"When it comes to articulation, no one can beat Barack Obama. He can even convince people that he has new ideas, when in fact they are old 1960s ideas that have failed repeatedly, ever since that irresponsible decade."
" Then there is Hillary Clinton, formerly known as “front-runner” Hillary Clinton or the “inevitable” candidate Hillary Clinton.
It is painful to watch her trying to act human and it would be even more painful to see the Clintons back in the White House that they disgraced in so many ways."
"Republicans, as usual, seem to have more people who would make good presidents than people who would make good presidential candidates. Unfortunately for them, we have elections instead of coronations."
Fr James Schall answers: "The Truth." And then he continues:
Yves Simon has a very insightful section in A General Theory of Authority that he titled "Freedom from the Self." In an age of self, and self-expression, this notion that our very selves can be obstacles to our own freedom comes as a shock. "Freedom from our very selves?" What can this mean? The whole idea of virtue is that we will only see ourselves if we choose a proper end and means to achieve it. The old monks used to speak of "conquering ourselves." They spoke of this inner war of ourselves against ourselves as the most difficult and perhaps dangerous enterprises of all. It is a Platonic idea, to be sure. All disorder of the world originates in disorder of soul. If we do not learn this truth, nothing else will much matter; we are bound to get it wrong, because we choose to see things wrongly.Patrick Deneen, another professor from Georgetown comments:
Thus, if we do not know we have a soul, if we are just a bundle of emotions and drives, we will never be sufficiently free of ourselves to see what is not ourselves. No freedom is more precious than that of seeing clearly, delightedly what is not ourselves. We are, as it were, self-insufficient. And that, in a way, is the best thing about us. We look to others to know what we really are. We are not merely coupling and political animals, as Aristotle said, but, as he also said, beings who wonder about what it is all about. The beginnings of this wonderment are precious moments in our lives. It often happens through first loves, or through being struck by something we never saw before or even heard of. It can even happen in a university class.
"Above all, Fr. Schall instructs us, we must learn that we are "self-insufficient." In this remarkable and delightful phrase, Fr. Schall refutes one of the most pernicious and false beliefs of our time - that we are or ever can be "self-sufficient." Our frailty and insufficiency is at the heart of the most fundamental truth we must learn - a truth that much of modern life is arranged to obscure and permit us a kind of self-deception. Such understanding calls to mind the great reminder of Vaclav Havel, that "we are not God." Only with that understanding can we begin to govern ourselves - understanding our "selves" as not the whole of what we are - and begin to value something other than the feeding of the insatiable selves that are the most fundamental obstacles to a true form of freedom.
"The fact that self-sacrifice is regarded by less than half of all adults in this country as a positive moral virtue tells us far more about the current state of American religious belief than do all the polls indicating that more than 90 percent of the American public still believes in God. It tells us that the Trinitarian Godhead which is within itself a communion of self-giving love is no longer the God in whom the American public believes. It tells us that Christ, the source of the sacred or sacramental ordering of our lives, who becomes Head of the Church and source of that order by virtue of his sacrifice for the sake of the Church, no longer informs American religous sensibilities."
Does this have anything to do with the state of modern catechesis in the Catholic Church?
"live free or die; death is not the worst of evils."
"Men may be destroyed because they are brave - as Aristotle long ago observed - but that is no excuse for playing the coward."
"he who has a strong enough why can bear any how"
"Let no man deceive himself: if any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise" (1 Corinthians 3:18).
""We confess to hurting someone we love and she says, 'Forget it. It's nothing. It doesn't matter.' But she knows and we know that it is not nothing, it does matter and we will not forget it. Forgive and forget, they say, but that is surely wrong. What is forgetten need not, indeed cannot be forgiven. Love does not say to the beloved that it does not matter, for the beloved matters. Spare me the sentimental love that tells me what I do and what I am does not matter."
"relativism is not rational; it is rationalizing."
"man's most pragmatic need is to be something more than a pragmatist."
“In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity."
"sow a thought, reap an act. sow an act, reap a character. sow a character, reap a destiny."
"Truth is symphonic"
"The Church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners."
