What’s Wrong with the World

A few years ago, Josh Trevino invited me to contribute to a new blog for social conservatives, "Enchiridion Militis." He knew me as a commenter on his original blog, "Tacitus," and as a contributor to the blog for conservative philosophers, "Right Reason," and thought well enough of my stuff to give me a shot - for which I am undyingly grateful to him.

Unfortunately, EM proved fairly short-lived - partly, I think, because I was a pretty vocal fan of Steve Sailer and other proponents of "human bio-diversity," while Josh wanted nothing to do with such people.

Fortunately, out of the ashes of EM, What's Wrong With the World arose. Under the aegis of Paul Cella, Zippy Catholic, William Luse, Jeff Martin, Daniel Larison, and Lydia McGrew (i.e., by my count, three Roman Catholics, two Eastern Orthodox, and one high-church Anglican) WWWW was, from the beginning, a much more explicitly Christian site than was EM. So it was purely out of kindness, and for old times' sake, that I - well known to be gay and religiously agnostic - was invited to sign on.

I remain as undyingly grateful to Paul & Zippy &c for putting up with me as I was to Josh Trevino for asking me around in the first place, way back when. But, for the record, and just so there's no misunderstanding: I'm still gay, and I'm still agnostic - and I'm still way into "human bio-diversity."

Moreover: just because I love, from my very depths, the Euro-Christian tradition that led to, e.g., Chartres and the Isenheim Altarpiece and Parsifal and The Lord of the Rings doesn't mean that I can't be horrified, from the very same depths, by what seems to me to be the trajectory of Christianity today. And that's where I join forces with my friend Matthew Roberts.

Readers of T. H. White's Once and Future King will recognize the title of this entry from the visit to the ant colony. The rule always struck me as both humorous and chilling.

I believe that Americans are coming to accept what one might call a close cousin of the rule that everything that is not forbidden is compulsory. Support for this conjecture comes from the entry Bill Luse posted about ABC's show concerning a (fake) pharmacist who did not want to prescribe birth control pills for a minor girl. The ABC announcer makes a special point of interjecting a comment when the "pharmacist" and some of the people agree that the girl should not be having sexual intercourse without the knowledge of her parents. "But in most states," intones the announcer, "she doesn't have to tell her parents anything."

Notice the sweeping implication: If she is not required by law to tell her parents anything, she "doesn't have to" tell them anything in any sense whatsoever.

Well, that settles it! If she is not forbidden to have sex without her parents knowledge, then the rest of the world is compelled to aid and abet her in doing so insofar as it falls within their scope, and particularly within the scope of their public and commercial activities.

In this view of the world, there is no space between legal and social penalties. If the law says that you are not forbidden to do something, that is the only thing that matters. It is only the "opinion" implied by the law that ought to have any power over you. Others are not permitted to engage in shunning or refusal to associate with you. Only the State has a right to express disapproval--in the form of making your activity illegal. No other effective form of social discouragement ought to exist.

Thus the power of the State is increased many-fold. On the one hand, this view encourages us to outlaw anything we disapprove of, with obvious implications for the increase of government power. On the other hand, this view encourages an absolute uniformity of thought, opinion, behavior, and association, dictated by the common denominator of what is legal. If it isn't illegal, it is wrong for you to try to discourage it even by the passive means of refusing your cooperation or approval. Such disapproval and non-cooperation is wrong-thought and wrong-act; it is, in fact, discrimination, than which nothing worse can be conceived.

The State giveth, and the State taketh away, and don't you forget it.

I do not know whether liberals will be the long-term beneficiaries of the resultant soft totalitarianism. In the short-term, since they are currently in a position to make the rules, the benefits to them and to the spread of their view of the world are considerable. And perhaps I should not try to warn them to be careful what they wish for lest they get it. Maybe all such pragmatic considerations tend to favor their side of the culture war anyway.

Conservatives, however, would do well to consider the benefits of greater freedom and, in particular, of a public space in which purely social penalties can exist. When our overlords really have everyone convinced that whatever is not forbidden is compulsory, it will not be a pretty sight from our perspective.

