<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>From California:  Another Front in the Culture Wars</title>
		<description>Comments for From California:  Another Front in the Culture Wars at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 10 out of 10 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 09:21:58 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/from-california-another-front-in-the-culture-wars.html#comment-8306</link>
			<description>SB 48 in California reflects the march from ordered liberty to license to tyranny. How did we get to this point?

In my opinion, it has been the disjuncture of truth from reality begun in the Renaissance, peaking in the Idealism of Descartes and Kant with a dose of empirical materialism that separated knowledge and morality from reality.  The mix of Kantian  idealism and  empirical materialism  led to the many –isms of the 19th century, epitomized, for this purpose, in Kierkegaard’s existentialist comment that every person has the freedom (read ‘license’) to decide “a truth that is true for me’.

This was step one of the march from rational  ordered liberty of Greek and  Scholastic philosophy based on objective reality and man’s ability to discover that reality and to direct his exercise of  freedom for the common  good within the  bounds of justice to unprincipled personal moral decision making.  But with license also came disorder. It caused a political and moral vacuum that threatened order.  To fill this vacuum the Nietzschean will to power stepped in where politicians, the ones with power, decide what freedoms people will have or don’t have.  SB 48 is just such an expression of Nietzschean power in action.

How different California’s approach is from that of Pope Benedict in his address last week to the German parliament, in expressing ‘some thoughts on the foundations of a free state of law. … What should ultimately matter for a politician …must be striving for justice…. To serve right and to fight against the dominion of wrong is and remains the fundamental task of the politician….’

Will SB 48 provoke another lawsuit of “People v. California’ to reclaim fundamental justice, freedom of thought and expression, and limits on political will to power?  I don’t know; but I am concerned that the trend will spread over the country. Professor Arkes is to be commended for his effort to make us aware of the issues SB 48 presents. - senex</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 10:06:54 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/from-california-another-front-in-the-culture-wars.html#comment-8305</link>
			<description>The contradiction at the heart of liberalism lies in its simultaneous assertion of popular sovereignty and universal human rights.  In the brief interlude between the absolutist state of the Ancien Régime and modern mass politics, this was achieved by the separation of the public sphere of state activity and the private sphere of civil society.  The state provided a legally codified order within which social customs, economic competition, religious beliefs, and so on, could be pursued without interference.

But, when the social consensus on which the distinction rested breaks down, liberalism has no way of defining or defending the boundaries of this sphere; everything becomes potentially political.

Rousseau saw this very well.  “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.” 
 - Michael Paterson-Seymour</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:32:40 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/from-california-another-front-in-the-culture-wars.html#comment-8296</link>
			<description>I have been living and working in Communist China for the last twelve years. Here, children are considered property of the State and children of the Party. Indoctrination and brainwashing are routinely practiced starting in kindergarten. The State decides for everyone what is right and what is wrong. Dissenters are punished and those who don't &quot;fit in&quot; are marginalized and set aside. The USA is slowly but surely moving in that direction. How scary, how tragic. What are you going to do about it? - Paul from China</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 02:19:07 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/from-california-another-front-in-the-culture-wars.html#comment-8295</link>
			<description>“there is no such thing as “liberalism,” if this means a sphere of reason or action that escapes the particularism and exclusivity of tradition. And there is also no such thing as “the secular” since traditions of rationality are distinguished by the particular way they grapple with matters of ultimate concern—all traditions are ultimately religious.”  A nonconfessional state is not logically possible, in the one real order of history.&quot; 

&quot;If believing theists of diverse traditions do not think, speak, and act DISTINCTIVELY as Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims —bringing their intellectual, moral, and liturgical traditions wherever they go in imitation of Socrates, whom Catherine Pickstock calls a “walking liturgy,” then we stand no chance at converting the “liberal traditionalists” of the culture of death, who have no qualms about communicating to themselves and others exclusively [confident?] in their religious parlance of tolerance and diversity, and inviting all into their liturgical practices of abortion, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia. Indeed, they see themselves as the “true believers,” the only ones truly defending “life,” with us as the heretics, obsessed only with death and control. 

How can these deluded devotees have any hope of ever renouncing their enslaving tradition unless they are made aware of its enslaving character?  And how can they become aware unless they have some palpable experience of an alternative? The tradition they inhabit deprives them of the existential conditions required to see moral truths, let alone religious ones.&quot; 

Kozinski 'The Good, the Right and Theology.  - M.</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 01:13:57 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/from-california-another-front-in-the-culture-wars.html#comment-8294</link>
			<description>I'm not sure that I understand &quot;Manfred,&quot; but I was one of the architects of the Defense of Marriage Act, and as I recall, I led the testimony on the bill in the hearings before the House Judiciary Committee.  I've done then more than WRITE, but then writing is what people like Fr. Schall and the writers for the Catholic Thing do.  That is work that also persuades and summons people, and we've had reason to think that it is no mean work. - Hadley Arkes</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:48:28 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/from-california-another-front-in-the-culture-wars.html#comment-8292</link>
			<description>THis is unbelievably devastating.  This issue about all the contributions of groups seperated by ethnic accident is already a gross perversion of history, the issue of homosexual contributions is insane. It boggles the mind to consider that anyone who could call themselves &quot;Catholic&quot; could consent to such madness.  This is at the expense of civilization.  - Achilles</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:08:28 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/from-california-another-front-in-the-culture-wars.html#comment-8291</link>
			<description>This discussion played out at a recent GOP debate during which Senator Santorum correctly pointed out to Gov. Perry that amidst the red meat discussion of &quot;states rights,&quot; we are leaving behind parents rights.  We would do well to remember this. - Ryan Bilodeau</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:55:22 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/from-california-another-front-in-the-culture-wars.html#comment-8290</link>
			<description>Seton Hall University used to refer to itself as New Jersey's Catholic University. In September, 2010 it instituted a Politics of Gay Marriage course and that course was renewed this year. As you are well aware, Dr. Arkes, this Culture War has been going on for decades and many Catholics, both religious and lay, have made many substantial contributions to the pro-degenerate side. The discussion should have ended years ago but action has been required for years and all people do is WRITE about it.  - Manfred</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:04:25 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/from-california-another-front-in-the-culture-wars.html#comment-8285</link>
			<description>This is a clear example of what a real lack of tolerance is about. Lack of tolerance is the transformation of uncomfortable acceptance of disagreement into outlawing a disagreement. It is also interesting to see how a state is trying to establish a specific religion by calling &quot;denominations&quot; specific undesired parts of such a religion. It looks like that if the reasonable belief of a religion do not match the unreasonable beliefs of a state then it is mere propaganda. Choosing to be stupid by rejecting the principle of non-contradiction is just another dictatorial manner to try to have it your own way, and it will raise more than one eyebrow even among supports of your own goals. - Cristiano</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:37:51 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/from-california-another-front-in-the-culture-wars.html#comment-8283</link>
			<description>Hadley, now that the military has caved on DADT and the LGBT lifestyle is gaining &quot;acceptance,&quot; (see polling data showing half of Americans favor so-called 'gay marriage'), the battle will go on but the war is lost. Sadly, using moral arguments are futile in a nation that has long since lost its moral compass and where political correctness reigns. - Grump</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 04:44:26 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
