Spengler: +Rowan a "monster"

"he told me two years ago that we would live to see real religious war in the UK this century. "

The sooner it happens, the fewer Kafir casualties. Bring it on!

"And Jesus said, "I heartily approve of urban guerilla warfare and indiscriminate, religious-based murder."

I'm not a Christian.

He thinks that by allowing oppression and torture between consenting adults that he will be spared. But little does he know that when he places in the law a principle that allows others to freely diminish their own humanity, he diminishes his own humanity by default. For if my dignity is contingent upon my will, then I am not intrinsically valuable. I have become a master at the cost of becoming a slave Frank Beckwith

Frank speaks as a theologian and philosopher. I speak as a lawyer with high interest in religious freedom. Let's see if Frank's insight ramifies a bit closer to home. I think it does.

I've written recently in the com boxes that I was shocked in law school to learn that no-fault divorce meant no-grounds divorce - contemptible divorce without consequences. No matter how solemnly you vow, no matter how many children you've procreated, if one spouse wants out, and wants out at the beginning and the end of a statutory waiting period, he or she will get the divorce they want, and to hell with the spouse who wants to maintain the marriage. It means, as Maggie Gallagher noted throughout a book aptly titled, The End of Marriage. And the end of reliable marriage has forced other unintended consequence on the society, such as women feeling compelled to work - keep the tools sharp - in case they were abandoned for a trophy wife.

I have therefore found attractive the idea of Covenant Marriage, along with the corollary of traditional "fault divorce," for those who desire to be more truly and fully bound by their marriage vows. Indeed, I've argued for it as a gesture of pluralism.

Now, in the space of a few hours of Saturday morning errands as I reflected on +Rowan Williams' Sharia Law proposal and Frank's powerful rebuttal (indeed, this whole posting), I'm not so sure.

Our society pervasively acts as if sexual freedom were the summum bonum. If one were to ask whether it's one of the "certain inalienable rights" that a living Declaration of Independence would acknowledge, I suspect the answer would be "yes." The assumption seems to be that monasteries and convents are hotbeds of gay sex, and that if anyone really and truly observes a monastic vow of chastity (horrors!), they "freely diminish their own humanity." (A Roman Catholic grandmother of my acquaintance, for instance, incredulously labeled a female co-worker as "a 38-year-old virgin" and therefore obviously a "man-hater.") This is not entirely new, as C.S. Lewis lamented 60 years ago of "they have a right to be happy" justifying the most caddish adulteries.

So until our society gets over the sexual revolution, and the pendulum swings back (a key qualifier), would the achievement of optional "Covenant Marriage," justified by pluralism, be a dangerous political precedent for the principle that there really are no inalienable rights? Would that pave the road for our own optional Sharia law? Apart from "marriage is right, Sharia is wrong," why wouldn't it?

"I think it safe to say that none of the Founders, when they established the state's constitutional neutrality on sects, didn't have it in their minds that one day, Islam would be on these shores"

I'm sure some of them did, and if they didn't, they wouldn't have minded; the Founders frequently argued for the equivilance of Islam with Christianity and many other religions. There are too many references on this subject to list here. One example would be John Adams:

"It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.”

Read some more here:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html

"It is much easier for Western nations to grant room for movement for Christian and Jewish sects, because post-Enlightenment secular values evolved from the Judeo-Christian metaphysical dream"

This is a very dubious statement. "Judeo-Christian" blurs the lines: Judaism and Islam have more in common on many points than Christianity has with either of them, for example.

Rod,
I think it safe to say that none of the Founders, when they established the state's constitutional neutrality on sects, didn't have it in their minds that one day, Islam would be on these shores.

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"I generally come down on the side of religious liberty over state coercion, which is why I would make an exception for Catholic Charities in Boston, allowing them to ignore Massachusetts laws on gay civil rights with regard to adoptions."

Would you make an exception if it was an African-American couple instead of a gay couple?

I've written recently in the com boxes that I was shocked in law school to learn that no-fault divorce meant no-grounds divorce - contemptible divorce without consequences. No matter how solemnly you vow, no matter how many children you've procreated, if one spouse wants out, and wants out at the beginning and the end of a statutory waiting period, he or she will get the divorce they want, and to hell with the spouse who wants to maintain the marriage. It means, as Maggie Gallagher noted throughout a book aptly titled, The End of Marriage. And the end of reliable marriage has forced other unintended consequence on the society, such as women feeling compelled to work - keep the tools sharp - in case they were abandoned for a trophy wife.

I am surprised you would be shocked. God told the Isrealites that "divorce was allowed" only due to the hardness of thier hearts. In practical terms, there is no reason on earth to legally force a person to remain married even if only one party insists it does not want to be. Even if we changed the law, so there has to be specific grounds, what is served? Does this prevent the loss of commmitment by one spouse? No, it does not. Marriage as an institution fails to serve any function if only one partner honors it.

