05/06: Tiananmen Square Remembered
Wizbang yesterday posted this observance of the anniversary of Tiananmen Square.
Every dollar you spend on a MADE IN CHINA product helps to support this dictatorial regime. A regime moving to expand power and hegemony throughout Asia. A regime that regards us an an enemy. A regime that rules through fear and corruption on the one hand, and through increasing appeals to nationalism on the other. A regime that oppresses its minorities and destroys their cultures. A regime that in its haste to build a powerful nation inflicts tremendous damage on the environment. A regime that is a continuation of the rule of Mao Zedong, the number one mass murderer in human history. A regime making deals with murderous tyrants around the world in exchange for access to oil. Will your dollar be the one that buys the bullet used to execute a dissident next month? Will your dollar help buy and build the military that likely will one day fight ours?
Or, will you cease to buy MADE IN CHINA.
Every dollar you spend on a MADE IN CHINA product helps to support this dictatorial regime. A regime moving to expand power and hegemony throughout Asia. A regime that regards us an an enemy. A regime that rules through fear and corruption on the one hand, and through increasing appeals to nationalism on the other. A regime that oppresses its minorities and destroys their cultures. A regime that in its haste to build a powerful nation inflicts tremendous damage on the environment. A regime that is a continuation of the rule of Mao Zedong, the number one mass murderer in human history. A regime making deals with murderous tyrants around the world in exchange for access to oil. Will your dollar be the one that buys the bullet used to execute a dissident next month? Will your dollar help buy and build the military that likely will one day fight ours?
Or, will you cease to buy MADE IN CHINA.
In response to "Tocqueville's" challenge to articulate a systematic point of view in regard to same-sex marriage, I have composed the following (which also appears in the comment section of the previous post):
1. The facts on the ground have changed. Same-sex "rights" are here to stay. I am still waiting to hear who agrees with Sommerville's premise that same-sex persons are entitled to all rights short of marriage, including civil unions. Are you ready for that?
No matter, we are going to have that much, at least. Perhaps that is a way station toward the redefinition of marriage. Only time will tell. But we are going to give away legal recognition as part of the negotiation to "protect marriage." That is what is ahead of us.
2. What does it mean? As a fairly traditional Baptist, I agree with my previously quoted friend: "homosexuality and same-sex marriage are not part of God's plan for our lives" (although I am troubled with what to do with persons whom I believe to be genuinely "wired" toward that form of self expression).
I intend to attend churches that uphold my traditional view of marriage. I intend to raise my children in accord with my beliefs.
However, I do not think legal recognition, or even same-sex marriages alone, will fundamentally alter what marriage is. Marriage will continue to be what mainstream, heterosexual and religious marriage partners make of it.
Marriage is in trouble--but not because of a homosexual assault. Marriage is in trouble because we have ceased to value marriage.
1. The facts on the ground have changed. Same-sex "rights" are here to stay. I am still waiting to hear who agrees with Sommerville's premise that same-sex persons are entitled to all rights short of marriage, including civil unions. Are you ready for that?
No matter, we are going to have that much, at least. Perhaps that is a way station toward the redefinition of marriage. Only time will tell. But we are going to give away legal recognition as part of the negotiation to "protect marriage." That is what is ahead of us.
2. What does it mean? As a fairly traditional Baptist, I agree with my previously quoted friend: "homosexuality and same-sex marriage are not part of God's plan for our lives" (although I am troubled with what to do with persons whom I believe to be genuinely "wired" toward that form of self expression).
I intend to attend churches that uphold my traditional view of marriage. I intend to raise my children in accord with my beliefs.
However, I do not think legal recognition, or even same-sex marriages alone, will fundamentally alter what marriage is. Marriage will continue to be what mainstream, heterosexual and religious marriage partners make of it.
Marriage is in trouble--but not because of a homosexual assault. Marriage is in trouble because we have ceased to value marriage.
