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.
Comments (66)
Good post, Steve.
Posted by M.A. Roberts | September 2, 2010 7:40 PM
Well I guess I hadn't read you as frequently as I thought had. Knew the agnostic and bio-diversity thing but not the other thing (or I forgot).
Justin Raimondo is too and he writes for Rockford. I always wanted to question them about it but figured I'd get smacked down real hard.
Posted by Bruce | September 2, 2010 8:05 PM
It's fine to be worried or even horrified by the trajectory of contemporary Christianity, Steve. But that doesn't change the question of truth. If Christianity is _true_, then those of us who see that have to critique it while sticking to the fact that it is true. It is but a poor argument against Christianity (I would assume that you, as a philosopher, can see this) to point out that it has many people within it who are extremely muddle-headed and liberal on various political issues. As it would be a poor argument for a Christian to argue _for_ Christianity by pointing to many sensible, right-wing political views held by many Christians. The argumentum ad politicum is (quite correctly) not generally considered to be a central part of Christian apologetics, either for or against!
What can be said of Christianity as a whole can also be said of the need to evangelize, yes, even those who are not our "ain folk," something against which your friend Mr. Roberts wishes to argue, also on political grounds. But once again, if many millions of Christians over a fair number of centuries, including myself, are right, it is _not an option_ for the Christian church as a whole to shut itself up in a Euro-white-American enclave and consider it "none of our business" (to quote a phrase Mr. Roberts once used in another thread on a related topic) what happens elsewhere, to show no concrete concern for the material and, far more importantly, the spiritual well-being of those outside the West. Given this position, it is fairly ludicrous to argue _for_ such a completely isolationist Christianity on the grounds that to do otherwise is to fail to show solidarity with the white West, is deracinating, or whatever. We may, and should, tell our fellow Christians where they are wrong when they make bone-headed claims about immigration, etc., and pretend to base these on Christianity. But it would be ludicrous folly, verging on the blasphemous, for us _as Christians_ to tell Our Lord that we just aren't going to care what happens in those foreign places because our first loyalty is to our race and kin. We're called to do better than that as Christians, and if doing better than that requires a careful balancing act and a lot of discernment in matters political, then so be it, but race does not come before Christ, and that's flat. Political arguments applied to try to tell us to shut down foreign missions and concerns are like using match-light to try to outshine the sun.
Again: Let us suppose that the West should go into another dark age, as seems a real and horrific possibility. Well, it _is_ a horrific possibility. But those of us who _are_ Christians do not believe that if this happens, all will be by definition lost. And while we can fight for the West while it stands, we can also thrill to the belief that Divine Providence may, yes, use the non-West for the re-Christianization of the West in some far-distant future, even as God used the Celts to re-Christianize mainland Europe. We have it on high authority that the gates of hell shall not prevail. The end of European culture will be horrible, but it is not by definition the end of everything, from a Christian point of view. If you fear that the West is dying, as sensible, knowledgeable, and sober men in this age of the world do fear, then I pray that you will find Christ, for He is in the end the only alternative to despair.
In closing, I would bid you ponder the words of Gandalf to Denethor:
Posted by Lydia | September 2, 2010 8:23 PM
Gay?
Posted by George R. | September 2, 2010 8:37 PM
Gay?
Yeah, gay -- you know, merry, prone to high spirits, etc. What did you think he meant?
But really, Steve, you are so old-fashioned! No one has used the word that way for ages!
Posted by Edward Feser | September 2, 2010 9:23 PM
For the record, I'm a member of a high Anglican church but am as an individual so low and so Protestant as practically to be dropping out at the bottom. As a joke-that-isn't-quite-a-joke I sometimes refer to myself as a high church Baptist.
Posted by Lydia | September 2, 2010 10:26 PM
At the risk of getting what I ask for... what is "human bio-diversity"? I can't find any decent source for it-- the one result I thought might have some sort of an explanation launched into a lecture on how horribly homophobic Mr. Derbyshire is; the bits I've been able to find say 'new eugenicist' or 'looking into the effects of genetics on culture'?
Posted by Foxfier | September 3, 2010 1:22 AM
That's all right Foxfier. I don't know what it is either. I know there's a lot of minor biological diversity among us humans, but I'd thought we were all united by our Maker in one family.
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...
So you love the cultural artifacts of Christianity, but not the thing itself.
I'm still gay...
You might have been truly counter-cultural, in "the Euro-Christian tradition," and kept that bit of information to yourself. That you feel compelled to reveal it follows an all too familiar "trajectory."
Posted by William Luse | September 3, 2010 3:00 AM
Steve,
Gay as in - I happily indulge in homosexual acts and behavior.
or
Gay as in - I have this peculiar affliction and would probably be happier if it weren't so.
I'm curious as to whether any contemporary American "gay" man finds his situation absurd, and essentially contrary to his sex (gender).
