Light On Dark Water

Error Has No Rights, continued

Some direct quotes from that James Hitchcock piece in Touchstone that I mentioned a couple of weeks ago:

…liberalism is now not merely a political philosophy compatible with many kinds of religion but has itself become a religion. …it is expedient for liberals that their movement not be seen as a religion, since it thereby escapes the accusations of dogmatism and intolerance that are routinely made against conventional religions.

…Liberal ideology ultimately rests on an act of faith. It can never be discredited by historical events, because the believer simply knows it to be right. Liberal ideas are considered self-evidently true, and, in their present ascendancy, liberals prefer merely to assert those ideas rather than discuss them.

…as did most Catholics and Protestants in earlier times, the religion of liberalism considers itself the one true faith that has the obligation (and the power) to impose its beliefs.

When conservative believers demand their rights as citizens, they fail to realize that, as far as the religion of liberalism is concerned, "error has no rights." The religion of liberalism holds that the media and the educational system should enshrine liberal beliefs and discredit conservative ones, that government should enforce liberal programs by law, and that it is an open question how far heretics should even enjoy freedom of expression.

There are plenty of liberals who are not as dogmatic as this, but in the nature of things they're weaker and less energetic than the vanguard, which is now most aggressively and effectively represented by the homosexual rights movement and its very successful drive to characterize anything less than enthusiasm for homosexuality as bigotry. And bigotry–or whatever can be labelled as such–is one of the things that liberalism in general is willing to suppress.

Maclin Horton
, ,

22 responses to “Error Has No Rights, continued”

  1. Art Deco

    Now stop this. You know perfectly well the serious threat arises from Israel, neo-cons, Catholic neo-cons, movement conservatives, and GOP rah-boys. Any student of the social encyclicals and Eric Voegelin understands this.

    Reply
  2. Mac

    Ain’t nobody here thinks that.

    Reply
  3. Marianne

    I was just reading a piece over at NRO in which I found this:
    as Flannery O’Connor said: When you’re talking to the hard-of-hearing it’s okay to shout.
    Made me think of this post, and also that it’s not only really okay for us to shout our pushback against all this craziness, but that it’s maybe even mandatory.

    Reply
  4. Rob G

    “it’s not only really okay for us to shout our pushback against all this craziness, but that it’s maybe even mandatory.”
    James F. Stephen: “The waters are out and no human force can turn them back; but I do not see why as we go with the stream we need sing Hallelujah to the river god.”
    In my view giving in to this craziness without protest is a form of singing Hallelujah to the river god.

    Reply
  5. Mac

    The FO’C quote has another half, having to do with the need to draw large simple pictures for the nearly blind. Can’t remember exactly how it goes now but the general feel of it is not just “it’s okay” but “it’s necessary.”
    I agree: we do have an obligation to protest.

    Reply
  6. Rob G

    “To the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling figures”

    Reply
  7. Mac

    “startling”–yes, thank you, I knew what she said was considerably more vivid.

    Reply
  8. Louise

    as Flannery O’Connor said: When you’re talking to the hard-of-hearing it’s okay to shout.
    She was a good egg, that Flannery. I’d like to go on pilgrimage to her house in Georgia.
    Pushing back is long overdue, imo.
    Secularism/liberalism is the most serious threat to the West imo, especially to the extent that it has infiltrated the Church. The GOP and other “right wingers” are not much help though, b/c they are so liberal/worldly themselves.
    Pushing back actually works to a certain extent in one’s personal relationships. I don’t tend to take much BS from people any more.

    Reply
  9. Mac

    A much worse threat, at least for now, than militant Islam. If the latter should eventually win, it will be because sec/lib-ism allows it.
    That’s true about the GOP, but in a way it’s beside the point, because the problem is not fundamentally political. It’s culture rot, and you can’t fix that with politics.

    Reply
  10. Rob G

    “the problem is not fundamentally political. It’s culture rot, and you can’t fix that with politics.”
    Tru dat.

    Reply
  11. Art Deco

    It’s culture rot, and you can’t fix that with politics.
    That’s nice. There is still legislation on the table. Saying ‘it’s culture rot’ does nothing to defeat the legislation.

    Reply
  12. Mac

    Of course not. Saying you can’t fix the fundamental problems by political means doesn’t imply that politics has no significance at all, or that one should take no part in it. It does limit what one should expect or hope from it in the way of reversing the liberal (as used by Hitchcock) ascendancy.

    Reply
  13. grumphy in Vilnius, Lithuania

    Liberalism is the only thing that can save us from liberalism.

    Reply
  14. Mac

    True dat, too–if I understand you correctly.

    Reply
  15. Marianne

    Almost as if right on cue, Yahoo is headlining this piece/warning right now on its main page: Big U.S. Companies You Might Not Know Are Religious.

    Reply
  16. Marianne

    Sorry — don’t know why that double-posted.

    Reply
  17. Mac

    So people know who to boycott, I guess?
    For us older folks, it’s awfully strange to see the way professing Christianity has become a mark of weirdness if not menace–“hate” etc.
    “The store provoked criticism in the summer of 2011 when it released a slew of religious-themed tees…” That’s just bizarre.

    Reply
  18. Rob G

    Wonder if they’ll follow up with a story on “big companies you might not know are atheistic.” I’m guessing not.
    For us older folks, it’s awfully strange to see the way professing Christianity has become a mark of weirdness if not menace–“hate” etc.
    For me personally, although I really do hate a lot of what’s going on in the culture, I think we’ll be gone before it gets really bad. I fear more for my kid and (potential) grandkids. Exactly what kind of world will we be leaving them?

    Reply
  19. Robert Gotcher

    The tendency is for those who would like to remain faithful to a particular vision of the world and a way of life to band together and create enclaves. The other tendency is for the enemies of that way of life to put a fence around the enclaves and make them into a prison and then a shooting range.

    Reply
  20. Mac

    Yes, and anybody who isn’t caught up in the hate can see the classic pattern of demonization at work: it’s ok to hate them, because they in fact deserve it.
    I do think real persecution is pretty far away, and it’s important not to get carried away with paranoia. But you have to be blind not to see the pattern emerging.
    For most sec/libs, it’s not hate, really, but something that seems to work psychologically a bit like puritanism. Pursed lips, turned-up nose, a sort of prudish or squeamish disdain, something like a Victorian might have reacted to a man known to frequent brothels. But though they may not mean any harm themselves, they could be like the well-intentioned southerners who didn’t resist the Klan, or the well-intentioned Germans who didn’t resist the Nazis.
    I do have grandkids, and I do worry about them. When I pray that they’ll have faith, I wonder what suffering I might be wishing on them.

    Reply
  21. Rob G

    “something that seems to work psychologically a bit like puritanism.”
    Which makes perfect sense, given that progressivism is the ideological descendent of a secularized puritanism.

    Reply
  22. Mac

    Yes, it’s no accident. I’ve often found myself using the old-fashioned and decidedly politically incorrect term “schoolmarmish” to describe it. The sexual liberation propounded by affluent white liberals often seems to me a curious inverse of puritanism. It’s hard to put into words, but they want it to be entirely licentious but at the same time very controlled and hygienic, especially as they want to teach it to the young. You must calmly decide when you’re “ready”, make sure your “partner” is also “ready” and fully consenting and disease-free, be fully instructed, and take all the necessary measures against pregnancy and disease. So primal a force as sex is not so easily tamed.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Louise Cancel reply

Instagram / TikTok / X

Designed with WordPress