I'm not attempting to justify "no fault" divorce here, I'm talking about the realities of what actually constitutes a "marriage".

I have therefore found attractive the idea of Covenant Marriage, along with the corollary of traditional "fault divorce," for those who desire to be more truly and fully bound by their marriage vows. Indeed, I've argued for it as a gesture of pluralism.

To what end? My wife sues for divorce "Your honor, becasue I have not beaten her, cheated on her, or committed any illegal act against her or the children, I can force her to remain with me, see, I had a CATHOLIC marriage, which usurps the law of the land"? And this, I can compel someone I dislike with extreme intensity to remain in legal, moral, and social limbo, to avoid the disapproval of my peers.

We already have enough of the dilution of respect for law now. People claiming a right to the legal benefits of marriage that don't fit the definition, people claiming exemption for punishment due to minority or victim of society status, etc, etc.

Sounds like we need Petraus to move to London and start conducting a "surge" in the UK.

I generally come down on the side of religious liberty over state coercion, which is why I would make an exception for Catholic Charities in Boston, allowing them to ignore Massachusetts laws on gay civil rights with regard to adoptions.

I simply reject the whole coercion thing in the first place. "Exempting" catholic charities makes rejection of gay couples for adoption about religion. I contend it's not.

Thanks for your efforts at continuing the devaluation of marriage as both a social and legal standard. Sheesh.

I'm not unsympathetic to discomfiting the Emperor with a candid assessment of his new clothes, but if the illusion of objectivity and neutrality lost credibility, what would fill the vacuum? The will to power would remain, untethered to even an illusory mooring.

Why would you contend that defense of liberty and the rule of just law is moored to an "illusory" foundation?

There's more than ample evidence historically that the great experiment this nation embarked upon, with it's liberty spelled out in law, it's limited governance a cornerstone of government, and the written law in Constitution being higher than any argument, wish, or justification, has not been a failure, and that this experiment has resoundingly, unquestionably proven those ideas rational, good, and beneficial beyond any doubt whatsoever.

There is no "illusory" moorings here. They are more solid than any other argument for any other foundation of any order or society.

I was shocked because "No Fault" had been sold initially as progressive and kind, a way to avoid keeping a couple artificially together when both wanted out (without forcing them to create perjurious "grounds" by mutual agreement).

I'm surprised you would be shocked. The obviousness of what you're shocked about is so great it takes nothing more than the length of time required to read the concept to realize and understand it.

Maybe I don't accept "progressives" arguments about things, and that makes me a lot less gullible.

OK - I'll play devil's advocate and ask the room

"Who's version of 'Covenant' marriage do we mean"

The authority of democratic forces in England are already de facto accepting the Mohammedan polygamous version, see "Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits" at:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PS0NWGRSZDUPRQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml

[HT Zadok the Roman @ zadokromanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/christian-civilisation-continues-to.html ]

Needless to say, Christians ought to want to imitate the covenant of the Bridegroom himself, no? An exclusive and indissoluble promise to one wife, his Church, yes? Well, exercise you religion in private you say, the State's democratic authority comes first? Very well. how do you respond to Ruth Gledhill who reports that the UK State has also created a safe haven for Sharia's rejects: illiterate ex-wives commited to mental institutions with the help of their co-religionists in the psychiatric professions (bold, my emphasis):

"A few weeks ago, I was chatting to a woman who works in an advocacy role for Muslim women in an area that, quite independently of the Bishop of Rochester, she described as a 'no-go area' for non-Muslims. Her clients were women in the process of being sectioned into mental health units in the NHS. This woman, who for obvious reasons begged not to be identified, told me: 'The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn't want. Or maybe she starts wearing western clothes.There can be many reasons. The women are sent for asssessment to a hospital. The GP referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned. She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don't you people write about this?'

My interlocuter went very red and almost started to cry. Instead, she began shouting at me. I was a member of the press. 'You must write about this,' she begged.

'I can't,' I said. 'Not unless you become a whistle-blower. Or give me some evidence. Or something.'

She shook her head. 'I can't be identified,' she said. 'I would be killed. And so would the women.'

So there you have it. After weeks of wondering what to do, inspired by the Archbishop, I've taken her word that she is telling the truth, respected her anonymity, and written it anyway."

see her full posting @ timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/02/has-the-archbis.html

Clare Krishan... off topic, but somewhat relevant...

The 2nd Amendment applies. The security of a FREE state depends on the people being armed and capable of defense.