Posted by mark Butterworth | September 3, 2010 3:00 AM
There's an (ex) blogger, widower, ex-minister at a continuuing Anglican blog I read once in a while that claims he is attracted to young boys but has never acted on this temptation. In other words, temptation itself isn't a sin.
"So you love the cultural artifacts of Christianity, but not the thing itself."
He doesn't believe it's true. You can love something you don't believe is true.
Posted by Bruce | September 3, 2010 6:22 AM
This is footage of a worrying trajectory for Christianity, not sure if its been posted yet. The modus operandi of Islam.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/August/Islamization-of-Paris-a-Warning-to-the-West/
So laicite is a half-hearted doctrine afterall. Can we even call these secularist Europeans men? If not perhaps they'll never get as far as civil war.
Posted by Martin Snigg | September 3, 2010 7:06 AM
Steve, I really like your contributions here and at AR, so because I am going to be vitriolic to you and the World, I will write only in the first and third persons.
If you called Steve Burton to have more faith in God—the kind of Abraham, the kind where we believe not because we see things to be reasonable, but rather where we believe because we believe, the kind of faith that does not have to be reasonable—he would not call himself an “agnostic”. Instead, one tries to be disputer of this age, while trying to get people to where they will have to “live by faith, not by sight” anyway. This tendency to make these “agnostics” think that their reason will have to be subdued before they can believe in a God who has shown a repeated tendency to not worry about absurdity: this tendency is misguided. We should make it clear: either you believe—for if God is, reason is subject to Him, and 1 Corinthians 1 explicitly states this as true—or you see as reasonable and know; but such a God is not He. The reason they remain “agnostic” and even “atheist” is because they refuse to have faith. So do not go on about Prime Movers, for those do not require faith, for they are not who the (converted) “agnostics” and “atheists” will have to live under. They will have to live under the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and He says such strange things as “Rise, go forth to a land that I will show you.” Go to where you do not know. “Abraham believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Next time, show me if Aristotelian logic and Euclid-esque proofs ever demarcated a boundary for the Triune God. (And, yes, I will laugh at you if you try to tell me that the Trinity is rational, that the Incarnation is rational, and so on.) “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
About HBD … Why do we look too much at cross-racial or cross-gender HBD, ignoring, say, cross-age HBD? Would it be controversial if it was found that young women have better memory capacity than older women? That young girls are better at learning languages than older girls? The reason we dwell on racial HBD is because we have lingering tendencies to think ourselves superior or inferior. Be that as it may, I worry that you conservatives who would have stood in the way of the misuse of these HBD realities are so enthralled of them, that you will be quite happy to be wrong with the wrong, just because you are right with them too. Consider IQ. If we had a group of people deciding who should die, and we land at their IQ tests (which, as you know, HBDers have pushed as some kind of proof of superiority—they will pretend that superiority is not in the picture, but you can then ask them why they say “higher IQ”, and not “deeper IQ”). With these IQ tests, how are you going to stop me from killing off all the ≤70 IQ people, in this our besieged and starving WW-III city? What argument will you give? “Subhuman intelligence does not imply …” But then you have caught yourself in your own words.
The point: HBD is a reality, but ranking people thereby is as useless as ranking your forty-year-old self against your two-month-old self; and also, you are giving the killers weapons! Remember Acts 17: “From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.” The people your HBD stats laugh at with muffled mouths are the people who have reached out and found God, while you run about worshipping the god of the intellect.
On being gay … well. What can one say? Those who are gay are sinning against God. Those who are not gay are Pharisees, and they are sinning against God. You should find the brightest star that ever came out of the Christianity you say you love: the Grace of God. Your fellow bloggers will not show it to you, because they have either never understood Romans 7-8 (really, all of Romans), or they have and they have rejected it. But as for you, go and read the Pericope Adulteræ. Who knows, perhaps you may even be made ready to be subdued by St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, so that you may believe (not prove, but believe), and thencefrom partake of the Righteousness that has been revealed apart from the Law (“Thou shalt not commit sodomy”).
Posted by The 27th Comrade | September 3, 2010 8:02 AM
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.
It was not only you, Steve, who aroused the ire of Josh, by means of an enthusiasm for HBD. The very last post on EM was yours, and in the comment thread, you and I had a brief exchange about the substance, centering on some research conducted by Putnam; the last comment belonged to Josh, and that comment deemed us intellectually inferior racists who sought shelter under the work of Sailer. I will, of course, cop to the charge of intellectual inferiority, as I cannot pretend to possess the understanding of Sailer, or Razib Khan. As for the latter charge, well, it was, and remains, bunk - but that's the nature of the debate, I suppose.
I just wanted to put that out there, not to reawaken old controversies, but to let it be known that you weren't the only HBD-related precipitating factor in the site's demise. You had company. My early posts were almost all immigration-related, and quite strident, if I do say so myself.
As for the rest of the matter, the right - in the broadest sense - needs its fellow travelers, as it has become at once intellectually fractured, and intellectually sterile in its mainstream incarnations. If the enterprise does not receive any cross-pollination, it will wither into a shriveled husk of itself, a dessicated hybrid of GOP machine politics, inchoate populist fury, and business-class astroturfing - and there has to be more to the right than those things.