Some half-baked thoughts on aesthetics, jazz, and popular culture.

How will its future resemble its past?

My friend Matthew Roberts forwards me an interesting message, and an interesting video. Here's the video:

Continue reading "Whither Christianity?" »

I live for those moments when old time musicians just happen to meet together with no particular plans. Yesterday afternoon at the mountain fair, between fiddle concerts, some of these folks gathered casually on the front porch of a wooden building - a replica of a western-style “general store” – seating themselves upon rocking chairs and bales of straw. This was another impromptu “jam session”, a venerable tradition in old-time music circles that, when respected, creates its own incredible magic. The elder musicians delight in coaching and coaxing the children. They’ll play as slow as the youngsters need them to play, leading when possible and, of course, following when unavoidable! For them, it’s all about keeping the tradition alive, and that means inspiring the young people and building their confidence.

The musicians seemed oblivious to the surprise late-summer downpour, which was plenty noisy, though I can’t say whether any of the old buildings had a tin roof. As the mules splashed in the mud just fifteen feet away from my chair, gnawing at the wood fence, a seven year old girl in a homemade dress called out “Swallowtail Jig” and started in with her fiddle. So much for listening to the rain. The older musicians quickly jumped in and the rousing Irish jig began to attract a crowd. Ear-to-ear smiles, clapping, and delight all around.

Now a pretty young lady from the crowd begins to dance, all by herself, moving with astonishing grace and poise, though perhaps just a little too … freely. Some of us aren’t sure whether she is to be trusted, but I for one am captivated by her skill and decide, for the moment, not to give it another thought. A few songs later comes another stranger from the crowd, a matronly woman from Guadalajara in a colorful Mexican costume. She asks the lead guitarist to accompany her while she sings a few lovely ballads in Spanish. One can tell that, back in the day, she had a voice worthy of Lola Beltran. Hey, maybe she is Lola Beltran! In honor of this stranger’s Mexican roots, the group launches into “Jesse’s Polka” and thereafter returns to its familiar hoedowns, waltzes, and other favorites.

So, what does this have to do with anything? I don’t know. It all put me in the mood of John O’Keefe’s outrageously pollyannish jingle:

A glass is good
And a lass is good
And a pipe to smoke in cold weather;
The world is good
And people are good
And we’re all good fellows together.

It’s easy to forget how much humanity is left when stripped of its crude ideologies. Indeed, there is an inverse relationship between the prospering of humanity and the burden of ideology, which is modernity's substitute for God. I think I share with my fellow contributors – and with most of this site’s devoted readers – a desire to make the world as safe for humanity, and as free from ideology, as is possible this side of the beatific vision.

It will be no surprise to anyone that I judge Francis Cianfrocca to be in the top rank of commentators on the American crisis. Without him I would be flying blind in this thing. But note well, my friends who affirm Capitalism, that only a fool would imagine that his enthusiasm for the free enterprise system is anything but deep and abiding. He is a defender of the free market. It may be easy enough to dismiss the ravings of a couple of brassbound Distributists like me and Maximos; it will be another challenge entirely to blow off the hard truths that Francis delivers from the actual world of Capitalism.

But more than the supreme challenge he delivers to the defenders of plutocracy from the Right, Francis just writes brilliantly. I am not alone in having attempted unsuccessfully to persuade him to write a book. He says he has too much business to do, too much company to build, too much enterprise to accomplish. America needs such men more than ever. Our Socialists simply do not understand that their dreams no less than ours are doomed if the private sector can never again grow robustly.

So folks ought to listen to Francis for a variety of compelling reasons.

Continue reading "Cianfrocca takes on all comers" »

"'In the third trial a man came to [Sir Bors] dressed as a priest, and told him that there was a lady in a castle nearby who was doomed to death unless Bors made love to her. This supposed priest pointed out that he had already sacrificed the life of his own brother [i.e., the speaker, Sir Lionel - it's a long story], and that if he did not sin with the new lady now, he would have a second life on his conscience...