03/06: Conservative Essence
Guest Blog
Recently, within a comment on a separate thread, "Tocqueville" offered an extremely cogent conspectus of conservative thought. I am reconstituting it as a featured post, for I think it is worthy of reflection (and comment):
From "Tocqueville":
The deeper tradition of conservatism always has stood for something far more substantial than present-ism. It is what Edmund Burke defended against the French Jacobins; what Alexis de Tocqueville defended against the radicals of his own day in Europe and mindless levellers everywhere; what Russell Kirk defended against the mass homogenization of post-war liberalism; and what William F. Buckley, jr. defended against the atheist, materialist professorate was the broad tradition of Western civilization. It is a vision of a society in which the true, the good, and the beautiful all are recognized as permanent things beyond price. A society in which we seek to join with one another in leading a life of virtue. Some political and economic structures are better at serving such goals than others, but these higher goals are the most important things, the things that actually make life worth living. And to simply say "that's all gone" is to abdicate one's responsibility as a human being, an American, and a member of one's neighborhood, parish, synagogue, workplace, family, school, and all the other associations of one's life, to work for a recovery of a reason to live--not just a way of enjoying oneself, but a reason for existing.
"The problem today, of course, is that so much of our tradition has been crushed under the weight of materialism, selfishness, and cynicism. But that should not mean that we simply join in the party. When Burke criticized the French for giving in to the impulse to tear down their civilization, he didn't just say throw up his hands and say "too bad." He made clear that, even in the worst of times, we have a viable option: to look back in our own traditions for healthy, virtuous elements, be they institutions, beliefs or practices, that we can revive and build on."
"Tocqueville"
Recently, within a comment on a separate thread, "Tocqueville" offered an extremely cogent conspectus of conservative thought. I am reconstituting it as a featured post, for I think it is worthy of reflection (and comment):
From "Tocqueville":
The deeper tradition of conservatism always has stood for something far more substantial than present-ism. It is what Edmund Burke defended against the French Jacobins; what Alexis de Tocqueville defended against the radicals of his own day in Europe and mindless levellers everywhere; what Russell Kirk defended against the mass homogenization of post-war liberalism; and what William F. Buckley, jr. defended against the atheist, materialist professorate was the broad tradition of Western civilization. It is a vision of a society in which the true, the good, and the beautiful all are recognized as permanent things beyond price. A society in which we seek to join with one another in leading a life of virtue. Some political and economic structures are better at serving such goals than others, but these higher goals are the most important things, the things that actually make life worth living. And to simply say "that's all gone" is to abdicate one's responsibility as a human being, an American, and a member of one's neighborhood, parish, synagogue, workplace, family, school, and all the other associations of one's life, to work for a recovery of a reason to live--not just a way of enjoying oneself, but a reason for existing.
"The problem today, of course, is that so much of our tradition has been crushed under the weight of materialism, selfishness, and cynicism. But that should not mean that we simply join in the party. When Burke criticized the French for giving in to the impulse to tear down their civilization, he didn't just say throw up his hands and say "too bad." He made clear that, even in the worst of times, we have a viable option: to look back in our own traditions for healthy, virtuous elements, be they institutions, beliefs or practices, that we can revive and build on."
"Tocqueville"
The US has had "Red Scares" in our history, periods marked by fear of communist infiltration with popular and governmental responses to the danger. While it has been common to dismiss these periods as "scare-mongering," records released since the fall of the USSR indicate that there was indeed cause for concern. An effort was made, directed from Moscow, to infiltrate and influence US culture. Perhaps it is time for a similar "Scare."
LGF today links to this article from the Canadian National Post concerning "homegrown" terrorists in Canada. It appears that now Canada, along with Europe, is facing the problem of Muslims raised within Western culture becoming radicalized and embracing terror jihad.
It seems to me that events, not speculation, but actual events should be propelling Western nations including the United States to pay serious attention to mosques and what is taught in them. We have a long tradition of religious liberty, but it is suicide to pretend that we have no compelling national interest in what is being taught in mosques and Islamic centers across the U.S. "Religious Liberty" does not seem to have stopped the FBI from investigating White Supremacist Churches, and rightly so since these have been connected with acts of violence. We need to get serious about the root cause of Islamic terrorism. Time for another "Scare."
LGF today links to this article from the Canadian National Post concerning "homegrown" terrorists in Canada. It appears that now Canada, along with Europe, is facing the problem of Muslims raised within Western culture becoming radicalized and embracing terror jihad.
