Evangelicals Storm the Academy
One of the great things about living in a university environment is that it's one of the few places in the country that's dominated neither by conservative Christianity nor by big business. But that won't last if the former group has its way, according to this in today's NYT.
I've talked extensively with students who have fallen in with e.g. Campus Crusade for Christ, and it's a sad thing. Happily, sensible students frequently break out again after they see what's going on with the Stepford Students, but many are trapped for good.
Of course one can't talk about that branch of Christianity without discussing their bizarre attitudes about sex, and these do emerge in the Times piece. Mr. Haven, the protagonist of the piece, is an evangelical minister who did not even kiss his fiancee until after they were engaged. Think about what this betrays about Mr. Haven's views about sex. Kinda scary. It is, of course, no surprise that a significant percentage of Christians have pathological and indefensible views about sex. It's tragic, but not likely to change any time soon. And it's more than a little worrisome that someone with such a twisted view about such a great and important part of the human experience would presume to advise others on how to live their lives.
There's a vicious hatred of much of what is wonderful about humanity at the core of many conservative religions. Such hatred of our humanity is one of the forces of darkness that Western civilization has managed to beat back, but our victory over such forces is far from complete. It's an on-going battle. When relatively more reasonable forces managed to wrest control of the university from religious fanatics, a major victory was won. If people like Mr. Haven have their way, however, that front will be re-opened.
One might be able to maintain a kind of conflicted optimism here by noting that reason has some powerful, though unsavory, allies in this battle. Big corporations have gone a long way toward brainwashing many of us into accepting a kind of mindless hedonism--turn on MTV or BET for a few minutes if you don't believe me. Those corporate forces won't give up ground without a fight, and they must be aware that the puritanism of the religious right represents a significant threat to them.
The trick, however, is to construct a culture that is dominated neither by the anti-human puritanism of sexual conservatives, nor by a vulgar, mindless hedonism that promotes physical pleasure and material wealth above all other goods. That leaves an extraordinarily wide and varied range of possibilities for sexual exploration and expression[. O]f course, it just discourages the dumbest of the dumb mistakes one might make about sex.
One of the great things about living in a university environment is that it's one of the few places in the country that's dominated neither by conservative Christianity nor by big business. But that won't last if the former group has its way, according to this in today's NYT.
I've talked extensively with students who have fallen in with e.g. Campus Crusade for Christ, and it's a sad thing. Happily, sensible students frequently break out again after they see what's going on with the Stepford Students, but many are trapped for good.
Of course one can't talk about that branch of Christianity without discussing their bizarre attitudes about sex, and these do emerge in the Times piece. Mr. Haven, the protagonist of the piece, is an evangelical minister who did not even kiss his fiancee until after they were engaged. Think about what this betrays about Mr. Haven's views about sex. Kinda scary. It is, of course, no surprise that a significant percentage of Christians have pathological and indefensible views about sex. It's tragic, but not likely to change any time soon. And it's more than a little worrisome that someone with such a twisted view about such a great and important part of the human experience would presume to advise others on how to live their lives.
There's a vicious hatred of much of what is wonderful about humanity at the core of many conservative religions. Such hatred of our humanity is one of the forces of darkness that Western civilization has managed to beat back, but our victory over such forces is far from complete. It's an on-going battle. When relatively more reasonable forces managed to wrest control of the university from religious fanatics, a major victory was won. If people like Mr. Haven have their way, however, that front will be re-opened.
One might be able to maintain a kind of conflicted optimism here by noting that reason has some powerful, though unsavory, allies in this battle. Big corporations have gone a long way toward brainwashing many of us into accepting a kind of mindless hedonism--turn on MTV or BET for a few minutes if you don't believe me. Those corporate forces won't give up ground without a fight, and they must be aware that the puritanism of the religious right represents a significant threat to them.
The trick, however, is to construct a culture that is dominated neither by the anti-human puritanism of sexual conservatives, nor by a vulgar, mindless hedonism that promotes physical pleasure and material wealth above all other goods. That leaves an extraordinarily wide and varied range of possibilities for sexual exploration and expression[. O]f course, it just discourages the dumbest of the dumb mistakes one might make about sex.
posted by Winston Smith at
2:20 PM
25 Comments:
Fix that last ROS, it's confusing, it took me a long time to parse the comma as a semicolon or a period.
