November 18, 2004
FROM THE ARCHIVES: BULWARKIANISM:
Libertarianism and Libertinism? (Frank S. Meyer, 1969, National Review)A true libertarianism is derived from metaphysical roots in the very constitution of being, and places its defense of freedom as a political end in the context of moral responsibility for the pursuit of virtue and the underlying social necessity for the preservation of order. The libertine impulse that masquerades as libertarian, on the other hand, disregards all moral responsibility, ranges itself against the minimum needs of social order, and raises the freedom of the individual person (regarded as the unbridled expression of every desire, intellectual or emotional) to the status of an absolute end.Frank S. Meyer was one of a troika of former Communists--along with James Burnham and Whittaker Chambers--who were befriended by William F. Buckley Jr. and became mentors and important contributors to National Review in its early years. Meyer's great intellectual project was fusionism, the attempt to unify the competing libertarian and traditionalist strains in conservative thought. This representative essay nicely captures his compelling argument that freedom is not sufficient unto itself, that it is a means, not an end, and must be put to some greater purpose in order to be truly worthwhile. Freedom is not an abstract good but a particular good, a good to the extent that it allows men to create a decent society and, though we can not know for ourselves precisely what that society will consist of, we have inherited wisdom and a civilization from those who have come before us and it is our duty to preserve that inheritance in order to be able to hand it off to those who come after. There will, of course, be disagreements about what the ends of society should be, but, at least as regards the political sphere, it seems worth noting that even the U.S. Constitution, a merely political document, counts liberty as only one among several values it seeks to secure:
The underlying issue between conservative libertarianism and libertine libertarianism is at bottom a totally opposed view of the nature of destiny of men. The libertines-like those other products of the modern world, ritualistic liberals, socialists, Communists, fascists-are ideologues first and last. That is, they reject reality as it has been studied, grasped, understood, and acted upon in five thousand years or so of civilized history, and pose an abstract construction as the basis of action. They would replace God's creation of this multifarious, complex world in which we live, and substitute for it their own creation, simple, neat and inhuman-as inhuman as the blueprints of the bulldozing engineer.
The place of freedom in the spiritual economy of men is a high one indeed, but it is specific and not absolute. By its very nature, it cannot be an end of men's existence. Its meaning is essentially freedom from coercion, but that, important as it is, cannot be an end. It is empty of goal or norm. Its function is to relieve men of external coercion so that they may freely seek their good.
It is for this reason that libertarian conservatives champion freedom as the end of the political order's politics, which is, at its core, the disposition of force in society, will, if not directed towards this end, create massive distortions and obstacles in men's search for their good. But that said, an equally important question remains. Free, how are men to use their freedom? The libertine answers that they should do what they want. Sometimes, in the line of the philosophers of the French Revolution, he arbitrarily posits the universal benevolence of human beings. He presumes that if everyone does whatever he wants, everything will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But whether so optimistically qualified or not, his answer ignores the hard facts of history. For it is only in civilization that men have begun to rise towards their potentiality; and civilization is a fragile growth, constantly menaced by the dark forces that suck man back towards his brutal beginnings.
The essence of civilization, however, is tradition: no single generation of men can of itself discover the proper ends of human existence. At its best, as understood by contemporary American conservatism, the traditionalist view accepts political freedom, accepts the role of reason and innovation and criticism; but it insists, if civilization is to be preserved, that reason operate within tradition and that political freedom is only effectively achieved when the bulwarks of civilizational order are preserved.