It seems to me that events, not speculation, but actual events should be propelling Western nations including the United States to pay serious attention to mosques and what is taught in them. We have a long tradition of religious liberty, but it is suicide to pretend that we have no compelling national interest in what is being taught in mosques and Islamic centers across the U.S. "Religious Liberty" does not seem to have stopped the FBI from investigating White Supremacist Churches, and rightly so since these have been connected with acts of violence. We need to get serious about the root cause of Islamic terrorism. Time for another "Scare."
I think the Same-Sex Marriage threads have been instructive.
Just a few quibbles:
An Okie Gardener characterized my position as in favor of societal recognition of same-sex marriage. While I admit that is a reasonable inference, I would argue that it is, nevertheless, imprecise. I have, in fact, asked a series of questions exploring the logic of denying recognition of same-sex marriage.
Tocqueville wrote: "I keep hearing conservatives criticized for "trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system." I am not sure who Tocqueville was quoting, but it followed closely (in time and proximity) my quote: "...religion should inform all your political view points, but at what point in the public debate is it necessary to differentiate between what is right for you and your church and what is fair to impose on the community as a whole?" The phrasing of which I regretted almost immediately because I used "impose," which is a word that is often used to evoke emotionally soaked accusations of "intolerance." I apologize for my poor judgment in re that particular word choice.
On the other hand, I want to make clear that my sentence can in no reasonable way be interpretted as "criticizing conservatives for trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system."
Back to the idea of questions:
Breaking News: Conservatives are losing this debate. Last night my wife and I sat down for dinner with a very nice, well-educated, God-fearing, socially conservative couple, who are pillars of a big Baptist church in the heart of the reddest of all Red States. When the subject of educating children about homosexuality emerged in our dinner conversation, this mother of four, who spends one week out of the year doing missionary work in Guatemala, offered that homosexuality is not part of God's plan for our lives (like divorce or infidelity). Beautiful. But there was also recognition that tolerance of homosexuality is now part of our cultural landscape.
This is where we are in America today. American Christians can sit in a restaurant and affirm that homosexuality is a less-favored choice (at this point without fear of public recrimination: I cannot remember if our friend lowered her voice; I think I looked around to see who was within ear-shot).
My point: homosexual "rights" are now a part of our cultural fabric.
Exhibit B: Ms. Sommerville's article assumes equality under the law for persons of homo- or hetero-sexual orientation, and she advocates civil partnerships for same-sex couples, legally recognized and entitled to the same benefits and protection of the law.
By the way: Are all of you willing to go that far?
Just a few quibbles:
An Okie Gardener characterized my position as in favor of societal recognition of same-sex marriage. While I admit that is a reasonable inference, I would argue that it is, nevertheless, imprecise. I have, in fact, asked a series of questions exploring the logic of denying recognition of same-sex marriage.
Tocqueville wrote: "I keep hearing conservatives criticized for "trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system." I am not sure who Tocqueville was quoting, but it followed closely (in time and proximity) my quote: "...religion should inform all your political view points, but at what point in the public debate is it necessary to differentiate between what is right for you and your church and what is fair to impose on the community as a whole?" The phrasing of which I regretted almost immediately because I used "impose," which is a word that is often used to evoke emotionally soaked accusations of "intolerance." I apologize for my poor judgment in re that particular word choice.
On the other hand, I want to make clear that my sentence can in no reasonable way be interpretted as "criticizing conservatives for trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system."
Back to the idea of questions:
Breaking News: Conservatives are losing this debate. Last night my wife and I sat down for dinner with a very nice, well-educated, God-fearing, socially conservative couple, who are pillars of a big Baptist church in the heart of the reddest of all Red States. When the subject of educating children about homosexuality emerged in our dinner conversation, this mother of four, who spends one week out of the year doing missionary work in Guatemala, offered that homosexuality is not part of God's plan for our lives (like divorce or infidelity). Beautiful. But there was also recognition that tolerance of homosexuality is now part of our cultural landscape.
This is where we are in America today. American Christians can sit in a restaurant and affirm that homosexuality is a less-favored choice (at this point without fear of public recrimination: I cannot remember if our friend lowered her voice; I think I looked around to see who was within ear-shot).
My point: homosexual "rights" are now a part of our cultural fabric.