"'Well, the lady appeared in the castle...and confirmed the story. She said that there was a magic which would make her die for love, unless my brother was good to her. Bors now realized that he must either commit mortal sin and save the lady, or refuse to commit it and let her die. He told me afterwards that he remembered some bits out of the penny catechism, and a sermon which was once given when there was a mission at Camelot. He decided that he was not responsible for the lady's actions, while he was responsible for his own. So he refused the lady.'

"Guenever giggled...

Continue reading "Apropos of Hiroshima..." »

W4 Readers --

I've currently ramped up some additional anti-Spam measures to combat the latest round of new spam tactics.

As part of this effort I've added an additional input prior to submitting a comment. You'll notice that the comments now require an answer to a 'challenge question'. If this is incorrect, it will warn you.

If by chance you go to make a comment on something and the field isn't there, your browser has cached an older version of the page. Use [Ctrl]-[F5] to force the browser to reload the page from the server, otherwise your comment will be automatically junked.

Regards,

Todd

Lifesite News has the story.

The pastor, Joshua, had not indicated his end-of-life decisions in writing or appointed a decision maker for health care. He is able to breathe on his own and is partially conscious, able to answer some one-word questions on the telephone with his sister. Evidently, "Do you want to be dehydrated to death?" isn't a question the hospital officials are interested in asking him. The hospital's determination that he must die appears to be based solely on the conclusion that he won't recover fully. The disabled should be very concerned about this.

More disturbing still (advocates of "choice" in dying, please note), someone--the court? the hospital?--told a candidate "decision maker" that he must agree to Joshua's death by dehydration in order to be appointed. Joshua's sister, who does not live in Canada, had previously been rejected by the court for reasons that are unclear. (The statement made was that she "was not capable of making medical decisions" for him.) The faux "decision maker" (really, at this point, just a mouthpiece for the hospital) agreed to the conditions and has been appointed. Joshua's dehydration began on August 17.

Read the whole Lifesite article.

Letters calling for Joshua's food and fluids to be restored and protesting the pressure placed upon decision makers in his case may be sent to Brampton Civic Hospital at

communications@oslerhc.org

and to the Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario (I guess I don't dare say "death panel," do I?) at

ccb@ontario.ca

If you missed this 60 Minutes segment, and have the leisure, it's worth observing the fate of Christianity in one of its earliest outposts outside the Holy Land - in a country many have described as perhaps the most secular, enlightened, and modern of Muslim states, one that has repeatedly sought entry to, first, the Common Market and now to the European Union. This is the story of Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and primate to the world's 300,000,000 Orthodox Christians. In it you will see some of the oldest Christian structures in existence, and its most ancient artwork. Some of the frescoes are instantly recognizable. As the camera takes you through the churches, the monasteries, and the schools - all mostly museums now (the Hagia Sofia is one, built a 1,000 years before St. Peter's) - you can feel the spirits of those ancient converts who built the faith, and ultimately the civilization we know as Christendom, pressing upon the present. If Bartholomew is right about a "resurrection," then maybe the work of our first brothers and sisters in the faith is not done yet. As of now, though, only 4,000 Christians remain in Turkey. It's a cause for sadness; it is also an abomination.

The Patriarchate's website is here.

There is one 30 second commercial interruption.

When Little Red Riding Hood is sent by her mother to take a basket to her grandmother's house, her mother warns her not to talk to anyone. Of course, she talks to the wolf, and that (after a few plot twists and "the better to eat you with, my dear") is the end of that. No one who really understands what monsters are, no one who "gets" the Big Bad Wolf, is under the impression that Riding Hood should talk to the wolf because it's not his fault that he is a wolf. No. Big Bad Wolf = Bad Wolf (tautology).

An imagination rightly trained on fairy tales understands that monsters are just bad and are to be regarded and treated as such--preferably, avoided, or perhaps fought, if one is a hero.

Here is an absolutely wonderful (and very funny) video clip of Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll talking about occultic preteen literature. More remarks below the fold.