Posted by Maximos | September 3, 2010 9:58 AM
27th: "Why do we look too much at cross-racial or cross-gender HBD, ignoring, say, cross-age HBD? "
No one denies the importance of age-related developmental differences. Also, there are obvious gender differences. Still, evolutionary paths did not geographically branch off by age or gender. By the standard view of evolution, Eurasians separated from Africans around 100,000 years ago. Europeans and Asians separated from each other around 40,000 years ago. As James Watson recently stated, evolution dictates that there should be major differences between these groups. Differences, however, do not always entail superiority or inferiority.
Posted by M.A. Roberts | September 3, 2010 10:17 AM
P.S. Some people vary on the above dates. Also, the above groups themselves split and resplit many times (e.g. think of the Amerindians). Furthermore, there are areas of the world where these groups mix (India, Middle East) but these facts do not change the overall picture. James Watson has speculated that major differences could have begun to occur in as little as 5,000 years.
Also, the recent finding on Neanderthal DNA (that non-Africans have Neanderthal DNA, but Africans do not) adds an interesting dimension to the whole picture.
Posted by M.A. Roberts | September 3, 2010 10:34 AM
Steve,
I thought this was going to be a post about how you and M.A. were secret communist agents!
[O.K. -- my attempt to be as witty as Ed Feser is now over]
Foxfier and Bill Luse,
I'm not sure why Steve put the quotes around the term, but human biodiversity simply refers to the following facts:
(1) human races exist;
(2) there are meaningful genetic differences between races -- not just "minor" ones like facial characteristics but deeper ones like intelligence.
Contrary to the ramblings of the 27th Comrade, the fact that there is one standard deviation in intelligence between blacks and whites in America says nothing about our shared humanity or the fact that we are all created in the image of God. What folks like me do argue, is that human biodiversity should play a role in how we formulate public policy on a range of topics including immigration, education, health care, etc.
Finally, I'm not quite sure but I think 27th Comrade is arguing that our reason and our faith don't mix. Thankfully, there have been many great Christian apologists over the years who disagree and I know that personally if I was told I had to check my intelligence at the door before I knelt down in prayer at church I would never have come back to Christ.
Posted by Jeff Singer | September 3, 2010 10:35 AM
(Sorry, this al-Ghazali turban keeps wrapping itself about my head of late.)
Posted by The 27th Comrade | September 3, 2010 12:04 PM
Posted by The 27th Comrade | September 3, 2010 12:10 PM
Hey M.A.,
I saw this and thought of you:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/09/1567
Have a great weekend!
Posted by Jeff Singer | September 3, 2010 1:49 PM
Jeff: Thanks for that. You have a good weekend as well.
27th: "The reason the differences cannot be statistically-significant (unless we be biased—as I believe we should be) is because there were not enough generations to entrench a mutation."
Ever heard of lactose tolerance?
Posted by M.A. Roberts | September 3, 2010 2:03 PM
Steve, this post almost sounds like a resignation. I sincerely hope it isn't. However, I do think the whole HBD thing, while academically interesting, is not much use in terms of social policy, and in the wrong hands works a lot of mischief. That the field seems to be disproportionately a hobby of the amoral, non-religious and neo-pagan indicates that it fills some sort of psychological need for this group, which is troubling in itself.
As for your homosexuality, well, I didn't know. A person committed to living as a homosexual will have a difficult time working to restore a Christian moral order, as this blog attempts to do.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | September 3, 2010 2:29 PM
Hey Steve,
I actually knew all of that stuff about you, since I used to read Right Reason (the gay thing hasn't come up in so long though, that I was beginning to wonder if I hadn't misremembered that part and confused you with someone else or something).
As for HBD, here's my two cents. I'm actually persuaded by the data and arguments of the HBDers that there probably are average genetic differences between races that result in slight brain differences that result in differing average scores on IQ tests.
Nonetheless, most of the HBD crowd creeps me out. Here's why. As Jeff Singer says, "the fact that there is one standard deviation in intelligence between blacks and whites in America says nothing about our shared humanity or the fact that we are all created in the image of God".
But, what if one believes in HBD, but *doesn't* believe that we are all created in the Image of God, or that there isn't objectively any such thing as "shared humanity". What if one is a reductionist, and believes that all aspects of the so-called human person - from our taste for fatty foods to our sense of morality and religiosity - are really just the result of material mechanisms devoid of any divine intent? What if one believes that there is nothing essentially human, that we're merely another animal, primarily different from the "lower" animals by our degree of intelligence, just as those groups of animals we call "elephants" are notable for longer noses and just as "giraffes" are notable for their long necks? What follows then from the conclusion that some groups of animals we label "human" have less intelligence than others?
Well, as it happens, I've just described the premises of nearly the entire HBD community. And while I agree that there are probably racial differences in intelligence, though it's not something I especially focus on or find any pleasure in, the spectacle of a bunch of godless, reductionist materialists who seem to be utterly absorbed with the subject disturbs me.
