The Impossible made Possible: the Dictatorship of Liberalism

To the list of subjectivist sins we can now add a reverse of Greg Koukl's Tolerance Trick: The Tolerance of Intolerance. A (regretfully anonymous) commentator on Thursday 12th, to a post on the plight of Christians in the Middle East on the blog Setting the World to Rights wrote as follows:

Relativistic thinking leads to a peculiar problem. If one person cannot judge an other's behavior because he does not live in his skin and cannot see through his eyes, then how should disagreements be settled? If each antagonist's conflicting idea about what each will do is determined by equally valid but differing perspectives, then a philosophy that starts out sounding tolerant to each, devolves into a philosophy that supports conflicting patterns of behavior, otherwise known as violence. By uncritically accepting the Islamists perspective that Westerners are "Christian Crusaders", no doubt in the name of being tolerant, the Archbishop (ed. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams) unwittingly accepts the legitimacy of the consequences of that worldview, namely the massacre of Christians -- surely the height of intolerance. The Archbishop, like relativists who argue similarly, adopts a morally inconsistent and therefore morally wrong position: the tolerance of intolerance.

... for which we are no end grateful!

In the world of paradoxes and oxymora created by the relativist world view I yesterday even had to conclude that the impossible has now become possible. What keeps bothering me no end is the case of Rocco Buttiglione. Let me not repeat the whole sordid matter: a biography and links to media articles on the case can be found on the site of the Acton Institute.

It was of course the politically correct E.U. at its worst, having elevated subjectivism to the officially prescribed policy for all member countries. I'm just wondering what my old hero, philosopher and former E.U.commissioner Frits Bolkestein would make of it. We cannot know, as he doesn't seem to blog.

It is of course a case that would make any follower of genuine Liberalism, in the classical sense of De Tocqueville and John Locke, shudder at the mere thought, the latter two probably turning in their graves as well. I know my mother does.

I was a member of the Dutch (classical) Liberal party VVD (not to be confused with the left wing Liberal D66) when Frits Bolkestein was leading it with great moral courage. Mr Bolkestein at his inauguration stressed the need to come to a discussion in the party on ethics and morality. It never got off the ground, there being a wing that subscribes to "unlimited liberty as long as nobody else gets hurt" and the banning of "preaching moral values", a hint at the fully fledged relativism of current date. The subject at some point even became a real taboo. It was - in the end - also the core reason for me leaving the party.

Since there's an element, described by some journalists with a turn for the caricature, as "beer tap liberalism" - a branch of Liberals not particularly interested in the inner thoughts and workings of the doctrine itself - they know little of De Montesquieu who remarked on the American Constitution that it worked as it was embedded in a Christian society, and John Adams who said that the American Constitution was made "only for a moral and religious people". Alexis de Tocqueville has commented that "despotism may govern without faith, liberty cannot" and Liberal theorist John Locke noted on civil society that it was Christianity that gave his doctrine foundations and strength.

Contrary to how it is seen at present, I think that for at least a number of the great Liberal philosophers from the age of the Enlightenment, it never was the idea for society to become "radically enlightened" (secularized, science and reason only considered possible outside the faith), in the sense that Christianity, as the original source of reason, science and natural philosophy, was seen by them as an obstacle to the Liberal ideal. Above quotations are proof to the contrary.

Pope Benedict XVI in his book "Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures" proposes that we adopt the reverse of an axiom from the age of the Enlightenment, when an attempt was made to understand and define the essential norms and morality by saying, these would be valid etsi Deus non daretur, even if God did exist. The reverse advising the atheist to direct his life veluti si Deus daretur, as if God did indeed exist.

It is valuable advice from men who in wisdom and knowledge are light-years removed from today's pseudo scepticism and sophistry that in fact has led to a form of politically correct crypto- totalitarianism, that hasn't the foggiest notion or even awareness of a nasty by-product of democracy, the dictatorship by the majority.

But in line with the paradox of The Intolerance of Tolerance, it is the Dictatorship of Liberalism that is at the core of "The Case Buttiglione", a case with more victims than Mr Buttiglione and the E.P. alone: it marks the death of classical Liberalism as we knew it. (It stands to reason, when basically totalitarian parties start calling themselves liberal.)