"In the 1960s I was very much a man of the left. Not the left of countercultural drug-tripping and generalized hedonism, but the left exemplified by, for instance, the civil rights movement under the leadership of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In the latter half of the 1960s this began to change with the advent of the debate over what was then called "liberalized" abortion law. By 1967 I was writing about the "two liberalisms"-one, like that earlier civil rights movement, inclusive of the vulnerable and driven by a transcendent order of justice, the other exclusive and recognizing no law higher than individual willfulness. My argument was that, by embracing the cause of abortion, liberals were abandoning the first liberalism that has sustained all that is hopeful in the American experiment.
That is my argument still today. It is, I believe, crucially important that that argument prevail in the years ahead. There is no going back to reconstitute the American order on a foundation other than the liberal tradition. A great chasm has opened between the liberal tradition and what today is called liberalism. That is why some of us are called conservatives. Conservatism that is authentically and constructively American conservatism is conservatism in the cause of reappropriating and revitalizing the liberal tradition."
Richard John Neuhaus
"You're a better man than I'll ever be"What a guy
"Not a big ___ guy"
"I'm being totally serious right now"
"This place is a fuckin mess dude"
"You're a good guy"
"You're on my shit list today"
"That's YOU dude"
"where are your shitkickers?"
"Let the judges and juries decide who was right and who was wrong."
"[there are competing ideas of freedom in this world]. there is a freedom understood as doing whatever you want; following your impulses, your passions, your desires. this is the freedom of indifference. that is, a freedom indifferent to right and wrong, the base and the noble, simply a freedom of acting upon desire.
true freedom, i will suggest, is the freedom that is directed towards excellence. the freedom that is not doing what we want to do, but wanting to do what we ought to do. the freedom of excellence, the freedom to be whom God called us to be and by his grace enables us to be. Jesus said, "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free". Knowing the Truth, believing the Truth, living the Truth."
"Fyodor Dostoyevsky, perhaps the best novelist in the 19th century, wrote brilliantly about the question of God and atheism. In one spot, he put on the lips of a character the fact that if a person does not worship the real God, he will bend his knees before things created and finite. There are, he added, no atheists -- they are really idolaters."
- Fr. Thomas Dubay
- Alice von Hildebrand in Crisis
This is a great post on why morality has a solid foundation if God exists; and a shakier one if He doesn't.
if there's no objective reality that compels our belief in human rights, then there are no human rights at all. further, if they are only human constructs than they can easily be changed and even lost entirely.
... to be clear, I do not believe that atheists are demonstrably less moral than believers are. In my view, it takes a significant level of thoughtfulness and proactive moral agency to reject the idea of God in our culture (though that may be changing); most of the atheists I know have spent a lot more time thinking about these issues and taking ownership of a meaningful moral code than most Christians I know. Nevertheless, let me take a crack at showing why a belief in God is, in general, more supportive of a belief in human rights than atheism is.
I agree that both the atheist and theist must commit themselves to human rights by an act of faith: for the theist, it's a faith in a certain type of God, and for the atheist, faith in the intrinsic value (?) of human beings. But the atheist knows that his belief in human rights is an act of will -- he knows there is no reality that compels him to recognize human rights; it's more accurate to say that he's creating human rights because, in light of human experience and his observations of reality, they work. For the theist, though, his faith in human rights is simply recognizing the implications of his faith in God. And so I disagree with Brian's assertion that it's the existence of God, not the belief in God's existence, that matters for human rights. It is the belief that matters. Whether or not God actually exists, if I believe in the God that is at the center of the world's major religions -- that is, a God who wants to be in relationship with his creation, thereby signaling human beings' inestimable value in God's eyes -- then human rights are an unavoidable implication of that belief for anyone who wants to live in harmony with God's design.
As for Brian's question on the value of this whole line of inquiry, I obviously can't speak for Michael, but I would venture to say that the point is not to marginalize the many non-religious voices who have been and remain essential to the struggle for human rights, but to make clear that, in a public square where religion is often greeted as an archaic and divisive obstacle to human understanding, religion might still hold the best hope for instilling a deep commitment to human dignity and worth..- Rob Vischer on Mirror of Justice
Me: So, how do you like living in Texas?