You seem to be far more obsessed with sex than the fellow described in the article, WS. :-)
(The author is obsessed with money, which dominates the article.)
But if there is a teleology of sex (an end, a purpose, and therefore a limit to how far you can go with it before there are "mistakes"), then you seem to draw a line just as the religionists do.
You draw it in a different place, but you still draw it. If the line the Bible (or Tibetan Buddhism, for that matter) draws is arbitrary, so yours will be, too.
You say, "Such hatred of our humanity is one of the forces of darkness that Western civilization has managed to beat back." I think that's an odd juxtaposition, since Eastern civilization has generally embraced our humanity, whereas Western civilization has generally been the SOURCE of fear and hatred of it.
tvd,
why don't you assign this patented post of yours, the "you are making the same judgements as those you criticize!" post, with a number (call it, say, Post 1A) so that you don't have to go to the trouble of actually typing it, and we don't have to go to the trouble of reading it?
It is good to start with First Things, Matt. You may pick up the question of a teleology of sex. Or not. But it's a more interesting philosophical subject than I am.
*******
I was reading GK Chesterton on Aquinas last night, and the arguments are the same as in 1933. Spooky.
Chesterton's answer about Christian uptightness was, if marriage is sacred, how can sex be a sin? Moreover, who is more pro-human, the pro- or anti-birth control crowd?
To Asia, he notes that Eastern metaphysics revolves around the transmigration of souls; you can come back as a dog or a cat or a bug. What's so pro-human about that? By contrast, the Christian faith proposes a resurrection of the body. Ya just can't get any more human.
One can make his case for a non-teleology of sex, but it won't be made by picking apart the contrary position: it will have to stand on its own. Christianity has its own internally consistent answers. Aquinas isn't Falwell.
Actually,the religious right has such a habit of preaching against the "suns" they perform in secret, that hedonistic businesses and they fit together hand in glove.
tvd,
1. Thinking of sex primarily as a means to an end is precisely part of the problem.
2. You've gotta get over the "you draw distinctions too, so you're just as bad as them" point. It doesn't work. The question is whether one draws the distinctions correctly or incorrectly. For example: if you think child molestation is permissible, then you're a nut. On the other hand, if you think that non-marital sex is impermissible, you're a nut on the other end of the nut spectrum.
3. Christianity is "internally consistent"? Surely you jest, sir...
1) I only ask why.
2) Despite what Matt says, my usual form is an affirmative defense.
However, your preferred presentation of argument, Dogma X sucks and we shall replace it with Reason Y, dictates the form of my responses.
I ask why X is stupid, and usually present my opinion as to why it's not. Then, since X is out, I ask for your Y.
Since Reason Y will subsume Dogma X, it accrues all the vulnerablities of dogma. Leaving Y without an affirmative defense doesn't make it less dogmatic.
Above, your Y seems to be an equation of pederasty with pre-marital chastity. I find this problematic on any number of levels.
3) One has to know more about it than a surface reading. I do not assert it is correct, only that it's consistent with itself.
In its funky way, NAMBLA is consistent. It postulates no harm to psyche or soul is done. If sex is non-teleological, or if there is no soul, so far so good.
We would say there is harm done, and so the NAMBLA trip is morally unacceptable. But if we can't prove harm is done, we lose the argument, at least on points.
Then we get to Frank Booth, sado-mas and all that jazz. Any Y must account for it. Assuming Blue Velvet is cool with Y, the best affirmative defense I can see is the same as NAMBLA's, and that puts us in quite a logical pickle. Wouldn't want to be hypocrites, the worst sin of all.
Back at X, we could explore why pre-marital chastity is harmful, but I expect that to be a tough case to make. But perhaps not.
Look, I was no virgin at marriage ;-), so I'm not on to some fire-and-brimstone/holier-than-thou thing here. But although I and my partners were convinced no harm was being done, I cannot say for certain that that was true.