A bit for everyone: on conspiracy theories, fun and gay pride, babies and baggy garments

After a blissfully Islam-free day we are today back at it again. It is a sad fact. BBC's Newsnight on Tuesday revealed that even the Home Office has been infiltrated by an obscure group. Films and videos of staged torture sessions are circulating; these are purportedly smuggled out of Abu Graib prison and out of Camp X-Ray on Guantanamo Bay on Cuba. In fact, they are theatrical productions.
Of course the Middle East itself always has been been rife with political hear-say and conspiracy theories. It is a result of dictatorial, secretive government and "byzantine" palace intrigue.
But, rationality not being what it used to be in the West thanks to years of down-graded education, the most incredulous conspiracy theories are also surfacing here. Some are home-produced, copied and circulated by the Western media. Like this one on 9/11, which was not masterminded by Osama c.s., but on the contrary by the Americans themselves would you believe! Another alleges it's all their own fault, but that's the common fashionable view on the "European high street" anyway!
Of course all this bovine manure is lapped up like sweet tea by all kinds of credulous naives and people with agendas.

It goes without saying that there are many good willing people, like Senay Özdemir but campaigns such as hers are too little, too late, too few and more than a little naive. The title says it all ("Holland must be fun again"). Fun (leuk) isn't a category which even begins to cover the needs! It is as vague and relative as the patient itself. Like the nebulous attempt of the Dutch Prime Minister, Jan-Peter Balkenende to instill some morals and manners into the country. He talks a bit about norms and values without further specification, organizes a meeting with minorities (as if their lack of integration is the problem), and that's it. As if a new definition of "the done thing" or a contemporary book on etiquette could save the situation (although that still might have done some good in 1985)! The truth is, what is required now is a solid moral compass to set the dials by - in short, wat we need is a Restoration! P.C.s, pull up your panty-hose and strap on your aprons: beware of the return of the Brussels Sprouts**!

Here's yet another sad piece of evidence that the world could do with a bit of Science before Science! Embryos*, albeit in a frozen state are not considered unborn life and as such do not enjoy the protection of the Irish government, a judge has found. (I wouldn't be surprised if this is part and parcel of the E.U.'s liberal idea of Best Practice; the same one that treated Mr Buttiglione as a criminal, instead of the highly ethical Catholic and man of integrity that he is; but hey, of course only Leftists and Liberals can be trusted with the ability of separating their personal convictions from their political judgments). The Irish judge concluded, that everyone seems to agree that embryos are entitled to “special respect,” but what exactly that means from a legal point of view remains ambiguous; he proposes the matter to be resolved by parliament or in a referendum, as if that are the forums to weigh basic matters concerning ethics or morality. But more on that later on, in an essay I'm working on at present in re of the separation of Church and State and it's present misunderstandings on the subject.

Holland enjoys the existence dr Antoine Bodar, a "conservative", non-practicing homosexual, a Benedictine priest who has become a bit of a cult-figure lately. The other day he was in a town hall meeting with "Embrace Pink", an obscure organization of homosexual youngsters.

I would like to share with you the last paragraph of an article I just

read: "If the Church refuses to bless my (love) relationship it is heartless and stubborn", says one theology student (whom I hope will have a change of heart shortly and take up geology instead). And ... "The Church is about people, isn't it?" (you could have fooled me; that last time I checked the Church was about God).
"Isn't this intransigence (i.e. the refusal to wed homosexuals) the reason the churches are empty?" Goes Bodar: ,,No, the churches are empty due to hedonism and a liturgy that is so flat you might as well stay at home." Needless to say, I'm in his cult, every time!


STOP PRESS The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country's immigration minister Rita Verdonk to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa (a bag-like object which reduces women to a life as ghosts) in public. A bill to that effect was first tabled in Parliament by Geert Wilders.
The sacraficial lamb is this time the harmless crash helmet with vizor. In the U.K. it is a crucifix belonging to a British Airways employee. If ever it is found necessary to ban Muslim schools (which is well imaginable) also the Christian faith based schools will have to go (Egalite, remember?). As their education level is much higher than public schools, this sacrafice comes at a price, probably too high a price. Whatever's next to go?

* Pro-choicers are defending the practice of abortion by describing and thereby trivialising the very young embryo as "no more than a cluster of cells". If they had any idea of basic philosophy as dealt with in Science before Science they'd understand their mistake. Potential being, is being nonetheless. What they are saying here is "if it is very small, it is nothing" a premise demonstrably false.

** See post on Jan Pronk and note on the Insane Ida movement.