Us more "redneck" types are willing to forcibly intervene and defend such people with deadly force. The question is, who believes in the liberty of this woman enough to put thier life on the line to rescue her from a situation more horrible than most of us could imagine?

I repeat, the security of a free state is dependent upon the people being capable of self defense by force of arms, if necessary. Apparently, where she is at, there is no security, and there is no freedom, because the individual is at the mercy of others.

"She shook her head. 'I can't be identified,' she said. 'I would be killed. And so would the women.'"

I feeling like I'm shouting myself hoarse, and looking like a nutcase, but, in the UK, and much of Europe, probably in parts of the USA as well, imposition of civil law on Muslims would result in insurrection, the defeat of which would amount to something approaching civil war, and would necessitate mass expulsions and/or genocide. I hope it happens as soon as possible.

(If there's anything profound in there, I've forgotten what it was since I ceased being a Calvinist so long ago.)

There was here:

"We have our own custom. When people burn widows we hang them. Let each follow his own custom."

He did not question, and then get lost while navel-gazing - the principle of the defense of the life of the widows.

He wasn't stuck in trying to sort out the pseudo-intellectual moral equivalency mush, he simply defended the entirely defensible - that if you kill for any reason - even a 'religious' one, we will deal with you, because there ARE certain things that are obvious, even when some argue they contravene a religion. He didn't need to bother debating the validity of Islam. He merely asserted that the imposition of Islam on someone else - fatally - would result in hangings.

sigaliris... thanks for the enlightenment. I did not understand the reasoning behind the widow burning.

The question is, are we actually willing to judge the validity of some ideas against others in the light of our highest principles, or do we elevate things like "moral equivalency" ( a debate tactic ) to the level of principle, and get lost in the mush?

Rod:

So, the West is now left with a way of thinking that leaves it philosophically weak in terms of generation opposition to the Islamic challenge within its own borders.

I think the US is up the the challenge. I also believe we won't be nearly as accommodating to Muslim sensibilities as the UK seems to be.

our Enlightenment conception of the state doesn't account for a religion as alien to Western culture as Islam.

The Enlightenment conception of the state doesn't assume Christianity. The practioners described perhaps more so, but apparently that's functioning more as obstacle to resolution than help. Maybe Rowan's attitude is wiser than the absolutist attitude.

I generally come down on the side of religious liberty over state coercion, which is why I would make an exception for Catholic Charities in Boston, allowing them to ignore Massachusetts laws on gay civil rights with regard to adoptions.

Well, the courts are not going your way. The amorphous high claim of "religious rights" seems to stand on lesser foundations than asserted according to the federal appeals court opinion issued on Jan. 31 in the (now third) dismissal of Parker v. Hurley-

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/07-1528-01A.pdf

It's pretty clear which side is concluded, on full benefit of the doubt to the plaintiff, to be seeking undue special rights, i.e. as trying to legalize tyranny by a minority. I don't know whether it's properly termed a precedent, but the opinion makes the effort to reason out a variety of remaining avenues of legal argument this type of problem will lead to. Some think it will have value to future litigation on the order of the court opinion in the Dover lawsuit.

As for Francis's claims, it's always fun to find the perverse misdefinition, tautology, or factual hole in his arguments. In his last paragraph there's a conceit that the Enlightenment's notion of human maturity is tautological and from traditional Christian readings of the Bible, which Kant and Voltaire would laugh at. Not that it matters: Modernity's definition is irreconcilable with those. Nor do I see how the Prophets, Jesus of Nazareth, the Apostles, or the Saints can agree to the first paragraph.

I don't see a compelling argument that orthodox Christianity or Judaism proper share enough of a "metaphysical dream", either, sufficiently to distinguish them compellingly from Islam and its variants (e.g. Sufism). Each is historically a reform from roughly similar underlying polytheisms, but then syncretized with the former religion or ones encountered as a matter of geography. Btw, the 'Judeo-Christian' category assertion in Anglo/American religious literature is a reaction to German arguments about 'Christian civilization' of the Nazi era. It's been noted that the substance of things advanced under a 'Judeo-Christian' assertion tends to have marginal Jewish validity and the author and audience that accept it are almost invariably conservative Christians.

Max: "I'm not calling for it to happen; it's going to happen. I (we?) are saying the sooner we get it over with the better. If we can't avoid it (we can't) make it as short as possible.
Rombald, please correct and forgive me if I've got you wrong here."

No, that's pretty much what I think.

Mark:

Forgive me if, in the preceding post, I read too much into "undertake to obtain them for those who do not have them." If you have non-military means in mind, my concerns would be much diminished.