There can be a teleology of sex that doesn't conform to the procreation riff. I'm just not sure what it is. If there is no teleology, then we are presented with the task of making an affirmative defense of the gratification of desire into a Good.
We are also stuck with Frank Booth.
Well, you know me, tvd...no enemy of teleology, I. The problem with the puritannical religious view about sex, however, is that the intrinsic goodness of the act is denied. Sure sex is (SOMETIMES) instrumentally good; who'd deny that? But it's also intrinsically good. That this claim needs to be defended is one sign of the derangement of the modern mind caused by Christianity and other religions.
I hope I'm not misinterpreting your position here, but aren't you now in the (unenviable) position of denying that pleasure (sexual and otherwise) is a good?
Of course it's not a good that trumps all others--one must engage in sex only with the consent of the other party, one must be honest about one's intentions and goals, etc....but these are just the ordinary obligations we're all under all the time.
The question for you is: If x is pleasurable and doesn't harm anyone, what's wrong with it?
Of course you might gerrymander some story about possible unanticipated harm etc., but that would also make, e.g., playing basketball impermissible.
And surely you don't think that non-marital basketball is morally impermissible, right?
(Incidentally: pre-marital chastity is often *very* harmful. The proof is left as an exercise for the surfer.)
Actually, I have no idea where you stand on the teleology of anything, WS. I admit an inability to discern a philosophical thread to your thinking even after all this time. The fault is mine.
You do not misrepresent me. However if sex is intrinsically good, it would follow that it cannot be bad. But we know this isn't so.
So too with pleasure. In fact, po-mo seems to elevate pleasure (or even the pleasant) above the ancients' highest Good, virtue.
I would aspire not to "gerrymander" any reply concerning harm, except to propose that the psychological component of sex is far more important to the human being than the physical one. (And IMO, far more for women than men.)
In a larger sense, too, I question the assertion that the pursuit of pleasure is by definition harmless.
Surely each of us at times (and some at all times) pursues pleasure at the expense of pursuing something higher. I believe this is what the classics were getting at, that life is the moral boot camp of the soul.
I am troubled by Blue Velvet---both sado- and mas- are getting what they want, they are consenting, and it's ostensibly harmless.
My reservations aren't based on a religious condemnation: more contemplating Aristotle, et al., that virtue is the highest end for man, and that consuming sexual (or any moral) junk food, even if morally neutral, interferes with one's telos.
The Blue Velvet characters derive pleasure from their doings, but is it good?
The possibility that chastity is harmful is an idea I'm not closed to looking at philosophically.
I'm not closed to considering anything philosophically, WS, despite being a prude---the seminal (hehe) second-generation Straussian Allan Bloom ("The Closing of the American Mind") had a whole riff on why it was fine for older men to bone the younger ones: the old man gets his jollies, the younger gets the old man's wisdom and connections. A good deal for all.
In fact, if I recall, he used Ava Gardner sleeping her way to the top as an analogue. Certainly an internally consistent argument, as far as it goes. (That Bloom, being homosexual, seems to have benefited greatly from his thesis is something best left for the deconstructionists.)
I don't have a comprehensive thesis of sexuality, but I'm not ready to accept "if it feels good, do it" as a guiding principle or even a safe strategy for the soul.
Is pleasure happiness? I think therein lies the rub(ber).
I see where you're coming from, and the point at issue between us seems to have to do with the nature of intrinsic goods.
You say that if x is intrinsically good, then it cannot be bad, but I'm not sure about that. Seems to me that x could be intrinsically good in some respect and intrinsically bad in others. And/or x could be intrinsically good in some respects but have bad consequences.
Sex is an interesting case. I'd say that the physical and other pleasures associated with sex are intrinsically good.
That doesn't mean that they can't be misused--if, e.g., you have sex with A in order to hurt B; or if you have sex with A under false pretenses (e.g. lying about your feelings for A).
Now, that's consistent with my position. Sex is intrinsically good, but that doesn't mean it can't be bad--impermissible under certain conditions.
The Christian view, however, is that sex is intrinsically dirty, and can only be redeemed if done in strictly-defined ways under strictly-defined conditions, notoriously in order to reproduce.
