mar 15 17:23:34 1996 Subject: Re: A Common Moral Basis? To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 17:23:34 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3149D0E6@mailgate.brooklyn.cuny.edu> from "Edward Kent" at Mar 15, 96 03:19:00 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 352 Status: RO > Jim, Take a closer look at the Roman Empire and its practices -- slavery, > genocide, sacrilege, torture, human blood sport entertainment, etc.? Is it your point that its laws should not have been recognized as binding in ordinary affairs? -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Bombard a drab mob. From jk Fri Mar 15 17:36:08 1996 Subject: Re: Socrates' Impiety To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 17:36:08 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Liz R Robinson" at Mar 15, 96 04:50:34 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 794 Status: RO > I would be delighted with acceptance of transcendental standards, but if > they were John's I'm afraid I woudln't be allowed to survive... I see no reason from reading John's posts and yours to think that he would be more likely to exterminate the infidels than you would be to exterminate the fundamentalists. we > somehow have to find transcendental standards which do not, by > definition enable the extinguishing of those with which we disagree. > > May I suggest that we're getting awfully close to "human" rights here? I don't know what you mean by "'human' rights". Would you classify everyone who doesn't favor exterminating the infidels as a proponent of human rights? -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Bombard a drab mob. From jk Sun Mar 17 18:49:45 1996 Subject: Re: Socrates' Impiety To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 18:49:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Liz R Robinson" at Mar 17, 96 12:43:25 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3154 Status: RO >So, as a transcendental standard, the state power of execution would >have to go. The line of thought seems odd to me. You want to get rid of capital punishment because then one extreme form of political catastrophe couldn't occur. But the catastrophe wouldn't occur in any event unless some faction convinced of the necessity of extreme measures were in control. I don't see why such a faction would care about an earlier agreement to abolish capital punishment that was evidently based on an understanding of things very different from its own. Also, the reason you give for getting rid of capital punishment is one of prudence, to prevent something from happening that doesn't look likely in any case. I don't see how prudential reasoning regarding remote contingencies can give rise to transcendental standards. >Secondly, I think we ought to agree that I need to be compelled to >acknowlege the essential humanness of my interlocutor, and to >acknowledge his/her essential difference. I'm not sure what this means. "Essential humanness" sounds like "we share the same nature so we're equally part of a common moral world." "Essential difference" sounds like "we don't share the same nature so we necessarily live in different moral worlds." Possibly the idea is that different communities are to follow their own way of life subject to something like international law, so that one part of Canada could organize itself as a Calvinist theocracy, another as a whites-only state, another as a MCWS. Is that right? >The focus is on behavioir, not on the individual, and the question to >be answered is to what extent the behavior, or a part of the behavior >harms others [ ... ] The Court has defined the public expression of >anti-Semitism as one such behavior. How about public expression of dislike of agribusiness? In this century dislike of agribusiness has led to the murder of more innocent people (kulaks, landowners, rich peasants, etc.) than anti-Semitism. By this standard, expression of all radical political views should probably be banned because such views have often been immensely destructive. Or maybe the court should ban public expressions of dislike for religions other than Judaism, fundamentalist Christianity for example. Look at all the believers atheist regimes have murdered. I suppose blasphemy expresses dislike for religion and contempt for religious people, so very likely the court should ban that as well. >I have at least attempted to provide some ideas for tanscendental >standards for the civic religion you propose. Do you have any? I haven't proposed a civic religion. If I wanted to start a new religion I suppose I'd get myself executed and then rise from the dead like everyone else. Why not imitate success? The problem I've had with civil religion as something to be instituted because it is useful is that religion isn't something you propose for ends other than its own. Your religion is what *precedes* all your choices and goals. . -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Bombard a drab mob. From jk Mon Mar 18 04:59:03 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 04:59:03 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <314CF019.6581@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 17, 96 11:09:45 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 720 Status: RO > From the colonial era through the age of > Jackson (as Tocqueville shows) to the middle part of this century, the moral > and ethical norms of Judeo-Christianity guided the national debate, through > loose, informal mechanisms. Still could one honestly say that this made > Judeo-Christianity the "civil religion" of America. Only in a very imprecise > sense of the term, I think. What is Judeo-Christianity and what was the connection with Jews or Judaism? There were very few Jews in America at the time. I would have thought "nondoctrinal Protestantism" or something of the sort would be a better term. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Bombard a drab mob. From jk Mon Mar 18 08:09:28 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:09:28 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Mar 18, 96 11:34:51 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 526 Status: RO > I read somewhere that the term 'Judaeo - Christian' was invented in > the 1980s, to describe a more or less artificial construct created > by conservative Jews and Christians joining forces. I can understand the term "Judeo-Christian tradition". The claim that a religion called "Judeo-Christianity" was at one point the publicly accepted religion in America is more novel and harder to understand. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age! From jk Mon Mar 18 08:20:02 1996 Subject: Re: academic brainwashing To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:20:02 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Mar 18, 96 12:03:22 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 791 Status: RO > A teacher or lecturer > can only influence students who are already on > a similar wavelength, or very close and ready > to move. I would geuss that Liberal profs > already have a audience of very largely > liberal students. I think what's called "brainwashing" has to do with immersion in an environment in which doctrines and attitudes are institutionalized and deviation is treated as unquestionably wrong, when from the spectator's point of view the doctrines and attitudes are false and pernicious. It doesn't have much to do with the ability of a particular lecturer to change his pupils' minds about things universally accepted as debatable in principle. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age! From jk Mon Mar 18 08:32:01 1996 Subject: Re: Socrates' Impiety To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:32:01 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Mar 18, 96 12:27:15 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 552 Status: RO > You make the idea sound funny but is it not actually close to > what conservativism is about? Plurality within unity? So what's wrong with a good-humored attempt to find common ground? > Doesn't civil religion happen naturally? It is not contrived > into existence. Just so. It can't be intended; the most one can do is argue against things (e.g., U.S. Supreme Court doctrine on the Establishment Clause) that destroy it. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age! From jk Mon Mar 18 08:43:32 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:43:32 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Mar 18, 96 01:40:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 809 Status: RO > Yup, but what would you call, eg, in the religion of Brooklyn in > 1890? The population must have been 50 percent Italian Catholic > and 50 percent Jewish. Did Brooklyn have a religion at the time? One that was likely to last? A lot of people no doubt promoted humanitarianism and understanding, and very likely that did some good. Also, the notion of "America" as a place where people could have a better life than in the old country if they worked hard had a lot of appeal. It's not for nothing, though, that ethnic neighborhoods and institutions were strong, politics was a matter of who got what, and New York became notoriously a city of cold and aggressive public manners. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age! From jk Mon Mar 18 09:25:39 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:25:39 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Mar 18, 96 02:06:37 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1609 Status: RO > Are you a Southerner perhaps. A Brooklynite, for the past 15 years anyway. I should admit that my parents were from Kentucky and rather preferred the South, and that my wife is descended from one of John C. Calhoun's cousins. > Did you ever read Peter Berger's > New York City 1978: A Sign of Transcendence. It is in 'Facing > up to Modernity'. Berger argues that the comic mixture of different > creeds and cultures in New York is a signpost to heaven. I haven't read it and know nothing about it, and so feel free to abuse it on general principles. At least since Emerson and Walt Whitman (another Brooklynite) a common American response to social chaos and atomization has been to say it's wonderful because it doesn't exclude anything and is therefore an image of God. As another American said, "Therefore I rejoice, having to construct something upon which to rejoice." It's not surprising that a man who in 1978 was a liberal Protestant and a fledgling neocon should join that American tradition. It's right up there with the common neocon identification of Western Civilization with democratic universalism. I should add that New Yorkers have always been active in trumpeting the virtues of the city to which they've gone to seek fame and fortune or from which they come and feel they have to explain away. Therefore all the mythology about rough diamonds, hard exteriors but hearts of gold, salt-of-the-earth cabdrivers with endearing accents, etc. All nonsense. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age! From jk Mon Mar 18 16:27:45 1996 Subject: Re: academic brainwashing To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:27:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Mar 18, 96 07:11:37 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 796 Status: RO > I believe that knowledge of the wisdom of > God is known in a mediated way. Is that the same as saying that man's own powers are sufficient for knowledge of truth? If so, what is the point of revelation? > One reason why I think so is that it makes it less easy to > confuse our own minds with the mind of God. Presumably any notion that there are truths attainable by us creates the danger of such a confusion. If it's true, then it must be what God thinks, and if God thinks it and we think it, then our minds must be _pro tanto_ identical. Or so one is inclined to think. I don't see why emphasizing our dependence on God for attaining truth makes things worse. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age! From jk Mon Mar 18 16:36:18 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:36:18 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <314DB4D6.67EA@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 18, 96 01:09:10 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1047 Status: RO > We are, then, in agreement that America has NO civil religion, which must, by > my definition, be enforced by law. The question remains does America need a > civil religion to innoculate our religiously pluralistic nation against > liberal relativism? I think this is the questions the neocons would ask. No? I'm not quite sure what's meant here. Suppose Calvinism had the same status in America that liberal relativism does now, so that what the government and other authoritative social institutions did and said was consistent with Calvinism, and the Supreme Court stepped in whenever (for example) public institutions put on ceremonies that expressed some inconsistent viewpoint. On the other hand, anyone could make speeches and write books against Calvinism, send his kids to non-Calvinistic schools if he was willing and able to pay the tuition, and so on. Would you then say that America had a civil religion? -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age! From jk Mon Mar 18 16:38:39 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:38:39 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <314DB6D9.4AF5@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 18, 96 01:17:45 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 443 Status: RO > But wouldn't the Establishment Clause deal with the non-establishment of a > single church? It would not prevent the addition of a civil religion, that > is, certain truths placed beyond debate. As interpreted, the Establishment Clause prohibits placing truths traditionally characterized as religious beyond debate. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age! From jk Mon Mar 18 16:42:12 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:42:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <314DBB88.1A32@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 18, 96 01:37:44 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 460 Status: RO > > For > > example, a papal encyclical of the 19th century states > > that pagans have no rights (it is helpful to bring this > > up in discussions of Animal rights); As phrased it sounds as if the encyclical said pagans could be hunted for sport or used as raw material for a fertilizer factory. I can't believe that's what you mean. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age! From jk Mon Mar 18 16:48:51 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:48:51 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <314DBF76.1EF0@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 18, 96 01:54:30 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 796 Status: RO > A liberal society (or more precisely government) is silent on the question of > the substantive good. The only good of liberal politics is the procedural > good of liberty, which will allow individuals to pursue their own conceptions > of the substantive good. People say this and write books about it, but isn't it clear that contemporary liberalism *does* define the substantive good, as maximum equal satisfaction of preferences? I don't see anything procedural about "try to give 'em all whatever they want." We now have the welfare state, so it's not just noncoercion any more. Government action to promote prosperity is bedrock in contemporary liberal societies. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age! From jk Thu Mar 21 05:57:39 1996 Subject: Re: Socrates' Impiety To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 05:57:39 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <960320073638_172833715@emout10.mail.aol.com> from "Bill Riggs" at Mar 20, 96 07:36:38 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 879 Status: RO > Feudalism as a paleoconservative prototype ? It does > have a certain resonance, doesn't it ? Sort of a "Give me your freedom and > I'll be your local robber baron for life" deal. That's about as paleo as I > can imagine. I don't think Hoppe has feudalism in mind, any more than people who like a more centralized system have Pharaonic Egypt in mind. Feudalism as we know it was based on kingship and resulted from the need for strong local defensive forces due to invasions from Vikings, Magyars, Saracens and the like. That's why I mentioned medieval Iceland, the only polity in which pre-medieval European (non-Mediterranean) political institutions were able to develop in a reasonably stable setting as a possible model for what he has in mind. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From jk Thu Mar 21 06:09:50 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 06:09:50 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3150FFD9.7447@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 21, 96 01:06:01 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1530 Status: RO > > I'm not quite sure what's meant here. Suppose Calvinism had the same > > status in America that liberal relativism does now, so that what the > > government and other authoritative social institutions did and said was > > consistent with Calvinism, and the Supreme Court stepped in whenever > > (for example) public institutions put on ceremonies that expressed some > > inconsistent viewpoint. On the other hand, anyone could make speeches > > and write books against Calvinism, send his kids to non-Calvinistic > > schools if he was willing and able to pay the tuition, and so on. > > Would you then say that America had a civil religion? > > Calvinism cannot properly function as a civil religion, as I understand the > term. Actually, I meant it as a question about civil religion rather than about Calvinism. I think you said something like "The United States never had a civil religion even in Tocqueville's time because a civil religion is something legally enforced and placed beyond question." That seemed an extraordinarily strong definition and I wasn't sure why you were insisting on it, so I described a situation in which something everyone would agree to call a religion held the position that our current ruling ideology holds. I wanted to know whether in that case you would say the U.S. had a civil religion and if not, what was so crucially important about what was lacking. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From jk Thu Mar 21 06:26:52 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 06:26:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3151036F.1B0A@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 21, 96 01:21:19 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1568 Status: RO > As I see it, "giving them all whatever they want" could be interpreted two > ways, negatively or positively. > > If negatively, this phrase would secure the right of the individual to do > anything he wants as long as he doesn't interfere with the equal right of > others. This is a purely procedural conception of the good. The good for that > society is liberty which is a means (procedure) to an end (substance), not an > end in itself. > > If positively, the phrase seems to approximate the Marxian "...to each > according to his need." I don't think this is liberalism. To the extent that > contemporary society works toward this end, it is socialist, not liberal in > any philosophical meaning of the term. But interference with the equal right of others can be and is taken to include permitting a social system to exist that fails to give to each according to his need or whatever the standard is. The idea is that a society that denies some people access to decent housing and medical care or excludes them from equal participation in activities interferes with their equal rights. I suppose the issue is whether there are natural and therefore prepolitical rules of property. If there aren't then I don't think the distinction you mention can be maintained. If there's a legitimate philosophical argument that there aren't then contemporary liberalism is philosophically legitimate as a development of classical liberalism. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From jk Thu Mar 21 06:36:45 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 06:36:45 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <315108E8.1CEF@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 21, 96 01:44:40 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 508 Status: RO > I believe that > liberalism is spiritually bankrupt; I do not know exactly how to remedy this. There aren't any remedies, any more than there is a remedy for a shipwreck. Liberal society is the End of History, but unfortunately it doesn't work. Nonetheless, life must go on. Therefore the Robinson/Kalb proposal for separatism+international law, a sort of minimal federalism. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From jk Thu Mar 21 09:30:38 1996 Subject: Re: Collectivism To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:30:38 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960320223929.0070e9f8@swva.net> from "seth williamson" at Mar 20, 96 05:39:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1205 Status: RO > I am still unclear what Paul means by the matter of >"externalization," though. I sense that he has in mind some >special failing of catholics, but I don't am not clear on what it >is. Catholics emphasize the Church and its hierarchy more than protestants. The Church is strong, wise, holy and beneficent in spiritual things; individually we are less so. Such thoughts might suggest to some a division of labor: the Church (identified with its hierarchy) takes care of the spiritual stuff it's good at and the rest of us take care of the not- particularly-spiritual personal concerns that we are expert in. We get the benefits of what the Church does by participation in the sacraments, by the prayers of the saints for us, and in general by acceptance of Church authority in its special province. Maybe something of the sort is what Paul means by externalization. If it is, it *does* seem a failing to which catholics would be more prone than protestants. (I don't mean that catholics must have that failing or that protestants don't have that and other failings.) -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From jk Thu Mar 21 14:54:26 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 14:54:26 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3151A488.6E6E@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 21, 96 12:48:40 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1992 Status: RO > Specifically, in the your example, "that anyone could make speeches or write > books against [the civil religion]" would seem to undermine the principle. > The purpose of the civil religion is to secure a minimum dogma so that debate > can take place; it provides a moral consensus wherein discussions of morality > have sense--as they do not in any meaningful way in contemporary liberal > society. But there *are* discussions of morality in liberal society based on a consensus as to the nature of the Good, that it consists in maximum equal fulfillment of preferences, to be realized by social policy. For example, economic conservatives say that there should be a little more fulfillment and a little less equality, while economic progressives say the contrary. That's an argument within the consensus that can be carried on with each side understanding the other while disagreeing. The neocons by and large tried to stay within the consensus, justifying for example a few nods in the direction of religion and family values on the grounds that those thing are needed in the long run to maximize the consensus common good. Difficulties of the sort your conception of civil religion is intended to address arise when someone proposes something altogether outside the consensus, like getting rid of the managerial national state or making abortion illegal or restricting immigration for the purpose of furthering cultural coherence. The solution is not legal but social -- to treat such people as outsiders who have nothing legitimate to say, to call them bigots and hatemongers, etc. In general, I think the solution has worked, and if it stops working its failure won't result from failure to illegalize the religious right and so on but rather from the inability of the consensus understanding of the Good to serve as the basis of a tolerable society. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From jk Thu Mar 21 15:22:34 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 15:22:34 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3151B17B.7C9F@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 21, 96 01:43:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1650 Status: RO > However, this "End of History" nonsense has no > relation to reality. In the real world, history continues whether or not > intellectuals have declared its end. We are caught within history. We have no > perspective outside it, no Archimedian point, from which to determine its > End. I intended "End of History" simply as a hyperbolic way of saying "civilizational crisis". It means that a line of development has come to an end and there is nowhere else to go. I thought you and Francesca had some sympathy for that view. > Separatism + international law sounds like to ethnic war + oppressive world > empire. I dunno. Europe lasted for centuries as a great civilization composed of many independent states that recognized international law to some degree. You are right however that nonterritorial separatism tends to mean despotic government, as in the traditional Middle East. Maybe there is something about modern conditions, like the greater productivity of free economies, that will help us avoid despotism even in the absence of a coherent people to hold government to account. Again, I dunno. If I had any suggestions for how to set up utopia I'd be sure to let everyone know. It seems to me though that in the long run separatism is going to seem more tolerable to people than liberalism, and that the neocon project of saving the public order is going to fail because Irving Kristol would have to establish a new religion that everyone would accept for it to succeed, and that's not going to happen. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From mystuff.new Sat Mar 23 22:12:58 1996 From jk Sat Mar 23 06:49:38 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:49:38 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <31531757.438@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 22, 96 03:10:47 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4885 Status: RO >> But there *are* discussions of morality in liberal society based on a >> consensus as to the nature of the Good, that it consists in maximum >> equal fulfillment of preferences, to be realized by social policy. > >But here is the difference. "Equal fulfillment of individual preferences" is >a conception in which "goods" are defined by individual humans; the nature of >the Good, what is right by nature, derives from the nature of man. The >former exalts liberty as the procedural means to individual attainment of >these goods; the latter penetrates to the substance of man as a being >dependent upon a higher power. I'm still not sure what procedure has to do with it. Presumably "equal fulfillment of individual preferences" as the Good is based on a view of the nature of man, that man is the source of value in a world in which there is no God. In such a world, to be valued by man is to be valuable, just as in a world in which God exists to be valued by God is to be valuable. In the former world the social order exalts procedural means to individual preferences, in the latter procedural means to the beatific vision. In both worlds there is a good and means to that good, with government concerned mostly with means. >The former consists of myriad goods with no Highest Good Sure there's a Highest Good for liberalism, it's having one's own way. Socially speaking, it's a system of things in which as much as possible all men have their own way. >The former is particular and potentially >different with every human being; the latter is universal because it >transcends the merely human and receives its authority from eternity. Why shouldn't the beatific vision be very different for different people, depending on their varying qualities and capacities? In contrast, "I want to have my own way" is the same for all of us. >Do discussions of the >"good" take place in liberal society? Of course, for as Aristotle said, all >men