It doesn't surprise me that liberals have turned total IQ equality of all human groups into a scientific dogma. Following the horrors of the 3rd Reich, and of eugenics in America, and given the hand that progressives played in these things, it became necessary for liberals, for the sake of their own consciences, to rationalize some basis from which they could condemn those things as the crimes against humanity they were. Unfortunately, because leftism is a godless philosophy, they couldn't oppose it on the rationale that all men are of equal ultimate value by virtue of being created in the Image of God. Instead, they had to turn the concept of total material equality into an unquestionable dogma. That dogma is false, but it holds their most wicked potential in check. But what happens to society if that dogma is torn down by those who are equally godless and even more reductionist?
Posted by The Deuce | September 3, 2010 2:56 PM
Il Deuce, we share a concern.
Posted by The 27th Comrade | September 3, 2010 3:27 PM
Jeff C.,
You say, "However, I do think the whole HBD thing, while academically interesting, is not much use in terms of social policy, and in the wrong hands works a lot of mischief."
Look, I can understand why you'd think this way -- it did work a lot of mischief back in the day (see e.g. Buck v Bell and Holmes famous quote ""Three generations of imbeciles are enough."). But the truth is that ignoring HBD is currently, as I type, working all sort of mischief in existing social policy (think civil rights lawsuits and disparate impact, No Child Left Behind, etc.) HBD is important now, precisely because as "The Deuce" says above liberals have turned "total IQ equality of all human groups into a scientific dogma" with real world consequences for social policy. My advice is let's use good science to fight bad and our common sense and reason to formulate public policy that takes into consideration that not every kid from the ghetto will be able to graduate college (practical implication, as everyone from Charles Murray to Camille Paglia has written, is to do a better job of promoting and teaching vocation education to ghetto kids) or that not every immigrant will contribute to the American polis equally.
Posted by Jeff Singer | September 3, 2010 3:29 PM
You're "gay," isn't that a euphemism for "sodomite"?
Posted by Suburban Yahoo | September 3, 2010 4:08 PM
He doesn't believe it's true. You can love something you don't believe is true.
No you can't.
Posted by William Luse | September 3, 2010 4:31 PM
Given that there isn't an organized breeding program for humans, wouldn't it make more sense to look for genetic markers for specific traits rather than the rather loose organization of "race"? It wouldn't get as much attention, and it would still get labeled racism, and it would still be dangerous, but it might be more accurate.
I think it's blindingly obvious that there are measurable differences between folks, and it's reasonable to guess that some of them are genetic (probably with a large number of genetic origin, environmental influence factors-- same way a tame pig is two generations from looking like a wild one), it's just that "race" as it's used these days is a horrible stand in for it. Given the very human tendency to take something they have a notion of as a general rule and try to apply it as an iron rule in specific, the human cost could be insanely huge. (Imagine that some specific type of situational blindness is found in a group of Basques who trace back to a certain village area; how long would it take for someone to decide that it's a French and Spanish thing in general, and start acting on that belief? Even if there is only a one in 100 occurrence of it, and they only tested 500?)
For whoever it was that said something about those who marry cousins-- inbreeding is not inherently harmful; the higher chance of bad, recessive genetics being expressed is the danger.
Posted by Foxfier | September 3, 2010 4:48 PM
William,
Steve himself is evidence against you. He has said he both loves it and dissents from it. Unless you know his heart better than he does when he says he loves a thing, or unless you know he is lying when he says he loves it (and I don't see how you can do either one), then you've got to soften your assertion.
If, however, you still think you can prove him wrong about what he does or doesn't love, then I'd be interested to hear your case.
Posted by Michael Bauman | September 3, 2010 4:57 PM
Not only are you a theological crank, you can't read.
Posted by William Luse | September 3, 2010 5:27 PM
"No you can't"
Mr. Luse, the example I had in mind was that I can and do, for example, love myths that I know aren't true. Could you elaborate on what you mean?
Posted by Bruce | September 3, 2010 8:32 PM
A comment on the prevailing trend of the discussion on this post: I've been surprised to see the thread be largely devoted to a discussion of Steve's views on HBD. While it's clear the issue arouses the passions of those on both sides of the argument, I would've liked to have seen a larger discussion dealing with Steve's sexual orientation and the issue of fellow travelling. Given the stridency with which many of the regular contributors here attack the "homosexual agenda" and the moral turpitude of sodomy, I would've been really interested to read some comments by Steve, Lydia, Ed, and others about the tension between fellow travelling and the mission of WWWtW. As someone who reads this site largely as to get a window into a world that I have little to no contact with, and to be exposed to views that I largely reject, I don't think I have anything constructive to add to that conversation as it pertains to this site; but it's a discussion I would like to see and an opportunity that seems to have been largely missed.