Libertine libertarianism would shatter those bulwarks.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.And consider that it speaks not of liberty itself, but of the "blessings of liberty", those good things which flow from liberty. Here in our Founding text we see that liberty was recognized as a means not an end. Rather, the ends to be achieved are improved government, justice, peace within and without the nation, etc.. Since all government itself is to a greater or lesser degree coercive and since justice and peace both contemplate putting restrictions on human behavior, it would seem obvious that by its very terms the Constitution envisions a limited, rather than an absolute, scheme of liberty. If we can accept then that this must be the starting point for conservatism, that liberty, though vital, is properly circumscribed, and we turn our attention then to what the traditions are that form our civilization, what the bulwarks that we must maintain, we can do no better than the comprehensive skein offered by Russell Kirk:
Any informed conservative is reluctant to condense profound and intricate intellectual systems to a few portentous phrases; he prefers to leave that technique to the enthusiasm of radicals. Conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogma, and conservatives inherit from Burke a talent for re-expressing their convictions to fit the time. As a working premise, nevertheless, one can observe here that the essence of social conservatism is preservation of the ancient moral traditions. Conservatives respect the wisdom of their ancestors...; they are dubious of wholesale alteration. They think society is a spiritual reality, possessing an eternal life but a delicate constitution: it cannot be scrapped and recast as if it were a machine. [...] I think there are six canons of conservative thought--Without meaning to belittle libertarianism we might characterize this in its totality as a mature form of freedom, a freedom that requires us to behave like adults, considerate of others and cognizant of our own innate propensity to abuse freedom in pursuit of frivolous material pleasures. The central concession of this conservatism, as it is the starting point of the American experiment, is that Man is Created, that it is from the Creator that rights are derived, and that Man is bound by the laws of the Creator, in the words of Edmund Burke:
(1) Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience, forging an eternal chain of right and duty which links great and obscure, living and dead. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. [...]
(2) Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems. [...]
(3) Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes. The only true equality is moral equality; all other attempts at levelling lead to despair, if enforced by positive legislation. [...]
(4) Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic levelling is not economic progress. Separate property from private possession and liberty is erased.
(5) Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters and calculators.' Man must put a control upon his will and his appetite, for conservatives know man to be governed more by emotion than by reason. Tradition and sound prejudice provide checks upon man's anarchic impulse.
(6) Recognition that change and reform are not identical, and that innovation is a devouring conflagration more often than it is a torch of progress. Society must alter, for slow change is the means of its conservation, like the human body's perpetual renewal; but Providence is the proper instrument for change, and the test of a statesman is his cognizance of the real tendency of Providential social forces.
There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity -- the law of nature, and of nations.Libertarianism in its most extreme, or most immature, form rebels against the notion that even God can limit liberty. That rebellion is the point at which it turns into mere license. Like all extremisms, it envisions itself as uniquely pure and uncompromised, but it must be obvious that having abandoned the idea of a Creator and rights as issuing from Him, this kind of libertarianism becomes incoherent. For if Man is not endowed with dignity by virtue of being Created, then what is the basis for saying that the individual should be inviolate? It can only be that you say it should be so--but if I believe otherwise, necessarily with equal validity, then what may I not do to you? And so a doctrine of liberty that has no other basis than the individual and his capacity to imagine freedom will descend into anarchy. Nietzsche offers a typically cogent aphorism that captures the danger: "[M]an would sooner have the void for his purpose than be void of purpose." And because it is the nature of men to demand not just freedom but security, they will insist that someone put an end to the anarchy; that something fill the void, and, the internal restraints of religion and tradition having been destroyed, there will be no one left to intervene between men but the State. Thus does an ideology which ostensibly aims at maximum freedom render a system of minimal freedom. Meanwhile, in what must surely seem a paradox to those who wish to elevate the individual and his freedom above God and God's law, we discover that democracy and freedom thrive only where such religiosity obtains. George Bradford Caird states it well, though too narrowly:
When we turn from the microcosm of man to see the same qualities writ large in the character of the state, we find that democratic government has flourished only where Protestant Christianity has been strong. (The democracies of Greece were not truly democratic, for they were founded on slave labour.) This may be an historical accident, but it looks rather as though democracy imperatively requires conditions which only Christianity can supply: a conviction that every person is of infinite worth, that man is not his own master, that duties are more important than rights, and that spiritual well-being is of more account than material comfort and security.It was for some time the case that only Protestant nations produced democracy, but by reference to the conditions of which he speaks we can see that all Christianities and Judaism offer fertile soil and we are now engaged in a great and dangerous experiment to see if Islam can likewise provide a growth medium for democratic freedom--Shi'ism seems to share enough of the qualities of Christianity and Judaism to prove fecund. In any case, it is possible to agree that the worth of the individual, deference to natural law, acceptance of responsibilities as part and parcel of rights, and a belief in something greater than the merely material form the necessary basis for democracy, which, so far as we have been able to discover, is the only system that reliably guarantees human freedom. Thus a mature libertarianism must be grounded in the broader conservative traditions. Hence: fusion. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 18, 2004 9:08 AM
How many bloggers even know who Frank Meyer is (or Willmoore Kendall, or the other NR giants you mention)?Thanks for digging that up and posting it, Orrin!