seek what appears to be good. Do these discussions reach a point where >they could become meaningful for authentic human order? Rarely. And when they >do, it is in spite of the liberal hegemony, not because of it. "Meaningful for authentic human order" sounds like you're asking whether the liberal understanding of the Good is a satisfactory one. That's a good question, but it's different from the one with which we started, whether liberalism is specifically procedural, or in other words whether it is really based on the precedence of the right to the good and so is uniquely qualified to arbitrate among competing conceptions of the Good. I don't think it is; like other moral systems it's based on a particular conception of the Good. That doesn't mean I think the liberal understanding of the Good is right. >Yet they agree that man is fundamentally a material >being who must have his physical needs met first I'm not sure this is so. Most consensus thinkers would sacrifice bodily welfare for the sake of freedom, equality, autonomy, nondiscrimination, etc. Mainstream conservatives for example don't like laws against smoking not because smoking is such a physical pleasure but because it's something some people happen to feel like doing. Established moral thought takes seriously spiritual needs like the importance of getting your own way just because it's your way, not having to recognize anyone as better than you, not getting dissed, etc. The emphasis on physical well-being and comfort arises less I think from a high theoretical value placed on those things than from the fact that people do in fact like them and they're easier to promote for all than spiritual desires such as superior social position. >You seem to be >saying that there is no right order other than the consensus that exists in a >particular society at a particular time. No, all I am saying is that liberalism is a moral order and as such it has structural resemblances to other moral orders. It's based on a conception of the Good that has both universal and individualized aspects, it recognizes man as both a physical and a spiritual being with needs in both spheres, it attempts to maintain its status as social orthodoxy by keeping dissenters out of the conversation, etc. The point matters because liberalism claims to be in a different logical category from all other moral views so that it's somehow neutral whereas (for example) Islam is not. Therefore establishing liberalism is supposed to be more principled and disinterested establishing a particular religion. That claim seems to me false. Instead of being permitted to claim a position of neutral superiority, liberalism has to be evaluated as a moral order on a par with other possible moral orders. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From mystuff.new Sat Mar 23 22:12:59 1996 From jk Sat Mar 23 21:52:00 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 21:52:00 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <315473F0.64D2@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 23, 96 03:58:08 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4548 Status: RO Neal Fuller writes: >> I'm still not sure what procedure has to do with it. > >Liberalism's "good," then, is procedural because it values liberty, the >means to true human ends, rather than those ends themselves. When people speak of liberty they always have something specific in mind connected to their conception of the Good. Otherwise, why care about it? Some people think that it is in the service of God that perfect freedom is found. If such people are neither liberals nor liars, it must be the choice of goods rather than the love of freedom that defines liberalism. The liberty contemplated by liberalism used to be liberty to accumulate property, because that was understood to be the Good, and now it is liberty to follow impulse and feeling because satisfaction of those things has become recognized as the Good. In both cases the content of liberty is dictated by the nature of the Good. Freedom of economic contract used to be essential to liberty but now sexual freedom is. The change has nothing to do with procedure. (As an aside, it's interesting that "liberty" has become a term used mostly by right-wing extremists, as in Liberty Lobby, Liberty University, etc. Contemporary liberalism prefers "liberation.") >When I say liberalism, I think of a purist libertarian position that >would leave it to the individual, not government, to "fulfill" any >preferences (again, the distiction between negative and positive >liberty); I do not think of any form of government that would >redistribute wealth or otherwise level the playing field for all >members of society (this is socialism). We've discussed this, so we'll just have to disagree. What you describe is not what people today believe who in good faith call themselves liberals. Maybe what we disagree on is whether what is now called liberalism in America is a legitimate development of classical liberalism. I think it is. What's the import of liberal social contract theory if not that human will is the basis of obligation and value? It seems to me that contemporary liberalism carries out that basic principle more perfectly than classical liberalism did. >Also, this "view of the nature of man" that you describe is a perverted >view of man's nature. That doesn't mean it's not a view of the nature of man or that it's not the basis of liberalism. Maybe in the long run it doesn't work; if it doesn't, the same is true of liberalism. >The view that you describe is not necessarily associated with >liberalism. I don't consider liberalism all that different from other views on the Left. >All can agree that having "their own way" is "good" under a liberal >regime because the substance of what they *actually do* is never >touched. At the level of the substantive good, disagreement will >necessarily arise. The substantive good in liberalism is simply having one's own way. There are no further goods that add anything to the force of that good. You are right that the substantive good recognized by liberalism, like the substantive good recognized by heroic society, leads to conflict. The conflict might be handled by formal procedures like the rules for settling disputes over property. That was the approach taken by classical liberalism. The current approach is for social planners to come up with rules that maximize equal satisfaction of preferences, an approach that has nothing much to do with procedure. It doesn't matter whether it's politicians, bureaucrats, judges or the U.N. who does it so long as it gets done correctly. The current approach does give rise to the difficulty we discussed earlier, that there is no obvious way to decide whether to favor equality or efficiency, but I don't think that difficulty bears on the points we are discussing. I have the impression you find my approach frustrating. The reasons I take it are: 1. People fundamentally don't care about procedures, they care about goods, and liberals are people. Therefore concentrating on the liberal conception of the Good gives us a better idea of what's really going on. 2. It's easier to compare liberalism with other moral views if you analyze it in a similar fashion. 3. The analysis I present accounts better for contemporary liberalism, and for the sense liberals have that it is a legitimate and even necessary continuation of the liberal tradition. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From mystuff.new Sat Mar 23 22:12:59 1996 From jk Sat Mar 23 07:21:33 1996 Subject: Re: Posting Guidelines To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 07:21:33 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Christopher Lodge Stamper" at Mar 22, 96 10:22:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 667 Status: RO > __ This is the NEOCON-L List. It exists to discuss neocons and > neoconservatism. Hence the name. Please take discussions that aren't about > those two things to e-mail. > > __ This is not a politics list or a general politics list or even a > general conservatism list. Nor is this a place to drag over subjects > that were beaten to death on another list or newsgroup. How can you discuss neoconservatism intelligently without discussing the political and spiritual crisis of liberalism and dealing with other possible responses? -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From jk Sun Mar 24 21:09:19 1996 Subject: Re: American Civil Religion To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 21:09:19 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3155D2D7.3557@premier.net> from "Neal Fuller" at Mar 24, 96 04:55:19 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3942 Status: RO >I am speaking of liberalism as an organizing principle of a government, a >regime. Yes, the citizens of such a regime will have a conception of what is >good. Some of these people may believe that their conception is only valid >for them (in which case they would be true believers in liberal government); I would have thought that a "conception of the good" understood by the person holding it as valid only to the extent it is actually held would not be a conception of the good. What is the distinction between viewing conceptions of the good as valid but only for those who hold them and equating the good to the satisfaction of personal preference? >I want to find what is essential, the same, in all liberal regimes. How >can you rationally apply a word to movements that you recognize to be >so very different. They differ as the bud and the blossom. Liberal social contract theory means that no good or other evaluative quality transcends actual human wills. Therefore the best regime is the one that gives men's wills maximum free play. At first the best way to promote that end is to limit state power to the extent possible by substituting uniform abstract rules of property for government decisions that supervene on individual wills, and bringing government decisions as much as possible into line with men's actual wills through representative government. Later the conception of government as facilitator of the satisfaction of private desire develops, and welfare state liberalism replaces classical liberalism without the fundamental goal changing. The later development brings to fruition what was implicit in liberalism all along, even though government as facilitator of satisfaction has nothing to do with procedure and everything to do with what is thought to be good. >I know people use the term "liberalism" to describe all kinds of views, >just as most on the Left call anyone they disagree with "fascists." I >want to leave the world of epithet for the world of rational >discussion. When intelligent and scholarly welfare-state liberals including renowned philosophers like John Rawls describe themselves as liberals the word is not being used as an epithet. The usage is in good faith and all but universal, and an adequate theory of liberalism must explain why that is so. >Individuals do not care about procedures like rights? All we hear about today >are the assaults upon individual rights to do this or that. Rights are no longer primarily procedural. Abortion, self-expression and equal dignity are not procedural matters. The contemporary liberal view is that any procedure (e.g., majority rule or freedom of contract) that denies them is _pro tanto_ invalid no matter how good a procedure it is. >I think you see liberalism as a worldview concerning individual action; >I see liberalism as a political theory, as an option for regime >formation. Man is a social animal, so the regime under which we live sinks into our souls. Is there any substantial number of people who favor liberal political theory even though they don't like it personally? >You look at political symbols on the level of phenomena (opinions) and >gather together similar characteristics of these opinions, much like a >biologist would develop a taxonomy by looking at the appearance of >various animals, and seeing similar phenomenal characteristics, would >create classifications. I think it's good for a theory to preserve the phenomena. I also think that if A turns into B and everyone involved in B, including many intelligent and thoughtful people, think the change was natural, then chances are A and B have something important in common. I agree that it's a biologist's approach. Aristotle thought that's an OK way to study politics. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From jk Mon Mar 25 12:55:13 1996 Subject: Re: Triage: Our Dying Children To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:55:13 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3156A789@mailgate.brooklyn.cuny.edu> from "Edward Kent" at Mar 23, 96 10:46:00 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3271 Status: RO Edward Kent writes: >One of the reasons that I do not disfavor abortion is my horror at the >fate of unwanted children. Which is better, if the attitude toward children is that every child is valuable no matter what, or that children have a right to exist as long as they fit into someone's plans? It seems to me permissive abortion expresses a move from the former to the latter position. You mention China, where there is a long tradition of infanticide and where coerced abortion is said to be common, and the United States, where the right to abortion has been authoritatively recognized as part of our fundamental law, and where after recognition of abortion as a fundamental right the well-being of children declined in spite of rising educational levels, smaller families, increased per capita income, and more public money spent on children. So I'm not sure your examples help your argument. >The upshot of this is that here in the United States we seem now >embarked on a program of abandonment of our neediest children -- but >triage in a prosperous nation is far more questionable than one barely >able to provide economic necessities to a massive population. > >My appeal for a civil morality, I guess, begins with my sense that we >(Americans) need to get our act together so as to make a place for the >least of us. It sounds as if you believe that if children are suffering the problem is that America is not doing something about it, with a possible implication that the appropriate way for America to act is through government social programs that make each sufferer the direct object of the care of the country as a whole. If that is the implication, it seems to me a mistaken way of looking at things. Childcare can't be arranged and administered by the government because on the whole it won't be done tolerably unless the child is taken care of by particular adults living in a stable setting each of whom feels a necessary responsibility for the child. As a practical matter that means that on the whole there's no substitute for the permanent two-parent biological family. Neither the government, "America", nor "society" can create families by administrative means. So the single most important things society at large can do is to establish social standards that favor the family, and get rid of things that tend to undermine it. The former include traditional standards of personal responsibility and sexual morality, and the latter include government programs that tend to transfer responsibility and authority away from parents. So if you're worried about children, it seems to me the civil morality you favor should be a lot like that of the Christian Right. =>As to NEOCONS, Norman Podhoretz mentions in his elegy for NEOCONSERVATISM that the NEOCONS originally distinguished themselves from the Old Right by their acceptance of the New Deal, and only wanted to fine-tune the welfare state so that its benefits would be greater than the damage inflicted on traditional social structures. Since then they're thrown in the towel and turned anti-welfare just like the Old Right. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From jk Mon Mar 25 18:42:14 1996 Subject: Re: Triage: Our Dying Children To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 18:42:14 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <31571D88@mailgate.brooklyn.cuny.edu> from "Edward Kent" at Mar 25, 96 05:27:00 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1607 Status: RO > Probably the > solution to this problem is multiple and complicated. Private organizations, > (e.g. Covenant House) are able to cope with about 1 out of ten run away > adolescents, I understand. We probably need to bring together all sorts of > resources: moral, economic, educational, non-governmental and governmental > working together to deal with the problem which seems to be worsening. I suggested what I thought the most important response should be, and expressed skepticism about the ability of government programs or overall social policy to do much good, largely because such things tend to undercut the most important response. > I thought that this is what > neo-conservativism is about (the "end of ideology") -- mobilizing and > applying the best of our traditional values? "[B]ring[ing] together all sorts of resources ... working together to deal with the problem" and "mobilizing and applying the best of our traditional values" suggest to me a technological attitude toward social issues which is that of modern liberalism and which I think is hopeless. The story of neoconservatism is the story of a few intellectuals and journalists and their step-by-step break with that attitude. I could say more about what I > understand to be the sources of neo-conservatism which I don't find clearly > expressed here. That would please our esteemed listowner who will otherwise no doubt shut us down no matter how many times I put NEOCONSERVATIVE in all caps. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From jk Tue Mar 26 05:39:16 1996 Subject: Re: Evangelism To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 05:39:16 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Christopher Lodge Stamper" at Mar 25, 96 10:49:56 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1123 Status: RO > You guys want to bait them on family values so > you can give them sacerdotalism. I really don't understand this. Most evangelistic approaches I know of start with finding a common concern described in language immediately understandable to the person addressed. Then a conversation begins that permits broader and deeper issues to be addressed. Do you: 1. Dislike the whole approach, so that instead of the kind of ad the original poster used you'd buy enough space to include the whole of _The Institutes of the Christian Religion_, 2. Think the general approach is OK but starting the conversation by mentioning "traditional values" is bad because Bill Bennett could start a conversation the same way, or 3. Think the approach is OK and mentioning traditional values is OK but consider it fraudulent to do so on behalf of the ACC because it's clear that no one should join the ACC so it's part of a deceitful attempt to induce people to do something against their own best interest? -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Egad, a base tone denotes a bad age. From panix!not-for-mail Sat Mar 30 22:40:24 EST 1996 Article: 7387 of alt.revolution.counter Path: panix!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: The sixties Date: 30 Mar 1996 17:27:37 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 47 Message-ID: <4jkcgp$k6l@panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com Does anybody have comments on the following account of what happened in the 60s and their aftermath? I know some on a.r.c. might think Newt Gingrichy worries about the 60s are _infra dig_ when there are vast Spenglerian cycles to contemplate, but it's been dull. If no one comments I'll start posting ads about meeting oriental babes or making $$$$$ in your spare time. You've been warned. The 60s were marked by the rejection of degraded forms of tradition and reason in favor of direct experience. More specifically, they saw the collapse of an unstable compound of adherence to traditional norms and worship of technology that in practice meant idolization of inoffensiveness, comfort, security, and small pleasures. The way of life that compound created was fundamentally hedonistic, so it lacked principles to justify the limitations that defined it and made it safe and reliable. The only thing backing those limitations was conformity to the expectations of others. People grew tired of living with limitations that seemed arbitrary. TV freed people from their immediate surroundings and created dreams of immediate and effortless gratification. The baselessness of existing standards led to a weariness with distinctions, with striving, and with the human world generally. The consequences included evironmentalism, egalitarianism, pantheism, and a preference for experience in the form that is least conceptual and most readily available, that is, pure sensation. In addition, the triviality of American life created a renewed thirst for the transcendent. That thirst, however, combined with a tendency to look for the transcendent in overwhelmingly intense experience rather than in something beyond experience, a tendency reflecting the existing treatment of sensory experience as the supreme reality. Since the 60s nothing decisive has happened. Disappointments have caused interest in the transcendent to recede and led to a desire in respectable circles to eliminate that interest to the extent possible. Egalitarianism with respect to non-economic matters has become more radical and more fully institutionalized. Many people now think that a more tolerant and egalitarian form of the 50s would be a good idea without being able to say clearly what such a thing would look like. Some few want desperately to keep faith with the 60s, but the prospects seem bleak. Others just avoid large-scale thinking to the extent possible and pride themselves on seeking particular solutions to particular questions. In the mean time intellectual and social decline continues. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena. From panix!not-for-mail Mon Apr 1 17:30:42 EST 1996 Article: 7393 of alt.revolution.counter Path: panix!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Upbeat, inclusive Buchananism? Date: 1 Apr 1996 08:50:27 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 33 Message-ID: <4jomv3$n05@panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com The _New York Times_ had an article yesterday (Sunday) purporting to show that the extreme right has limited influence among Republican voters. The only issues discussed, which apparently define the "extreme right" so far as the _Times_ is concerned, were outlawing abortion, restricting immigration, and whether the country's problems are primarily moral or economic. What I get out of the article is that established mainstream opinion, which I suppose the _Times_ must represent, has no use for the concerns of the majority of Americans who favor reducing immigration and making most abortions illegal, and are deeply troubled by issues of social morality. That impression is confirmed by an offhand reference elsewhere, in an ordinary news story, to the support of "most Americans" for affirmative action. Under the circumstances, the question that comes to my mind is whether the Right should position itself as the party of inclusion, reaching out to the alienated and disenfranchised (such as religious conservatives and NRA members), denouncing the divisiveness of transfer payments, the legal privileges conferred by the civil rights laws, and the national establishment by the Supreme Court of a contested vision of the good society, and holding out hope for a society of true diversity and mutual respect (otherwise known as federalism). Pat Buchanan has spoken of inclusiveness, but he's a very combative man and rhetorical habits seem to die hard. Why not speak of "returning to America" instead of "taking back America", for example? It seems to me that some such presentation is the one most likely to be successful among the American people at large. Any thoughts? -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena. From panix!not-for-mail Mon Apr 1 17:30:48 EST 1996 Article: 49694 of alt.society.conservatism Path: panix!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.society.conservatism Subject: Re: Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Date: 1 Apr 1996 13:35:40 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 13 Message-ID: <4jp7ls$fos@panix.com> References: <4joevm$87g@panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com In mcculloch@mail.utexas.edu (Jim McCulloch) writes: >"FAQ" means "frequently asked questions." Nobody frequently asks these >questions. This is more like a catechism. Why don't you call it that? As the preamble states, it's intended to summarize the common questions and objections regarding conservatism and answer them. I think it does that, but then I drafted it and my experience may be very different >from yours. Which items do you think no one cares about? What questions and objections should be included but aren't? -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena. From panix!not-for-mail Fri Apr 5 05:39:26 EST 1996 Article: 7397 of alt.revolution.counter Path: panix!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: Upbeat, inclusive Buchananism? Date: 2 Apr 1996 06:26:20 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 29 Message-ID: <4jr2ss$45r@panix.com> References: <4jomv3$n05@panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com In Thomas Woods writes: >Of course, part of me recoils from a strategy that appropriates the >language of our enemies, but another part of me knows very well that this >approach would infuriate them. They've developed their language because it works as propaganda. Expressions like "inclusiveness", "access" and "reaching out" on the one hand and "hate" on the other aren't the natural way to describe the destruction of all local and traditional institutions in favor of bureaucratic uniformity. One difficulty of course is that intentional development of a language for propagandistic reasons corresponds to a technological approach to life and therefore to modernism rather than traditionalism. >Also, Pat (or anyone else) should put Clinton/Dole and the whole >Establishment on the defensive. Demand reasons why we can't have real >self-government. I just can't imagine that too many people, when forced >to consider the issue, would decide that they want all major political >decisions made by an entrenched class in Washington and an imperial >Supreme Court. Liberal control of the media means that it is possible to avoid awkward questions endlessly. The advantage of a political campaign emphasizing principle is that it brings other views to people's attention with less media filtering and prepackaging. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From panix!not-for-mail Fri Apr 5 05:39:27 EST 1996 Article: 7399 of alt.revolution.counter Path: panix!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: Upbeat, inclusive Buchananism? Date: 2 Apr 1996 21:40:03 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 20 Message-ID: <4jsoe3$4ps@panix.com> References: <4jomv3$n05@panix.com> <4jr2ss$45r@panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com In Thomas Woods writes: >have you ever read Robert Nisbet's book, >_The Quest for Community_? No, I'll look for it. >What are your feelings on Pat running on a third-party ticket? I dunno. The top Republicans don't think he's one of them, and maybe they're right. On the other hand, I don't think splitting the Republican party would be a good idea unless the party formally rejects its right wing, which isn't likely. I suppose what I'd like best is a small third party that isn't big enough to give elections to the Democrats but can articulate its positions convincingly and get enough votes to draw attention. Presumably the existence of such a party would bolster Pat's position in the Republican Party. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From panix!not-for-mail Fri Apr 5 05:39:28 EST 1996 Article: 7402 of alt.revolution.counter Path: panix!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: Signs Your Political System Has Collapsed Date: 3 Apr 1996 17:11:54 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 32 Message-ID: <4jut3a$nek@panix.com> References: <4jsn7i$796@arther.castle.