Engineer: Well, I live in Austin, and Austin is great. It's probably the only part of the state I would live in. I mean, Texas has a lot of Rednecks, and conservatives and the lot. Lots of people I try to stay away from.
Me: yeah [thinking yeah, those stupid people]
Engineer: Do you remember the 2004 election between Bush and Kerry?
Engineer: Yeah, every county in the state in Texas voted for Bush except the county which Austin is in.
Me: oh wow. [thinking man those people must be hard to deal with]
Engineer: but Austin is great otherwise.
me: yeah, i don't know if i could live without the change in seasons.
Oliver Wendall Holmes had perhaps more influence on American jurisprudence than any other judge in the 20th century. He wrote that what we call law is simply "the majority vote of the nation that could lick all the others", nothing more.
The Supreme Court demonstrated his influence in writing the decision in Planned parenthood v casey : 1992: "at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" Taken at face value, this is essentially the right to do anything.
But this is idea is challenged more frequently now, by natural law philosophers and even some sociologists, notably James Q. Wilson; in his book "the moral sentiments" he talks about "the existence of cross-cultural moral universals" which he says are "not strictly innate, developmentally inevitable."
And if you study our moral language, the moral law reveals itself to be a a presupposition of all moral debates. An example: the most secular moral theory is utilitarianism. the morally right action is the action that brings about the greatest possible total happiness. There are secular arguments against utilitarianism. one such argument is that the theory produces conclusions that violate some of our most deeply held moral intuitions. This argument stakes everything on the deeply held moral intution, i.e. moral intution. moral principles which we can't not know. But what is something that we can't not know, what is this moral intution but the law written on the heart.
the predominant tendency in our culture today: to deny the law written on the heart. no there isnt any natural law. there aren't any moral principles that are right for everyone.
colin turnbull [sp]: anthropologist, 1972, the ick tribe. conscience did not exist. everyone exploited everyone else. the ick proved there cannot be a law written on the heart. burnt heinna[sp]: later anthropologist, more fluent in tribal language, in 1985 said ick were not at all as turnbull had reported them. the ick were suffering great calamities, they werent lliving up to their own moral standards. margaret mead: famous, eager to prove sexual morality is culture. simoan culture was a paradise of free love; derek freeman proved her wrong. point being they haven't found a culture that has no knowledge of the fundamental moral law.
So - everyone knows moral law, not everyone knows the details, not everyone knows that he knows it.
thomas aquinas asked the question, "can the moral law be erased from the human heart?" he said the secondary principles can be totally erased; totally blotted out. (casuistry) the first moral principles can only be willfully misapplied, i.e., rationalizing, etc.
"When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.
More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology."
Read it all!
- Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
I think shes crazy
from First Things
"Here’s the latest example of a fascinating, though depressing, cultural phenomenon. A fellow who clearly knows nothing about a deep and difficult intellectual problem produces a manuscript purporting to resolve the problem definitively. Such a fellow is a crank, you might think, and will quite properly be ignored. But, no, he actually finds a publisher for his book, and a respected one at that. Even more surprisingly, the New York Times commissions a review of the book from a famous columnist, and, instead of exposing the book for the ignorant twaddle that it is, the columnist writes a glowing review. How does this happen?
Generally speaking, of course, it doesn’t. We have social institutions like the New York Times Book Review precisely in order to make sure that it can’t. Given the amount of material published nowadays, it’s essential to be able to sort the good from the bad, and we rely on prestigious publications like the Times Book Review to do part of the work for us. Book reviewers for this paper are expected to know something about the topics of the books they review, and they are expected to exercise informed judgment, separating the serious books from the intellectual junk in a basically fair sort of way. If a book like the one I describe makes it all the way to a positive review in the Times, there has been a serious failure of the epistemic institutions of our society.
And such there has been, and such there commonly are, when the subject is the philosophical treatment of religion."
R.R. Reno interpreting Francis Bacon
Mansfield on Tocqueville