Continue reading "Thou shalt not discriminate...against monsters" »

Listen – the intention of that video was to show the hilarity to which people will fame-whore themselves. It was playing with the idea that I knew my style was something that people really were admiring. So I thought, Well, what’s the most ridiculous thing that we could immortalize? Something not fashion at all and make it fashion. And I was [looking at] a lot of Helmut Newton books and photographs, and there were all these disabled women who looked fabulous. So I thought watching the celebrity fall apart is so fascinating to everybody, why don’t I just fall apart for seven minutes and see what happens. The hilarity of the wheelchair being covered in diamonds…

Thus spake Lady Gaga, in the profile on her in this month’s Vanity Fair, a rag I admit to reading religiously. (Hey, it’s perfumed-up real pretty, which makes it perfect to wrap fish in.) You thought public morals and good taste were all she’d taken a chainsaw to – as you can see, she’s done a real number on the English language as well.

Continue reading "Goo goo ga ga" »

I apologize for so often writing posts about things that have been known and available for a while. By this time, readers are probably used to it.

Here is one I have been saving up: The Case of the Battered Wife and Sharia

(Strangely, the original link to the appellate ruling from a number of blogs has disappeared. Fortunately, I found another. Perhaps I should download a copy. It makes fairly grim reading, so don't read it if you'd rather not.)

In New Jersey, a Moroccan woman was beaten and repeatedly raped by her husband. On one occasion she ran away from him, escaping from a window. She returned that time briefly but later left him permanently and asked a judge to give her a restraining order against the abusive husband. The judge refused the long-term protective order in part on the grounds that the husband did not have "criminal intent" when he engaged in repeated spousal rape (while his wife cried continuously), because his religious beliefs dictated that he was permitted to do what he did.

Got that?

Some of the commentators at the Volokh Conspiracy don't seem to understand the point, opining that this really isn't about criminal intent, since it was not a criminal trial but rather a hearing on a restraining order. This is nonsense, as the appeals court made clear when it overturned the lower judge's decision. The matter was in fact all about criminal intent. Under New Jersey law, getting a restraining order in a domestic abuse case depends on showing probable cause that something criminal has been done previously (abuse, sexual assault, etc.). So while the standard of proof is lower than it is in a full-blown criminal trial, the issue of criminal intent is relevant and was exactly and expressly what the judge was addressing. Therefore (in case the point isn't clear) this is a pretty important incident, because if the "no criminal intent" argument (if your religion says you can do X, you aren't guilty of criminal intent in doing X) can be upheld in a restraining order case, it could also be used in an outright criminal trial.

And, to repeat, the judge said that if your religion allows you to rape your wife while she cries, you aren't committing a crime if you do so. Which is absurd. The appeals court overturned his ruling.

In this post at Atlas Shrugs we find Attorney Yerushalmi criticizing the ponderous lengths the appeals court goes to in showing that religious freedom precedents do not apply to laws against spousal rape. Yerushalmi thinks that this is a bad sign, as the claim was ludicrous on its face and should have been dismissed out of hand; he worries that the amount of space the appeals court spent indicates deference to the fact that the religion in question was Islam. He's right that any attempt to apply a religious exemption to such a law is ludicrous, not only morally but also legally. We would not allow a jihadi to say that he did not have criminal intent to commit murder since setting off a bomb is not murder according to his religion. Yerushalmi's worry is not unreasonable. But I would rather think that the appeals court was making a dry legal joke by the elephantine style in which it demolished the lower court judge's claim of no criminal intent.

I have one point to add to all that bloggers have already said about this case: It is another case of "we can say it, but you can't." If someone criticizing Islam says that, according to Islam, a man is permitted to rape his wife, that's a liberal no-no. But if the very same claim can be used for purposes of mitigating a husband's act when he abuses his wife, then the statement is permissible. Just how far this double standard and the use of these "cultural defenses" will be allowed to go in the end remains to be seen.

Contraception doesn't merely deprive one's own children of siblings. It deprives one's nieces and nephews of cousins; and it deprives one's grandchildren, grandnieces and grandnephews of aunts, uncles, and cousins - on down the line. After several generations of contraception most of us do not know what extended families are like. To compound the problem, American hyper-mobility ensures that our few remaining relatives live hundreds of miles away, and American individualism ensures that we don't share the same religious beliefs anyway.