But this is false. Rather, sex is good and entirely permissible under a whole range of conditions, only impermissible for reasons that most activities are impermissible--if they cause some kind of harm.
Now, the Christian could theoretically agree with this, but argue that ordinary sex (sex e.g. outside of marriage and not for the purpose of reproduction) causes harm. But that's false. There simply isn't anything plausibly harmful about most case of consenting adults agreeing to have sex with each other.
Sure, there are lots of kinds of cases we can think up in which it would be wrong (like those described above), but those are the exception and not the rule.
And, of coruse, even if they *were* the exception, all I need to show is that there is one possible case of morally permissible non-marital, non-reproductive sex.
Am I wrong about what we're disagreeing about here?
We're in the same ballpark. :-)
I'm just catching up on the deeper Christian theology, so I'll do the best I can. Aquinas is da man, and he's an Aristotelian, so at least there's some common language.
I'd say that Aquinas would say that a thing is intrinsically good only when it's consistent with its teleology. When it's not, it's bad.
That it has a teleology at all implies that it is good. I think the Manichees had a teleology of evil, but Aquinas was vigorously opposed to them. It was the Manichees who believed sex was bad, since they saw man as little pieces of Good imprisoned by his worldly physicality.
(St. Augustine was a Manichee for 9 years; it may have influenced his linking of original sin to the sex act.)
But Aquinas thought a man should take care of his appearance so his wife could love him more---obviously linking sexual attraction to love, which he obviously considered good.
"That will settle the Manichees!," he cried out at a state dinner with the King of France when the thought first occurred to him. He was that kinda guy.
I know nothing of John Calvin, who was influenced by Augustine, but Calvin banned clerical celibacy, so I don't know if we can say that even the Puritan father thought sex was bad either.
But we seem to agree there's a teleology of sex, then. What it is, is another matter, but Square One's there, anyway.
Looking through history, marriage had been more a business/social arrangement, so it seems to me that our understanding of man's psychosexuality is in its infancy. Expectation of "intimacy" and the like as the norm is pretty fresh ground, I think.
Therefore, in my customary Burkean conservative manner, I'm very cautious about change, and the assumption that "ordinary sex" is harmless. Not that I assert it isn't, but I do believe that we're far more fragile psychosexually than the modern age allows for. Just talking with people, I think that a bad sexual experience is far more harmful than a good one is beneficial.
I believe a lot of scarring goes on.
Christian thought elevates the teleology of sex to the status of "the good china," which should not be used in an "ordinary" fashion lest it be carelessly chipped or broken.
Many interesting points.
My $0.02:
A. If we're going to appeal to tradition, then that's probably going to favor my position, not yours. Christians tend to think that the world was like the 1950s until 1960. But it wasn't. For most of human history, marriage was a less formal affair and sex outside of it more common.
B. Your position seems to turn on a thesis about human psychology. But the relevant aspect of human psychology is highly variable. Granted, some people would be traumatized or otherwise harmed by sex outside of marriage--but that's a relatively small number. *Of course* those people shouldn't do it. But nobody ever said that they should. The point is that conservative christians project their own preferences and frailties onto the rest of us. Most of us benefit from non-marital sex more than we are harmed by it in most cases. The task for the sexual conservative is to explain why we should refrain from it anyway.
Of course one might deny the empirical premiss and claim that we're actually being harmed. But that flies in the face of the facts.
Whaddaya think?
This has been great, WS. As a married man, I don't think about sex much anymore. (Insert old joke here.)
I had started out to try to illustrate at arm's length, in a pluralistic sort of way, that the Christian teleology of sex wasn't wrong, not that it was particularly the only correct answer.
Coincident with this discussion, I ran across a review of a new book called Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage. Unfortunately, I can provide no better links to reviews, but keep an eye out for some, as it was only recently published. Still, the title says a lot.
(I was wondering why the left-listing Harper's gave her such a fair hearing, but I've learned she's a Marxist, so it all fits. Hehe.)
I have no reason to doubt her rather materialistic reading of the history of marriage, but it occurred to me that the Christian ideal, love, has never been fully explored because of those repressive societal factors, and obvious oppression of women.