Posted by rukn al-dawla | September 4, 2010 3:44 AM
There is a wonderful myth about a babe conceived by the Holy Ghost (the third of a three-personed God, for those who can swallow it), born to a virgin, and who, when he grew to a man, worked many miracles, proclaimed himself the savior of mankind, was put to death for it, and then rose bodily from the grave, to which event there were witnesses, vanquishing forever our terror of annihilation. The story goes that he will come again, though when and how remains murky, and that this is an event greatly to be longed for since those of us who abide by the God-man's commandments will find a great reward stored up for us in the next life, where love is the only rule. A religion was established in his name which inspired the greatest works of art known to mankind. Our knees go wobbly beneath the Sistine Ceiling, our hearts soar to the stars upon hearing a Mozart Mass, and our modern egos are humbled in the nave of Notre Dame, before the genius that conceived of flying buttresses, and in light of the two hundred years' labor required to build it. I delight in the poetry, fiction and apologetics that the myth has inspired, and as an aesthete of integrity feel compelled to admit, and gladly, that The Divine Comedy is likely the greatest work of poetic genius produced by mere man. The myth itself is very beautiful, its central character the most compelling (either in his wisdom or in his delusions of grandeur) in history, and it would be a source of great peace and joy (rather than a mere comfort for children) if only I could accept it as truth. If I could, I would then pledge myself body and soul to the man who started it all. I would take up my cross to follow him: keeping to one wife and forswearing all others, ever striving for purity, telling no lies, protecting the innocent, lifting up the downtrodden, praying without ever losing heart, and maybe even laying down my life for Him should the occasion call. But because it is all a myth, I'm not sure that any of it's worth the trouble, though I try to live decently and treat others well. I do wish fervently that the artistic tradition that came of all this would endure and prevail above all others, for it is infinitely more aesthetically pleasing and, in some indefinable way, spiritually fulfilling, than all the rest. But can I be said to love Him - or His religion?
Posted by William Luse | September 4, 2010 5:28 AM
Thank you for the response. Actually I looked at the post again because I forgot what he actually wrote. He said he loved the the Euro-Christian tradition. He didn't say he loved Him or even His religion.
That was a very inspiring paragraph you wrote above Mr Luse.
Posted by Bruce | September 4, 2010 7:28 AM
r-al-d, you aren't going to see the conversation you apparently want. But in case anyone has any doubt (and I don't think anyone else does), my own blogging on moral issues is not going to change at all after this. I'm sure Steve would never expect it to, and he has always been very sympathetic in particular to concerns about totalitarianism, in the area of "orientation rights" as in other areas. That's all I plan to say in response to your comment.
Posted by Lydia | September 4, 2010 9:44 AM
rukn,
Would the conversation you are seeking be short circuited by positing that perhaps Steve does not (unlike the gay movement generally) seek to impose gay standards of morality on the culture as a whole. That he might be willing to see gay choices of activity be no better than barely tolerated, and certainly not applauded in the form of officially recognized marriage, and officially approved "Mary has 2 Mommies" type curricula in schools?
On the other hand, if Steve DOES hold with the gay movement generally, and DOES maintain that our culture is morally bound to accept and foster gay marriage as being as wholesome as real marriage, then yes, there would of necessity be considerable tension between that view and the general purpose of W4. As well, considerable tension between that view and a desire to keep the Euro-Christian traditions, since a leading tradition is heterosexual marriage.
Posted by Tony | September 4, 2010 10:16 AM
Raimondo's also against orientation rights, "marriage", etc.
Posted by Bruce | September 4, 2010 10:21 AM
We're supposed to freak about something we don't know he thinks, yet?
Posted by Foxfier | September 4, 2010 10:28 AM
"He said he loved the the Euro-Christian tradition. He didn't say he loved Him or even His religion."
Other agnostics have said similar things; they might be said to love the fruits of Christendom, but not necessarily Christ or His religion. Ralph Vaughan Williams, that "happy agnostic," comes to mind, as does Roger Scruton before he returned to faith. The notion that religion might be good for culture even if it's not true is an old one, and does not always stem from the idea that it's all about control.
Posted by Rob G | September 4, 2010 11:01 AM
Would the conversation you are seeking be short circuited by positing that perhaps Steve does not (unlike the gay movement generally) seek to impose gay standards of morality on the culture as a whole.
Well, if he didn’t want to impose gay standards on this blog, why did he even bring it up? From what I can tell, hardly anybody here knew that he was a homosexual. So what’s all this pretending by him like he was just reconfirming what everybody already knew? It seems to me that he has intentionally injected his “gayness” (“gaiety?”) into the works.
And another thing, if he were really not seeking to impose his sexual orientation, he should have resigned right after making his big announcement, which is precisely what he ought to be asked to do anyway, IMHO.
Raimondo's also against orientation rights, "marriage", etc.
Yeah, so what? Justin Raimondo is a kook, as well as a fruitcake. Pat Buchanan (further) disgraced himself by having anything to do with him.