Posted by: Kevin Whited at April 8, 2003 8:53 AMMost excellent essay, OJ. I'll be linking to this one.
Meyer's piece nails it pretty well, for me, on what is wrong with the libertarian stance. 'Nuff said about them. They mostly just annoy.
And as for religion, I believe the social experiment to over-secularize the U.S. over the last 50 years has proven your last point, although I believe it is not so much the type of religion that is important, but the degree to which it is internalized and practiced. This could turn into a long post at this point so I'll cut it short here.
Again, excellent piece. Buy yourself a cold one tonight - on me!
I am continually amazed at the government, philosophy, religion, and political education I get from postings at this website.
The fact that so many of these ideas are new to me makes me furious at the public school education I received. When I think about how much better suited for life I would be if I had learned some of these basic concepts in my teens, instead of taking these mandatory classes:
"Health" (Sex-Ed)
"Home and Careers" (sewing and cooking)
"Technology" (building paper dispensers and balsa-wood bridges)
..I get enraged. Who decided it was a good idea to make boys learn how to sew? Jesus what the boomer generation did to this country.
I don't know how old the usual and frequent posters are on this site. I'm 26. Did you guys get the rudimentary knowledge of these topics through parents, church, secondary school, college, or where? I would love if the usual posters answered this.
Besides being curious, I'm getting to the age where kids are in the near future and I have no idea what type of schools actually teach these sorts of things. Is it only in religious private schools?
Suffice it to say my academic career is a tad checkered. I learned everyuthing I know in books.
Posted by: oj at April 8, 2003 1:43 PMMatt - I concur with OJ - you have to read on your own to learn anything
today.
I'm 44, and have learned more in the last two years than the previous 20, about history, politics, and society. My 14 year old son is benefitting immensely - he told me himself, he impresses his friends with "did you know" remarks that he steals from me. I'm only to happy to oblige.
When kids hit 12 or so, they are ripe for all kinds of information, DO NOT leave that strictly to the schools, regardless of why type of school you go to. Ideas surely do have consequences. Engage your kids as intellectual equals - they will surprise you how often they can meet that challenge. My dad did this for me, and I'm forever grateful.
Build yourself a reading list from reading conservative sites like this, NRO, opinionjournal.com, etc. Read military history. Read "Radical Son" by David Horowitz. Read "When Character was King" by Peggy Noonan. Get your news from the internet where you can filter it yourself instead of letting clueless pricks like Peter Jennings filter it for you. You will then be on the road to fact-based conservatism! Welcome to the bright side of the road!
My $.02 anyway.
Duh - should be "only too
happy to oblige" and "regardless of what
type of school you go to" - fingers were flying too fast!
A few of us old-time conservatives know of Frank Meyer and Russel Kirk, whom I had the good fortune to sit next to at a collegiate Conservative Club meeting in 1969. We conservatives, as pointed out above, are a practical lot, and much concerned with civility, so we are glad to make common cause with the "libertines," when possible. Personally, I have found most of them to be selfish hypocrites (of course they call selfishness a "virtue"), who are all for personal freedom and keeping money in their own pockets but who object when called upon to bear arms to preserve their own freedom and prosperity.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 8, 2003 5:09 PMA few of us old-time conservatives know of Frank Meyer and Russel Kirk, whom I had the good fortune to sit next to at a collegiate Conservative Club meeting in 1969. We conservatives, as pointed out above, are a practical lot, and much concerned with civility, so we are glad to make common cause with the "libertines," when possible. Personally, I have found most of them to be selfish hypocrites (of course they call selfishness a "virtue"), who are all for personal freedom and keeping money in their own pockets but who object when called upon to bear arms to preserve their own freedom and prosperity.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 8, 2003 5:09 PMJeff -
I wasn't implying that I would leave the education of my children wholly up to whatever school I sent them to. I would just really like my kids' school to teach the classics, maybe some Latin, Western Civilization, and concepts like freedom, democracy, liberty, and government.