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com In <4jsn7i$796@arther.castle.net> drotov@mail.castle.net (dimitri rotov) writes: >Ten warning signs your political system has collapsed >(with apologies to pop culture): This deserves to be circulated further, but first shouldn't it be put into the customary reverse order? >2. He is the unopposed choice of his party for > a second term. >3. He is the overwhelming choice of poll >respondents. >5. The insurmountable social and economic >problems of his predecessors have mysteriously >disappeared from news reports. >6. His opposition considers itself "extreme." >7. After a 40-year wait, his opposition takes >control of a branch of government, then runs out >of things to do after 6 months. Signs no one in the political establishment has any idea what to do, and are terrified someone might start asking questions because if that happens it will be the end of the world. >4. His wife has announced her co-presidency. >10. Bands of armed men gather in the countryside. Sounds like the end of a Chinese dynasty. Earthquakes and floods will be a sure sign of the loss of the Mandate. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From panix!not-for-mail Fri Apr 5 05:39:29 EST 1996 Article: 7408 of alt.revolution.counter Path: panix!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: Upbeat, inclusive Buchananism? Date: 4 Apr 1996 18:46:53 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 18 Message-ID: <4k1n1d$bfj@panix.com> References: <4jr2ss$45r@panix.com> <4jomv3$n05@panix.com> <19648523wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com In <19648523wnr@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> rafael cardenas writes: >> One difficulty of course is that intentional >> development of a language for propagandistic reasons corresponds to a >> technological approach to life and therefore to modernism rather than >> traditionalism. >Could one say that of Virgil, I wonder? It's an interesting issue. Maybe if I knew enough I could come up with a theory about the relationship between language and post-constitutional government. Early Confucian worries about the rectification of names suggest that related issues also came up in China during the Warring States Period, after the decline of feudal and ritualistic Chou and during the rise of Legalist Ch'in. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From panix!not-for-mail Fri Apr 5 05:39:30 EST 1996 Article: 7409 of alt.revolution.counter Path: panix!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: The sixties Date: 4 Apr 1996 18:56:52 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 20 Message-ID: <4k1nk4$d0p@panix.com> References: <4jkcgp$k6l@panix.com> <4jpb4t$rit@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> <4jpofq$d0p@panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com In tsar@linex.com (W$) writes: >>>: Since the 60s nothing decisive has happened. >How about the fall of Communism? I was speaking about domestic U.S. politics and culture. It seems to me that the main effect of the fall of Communism here has been to let existing tendencies follow their own laws more freely. >How about the militia movement? They may indicate what will happen in the future, but so far there has been nothing decisive. Your other examples didn't seem to me to have the revolutionary significance of the events of the 60s. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From jk Wed Mar 27 21:33:53 1996 Subject: Re: One Last Neocon Article To: NEOCON-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 21:33:53 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Chris Stamper" at Mar 27, 96 07:45:53 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 696 Status: RO > The confusion of our times has led us to the > point of what Professor Glazer calls the "crippling > ambiguity" of not knowing whether we want to > celebrate great events or mourn them. And if so, how > to do so. This has powerfully effected our ability to > build monuments. It's interesting that the Korean War and Vietnam War monuments here in NYC are populist structures that look like and probably were designed and financed by ex-GIs rather than the authorities. Not a good sign. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: A new order began, a more Roman age bred Rowena. From jk Fri Apr 5 14:22:20 1996 Subject: Re: PoliticsUSA.com To: southernleague@polaris.net Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 14:22:20 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <9604051421.AA19961@saturn.med.pitt.edu> from "Steven Latulippe" at Apr 5, 96 09:21:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 823 Status: RO > The fact is: this guy is a looney toon, left wing, ultra-liberal > hateful terrorist who has killed and maimed dozens of people because > he thinks that the human race is polluting the environment. Is he really a liberal? In his manifesto he said very harsh things about liberals and the left. He's wholly opposed to the modern managerial state, without which liberalism is unthinkable. His comments on conservatives were much milder, he just thinks they're stupid and don't see how deep the problems of modern society go. You're right, of course, that the media have a soft spot for environmentalist terrorism and would never come down hard on academia, least of all Harvard and Berkeley, or the 60s. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From jk Fri Apr 5 17:39:33 1996 Subject: Re: PoliticsUSA.com To: southernleague@polaris.net Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 17:39:33 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <9604052000.AA17980@earth.med.pitt.edu> from "Steven Latulippe" at Apr 5, 96 03:00:19 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 709 Status: RO > Is the unabomber liberal? Although he had harsh things to say about > liberalism in his "manifesto", I still think that it is undeniable that > he is a creature of the political left. He is a radical environmentalist, > hates industrial capitalism, and was spawned in the hard-core leftism > of U. Cal Berk and Harvard. I agree that he is a non-conservative radical whose thought features themes and reasoning often found on the left, and that makes it difficult for the media to attack his thought as they attack that of right-wing radicals and people they think of as right-wing radicals. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From panix!not-for-mail Sat Apr 6 12:59:23 EST 1996 Article: 7413 of alt.revolution.counter Path: panix!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Re: The sixties Date: 5 Apr 1996 15:01:29 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 41 Message-ID: <4k3u6p$df3@panix.com> References: <4jkcgp$k6l@panix.com> <4jpb4t$rit@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> <4jpofq$d0p@panix.com> <4k1nk4$d0p@panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com In tsar@linex.com (W$) writes: >The fall of Communism has removed the "Boogy Man" from defense considerations >after some 90 years. It has already caused major effects in the economy, and >will continue to cause major restructuring for a long long time. For one thing >it will give the U.S. govt. the ability to turn control inward ... instead of >outward. Foreign enemies usually make domestic discipline and control easier to maintain. That was what I meant when I said that the major domestic effect of the fall of communism was to make it easier for existing (disintegrative) trends to follow their own laws. As to major economic effects, they are always with us from one source or another. I don't see anything special about the ones to which you refer. >No? Some 50,000 card carrying members, and some millions of supporters? Tell >me of some comparable level of armed resistors to the use of Federal Power >from the 60's. The militias aren't engaging in material armed resistence to anything, and I don't think it's likely they will any time soon. Riots and draftdodging during the 60s involved far more resistence to government than anything they've undertaken. >You don't think it's revolutionary to allow collapse of the American banking >system in order to allow a small group of people to skim fortunes from foreign >"investments" that are little more than frauds. Not to mention the attendent >loss of jobs in this country, to create jobs in others? >How does this compare to a bunch of hippies rolling in the mud and screaming >at the sky in upstate New York? The single most important thing in politics, I think, is the assumptions people have about what's important in life, what people owe each other and society at large, the purpose of politics, what people accept as authority, and so on. Those things have been transformed since the 60s by trends set in motion by rolling and screaming hippies, among others. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From panix!not-for-mail Sat Apr 6 12:59:24 EST 1996 Article: 7417 of alt.revolution.counter Path: panix!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter, Subject: Re: Upbeat, inclusive Buchananism? Date: 6 Apr 1996 06:37:43 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 37 Message-ID: <4k5l27$r0v@panix.com> References: <4jomv3$n05@panix.com> <4k55fo$rn0@pipe12.nyc.pipeline.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com In <4k55fo$rn0@pipe12.nyc.pipeline.com> jfcarney@nyc.pipeline.com (John F. Carney) writes: >it should not be our business to >compromise our principles, to silence our complaints, or to abandon our >point of view to 'bring us together.' >Is it inclusiveness? Perhaps, if by >"inclusive" we mean something like what Richard Weaver meant when he >claimed that all acts of inclusion were, by neccessity, acts of exclusion, >as well. Inclusiveness is of course the ultimate in exclusion, because it takes the position that your opponents fundamentally don't exist or anyway need not be taken into account. The relation between liberal inclusiveness and the groups I mentioned, conservative Christians, the NRA, and people worried about abortion, immigration or moral chaos, is rather clearly evidenced by the _New York Times_ articles that started off this thread. One way to succeed is to act as if fundamentally you've already done so. Presumably conservatives believe that their principles are the principles that can and by rights should "bring us together", and today they are in a position to assert plausibly that the Left has already lost even though some people don't yet realize what's happened with sufficient clarity. So really my suggestion is that we speak and act more as if that were the case, as if our views were the central ones and our opponents the extremists. In addressing the country at large, that would mean emphasizing a vision of a self-governing people living together in free communities rather than battles along the way with those who support libertinism and rule by a centralized managerial bureaucracy. We need more "I have a dream" speeches. Or so it seems to me. Happy Easter, and TNT on Tuesday if you're still around. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From panix!not-for-mail Sat Apr 6 12:59:25 EST 1996 Article: 7418 of alt.revolution.counter Path: panix!not-for-mail From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter Subject: Revised freedom of association FAQ Date: 6 Apr 1996 11:22:23 -0500 Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences Lines: 688 Message-ID: <4k65nv$imn@panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com I used to call this the inclusiveness FAQ or some such thing. It's long, but I would appreciate comments. Read it if you wish. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION FAQ March 31, 1996 Draft Antidiscrimination laws and other social policies promoting inclusiveness have great moral prestige and enjoy powerful political support; nonetheless, some people oppose them. This FAQ is intended to respond to questions regarding such opposition in a way that is less abstract than the usual libertarian arguments against coerced association. Accordingly, the responses concentrate on the social and cultural consequences of efforts to implement inclusiveness ideology; to keep the discussion within bounds they deal mostly with the pure antidiscrimination norm established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rather than subsequent developments such as affirmative action. The current version of this FAQ is always available at http://www.panix.com/~jk/inclus.faq. Comments are welcome and should be directed to Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com). QUESTIONS 1. What is inclusiveness? 2. What objection can there be to inclusiveness? 3. Isn't the sort of equality referred to as "inclusiveness" a rather limited one? 4. Why is state action a necessary part of "inclusiveness?" 5. How could discrimination on grounds forbidden by civil rights laws possibly be rational? 6. What is the connection between discrimination and community? 7. Shouldn't communities that define themselves by reference to ethnicity, religion, lifestyle and so on broaden themselves to reflect a fuller appreciation of the richness of humanity? 8. Why try to bring back the past? 9. What specific problems have antidiscrimination rules caused? 10. Weren't civil rights measures necessary to redress evils caused by discrimination? 11. Isn't discrimination based on fear and hatred of "the other"? 12. Doesn't opposition to inclusiveness indicate an inability to deal with difference? 13. Isn't discrimination based on overbroad stereotypes that it would be more intelligent to avoid? 14. How would you like to be discriminated against? 15. What happens to those excluded in a non-inclusive society? 16. Whatever errors or excesses it may sometimes lead to, isn't the ideal of inclusiveness a generous one? 17. If exclusion is morally OK, why are so many conscientious people so very troubled by it? 18. What is the overall political effect of antidiscrimination laws? 19. Isn't it divisive to oppose measures designed to promote inclusiveness? 20. What about Bosnia, the Wars of Religion, and other communal conflicts? 21. Would more discrimination and exclusion really make the world a better place? ANSWERS 1. What is inclusiveness? "Inclusiveness", like "equity" and "access", is a way of talking about equality. Liberals believe as a matter of principle that the benefits of society should be equally available to all, and a basic task of government is to help make them so. As liberalism has developed so have the specific demands of that principle; today it has come to require that persons of every race, ethnicity, religious background, sex, disability status and sexual orientation be able to participate equally in major social activities, with roughly equal receipt of status and rewards the test for equal ability to participate. This requirement of equal participation is referred to as "inclusiveness". 