The Conservatism of Faith “states conservative principles — and, indeed, eternal insights into the human condition — as a matter of truth. Because these conservatives believe that the individual is inseparable from her [sic] political community and civilization, there can be no government neutrality in promoting such truths. Either a government's laws affirm virtue or they affirm vice.” Meanwhile, the “conservatism of doubt asks how anyone can be sure that his view of what is moral or good is actually true.”
The Constitution serves as a bookcover to that which is contained therein, no? And what is "contained" is that which embodies first principles -- faith. Andrew Sullivan argues that what needs require faith when the Constitution itself lays out "civil" organization and principles. But that alone will not do.
Long ago, I gave an interview. I spoke in "political-speech" only. It came across as "impressive". When the camera had stopped rolling, I provided the direct "scriptural" address from whence my speech was derived. It blew (positively) the interviewers away; they were very pleased and suggested I should run for office. I can speak in scripture; I choose to speak, however, generally, in a language that all people, regardless of their faith (or lack thereof) can find "unity" within. These principles are derived from thousands of years of human experience and wisdom. My contribution, therefore, is my support and concurrence with those principles and expression thereof.
But in the theology of the left; I am condemned as an oppressor, already, and even before I speak. Ergo, the term bothers me not at all. Therefore, I am free to make history. ;> I do not sit on a throne nor do I uphold myself as "above" the past.
When we speak of a "living Constitution" we are therefore saying that history, human history, should be ignored for whatever reason we might choose to express: "history was written by evil white people"... "history was written by oppressors", ad nauseum. However, if we do take this approach to addressing the past in re our Founding Fathers, we thereby condemn ourselves.
Take the matter of gay marriage, for example.
In choosing to suggest that 4,000 years of history should be disregarded for pursuit of modernization principles, then we are we not suggesting that no one of any time, in any time, should be exempt from being labelled "oppressor", or "racist"? Elementary mathematical, logical skills are important to understand this "equasion". Should history be scuttled in favor of these newer "concepts" then, any who bring about such modernizations should also and immediately be "labeled" as "oppressors". And why? They would be making "history". And since "history" is oppressive, are not these forerunners to modernization therefore also not making "history" and therefore also not "oppressors"?
It is difficult, at times, to see through the "dim glass" - but there you are.
What, I ask you, is the internal basis upon which the "non-faithful" hold core as their belief set for "social dialogue"? To date, I've not seen one positive or life affirming aspect to their diatribes. All these do is spout negativisms about the past, the current; while proposing themselves as modern day "Jesus's" (and such). Since they hold the past in such negativisms, I cannot help but see that any proposals they would posit for the future cannot but also be "negatives". Perhaps this is what Jonah has meant by "healthy skepticism". :)
Take the term: All men are created equally.
To the non-faithful, this term can mean anything they wish it to mean. Redistribution of wealth, etc.
But to the faithful, this means that each man has been given LIFE. Each lot in life is different, unique, and individual; but that each man has EQUALLY free will to choose how to direct that life (once they are grown out of childhood; and which is why there exist special laws regarding children).
How can a "non-faithful" really explain the term "created equally" except in political or financial terms. There's just no way to do otherwise.
Truly, Jonah's article is excellent, and exactly where my mind has been lately -- focusing specifically on this matter.
The left sees the "faithful and political" as trying to do some type of "conversion" on the "unfaithful or non-faithful". As though one person's POV has anything to do with influencing another's or forcing another's perspective. Not at all.
I, a faithful, ask the left: Speak out upon that which you base your social "rhetoric", if you like. The left claims it doesn't "like" to. And the reason, IMHO, they don't? Is because there's nothing there. They've got only platitudes to deliver and intellectualism which requires a faith of some sort in order to explain. The left requires that I intellectualize in order to avoid simple, first principles.
If I choose not to "intellectualize" then the left gets upset. They do not respect my "choice". I can travel with them, ably, in the intellectual realms, but when my speech requires a deeper, more solid footing, which is not "intellectual" (as coined and produced by lefties), then the left becomes frightened. They use their "intellectualism" as a shield to avoid "feelings" and personal, core "motivations" and expressions thereof.
The left, then, is all head and no heart, no?
To walk as a whole person one needs to be engaged in balanced manner with both head and heart.
The lefties use government programs, their support and posit of such, to mask as their heart. And this, then, is the core of their faith and tenents: One can only speak from the heart when it involves the promotion of "government (legislative and judicial) policy". And so, what they propose is making a "state religion". A master religion using the articles of our Founding Fathers.
Our Founding Fathers instead came up with a table by which all faiths may be respected without there being an "official state religion".
1 comment:
Mon pal, Alia wisely stated:
"To walk as a whole person one needs to be engaged in balanced manner with both head and heart."
Very well put, Alia. And so true. Albeit you'd find the left-leaning sorts arguing that the right leaning types do not use their heart at all and are, ergo, heartless to the plight of the underdog.
Odd accusation on the heels of being *too* faith based, eh? How can those deeply rooted in faith be heartless? It belies all common sense and teachings of the various religions.
What I find most intriguing is the left and right attempts to have "intelligent" dialogue INRE faith at all. It truly is something that intelligence plays no part. You either have faith... sans clear convincing evidence.. in something, or you don't. Thereby, how can one hold an "intelligent" debate over such lofty matters of the heart?
Personally I think all this dialogue and whining that the conservative leadership is too too faith based is confined to the politicos and MSM. I doubt that the American common man/woman dwells on it at, all save the moment when they read some headline and commentary. It then will fly out of their minds to be replaced by the daily tasks of surviving.
Post a Comment