So, this love and equality thing, as Coontz notes, is entirely new ground. Since I detect among even the cognoscenti that our guiding lights on human sexuality of only 50 years ago, Freud and Kinsey, are largely considered all wet, so we're on our own.
Instead of inventing a new teleology from whole cloth, I'm inclined to take one more look back at an idea that really hasn't been truly tried, an idea that is barely understood.
I'm sorry to say that I don't expect a good-faith answer on human sexuality from the social science academy, since I believe its first principle is that a higher moral order doesn't exist. This is the objection of the classicists like myself, that the modern age reasons from low to high, and not from high to low, meaning the bar is always set at some universally achievable mediocrity rather than for the pursuit of excellence of the soul, which both the Greeks and the Thomists agree is the teleology of man's existence.
To close the circle, I see so many people these days contented/discontented with their f-buddies, whiling away their days with a simulacrum of the thrilling and fulfilling possibilities of true love. That, and the less-frequent but I think still grave psychosexual trauma of bad sex, is the harm I see, junk food instead of nourishment. One cannot survive on sawdust.
As Coontz observed, getting counseling for "intimacy" problems would have been a ridiculous notion scant years ago. That man's understanding of his sexuality is nascent is an exciting prospect, and I think all things should be on the table. I suppose my argument is that absent some epiphany, a lifetime of funky or indifferent sex may leave one unable to experience true intimacy, and thereby true love. I cannot think of a greater tragedy.
Winston Smith wrote:
"Of course it's not a good that trumps all others--one must engage in sex only with the consent of the other party, one must be honest about one's intentions and goals, etc....but these are just the ordinary obligations we're all under all the time.
That doesn't mean that they can't be misused--if, e.g., you have sex with A in order to hurt B; or if you have sex with A under false pretenses (e.g. lying about your feelings for A).
Now, that's consistent with my position. Sex is intrinsically good, but that doesn't mean it can't be bad--impermissible under certain conditions.
The Christian view, however, is that sex is intrinsically dirty, and can only be redeemed if done in strictly-defined ways under strictly-defined conditions, notoriously in order to reproduce.
But this is false. Rather, sex is good and entirely permissible under a whole range of conditions, only impermissible for reasons that most activities are impermissible--if they cause some kind of harm."
Just a few thoughts.
Christianity has changed. Most Christianity has completely come to terms with sex for pleasure, i.e., not just to reproduce, within marriage. Apparently there even exists Christian porn. I learned this from my evangelizing sister-in-law, who is quite risque, and says that Christians can be down right dirty...again, as man and wife.
So, not just to reproduce, and not dirty. For married adults.
Ok, so still more restricted than your view.
Your restrictions are consenting adults, no harm, etc.
But do you sufficiently banish NAMBLA, e.g., with your restrictions?
Couldn't NAMBLA say (as TVD suggests) that there is no harm in man boy love?
Furthermore, isn't the harm really nothing more than the residue of the very prudish constraints we live with as a result of Christianity? The shadow of God... We are not talking about physical harm, but mental harm, and isn't the mental harm the result precisely of having stigmatized sex for so long?
Couldn't we, shouldn't we, if pleasure is pleasure, strive to encourage others to consent to as many and as varied sexual experiences as possible?
And if the act itself is not inherently pleasurable, taking one in the ass for the team, e.g., why couldn't part of the enticement to consent be a new bike, say?
What is wrong with rape, e.g.? The sexual act is inherently pleasurable. Why resist? Why only with one partner? Why even give someone a veto on who they will have sex with? All sex is potentially pleasurable. Even with ugly people. And is denying sex to the ugly or unattractive not elitist? (If the partner isn't as attractive, incentivize consent in other ways...maybe with tax breaks or a chip system. Collect enough chips from those wishing to Roger you, and cash them in for a plasma TV. Everyone gets a certain allotment, and you can sell them if you don't need them, etc.) Why shouldn't sex be completely free and open to everyone? Why do people have a right to refuse their bodies when giving (loaning) them really causes no harm? Isn't that what the free love movement was all about? If we removed all vestiges of the Christian stigmatism, could we not move in this direction? Or if not, why not?