Posted by George R. | September 4, 2010 12:36 PM
On what basis, George R.? I, too, wish the announcement had not been made, but apparently this was public knowledge elsewhere. Better for us to hear it from Steve than from his enemies. To that end he may have done everyone a favor. In the future, please God, we might have another announcement to the effect that our colleague no longer identifies himself by this particular affliction.
Steve has never expressed any sympathy for the homosexualist agenda at this site, nor protested when his colleagues have opposed it with vigor. Furthermore he has not made his private affliction any part of his online persona, nor has he told us that his homosexuality goes any further than a temptation in his private life.
Just pray for him and for the rest of us, who struggle with other things, and let W4 return to normal.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | September 4, 2010 1:29 PM
Lydia,
I fear I may not have conveyed my intent clearly in my original post. I certainly wouldn't expect anybody's positions to change as a result of the conversation I "apparently want" (I'm sorry, I found that formulation a bit snide), nor in the course of it, would I expect Steve to make that demand. I guess the conversation I'm looking for wouldn't primarily be for the benefit of the authors of this blog (which, I guess, means there's not a very strong incentive for it to take place), but rather for the audience. Most of the contributors here seem to have had interesting intellectual journeys and made various alliances of convenience (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense) and principle. I think it would be interesting for the readers of the site to hear some reflections on the present configuration of WWWtW, the tensions that exist in it, etc. In some ways, I suppose that's just what happens in the course of most discussion threads, but (and maybe this is just a fault of my own failure of imagination not to have thought that an openly gay man could be a prime contributor to this site) it seemed to me that Steve's post was a particularly fruitful opportunity (again, for the audience, not the contributors). Instead, there was just a boring (IMO) exchange about HBD.
Tony,
Maybe it would be. I don't have any expectations one way or the other.
Posted by rukn al-dawla | September 4, 2010 1:33 PM
If some W4 contributor were to defend adultery, fornication, homosexual activity, or some other kind of behavior at odds with Christian sexual morality, I'm sure there would be (and certainly should be) a reaction of the sort rukn al-dawla expected. But no W4 contributor has done that, here or anywhere else. Indeed, no one has said anything at all that (I assumed, and I gather Steve assumed) was not already well-known as a result of a notorious incident at another blog a few years ago -- and, I might add, well-known only because someone other than Steve brought it up, in an unspeakably disgraceful attempt to cause him harm. (Readers of moral theology manuals will recognize this as an instance of the grave sin of detraction, and will know that it is the detractor, and not his victim, who merits our contempt.)
I don't see anything in Steve's post other than an expression of appreciation and friendship toward his co-bloggers. And so I don't see any reason to say any more about the subject rukn is interested in. I will say, though, that as always, I enjoy and appreciate Steve's writing and thinking, even when we disagree, and that I also appreciate, and reciprocate, his expression of friendship.
Posted by Edward Feser | September 4, 2010 3:16 PM
On what basis, George R.?
On what basis? How about on the basis that you ought to have standards? And if you have standards, you have to draw the line somewhere. And drawing the line at sodomy seems to me rather reasonable and moderate. But if you think my standards are too strict and that I’m too uptight, you tell me: Where should the line be drawn? At pederasty? Bestiality?
Furthermore, Jeff, whether you want to admit it or not, any forum or blog (whatever may be its editorial content) that chooses to host an openly gay man will invariably become, to a certain extent, “gay-friendly.” For you’re not just giving his views a hearing, which is not so bad, but you are showing him respect as a colleague, which is. You’re in effect telling the whole world, “We respect sodomites.” You might as well put a rainbow flag at the top of the homepage.
Some would say that what I am saying is hateful and vicious, but fifty years ago my views would have been almost universal. And that’s my point. What society today considers hateful and vicious is the only thing that can have any positive effect, and, btw, the only thing that can be called “traditional.” Treating homosexuals with kid-gloves does no one any good, neither society nor the homosexuals; for it results in both the former and the latter going to hell.
Posted by George R. | September 4, 2010 3:37 PM
About HBD … Why do we look too much at cross-racial or cross-gender HBD, ignoring, say, cross-age HBD? Would it be controversial if it was found that young women have better memory capacity than older women? That young girls are better at learning languages than older girls? The reason we dwell on racial HBD is because we have lingering tendencies to think ourselves superior or inferior.
Well, no. The reason we pay attention to things like race moreso than age (although not exclusively so) is that age is immutable*, but race is not. We can, and virtually all countries always have, controlled their racial makeup.
*(Immutable at present, at any rate)
Posted by Severn | September 4, 2010 3:42 PM
I think it's blindingly obvious that there are measurable differences between folks, and it's reasonable to guess that some of them are genetic (probably with a large number of genetic origin, environmental influence factors-- same way a tame pig is two generations from looking like a wild one), it's just that "race" as it's used these days is a horrible stand in for it. Given the very human tendency to take something they have a notion of as a general rule and try to apply it as an iron rule in specific, the human cost could be insanely huge.