In my ideal world I want what they learn from me supplemented at school. I certainly don't want my sons, but also my daughters, learning how to bake cheesy snacks and sew locker-organizers in school (both projects I was forced to do in a class I received an F in).
There were girls in my school who took some sort of sex ed class where they had to carry around a hard-boiled egg in a basket for a few days, which simulated taking care of a baby (I guess).
I just want to know (or know how to know) what types of schools avoid this nonsense and have a considerable focus on subjects suited to educate a citizen in a republic.
Matt:
One doubts there are many such.
Matt - I concur with OJ again - good luck. I'd say Catholic schools are more behind the curve so in some senses that is good - in others, bad.
Ah well, by the time your as-yet-unborn kids get to school, our society may have changed (let's hope) from what it is today, so I wouldn't spend much time worrying about it now. Those subjects will come back into vogue someday, and since the ludicrous "Western civ has got to go" b.s. started about 10 years ago, by the time another 10-15 years have gone by, that whole era may have passed us by.
You sound like you are way ahead of the game already, by thinking about this now. You'll do fine, and your kids will be lucky to have a dad who is so involved in their overall education.
Matt:
I'm 49. I learned a fair amount the old fashioned way--a catholic affection for books.
Plus the kind of experience only luck and time can provide. There is nothing like having a front row seat in the Cold War to provide valuable education.
That said, my breadth of reading before visiting BroJudd Industries, while far greater than average, wasn't a patch than on what it is now.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 18, 2004 12:03 PMMatt:
I am about your age as well: I just turned 25 a few weeks ago. From my experience, Catholic elmentary schools do a good job of teaching kids the basics: reading, writing, arithmetic and most importantly--self-discipline. Catholic high schools do a good job of teaching kids critical thinking skills and preparing them for college; for example, they don't teach home economics and auto shop. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church and its schools have been infiltrated by liberal forces, and one must not expect all the Catholic schools of today to be like they were 30 or 40 years ago.
My advice is put your kids in a good religious school, monitor their education, always take them to museums and libraries, and have them watch educational television and internet sites. Introduce them to brothersjudd.com, but just keep them away from Bart. ;)
Posted by: Vince at November 18, 2004 12:26 PMAll these anti-Libertarian arguments go the same way, establish a semi-resonable basis for why someone might be drawn to Libertarian ways and then drop the wammy;
"Libertarianism in its most extreme, or most immature, form rebels against the notion that even God can limit liberty. That rebellion is the point at which it turns into mere license. Like all extremisms, it envisions itself as uniquely pure and uncompromised, but it must be obvious that having abandoned the idea of a Creator and rights as issuing from Him, this kind of libertarianism becomes incoherent."
Pick out the extreme case, brand it as a godless religion, and assume a moral superoir posture while leaning on your faith.
The problem is a whole lotta people past, present, and future don't believe in any God let alone a Christion God. So now by necessity, the entire world and every last mind needs to be converted or saved if you will, by an entity (governement) that really should only be defending the country and your personal Liberty. The governement hardly does well collecting refuse, you want them on a crusade?
I don't.
Posted by: Perry at November 18, 2004 1:03 PMPerry:
Then they won't have liberty. It's a pretty basic choice.
Posted by: oj at November 18, 2004 1:13 PMMaybe I'm missing something, but this post seems like an olive branch to libertarian readers of this blog. Nice to see OJ making distinctions between types of libertarians, and not just lumping them together as a heresy that must be expunged! Semolina, are you reading this?
Regarding ex-Marxists who helped start National Review: don't forget Max Eastman, perhaps the first neocon and the author of a number of excellent books.
Posted by: PapayaSF at November 18, 2004 2:23 PMLibertarians are heretics that should be expunged!
Posted by: Vince at November 18, 2004 3:29 PM"Man is not endowed with dignity by virtue of being Created, then what is the basis for saying that the individual should be inviolate? It can only be that you say it should be so--but if I believe otherwise, necessarily with equal validity, then what may I not do to you?"
You will believe what you will believe about human dignity regardless of your religious beliefs. Saying that "Man is endowed with dignity by virtue of being created" is just you saying it is so. It is a human assertion. Dignity is captive to human belief either way. How does you saying "Man is endowed with dignity by virtue of being created" prevent me from disagreeing with you?