2. What objection can there be to inclusiveness? The demand for inclusiveness is in the end a demand for comprehensive social, political and economic equality brought about by force of law. The objections to it are the usual objections to bureaucratic egalitarianism, that it destroys civil society and crushes the human spirit. After long struggle and enormous destruction the legitimacy of these objections has been conceded in the case of state socialism, but the spirit that gave us state socialism keeps reappearing in new forms. As a result, the destruction and the struggle will continue. 3. Isn't the sort of equality referred to as "inclusiveness" a rather limited one? Not in the long run, since the list of forbidden grounds of exclusion tends to lengthen. Any substantial and durable inequality could easily be held to violate inclusiveness, for example on grounds that it is "classist." Also, the inequalities targeted by measures such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are stubborn, and any serious attempt to eradicate them quickly turns radical. This FAQ, however, will concentrate on objections to comparatively limited and universally-praised measures to promote inclusiveness, such as the rules against race and sex discrimination in employment, and on defense of some of the conduct such measures forbid. 4. Why is state action a necessary part of "inclusiveness?" Even in the absence of state action, a particular organization may choose inclusiveness. If left to go their own way it is not likely that all would do so, however, certainly not to the extent proponents of inclusiveness demand. Intentional discrimination is often rational. Human beings differ, and they have differing affinities for each other. While many differences are purely individual, enough are related to characteristics such as sex and ethnicity for free dealings to lead to a degree of social segmentation even in the absence of intentional discrimination. Where such segmentation arises the social expectations and prejudices to which it gives rise accentuate it. 5. How could discrimination on grounds forbidden by civil rights laws possibly be rational? There are many reasons. One is that similarities of habits, standards and attitudes make it easier for people to associate productively with those of similar background. To take ethnicity and employment discrimination as an example, an ethnic culture is a collection of habits, standards and attitudes that has grown up in a group of people who have lived and worked together for a very long time. Since those who share such things tend to find it easier to work together, they usually prefer to associate with each other for that purpose. The reason diversity is recognized as a major challenge for employers, requiring special training and sensitivity, is that lack of ethnic cohesiveness tends to make cooperation harder. An employer who wanted to limit the number of challenges with which he must deal might reasonably seek out a niche in the market for people to hire just as he might seek out a niche in the market for goods and services to provide. Other forbidden grounds include sex, which all societies always and everywhere have treated as socially important. Even present-day liberals typically recognize mixed company as different from single-sex groups, although they tend to deny that that the mixing can ever be anything but beneficial. Toleration for the views of nearly the entire human race, as well as consideration of the effects of increasingly ill-defined sex roles on family stability and the well-being of children, suggest caution in attempts to create a gender-blind society and willingness to recognize differing roles of the sexes at least in family life. But if sex roles are accepted socially, then men and women will be brought up differently and it will be no more irrational to discriminate between them in employment than to discriminate between candidates whose formal educations differ. Apart from such purely functional issues relating to organizational success, some forbidden grounds of discrimination, such as ethnicity, religion and lifestyle, help define the communities to which people belong. Since community is important, things related to its definition are a reasonable basis for decisions as to affiliation. If a Mormon wants to earn his living working with other Mormons, the better to participate in a distinctively Mormon way of life, he is not acting unreasonably in choosing to do so. 6. What is the connection between discrimination and community? Objections to exclusionary conduct have to do with a wish that the benefits of human society be made equal for everyone. It is easier to make such a wish than to attempt to realize it in a systematic way, because the benefits of human society arise within concrete ways of life carried on by specific communities rather in accordance with an abstract scheme that can be reconfigured at will to meet standards such as equality. Man is a social animal. That means among other things that we all belong to networks of personal connections and groups of "people like us" by reference to whom we understand our lives and find them satisfying or the contrary, and with whom we prefer to deal because when we do we are in a world we understand and trust. Families are the most obvious examples of such communities, but each of us belongs to a variety of others as well. It is our connection to such communities that enables us to form our goals, give them stability, and find them valuable. While many people want to be CEO, very few would bother (if it were somehow p sible) to do the things a CEO does in exchange for the material benefits of the position if they were permanently marooned on a desert island and not allowed to communicate with others about anything except purely business matters. The communities within which we live are never fully inclusive as to religion or lifestyle because they are based in part on beliefs about the world and the good life, and they are rarely so as to ethnicity because communal ties typically include the attitudes and habits people grow up with and a sense of common history and destiny. To try to separate the ways in which men come to enjoy the benefits of society from religion, lifestyle and ethnicity, which is the goal of antidiscrimination legislation, is to try to remove those benefits from a community setting. Such an attempt demonstrates a failure to understand how people come to find their lives worth living. To the extent it is successful it divorces material success from personal loyalties and from any shared understanding of the use to be made of success. These are things that find their home within particular communities, and when ambition is separated from them it becomes self-sufficient and all- consuming. 7. Shouldn't communities that define themselves by reference to ethnicity, religion, lifestyle and so on broaden themselves to reflect a fuller appreciation of the richness of humanity? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Unlimited breadth is impossible because we are finite creatures. Since no single person or society can express the full richness of humanity, the diversity and particularity of human life requires social diversity and particularity. Inclusiveness denies that necessity; one social shoe (the inclusive society) is to be designed that will fit everyone equally well. The Vikings, the Abbasid Caliphate and Heian Japan all achieved splendid things, but it is unlikely that mixing them together would have created something that manifested human capacities better than the three did separately. Each might have profited in its own way by learning from the others, but not by attempting to reconstruct its institutions and usages to make them equally accessible to the other two. In that regard the world is no different now and a thousand years ago. Also, in spite of its diversity mankind may have an essential nature to which some religions and lifestyles correspond better than others. To assert that each society is morally required to be equally open to all religions and lifestyles is to forbid social recognition of such a possibility, and therefore (among other things) to deny the possibility that society can progress morally. Without a notion of moral progress, however, it is hard to make sense of liberalism itself. 8. Why try to bring back the past? Why indeed? The way people live develops in accordance with current conditions and understandings. The argument is not that segregation should be reimposed or that all women should be kept in the kitchen, but rather that association should be based on mutual choice. For the foreseeable future, ethnicity, expectations as to gender and similar prejudices will retain a legitimate and necessary social role, so government efforts to eradicate them by denying freedom of association are ill-conceived and destructive. Just what that role will be will be determined by what people find appropriate and satisfying. To the extent such things no longer serve a function people will come to ignore them; there is no need to assume that bureaucrats and judges the matter better than people do in their own lives. 9. What specific problems have antidiscrimination rules caused? It is difficult to separate the effects of antidiscrimination rules from those resulting from other changes since the early '60s in public policy and accepted public morality. Nonetheless, certain changes for the worse will be impossible to avoid if comprehensive antidiscrimination rules are taken seriously. Liberals often respond to nostalgia for the 50s by pointing out that at that time discrimination was legal and widely practiced. They have a point: a. Since antidiscrimination rules make community more difficult to achieve they result in alienation and the loss of the goods achieved through community. In particular, they make it harder to achieve the compatibility and cohesion needed for a happy and productive workforce and so have the effect of making people poorer and less happy. b. Antidiscrimination rules mean that private organizations are oriented more single-mindedly toward private gain than in the past; people who complain about the Decade of Greed and also favor energetic civil rights enforcement haven't thought things through. Public spirit does not exist in a vacuum, but in a setting of shared goals, understandings and expectations that grow up over time in particular communities. It therefore varies by community: WASP organizations are public-spirited in a WASP style, Jewish organizations in a Jewish style, and so on. If networks of shared understandings weaken within private organizations, as they will if they do not choose their members more from some communities than others, trust will dwindle and public spirit dissipate. c. The abandonment of definite duties within the family implicit in the rejection of stereotypical sex roles results in a less functional family and therefore in problems raising children. The difficulties are compounded by official rejection of the view that birth into a group with shared moral standards (typically, an ethnic or religious group) is fundamental to what one is and creates obligations to which he should submit. Because of that rejection schools and the broader society today necessarily teach children to throw off parental standards and authority; those things are almost always based on ethnic or religious standards that under antidiscrimination ideology cannot be authoritative. d. If the relevance of membership in a particular community to social or economic well-being is an evil to be extirpated there can be no room for traditional systems of mutual assistance based on kinship, community and religion, or for expectations of self-help based on the moral code of a particular community. By definition, such systems tie well- being to the things on which they are based. Also, the traditional expectation that men should support their families and marry the mothers of the children they father places burdens on men that are not identical with those placed on women and therefore fits awkwardly with antidiscrimination principles. Such principles accordingly lead to an increase in the demand for public assistance. 10. Weren't civil rights measures necessary to redress evils caused by discrimination? Many evils have been attributed to discrimination, and it is difficult to discuss them all in a FAQ. Since the position of black people is usually thought to present the strongest case for government intervention, commenting on it may serve as a partial answer. Black people indeed have problems, but statistics suggest that civil rights measures do not do much to solve them. To begin with economics: in 1959 55.1 of blacks and 18.1 of whites were in poverty. By 1966 those percentages had fallen to 41.8 and 11.3 and by 1969 to 32.2 and 9.5. Since then they have not changed much; in 1992 they were 33.3 and 11.6. Thus, in 1992 as in 1959 blacks were about 3 times as likely as whites to be poor; a third of a century of antidiscrimination legislation and huge changes in public attitudes had done nothing to reduce the gap. (Source: _Statistical Abstract of the United States_.) Other measures of overall economic well-being confirm the overall failure of the civil rights laws to benefit black people economically. For example, in 1939 earnings of black male workers were 45% and black females 38% those of whites. By 1960 the ratio had increased, to 67% for men and 70% for women. In 1990 the figures were 73% and 90%; progress had not stopped after the Civil Rights Revolution, but it had become slower. (Source: A. Hacker, _Two Nations_, 101.) Such statistics should not be surprising. Civil rights laws would never be enacted if bias were universal. However, bias against blacks should not have much effect on black incomes unless it is either universal or coerced; otherwise employers whose greed is stronger than their bias would be able to make extraordinary profits by hiring capable blacks and paying them less, thus creating a bidding war among profit-motivated employers for black services that would bring black wages up to parity or close to it. (Note: the foregoing argument does allows the possibility that in the mid-60s civil rights laws aided blacks in the South by breaking up a system of segregation coerced by law and threats of violence.) Nor does it appear that civil rights laws and changes in racial attitudes have done much for non-economic aspects of black people's lives, which have grown increasingly chaotic. Between 1960 and 1993, for example, the percentage of black children living with both parents declined from 67% to 35.6% (source: www.census.gov), and from 1950 to 1970 the percentage of blacks among prison inmates rose from 29.7% to 35.8%, and then to 45.3% in 1986 (source: A. Hacker, _Two Nations_, 197). It appears that some of the lack of progress and even retrogression can be attributed to the Civil Rights Revolution. If blacks live in a prosperous free-market society and are allowed ordinary liberty in economic, cultural and religious matters, most of what their lives are like will depend on the condition of black culture, which will in turn depend on the state of black communities. The effect of the Civil Rights Revolution has been to undermine community generally by making human relations more impersonal, and to lead blacks to put their hopes in white "society" -- practically speaking, the government -- rather than in each other and their own communities and institutions. The deterioration of those communities and institutions is from this perspective no surprise. 