>>>
Some people here say that the UK's problems with Muslims will not happen in the USA. I think that is self-delusional. The UK and USA share the assumption that religious beliefs, regardless of veracity, are largely benign, and this is a suicidal assumption to make when confronted with Islam.
Posted by: rombald | February 10, 2008 7:27 AM
>>>

I do not agree with your assessment. As counterargument to what you claim about the USA assuming religious beliefs are largely benign I present Waco and MOVE.

No, I think the US will respond with overwhelming force to religious movements that present a substantial challenge to secular law - and that's a good thing.

Forgive me if, in the preceding post, I read too much into "undertake to obtain them for those who do not have them." If you have non-military means in mind, my concerns would be much diminished.

What sort of dedication do we have to freedom, if it's only acceptable so long as it's convenient and not risky?

And yes, I DO mean by military force if need be.

Why on earth do WE (and I mean, human beings in a free land) sit around and suggest we do NOTHING to depose the tyrants of the world?

I like the words of Benjamin Rush "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

And today's liberals and ... darn near everyone else nods along, and then adds: "So long as it is convenient, doesn't cost any money, doesn't risk public approval, somehow benefit my political opponents, or risk anyone's life."

So, yes. I mean EVERYTHING we can do as a nation to oppose tyranny of every kind, EVERYWHERE we can and EVERY way we can.

to do anything less is simply to abandon our beliefs and make them just a campaign slogan to be forgotten the moment it's convenient to do so.

Why on earth do WE (and I mean, human beings in a free land) sit around and suggest we do NOTHING to depose the tyrants of the world?

Because a) we can't, b) we would destroy ourselves in the attempt, and c) who are we to tell other peoples that they are being tyrannized? Liberal democracy is one form of government; though I happen to be quite fond of it, it is not prescribed in Holy Writ. Christians are commanded to go forth and make disciples of the nations, not liberal democrats.

Mark,

The liberation of the human race from tyranny is a noble and worthwhile goal. Would you care to provide a broad outline on how we might bring this about and also estimate the costs involved, both monetary and in personnel.

Would we need to raise taxes? If so, by how much and how should that burden be distributed?

Is our current military up to it, in terms of training and manpower? If not, what do you suggest? Should we bring back the draft?

And what part of the world should be our first liberation?

I await your replies with great interest.

also estimate the costs involved, both monetary and in personnel.

A first cut analysis: a lot (in the hundreds of billions) and a lot (in the millions).

There is also this cost: It's unlikely we'll simply be able to download liberal democracy into the countries we conquer, and expect it to endure. More likely, we'll have to take over the schools, universities, etc., and train the younger generation in the proper exercise of freedom, while we rule their countries as interim custodians for a decade or two. Soon we'll end up with a whole host of (civilian & military) officials highly skilled at ruling people without their consent. What happens to the Republic when such people realize that Americans aren't so different from other human beings?

Is our current military up to it, in terms of training and manpower?

Neither. We're (re)learning, in Iraq, how to pacify conquered foreign countries, but we're not there yet (obviously). More broadly, our military is still primarily structured for conventional warfare (i.e., conquest), not occupation or counterinsurgency. We'd either have to restructure our current military forces around the latter mission (bad idea), or raise new forces dedicated to said mission (less bad idea).

Should we bring back the draft?

Universal manhood conscription is one option. An American Foreign Legion is another - employment of foreign auxiliaries is a time-honored tradition among successful empires.

a list of the allies we would lose, and the neutral and hostile countries that would declare war on us

Alas, empires seldom lack for enemies. Not only those we conquer (or target), but also those who disapprove of our actions, and those who fear that they might be next.

This would be another cost: as "The Federalist Papers" observed, republics faced with perpetual war or theat of war tend end up raising standing armies & restricting freedom in the name of security; while, eventually, ambitious individuals realize that "national security" is a politically-convenient way to arrogate power to themselves.

American empire, whatever good it might do the rest of the world, would most likely mean the death of the Republic. And once we start down that dark path, forever will it dominate our destiny:

"Your empire is now like a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly dangerous to let it go." - Pericles to the Athenians

Franklin Evans,

Thanks. There's also Federalist No. 8. Money quote (in reference to a country perpetually subject to the threat of invasion):

"The perpetual menacings of danger oblige the government to be always prepared to repel it; its armies must be numerous enough for instant defense. The continual necessity for their services enhances the importance of the soldier, and proportionably degrades the condition of the citizen. The military state becomes elevated above the civil. The inhabitants of territories, often the theatre of war, are unavoidably subjected to frequent infringements on their rights, which serve to weaken their sense of those rights; and by degrees the people are brought to consider the soldiery not only as their protectors, but as their superiors. The transition from this disposition to that of considering them masters, is neither remote nor difficult; but it is very difficult to prevail upon a people under such impressions, to make a bold or effectual resistance to usurpations supported by the military power."