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 18, 2004 7:03 PMRobert:
You're free to disagree with all 2 billion of us who believe God told us how to treat one another. However, you're constrained to treating us that way too, as a freeloader.
Posted by: oj at November 18, 2004 7:10 PMRobert- It doesn't. Living in a society built on a consensus regarding the nature of man and his place in the creation allows you to believe what ever you'd like.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at November 18, 2004 7:15 PMOJ the freeloader line is pretty puerile, can't you argue like an adult? My point is that it is important to have a consensus on how to treat each other, not why you believe. Someone who does not wish to treat others with dignity will not be convinced to do so by your statement, he'll just believe that God intends for him to have more dignity than others.
Tom, it is living in a society built on a consensus that people should be free to believe what they like that allows me to believe whatever I like. You can arrive at that consensus through different philosophical justifications, there is no reason to believe that only those justifications founded on a theistic philosophy can lead you to that consensus. And there is no reason to believe that a theistic philosophy will lead you there. Theistic philosophies can lead anywhere. For the major part of civilized history theistic philosophies did not support letting people believe whatever they liked. Theistic philosophies don't lead, they follow. Beliefs are formed, then theology justifies them. So respect for human dignity in society really is based on people saying it is so.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 18, 2004 7:42 PMRobert:
You said what I was going to, only a whole lot better.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 18, 2004 7:45 PMMatt:
I'm 37, and like many of those here, acquired most of what I know through voracious independent reading. I dropped out of school when I was 14, and although I sometimes mildly regret doing so, never because I believe that I would have learned more by staying.
For me, it was my parents who most influenced what I've become. They encouraged me to read, and let me live at the library after school and on weekends. Also, my father enjoyed verbal sparring, and so his children grew up in an environment that rewarded breadth and depth of knowledge, as well as quick wit. Reality was examined from every angle. He was never condescending or disparaging when we children wandered out of our zone of knowledge, or tried some humor that didn't work well.
Even now, when my siblings and I get together, our favorite activity is to chew over the problems of the world, or potential future opportunities, for an hour or six.
As for schooling your children, I'd recommend Montessori schools. They're good at letting kids progress at their own pace, whether it's faster or slower than average.
Also, you may want to rethink teaching your kids how to cook and sew; both skills can be very useful throughout life. Make sure that your girls learn how to work with basic tools, along with the boys.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 18, 2004 9:02 PMRobert:
The Eureopeans have forgotten where they got the morality they once adhered to and so it is slipping away and along with it their societies. So long as you guys adhere ypu're no problem but when you start trying to undermine the sources you're a cancer.
Posted by: oj at November 18, 2004 9:05 PMThanks Jeff.
OJ, adhering to the consensus (the moral consensus, not the religious) is everyone's duty. Much of Europe's problem has derived from the close institutional relationship between Church and State. State corrupted Church, and therefore Church lost its moral authority. I will never undermine anyone's right to practice their faith - I have committed myself to fight for their right. I will expect the same in return.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 18, 2004 10:28 PMRobert:
No, State rivalled Church and was able to destroy it. Because they work together here we don't have the same problem.
Posted by: oj at November 18, 2004 10:37 PMOJ:
You don't know much about Europe, do you?
Robert is right.
Most, if not all, European countries has, or had until fairly recently, a formally established, government funded church.
Their is no better way to enervate religion.
It is precisely because our government does not work with any one religion or another that we don't have a problem with religion.
A feel for irony is probably not your strong point.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 19, 2004 6:58 AMJeff:
Their decline had nothing to do with their association with the state anymore than the decline of European militaries did. The Staists had to crush their main rival--it's what y'all are trying to do here. Americans are just a more independent people and distrustful of government power.
Posted by: oj at November 19, 2004 8:29 AMOh come now. Just precisely what horrible things did those statists do to "crush" their rival?
I lived in England for quite some time, and certainly noted no such jack-boot measures.
Also, you should watch for editorial continuity. Just a week or so ago, you posted an article describing the growth of evangelical (not state funded) Christian sects in England.
How do they avoid being crushed?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 19, 2004 12:42 PMBy taking over the social services they provided and outlawing the morality they propounded, among other things.
Evangelicalism is rising because the Statist experiment has failed. Evangelical Anglicans, from Africa, are doing well.