Dan,
I'm pretty sure my position is safe from your most of your criticisms. See what you think:
That minors can't really give consent is a time-honored principle. You'd have to undermine that principle to undermine my defense against NAMBLA. But I think that principle is safe.
The principle that consent it required at all is even more solid, and protects the position against the rape challenge.
Incidentally, both principles are accepted by all sane folk, so if they were to fail (which they won't), everybody'd be screwed (as it were...)
re: money and other incentives for sex:
Dunno. Find it so repugnant I never thought about it. Sounds like you might be suggesting it re: kids, but the first principle stops that. For adults? Good question. I find it repugnant, but can't think of a good reason against it...
tvd,
coincidentally, I just finished that Harper's review yesterday....um...today...whatever. I agree with you about the social sciences...god, conceptual confusions abound there, and we can't expect objectivity on value questions there. Anyway, we're in much agreement on that score.
Re: the bigger issues:
If you are just arguing that Christian-style sexual restraint and monogamy is one legitimate way to conduct oneself--and if that's the strongest conclusion we can get there--doesn't that mean the Christians are wrong? I mean, if the less puritannical alternatives are permissible, that seems to decide the case in favor of those on my side.
On the other hand, I asserted the stronger claim that Christian-style puritannical attitudes etc. were inferior. You note that many folks are dissatisfied with casual sex...I agree, and say that those folks shouldn't engage in it. Seems like this is a case in which genuine differences in preferences and expectations exist, and, hence, that different ways of living are better for different folks.
But if that's so, aren't I right about the big picture? Christianity advocates a (puritannical) one-size-fits-all answer to the question "how should I conduct myself sexually?", whereas this question (unlike the question "should I kill people for money?") admits of different correct answers based on the different inclinations of the individuals in question.
Actually I started out defending the view as one of many, but as a classicist who believes that seeking the highest should be the philosophy of things, I vote for true love. I do believe that a lifelong, exclusive commitment is the path to the highest form of intimacy possible, and therefore is a proper standard.
The legalisms of religious codes don't interest me (and pretty much nobody else, either, it seems, hehe); the Jesusian view is that the law is made for man, for his own good, not for some god's.
Talking about "intimacy" really puts a hurt on my guyhood, y'know? What a sentimental fool. :-P
tvd,
You are brave to share you feelings, and put you guyhood on the line!
Winston,
Let me press you a little further.
That minors cannot give consent is a time-honored principle. Yes. Which is why minors are required to do things by parents and society to which they would not consent, and for which we are not required to win their consent.
If our first principle is pleasure...
We begin with pleasure, by which I mean physical pleasure. Orgasms just feel good. Now, Christianity, comes along and stigmatizes some orgasmic situations, if not all orgasms (they are not all created equal).
You agree that they are not all created equal.
But isn't every orgasm physically pleasant? I imagine even shooting a round off in a farm animal, would feel more or less as pleasant as shooting one off in a sock, or Betty Sue next door, or one's lawfully wedded wife. (Look at dogs, e.g. They hump anything.)
Perhaps with an implicit understanding of what Pavlov showed, Christianity throws a wet blanket over most sexual situations. Sure, screw the goat or your neighbor's wife...if you want to burn in Hell! This attaches a certain emotional or psychic turmoil to some ejaculations and spoils what would otherwise be, physically, an intensely pleasant couple of seconds.
I don't see how your position is any different.
Especially if our view is not what is given, (a hangover from our Christian past, say, which should be removed forthwith) but what should be, based on the first principle that the good is the pleasant.
There are all sorts of avenues open to expanding consent in all sorts of areas. I am not saying to disregard consent. I am asking, is it legitimate in your view, to attempt to persuade others that it is perfectly fine, because ultimately pleasant, to consent to sex with anyone? (We don't require consent from animals, e.g., when we butcher them for food, so I don't think bestiality is touched by the consent argument.)