Not only are there measurable differences between folks, there are also measurable differences between groups of folks who are related to one another, just as one would expect from a basic knowledge of biology. There may indeed be "human costs" to acknowledging this, just as there are also human costs in trying to deny it. But then, science is concerned first and foremost with finding out the truth. The cost of the truth on humans is not a major concern to it, any more than when scientists developed the atomic bomb.
Posted by Severn | September 4, 2010 3:52 PM
any forum or blog (whatever may be its editorial content) that chooses to host an openly gay man...
Your position, George, rests on assumptions about an individual's personal life that you have no right to make. And since you don't, I think you should just shut up.
For that matter, so should everyone else. I think we've already said more than needs to be said. Let's move on.
Posted by Edward Feser | September 4, 2010 3:55 PM
The reason the differences cannot be statistically-significant (unless we be biased—as I believe we should be) is because there were not enough generations to entrench a mutation.
Obviously, the mutations ARE statistically significant, which is why black children are not born to Eskimos or red-haired Irish kids to a nice Chinese couple.
Posted by Severn | September 4, 2010 4:00 PM
"If some W4 contributor were to defend adultery, fornication, homosexual activity, or some other kind of behavior at odds with Christian sexual morality, I'm sure there would be (and certainly should be) a reaction of the sort rukn al-dawla expected."
That's not really what I was getting at, but I seem to have failed to communicate it in two posts, so I'll take Ed's advice in his last post.
Posted by rukn al-dawla | September 4, 2010 4:04 PM
Amen, Ed.
George R., please, stop. My own views on the grave immorality of homosexual behavior and the grave danger of the homosexual agenda are well-known, and I intend to go on blogging about them. No one is asking me or anyone else to be "gay friendly" in any way, shape, or form. Now, enough already.
Posted by Lydia | September 4, 2010 4:07 PM
EF: "I don't see anything in Steve's post other than an expression of appreciation and friendship toward his co-bloggers. And so I don't see any reason to say any more about the subject rukn is interested in. I will say, though, that as always, I enjoy and appreciate Steve's writing and thinking, even when we disagree, and that I also appreciate, and reciprocate, his expression of friendship."
I agree.
Posted by M.A. Roberts | September 4, 2010 4:12 PM
Your position, George, rests on assumptions about an individual's personal life that you have no right to make.
Well, that's just me, Ed. If someone says, "I'm still gay...", I'm going to go waaaay out on a limb and assume he's a homosexual. Just call me "Mr. Rash-Suspicion."
Now I'll stop.
Posted by George R. | September 4, 2010 4:14 PM
That's a respectable argument. If a fellow contributor had publicly admitted a sexual attraction to children or animals - and nothing more than sexual attraction - yes, I would personally sever any sort of public association with this contributor. So, why draw the line here and not at same-sex attraction?
I could answer with another question: why draw the line at same-sex attraction and not at, say, the attraction to any number of other sins - contraception, heterosexual fornication, drunkenness and drug abuse, pornography, calumny and detraction, abortion, pride, sloth, gluttony, etc.. (Attraction is really the only issue at this point, so far as any of us knows or has a right to assume.) Drawing the line is a prudential judgment based upon circumstances. This is a blog, not the Boy Scouts.
In any case, not all sexual perversions are created equal. Same-sex attraction is, unfortunately, not all that uncommon today, and I believe it is often the result of sociological factors beyond the control of its victims. (See: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L41.pdf ). A measure of tolerance for those who suffer under this burden is not out of line.
The key word here is "openly". The "openly" in this case is two words on one blog post, without description or elaboration. Anything more than that is prurient speculation and is, at this point, an injustice.
There is absolutely no danger of W4 becoming "gay friendly" in any meaningful sense.
Of course we "respect sodomites", not as sodomites, but as men made in the image and likeness of God.
Fifty years ago there were homosexual-inclined men doing useful things, even in conservative and Catholic circles, but whose weaknesses were seldom known or discussed because we had a social climate that kept this sort of thing in the confessional and out of the public consciousness. Which is exactly as it should be. Tragically for everyone, this sense of Christian propriety is no longer an option. It was not an option for Steve Burton, either.
I shall say no more about it. If this thread were locked or deleted, along with the original post, I would not be disappointed.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | September 4, 2010 4:46 PM
any forum or blog (whatever may be its editorial content) that chooses to host an openly gay man will invariably become, to a certain extent, “gay-friendly.”
How long would we have to be in business before you'll admit this isn't true? (And it's something Steve's never asked for, btw. Not even hinted at it.)
As for respecting him as a colleague, man, you are hardcore.
Posted by William Luse | September 4, 2010 5:10 PM
I'm working, slowly, through comments, here, so forgive me if it's too late for me to say this.
Michael Bauman is, of course, right, and William Luse is of course, wrong: obviously, you can love something (or someone) that (or whom) you don't believe is true.
It might even be the the strongest kind of love there is.
Posted by steve burton | September 4, 2010 5:33 PM
That's an interesting comment, Steve. You can't mean it literally, though. For example, I love Faramir as a character, but not literally. I don't love Faramir in the same sense in which I love my real-world friends.