Posted by: oj at November 19, 2004 12:46 PMOJ:
What, prey tell, did those statists do to crush religion?
I lived in England for quite awhile, and never saw anything like jackboots crushing believers for the greater glory of secularism.
You should pay a little more attention to editorial consistency. Just a week or so ago, you posted an article proclaiming the astonishing growth of evangelical Christian sects in England.
Which aren't getting any government support. And, one thinks, would be juicy targets for more jackbooting.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 19, 2004 2:31 PMSorry for the repeat--when I checked back a couple hours later, the original wasn't there...
("outlawing the morality"--do you mean that the religionists were thrown in jail, or deprived of their livelihoods/property by adhering to their morality? Surely you must, or the term would have no meaning. Examples, please.)
Well, if those tepid developments are all it takes to "crush" religion, then as a creed it must be singularly fragile.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 20, 2004 9:48 AMFor instance, abortion was legalized over the objections of the religious and in direct contradiction of the Judeo-Christian morality that undergirds the civilization. It's a simple case of the State contesting for power with the Church, a fight the Church can't win.
Posted by: oj at November 20, 2004 9:52 AMOJ:
Huh?
You said "crushed." Far from "crushing" religion, that should have provided a rallying cry for the religious.
State funded and established churches were monopoly providers. Like all monopoly providers everywhere, they got fat, lazy, and unresponsive.
So they lost market share for reasons having nothing to do with some purported "crushing" of religion.
If the State made religious belief illegal with attendant punishments, or frog-marched believers to abortion mills, then you might have a point.
But it didn't, and asserting that the state nonetheless managed to "crush" religious belief makes that belief very much a hothouse flower indeed.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 21, 2004 8:20 AMJeff:
That's not how power works. Republicans, for instance, don't have to send Democrats to prison in order to crush them. Yes, religion, and especially morality, is a hothouse flower. That's how Europe was able to destroy itself and the Left inAmerica do so much damage in so short a time. It's much easier to make a society indecent than maintain its decency.
Posted by: oj at November 21, 2004 8:54 AMA belief that can't maintain itself in the face of allowing people options isn't worth having.
Your Republican-Democrat analogy is flawed. Churchgoers were, and are, perfectly able to make voluntary associations an jointly practice a more restrictive morality any time they choose. Church-state is not zero sum; Republican-Democrat is.
I'll bet everywhere else you see a monopoly provider, you see sloth, waste, and incompetence. So why not with state established religions?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 21, 2004 3:34 PMJeff:
They aren't allowed options. Education is compulsory, even believers are taxed for public education, making private unaffordable, then the State bars religion from the schoolhouse. Thus the doctrines of the education unions become orthodoxy.
Posted by: oj at November 21, 2004 3:49 PMSomehow government provision, a virtual guarantee of mediocrity, is suddenly, massively effective at causing the religious to cave as easily as a house of cards in the face of a zephyr.
The state bars religion from the schoolhouse? Oh, the humanity!
I could scarcely have insulted religious belief more than you just have.
It's no insult, if you recall your Bible, God periodically devastated cities or the entire Earth because people backslid so easily. Morality is hard, selfishness easy.
Posted by: oj at November 21, 2004 10:51 PMYeah, I recall my Bible.
Along with other fairy tales.
Your Christian soldiers would apparently be put to flight by a platoon of girlie men.
One would think the payoff of Eternity would lend more backbone than that. No wonder Christianity requires the stake.
Jeff:
The pull of evil is stronger than that of good, it's the essence of our Fallen state. Only faith stands in the way of our descent and it's easily defeated--as witness almost all of Europe and amoralists like you.
Posted by: oj at November 22, 2004 8:29 PMOJ:
"For instance, abortion was legalized over the objections of the religious and in direct contradiction of the Judeo-Christian morality that undergirds the civilization. It's a simple case of the State contesting for power with the Church, a fight the Church can't win."
Happened here, too. Legal artificial birth control happened here, too. All those things that happened in Europe happened here, too.
So why didn't religion perish like a mayfly in the US?
No monopoly, government subsidized religion provider, that's why.
Heck, if that sort of thing is good enough to ruin education, why not religion?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 23, 2004 8:42 PMBecause America is different.
Posted by: oj at November 23, 2004 8:45 PM