11. Isn't discrimination based on fear and hatred of "the other"? Discrimination is simply associating by preference with people of one sort rather than another, and so need not be based on fear and hatred. People who hire their relatives or join clubs for graduates of their own colleges usually do not hate and fear non- relatives or alumni of other colleges. Liberal professionals who seek out other liberal professionals rather than Republican used car salesmen may have no particular negative feelings regarding the latter. It is unclear why discrimination relating to ethnicity, religion, sex or lifestyle should be thought so very different. 12. Doesn't opposition to inclusiveness indicate an inability to deal with difference? No more than favoring inclusiveness does. Those who make an overriding principle out of either separation or inclusiveness demonstrate an inability to deal with differences that make a difference, the separatists by their unwillingness to deal at all with those who differ and the proponents of inclusiveness by their insistence on depriving difference of social consequence. An intermediate view that accepts a diverse society that reflects differences and the social distances to which they give rise in a variety of ways would reject both strict separation and mandatory inclusiveness. 13. Isn't discrimination based on overbroad stereotypes that it would be more intelligent to avoid? It is nondiscrimination that requires such stereotypes. Every society assigns rights and obligations based on what has to be done, how things will be organized, and expectations as to what people are like. The rights, obligations and expectations with respect to a class of persons correspond to the stereotype for those persons. Thus, the stereotype for "U.S. citizen" is someone who obeys the law, follows the news, votes, works for a living, pays his taxes, believes in education, and so on, and the laws establishing the rights and obligations of U.S. citizens are based on some such stereotype. The nondiscrimination principle is the principle that the same rights, obligations and expectations, and thus the same stereotype, should apply to everyone. It thus demands that the treatment of persons be based on the broadest possible stereotypes. While stereotypical thinking is unavoidable, one might reasonably ask whether it would be more intelligent to have a single stereotype for "adult human being" or to have (for example) separate stereotypes for "man" and "woman". Our society has officially decided in favor of the former, but it's hard to make the decision stick in practice and its justification isn't clear to everyone. 14. How would you like to be discriminated against? It might well be painful. On the other hand the current situation, in which blacks and other members of protected classes spend their lives working with people whom they suspect would rather have nothing to do with them, doesn't make people happy either. (For details, see Ellis Cose's _Rage of a Privileged Class_.) If there were no antidiscrimination laws people who wanted to work together would find each other; in the long run that would bring about more happiness than current arrangements. 15. What happens to those excluded in a non-inclusive society? Usually someone excluded from one part of society will have better luck elsewhere. If I'm excluded by the Century Club I may be able to join the Shriners, and a group excluded everywhere is free to develop its own institutions. The ease of communication and fluidity of life today makes self-organization far easier than in the past. Self-organization implies some degree of separation, however, so it is easier in a non-inclusive society because an inclusive society by definition tries to establish a single social order that applies equally to everyone. Ethnic minorities in a non-inclusive society are often able to thrive through some combination of adaptation and niche-finding, while in an inclusive society religious and social conservatives, and ethnics who consider their ethnicity important, are subjected to public policies designed to make their (and every other) religion, ethnic culture, and traditional moral outlook irrelevant to all matters of serious public concern. 16. Whatever errors or excesses it may sometimes lead to, isn't the ideal of inclusiveness a generous one? The motives supporting any ideal that benefits some people more than others will are never limited to generosity and disinterested love of justice. The intended beneficiaries of inclusiveness may support it for reasons that have nothing to do with generosity. In addition, inclusiveness serves powerful social interests that ostensibly are not intended beneficiaries at all. The issue of inclusiveness arises when society is viewed as a single actor with a single script, and to demand inclusiveness is to demand that the script be rewritten and a new one put into effect. Attempting to carry out that demand requires an enormous grant of power to a small and cohesive group. On the design side, the favored group includes social theoreticians, legal experts and social scientists, and on the implementation side civil servants, jurists, lawyers, educators, journalists and media people. Not surprisingly, the ideal of inclusiveness find most support among the people named, whose power it does so much to increase. In addition, inclusiveness liberates each of us from the particular demands of the parochial social groups he belongs to because it denies the significance of our membership in such groups. For example, Christians who adopt inclusiveness as their standard are thereby freed from the specific demands of Christian morality. Some may want such liberation because it will enable them to soar higher, others may have baser motives. 17. If exclusion is morally OK, why are so many conscientious people so very troubled by it? There are a variety of reasons. Forbidden grounds for discrimination usually have to do with accidents of birth and the like, and it is thought unjust for treatment to vary on account of such things. Also, many idealists believe that universal love requires relations with others that are direct and all-accepting rather than mediated by roles and presumptions based on sex, race, class and the like. Such concerns may be noble, but we can't be guided wholly by them any more than by universal forgiveness. The issue in politics is what fosters the best in human life as a practical matter; as one exponent of universal love has said, "By their fruits shall ye know them." It's legitimate to treat those differently to whom we have a particular connection, and such connections often arise from accidents of birth. It is by an accident of birth that we have a special obligation to the persons who happen to be our parents and children. In most cases the rights and obligations of citizenship and other forms of communal membership also arise from accidents of birth. If we were trained to ignore such things we would be far worse off than at present. As to love, people seem less connected to each other now than they were before the Civil Rights Revolution; it appears that the legal requirement that we ignore traditional presumptions and roles has not on the whole improved human relations, but by making them more artificial has rather undermined the ways in which we actually achieve closeness to others. Another reason is that many people today take a technological view of human society, and such people naturally find exclusion a moral outrage. If "society" is a system that dispenses benefits and detriments to passive recipients by reference to some overall scheme, then the design of the scheme becomes the fundamental moral issue and the machine should be designed to benefit all as much and as equally as possible. If some in fact fare worse than others (that is, are excluded from some benefits) reform is required, and in a technological age it is assumed possible to redesign a system to achieve or at least progressively approximate specifications. Such a view, however, is false. "Society" can't be conceived as an actor following a single script because it is composed of irreducibly independent moral actors. Consequently, things happening within society can't be held to uniform standards as if they were the acts of a single responsible moral agent; to do so is to eliminate all moral agency except the government's. People do form communities that are unified enough to become collective moral actors, but society as a whole acts as such a community to a far lesser degree than families, churches and other particular groups based on specific ties. In any case, communities are never so tightly bound as to put an end to the independent agency of their members. Making society the principle moral actor is therefore simply a fallacy. More reasons could be mentioned. People today often feel isolated and at the mercy of large impersonal institutions, and so crave reassurance they will be treated well. There is also a romantic tendency to reject external rules in favor of subjective feeling; to be excluded is to be subordinated to someone else's rules, a terrible offense to the ego. In practice, however, antidiscrimination laws increase the isolation of individuals, the impersonality of institutions and the pervasiveness of bureaucratic rules, and so feed the insecurity and alienation from which they spring. 18. What is the overall political effect of antidiscrimination laws? Their effect is radically to increase the power of the government at the expense of all other social institutions. They make the government a partner in the things that define the nature and character of every private association, thus making each one a quasi-branch of government. Specifically, antidiscrimination laws require the government to supervise all procedures and decisions regarding members of associations. To facilitate that role the permissible nature and purposes of associations become constricted; for example, to determine whether employment decisions are made for "legitimate business reasons", what counts as such a reason must be fixed and decisions must be formalized to make them susceptible to review. The requirement that every association be as welcoming to members of protected groups as to others requires the internal culture of every organization to be forced into a similar mould. One association becomes very much like another, and what each is depends on government policy. A free society requires a variety of institutions that are independent of government and capable of calling it to account. The practical restrictions on freedom of thought and inquiry in universities and media organizations that have resulted from antidiscrimination laws bring into question the consistency of such laws with such a society. 19. Isn't it divisive to oppose measures designed to promote inclusiveness? The issue of divisiveness can not be separated from the merits. Those who believe certain principles should be fundamental to social order naturally view opposition as divisive. More specifically, one could argue at least as easily that inclusiveness is divisive. Measures to promote inclusiveness rely for their legitimacy on a sense of grievance on the part of those they favor, and are not likely in the long run to seem at all fair to those they burden. They thus exacerbate and perpetuate divisions. In addition, the first task of the movements that most favor inclusiveness has been to raise consciousness -- that is, to use hate-filled rhetoric to create division, to violate the law to demonstrate contempt for and undermine established order, and so on. 20. What about Bosnia, the Wars of Religion, and other communal conflicts? When attempts to create an inclusive society such as socialist Yugoslavia or medieval catholic Christendom unravel it can be very messy. Men are clannish by nature, so social arrangements that harness their inclinations are likely to be more stable than arrangements that deprive them of all legitimate expression. Proposals for social changes as radical as the eradication of sexism and ethnocentrism raise questions as to the degree of force needed to establish and maintain the proposed new form of society, and whether any amount of coercion can ultimately be successful or whether it will destroying existing structures without being able to replace them. In this century attempts to eradicate economic self-interest as a motive have led to colossal oppression and suffering, and the national socialist attempt to achieve a society without divisions also led to catastrophe. It is not clear why efforts against racism, sexism and so on, if carried on with equal determination and equal willingness to destroy whatever stands in the way, should turn out better. To the extent clannishness is a destructive force it would be best for it to diffuse itself among a variety of affiliations, so that loyalties could be based on family, religion, ethnicity, locality, occupation, class, and so on, without any one becoming politically overriding and therefore divisive. The effect of civil rights laws is to create legal entitlements based on a very few affiliations, primarily race, and thus to heighten divisions and make race-based politics inevitable and permanent. From the standpoint of social peace it would be better to let people discriminate as they wish, so that things such as race will have only a degree of importance corresponding to actual attitudes that in the long run are likely to be based on practicality and daily experience. 