Have you noticed that our politicians, even the most corrupt, are never charged with nepotism anymore? Nepotism requires family, and we don't have families. I never understood the horror that some people have for political nepotism. In the old world it was called aristocracy. Of all forms of corruption in a democratic republic, nepotism is the most human and understandable. Aren't we supposed to prefer our relatives? To the extent that we still have dynastic families like the Kennedys and the Bushes, I view that as a good thing. It's really a shame that George Washington didn't have fifteen children.

Anthony Esolen grew up in a town of 5,000 with twenty of his cousins. Twenty. That means, of course, that he had aunts and uncles in the town as well. He writes that "kinship is the foundation of community life", and that cousins, in particular, "provide you that straight passport into a community".

Extended family is the reason Americans survived the last Great Depression; the absence of extended family is the reason we won't survive the next one. The close proximity of many relatives - relatives who, more or less, share the same religious faith and code of morality - is the best form of social insurance there is. When hard times come, as they come to all eventually, there's a cousin with a spare room, a cousin who can loan you the rent money, an uncle who owns a business and needs a clerk, an aunt who can move in while you recover from surgery, etc., and they all live close enough to be of help in an emergency. Furthermore every family has its eccentrics, people who just don't "fit in" and conform very well to social expectations, for whatever reasons. Nowadays such people are a heavy burden, but in healthier times they could be assimilated into the extended family. The "crazy uncle" perhaps couldn't hold down a job, but maybe he could entertain the children and do odd chores for the family: there was no reason he needed to be destitute.

There are some on the political "right" in America who reserve their greatest wrath for the "welfare state" and its clients. I'd like to know how many children these pundits are having. What are they doing to restore the extended family?

King Alfred the Great of Wessex ruled in a time of fire and carnage. His kingdom, like all the Christian principalities on the British Isles of that day, was constantly harried by the formidable onslaught of the Vikings. Often in ill-health, he was a warrior by necessity, and it seems he had abiding interests and talents outside the martial sphere. A Churchill put it, “he had a lively comprehension of the great world”: he perceived the importance of naval power, and was perhaps given a glimpse of a future England, unified under a common law — a thriving nation rather than a gaggle of fractious petty kingdoms. His people benefited greatly by his encouragement of learning and the arts as well as by his statesmanship, but it was the latter that saved them from ruin and probable extinction. Churchill’s judgment is that, had Alfred failed, “all England would have sunk into heathen anarchy.”

He won and lost several battles against the Danes, fearsome contests of bludgeoning force which must have been awful to behold. That he won at all is evidence of his quality, for history discloses few who were at that time capable of resisting the terror of these proud Northern raiders. Again from Churchill: he “began as second-in-command to his elder brother, the King. There were no jealousies between them, but a marked difference of temperament. Ethelred inclined to the religious view that faith and prayer were the prime agencies by which the heathen would be overcome. Alfred, though also devout, laid emphasis upon policy and arms.” Ethelred was killed in battle and the crown passed to Alfred, who in turn lent all his considerable talent at arms and policy to the protection of his land and her people. We might reasonably conclude that both men were right on the question of agency.

A saint of both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches — the great ecclesiastical breach is reconciled in the Wessex king’s antiquity — Alfred shines an unquestioned hero of the English-speaking peoples. Ever shall “men signed of the cross of Christ” venerate his memory.

Rarely has that veneration been rendered more powerfully, more enchantingly, than in Chesterton’s The Ballad of the White Horse (1911). Loyal readers will recall my love of his magnificent poem. Lately I have been reading it to my little girls. If ever you feel that oppression of despair, which Christians are obliged to resist, consider repairing to Chesterton’s retelling of Alfred’s tale. What follow are simply a few stanzas that I fancy supply a sense of the poem; but of course only a complete reading (out loud) will do it justice.

Continue reading "King Alfred over despair" »