Exhibit B: Ms. Sommerville's article assumes equality under the law for persons of homo- or hetero-sexual orientation, and she advocates civil partnerships for same-sex couples, legally recognized and entitled to the same benefits and protection of the law.
By the way: Are all of you willing to go that far?
Category: Environment
Posted by: an okie gardener
I take the danger of global warming seriously for the following reasons. (1) I think there is enough data on increasing temperatures, etc., available to indicate that something resembling a warming trend is happening to the earth’s climate. (2) No scientist of whom I am aware questions the model, i.e., the scientific explanation, that carbon dioxide in an atmosphere helps to trap heat. (3) Industrialization, combined with population growth, has increased the amount of carbon dioxide humans release into the atmosphere. (4) Caution should be used with regard to the livability of our planet—it’s the only one we have. In 40 years we do not want to say “Oops.” It may then be too late. Having only a single resource (one planet), a reasonable approach is to be careful with it. I think the burden of proof is on those who would risk the livability of the earth.
(cont.)
(cont.)
Here at Bosqueboys we have had extended discussion of the issue of society recognition of same-sex marriage. On this issue, A Waco Farmer and I disagree. He taking the affirmative, and I the negative position. To continue discussion, I submit the following essay.
Margaret Somerville is Samuel Gale Professor of Law and Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. She is the author of: The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit and Death Talk: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.
A few years ago she made a well-reasoned argument against recognizing same-sex marriage based on secular reasoning. Although the immediate context was Canadian law, the argument applies to the US as well, I think. Here is her first paragraph.
Establishing context
I want, first, to outline briefly the context in which my comments on same-sex marriage are grounded, because in this debate context is definitely not neutral and is not the same for everyone. As this committee has heard, many people who oppose extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples do so on religious grounds or because of moral objections to homosexuality. They are not the bases of my arguments. Rather, my arguments against same-sex marriage are secularly based and, to the extent that they involve morals and values, these are grounded in ethics not religion. To summarize:
I oppose discrimination on basis of sexual orientation, whether against homosexuals or heterosexuals.
I believe that civil partnerships open to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples should be legally recognized and that the partners, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, are entitled to the same benefits and protection of the law.
But I do not believe that we should change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. My reasons go to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that represents, symbolizes and protects the inherently reproductive human relationship. I believe that society needs such an institution.
To read the entire presentation.
Margaret Somerville is Samuel Gale Professor of Law and Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University's Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. She is the author of: The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit and Death Talk: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.
A few years ago she made a well-reasoned argument against recognizing same-sex marriage based on secular reasoning. Although the immediate context was Canadian law, the argument applies to the US as well, I think. Here is her first paragraph.
Establishing context
I want, first, to outline briefly the context in which my comments on same-sex marriage are grounded, because in this debate context is definitely not neutral and is not the same for everyone. As this committee has heard, many people who oppose extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples do so on religious grounds or because of moral objections to homosexuality. They are not the bases of my arguments. Rather, my arguments against same-sex marriage are secularly based and, to the extent that they involve morals and values, these are grounded in ethics not religion. To summarize:
I oppose discrimination on basis of sexual orientation, whether against homosexuals or heterosexuals.
I believe that civil partnerships open to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples should be legally recognized and that the partners, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, are entitled to the same benefits and protection of the law.
But I do not believe that we should change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. My reasons go to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that represents, symbolizes and protects the inherently reproductive human relationship. I believe that society needs such an institution.
To read the entire presentation.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
It may be another long, hot summer in France as Islamic "youth" riot once again. LGF has the story.
There seem to be at least two lessons here: (1) do not allow the creation of a large unassimilated group within your nation; (2) if you are a Western nation, be very careful about letting large populations of Muslims immigrate into your country (see number one).
There seem to be at least two lessons here: (1) do not allow the creation of a large unassimilated group within your nation; (2) if you are a Western nation, be very careful about letting large populations of Muslims immigrate into your country (see number one).
01/06: Deterence and the Mullahs
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Powerline has a great post this morning on the impossibility of deterence as a workable solution to a nuclear Iran. They also link to other writing on the subject. The thoughts expressed are similar to those I posted earlier as Apocalyptic Times.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