Dan
Winston,
Not to pile on, but if it isn't clear, let me suggest where I am coming from.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I believe your attitude has much more in common with the Christian conservatives than you seem to think. The limits you place on sex are, I suggest, not really rooted in consent, and cannot be rooted in consent. What people will consent to changes, and I do not think you would view a move toward consenting to some of the types of sexual behavior I have suggested as being in any way healthy. Indeed, wouldn't it be as "scary," "pathological," "tragic," and "indefensible" as the Christian view [your description of which, might, again, be questioned as to its accuracy] you describe with these terms.
You brought this up originally in the context of the university setting. In my experience, there is not the slightest danger of a return to puritanism here. And whatever vestiges remain, I do not think need to be rooted out and eliminated. To the extent that there is the smallest of changes, it is in reaction to the growing lasciviousness, and meaninglessness...
Aristotle and the mean. Vice approaches from different sides, but we are always tempted more toward one than the other. Today, I think, we are tempted more toward the growing vulgarity you also object to. And the reasonable corrective is to shoot in the other direction.
I always laugh when a Fox program plays the footage over and over of Paris Hilton's commercial in order to explain to us how crass we've become. Or the slap down by that New York radio station. I would never have seen it if Hannity and Colmes hadn't played it in order to disparage it.
Yours...
Well, this topic is about to drop off the Philosoraptor main page, and I want to thank you again, WS, for an opportunity to search my soul and mind on this question and the chance to share on it.
I do think Mr. Foley's taking up of the pleasant and good as non-synonymous is worth further study.
My final words were to be something along the lines of Who needs some Cosmic Code to being us to a mediocrity we'd achieve anyway?
I ran across this from GK Chesterton, who found himself toiling in the same vineyard nearly 100 years ago.
Peace, I'm out.
"We do not really want a religion that is right where we are right. What we want is a religion that is right where we are wrong. In these current fashions it is not really a question of the religion allowing us liberty; but (at the best) of the liberty allowing us a religion. These people merely take the modern mood, with much in it that is amiable and much that is anarchical and much that is merely dull and obvious, and then require any creed to be cut down to fit that mood. But the mood would exist even without the creed. They say they want a religion to be social, when they would be social without any religion. They say they want a religion to be practical, when they would be practical without any religion. They say they want a religion acceptable to science, when they would accept the science even if they did not accept the religion. They say they want a religion like this because they are like this already. They say they want it, when they mean that they could do without it.
It is a very different matter when a religion, in the real sense of a binding thing, binds men to their morality when it is not identical with their mood. It is very different when some of the saints preached social reconciliation to fierce and raging factions who could hardly bear the sight of each others’ faces. It was a very different thing when charity was preached to pagans who really did not believe in it; just as it is a very different thing now, when chastity is preached to new pagans who do not believe in it. It is in those cases that we get the real grapple of religion; and it is in those cases that we get the peculiar and solitary triumph of the Catholic faith. It is not in merely being right when we are right, as in being cheerful or hopeful or humane. It is in having been right when we were wrong, and in the fact coming back upon us afterwards like a boomerang.
One word that tells us what we do not know outweighs a thousand words that tell us what we do know. And the thing is all the more striking if we not only did not know it but could not believe it. It may seem a paradox to say that the truth teaches us more by the words we reject than by the words we receive."
G. K. Chesterton
This IS about to drop off the page, and much of what I'd say in response to Dan and tvd would just be repeating myself--but I HAVE found the discussion very interesting.
Let me respond quickly to the Chesterton quote: I'm fairly convinced that he's right about a lot there, but insufficiently attentive to something very important:
clashing with our inclinations is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a moral code being true and useful. It IS necessary for such a code to indicate that we're wrong sometimes, but that's not enough. It's got to tell us we're wrong when we're really wrong. I think some people--including many Christians--think that the more our moral code beats us down the better it is. That is, the stricter the better. I don't think anybody here believes that, and maybe nobody believes it explicitly, but many people DO believe it. But it's wrong.
Maybe a fresh post on this soon...
You have a great blog here! I will be sure to book mark you. I have a soul food recipe site. It pretty much covers soul food recipe related stuff. Check it out if you get time :-)
I have a related health canada blog you might want to check out
You have some good ideas on your blog here. Have any other ones? I'm out blogging and came upon yours. Good job.
regards,
aarp health insurance plan
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home