21. Would more discrimination and exclusion really make the world a better place? Their effect depends on circumstances. Like economic inequality, prisons, police and armies their destructive side is easily visible. They are nonetheless necessary for the existence of the cohesive communities with common standards that are needed to give people a place on which they can build, so attempts to extirpate them soon become destructive. There are of course many institutions today that tend to destroy community, including the mass media, the welfare state, and the modern educational system, so in itself the repeal of the civil rights laws might do very little good. Like many reforms, repeal of those laws is needed although not sufficient. However, other institutions already have many critics, while there has been very little criticism in principle of civil rights legislation and of the outlook behind it. The purpose of this FAQ is thus to contribute to public discussion by setting forth the criticisms that can and should be made. Related reading: Brimelow, Peter and Spencer, Leslie: "When Quotas Replace Merit, Everybody Suffers", _Forbes_, Feb. 15, 1993, p. 80. A brief survey of the almost nonexistent work by economists on aggregate economic costs of affirmative action programs, followed by an analysis and estimate of such costs. Epstein, Richard A.: _Forbidden Grounds: the Case against Employment Discrimination Laws_ (Harvard University Press, 1992). A discussion of antidiscrimination laws by a University of Chicago law professor that concludes that they are economically and socially destructive. Levin, Michael: _Feminism and Freedom_ (Transaction Books, 1987). A clearly-written and comprehensive discussion of the claims of feminism and their political implications by a New York City University philosophy professor. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From jk Sat Apr 6 11:16:06 1996 Subject: Re: Common Prayer Volume 2 Issue 8 To: common-prayer@covert.ENET.dec.com (Common Prayer Mailing List) Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 11:16:06 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <9604051509.AA21371@us2rmc.zko.dec.com> from "Common Prayer Mailing List" at Apr 5, 96 10:09:47 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2216 Status: RO Harriet Baber's article prodded me to mull over the notion of atonement. Like her, I don't understand it very well, although again like her I find the crucifixion integral to God's incarnation. Possibly the modern difficulty with atonement (which I share) springs from a loss of the sense that the world as created by God is very good but has been thoroughly corrupted by man's misuse of his freedom. If that is how things are, then in order perfectly to enter the world as it now is God must subject himself to the consequences of man's evil, and thus at least in a manner of speaking must pay the price for man's sins. On that view, notions of atonement start to seem more plausible. In contrast, the tendency of modern thought is to hold that the world, which is most truly described by physics, is morally neutral, that freedom and therefore sin are in the end illusory, and that the things most relevant to action are satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and technology. On the latter view, the basic moral goal becomes setting up a system that by its design will reliably bring about the greatest satisfaction for the greatest number, or something of the sort, and "atonement" becomes incomprehensible. It also becomes hard to understand why God doesn't set up the desired system himself, which may explain modern tendencies to identify God with progressive social evolution. Another thought -- if it were arranged that man would not sin, or that his sins would have no serious effects, he would lose the great but hazardous dignity of freedom, and a part of the goodness of God's creation that is necessarily very dear to us would disappear. So if we choose what destroys us, as we do when we sin, there seems to be some sense in thinking that God could not, consistent with the greatness he conferred on us when he made us beings capable of effectually choosing evil, simply make our evil choice of no effect, but to save us from ourselves could only take the evil on himself. As I said, though, I don't really understand this stuff, so all comments would be welcome. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From jk Tue Apr 9 14:28:32 1996 Subject: Re: Universalism (was Re: ANGLICAN Digest - 4 Apr 1996 )d To: ANGLICAN@AMERICAN.EDU Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:28:32 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3169EDBD@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> from "Handsfield, James H." at Apr 9, 96 07:57:00 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2617 Status: RO Jim Handsfield writes: >Karl Barth puts it this way: until we know all there is to know about >God and heaven, we will not have the complete freedom to make the >choice. When God is fully self revealed, it is inconceivable that >anyone would choose other than to be with God. What in Christian tradition does Barth point to that supports his view? Socrates made knowledge precede virtue, and he was a logical man so it's a logical view, but it seems to me anomalous in Christianity. Some considerations that come to mind: 1. Where we are told that the truth will set us free (John 8:32) we are also told that we know the truth by being Jesus' disciples and holding to his teaching. 2. Saint Paul emphasizes our failure and incapacity to do what we know to be right, whether we know by natural reasoning or by revelation (Romans 1 and 7). Going back farther, the fall of man didn't occur because Adam was ignorant but because he chose to do what he knew to be against God's will. 3. It has always been thought so far as I know that angels sometimes fall in spite of accurate knowledge of God. St. James for example says the devils believe, and tremble. 4. "Credo ut intelligam" (Anselm and before him Augustine) sounds like it means that we can know God only because we first trust and believe in him. More recent treatments of the same point, which emphasize the impossibility of doing, thinking or believing anything without prior moral commitments and assumptions about the world, can be found in Pascal's _Pensees_ and in an article entitled "We can't get along" or something of the sort in _First Things_ a couple of months ago. (The latter is by Stanley Fish, admittedly not known as a Christian.) 5. Part of the issue is how God made us. We are told he made us in his image. It seems that the closest a finite creature that can't create things out of nothing could come to Godlike power is to have the power of turning God down and thereby placing an eternal mark on the fundamental nature of things that is unmistakeably his own. I think something of the sort is one of the basic motivations for human distructiveness. So one objection to universalism is that a creature capable of being damned is nobler than one not so capable, and there is no guarantee that none of us will achieve what we are all capable of and many of us are fond of toying with in one way or another. Arguments to the contrary sound to me a lot like arguments against the existence of evil. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From jk Wed Apr 10 10:25:47 1996 Subject: Re: Universalism (was Re: ANGLICAN Digest - 4 Apr 1996 )d To: ANGLICAN@AMERICAN.EDU Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:25:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Chris W. Moore or Bill Dilworth" at Apr 9, 96 09:09:01 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1668 Status: RO Bill Dilworth writes: >I am not a universalist because of what I believe about humanity, but >because of what I believe about God. A creature capable of damnation >may be more noble than another kind, but a Creator who tortures his >creatures is, IMNSHO, not noble at all. What about a Creator who makes creatures so like himself as to be capable of finally choosing to make themselves the center of their own world? Would it have been better for him to create only creatures that lack that capacity? >I also fail to see how a denial of God the Eternal Torturer is an >argument against the reality of evil. God made us and the world in accordance with his will, he governs the world, and we are sometimes tortured. Since past events are unchangeable, it is an eternal truth that innocent children have on many occasions been tortured to death. That's still happening now and I don't doubt it will continue to happen in the future. If it's eternally true that people have been tortured I suppose we already know enough to confer on God the title you mention, if that's the right way to look at things. I don't understand any of this either, although I can say things like "evil is a consequence of man's sin and therefore of his dignity" or "in the end we will see, if we are willing to see, how it was all for the best." A problem I have with universalism is that it seems to claim to understand too much in an area in which we have very little understanding, and so far as I can tell it fits awkwardly with Christian tradition. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From jk Wed Apr 10 10:27:11 1996 Subject: Re: Back to the Future Shock To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:27:11 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Apr 10, 96 11:24:04 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1603 Status: RO Respondet Francesca: >Yes, postmodernism allows a space for religion, but it does so >on the grounds that religion makes no absolute claims, and on >the ground that NOTHING can be shown make a rational claim >on human beings as such. But you're allowed to talk about whatever you want, with the only restriction one that is visibly incoherent because it is itself a totalizing metanarrative. Sounds like there are possibilities. >A second plank of postmodernism is the claim that what it >calls PRESENCE cannot be represented or described. Presence >is the thingliness and character of objects. This sounds interesting. Haven't there been theories (Aquinas?) that matter is the individuating principle that permits the existence of several things with the same essence? If so, "presence" sounds rather like "matter." What's the function of saying presence cannot be represented or described? (I presume it can be referred to, or is that impossible as well?) >Postmodernism also has other rather deleterious >aspects, like the denial of the existence of the >self - it claims that we all have many >selves, each with its own narrative. This sounds somewhat at odds with the view that "presence" cannot be represented or described. The latter view seems to suggest that things have a reality that cannot be made explicit in language. Sorry to inflict vague and uninformed questions and comments on you -- if you're busy or it's a bore please feel free to be short with me. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From jk Wed Apr 10 10:52:47 1996 Subject: Re: Universalism (was Re: ANGLICAN Digest - 4 Apr 1996 )d To: ANGLICAN@AMERICAN.EDU Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:52:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <316B3B03@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> from "Handsfield, James H." at Apr 10, 96 07:39:00 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 932 Status: RO Jim Handfield writes: > How does this inform us about those who do not believe? I dunno. I thought the issue was whether we know, or at least should believe, that everyone will be saved in the end. I doubt we should adopt that as a belief although we should hope it's true. Presumably it would be possible for example for someone not to believe because because he interprets divine love as an appalling attack on what he most wants to be, the center of his own world, and therefore as horrible torture inflicted by a demon. > The best aphorism I've heard > about God's relationship with Creation is: Mercy is not receiving what we > deserve. Grace is receiving what we don't deserve. Should we think of grace as something received without consent or of the necessary consent as something built into us in advance? -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From jk Wed Apr 10 12:13:04 1996 Subject: Re: Back to the Future Shock To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:13:04 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Apr 10, 96 04:04:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 339 Status: RO Francesca promises: > I will get back to you at the weekend. As convenient. > Postmodernism > can't be made to seem rational. All the better, since from a contradiction you can prove anything at all, including one's own views. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega. From jk Wed Apr 10 12:26:10 1996 Subject: Re: Back to the Future Shock To: NEWMAN@LISTSERV.VT.EDU Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:26:10 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Francesca Murphy" at Apr 10, 96 05:11:08 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 509 Status: RO > > >A second plank of postmodernism is the claim that what it > > >calls PRESENCE cannot be represented or described. Presence > > >is the thingliness and character of objects. > the whole point is the failure of reference to touch > or make contact with objects. A point that can nonetheless be talked about, it appears. Maybe it would be best if I just looked at the reading list you provided. -- Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) Palindrome of the week: Age, irony, Noriega.
Back to my archive of posts.