Posted by Lydia | September 4, 2010 5:37 PM
Posted by The 27th Comrade | September 4, 2010 5:46 PM
Suburban Yahoo @ 4:08 p.m. yesterday: no, I believe it's a euphemism for "somdomite."
Jeff C. @ 1:29 today: thanks. Mostly.
As it happens, I had some reason to believe that somebody hostile was about to make a big stink about this, so I decided to pre-empt, as gently as possible.
I'm not really comfortable with your word, "affliction," but it's no biggy.
FWIW, IMHO, the best going theory explaining the existence & persistence of homosexuality is Gregory Cochran's gay germ hypothesis.
Worth a read.
Posted by steve burton | September 4, 2010 6:08 PM
Jeff C @ 4:46/William Luse @ 5:10: thanks, guys.
George R.: no hard feelings, I hope.
Posted by steve burton | September 4, 2010 6:54 PM
Okay, I'll get involved in this and try not to be too harsh on Steve, which is difficult because we disagree on nearly everything. First, someone should have told Jeff Culbreath before he was invited to join the blog. Same goes for Michael Liccione, assuming he also was not told.
Second, although I and everyone from Right Reason knew about this years ago from the disgraceful incident Ed Feser referred to, neither I or any other person from there has since tried to use this as a basis for attack. If Steve wanted to be open or in the closet, that was his business. That has never been scandalous from my viewpoint to begin with; it is his social Darwinism that is stubbornly wrong.
Third, if you want to have a mission statement that is against liberalism and/or Islamic jihad, Steve can easily fit into the picture, but if you are going to advertise as a conservative Christian blog you should adopt the same standards you want Christian employers and institutions to adopt. This means you should not sponsor or give formal approval to someone who is openly gay, and Steve is "supposedly" well known to be gay. Both Lydia and Jeff have been adamant that this is the standard they would prefer to see in American society. It is an untenable position for those who profess a moral obligation to discriminate against gays.
Posted by Step2 | September 5, 2010 9:17 AM
I'm not blogging anymore -- really -- but it must be just shocking - shocking! - for some to discover that an overtly Christian blog chooses to collaborate with a man based on that man's public behavior and character, in spite of a despicable incident of detraction which was perpetrated against that man and which apparently now some despicable character wishes to resurrect. Shocking that fellow travelling continues despite the detraction, and attempts to use that detraction against the man and the blog.
Let him who has nothing in his private history which could (in decent company, to the extent decent company still exists in our society) be a subject of detraction, cast the first stone.
Steve, I'd like to associate myself with Ed's comment of September 4, 2010 3:16 PM. What is more, if you are ever in northern Virginia give me a shout -- lunch is on me.
Posted by Zippy | September 5, 2010 10:39 AM
What I appreciate most is that WWwtW is a frequented (but not too frequented!) crossroads on the social-conservative right where various ideas are exchanged and debated - but almost always in a civil manner. It's truly a unique place. And WWwtW definitely wouldn't be WWwtW without Steve Burton, with whom I first remember conversing in the comments section of Right Reason. (Back then, I commented as Cato or Cato Uticensis.)
Posted by M.A. Roberts | September 5, 2010 11:47 AM
What Steve has mentioned in the comment thread--that this post was occasioned in part by a desire to forestall a detractor who was planning to attempt to cause a scandal--is a very important piece of context and deserves special note. I did not know that myself until Steve told it here.
Posted by Lydia | September 5, 2010 12:55 PM
I would like this thread to end, but I do want to respond to Step2's misrepresentation of my views:
1. Where have I ever said that open homosexuals have no right to employment, anywhere? I have said, and still maintain, that any employer or institution should be free to discriminate on the basis of character, that the practice of homosexuality is an issue of character, and that some employers/institutions have a positive obligation to thus discriminate. But that obligation is not universal and varies from context to context.
2. Once again, thus far we are not talking about someone who is publicly known to engage in ongoing homosexual behavior, but about a man who has, on only one occasion that I know about, self-identified as "gay". I strongly disagree with the practice of identifying oneself by one's besetting sin, whatever it might be, but the fact remains that many homosexuals who are chaste, or who are striving to live chastely, also identify with that label.
3. As an employer, I would not hire someone who is openly "gay". However, if I were to discover later that an employee had this problem, perhaps because some malicious person forced him to disclose this information, I would do my best to keep him employed without scandal. And that's the right thing to do.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | September 5, 2010 1:47 PM
Step2: oh, BEHAVE.
I am not a *social* Darwinist. I'm just a Darwinist. And a Darwinist who increasingly wonders whether teleology/final causes might not be a fundamental feature of reality, after all. (Can Aristotle, Aquinas & Ed Feser all be wrong?)
Posted by steve burton | September 5, 2010 4:14 PM
Step2: oh, BEHAVE.
You first.
Can Aristotle, Aquinas & Ed Feser all be wrong?
Yes.
Jeff, my phrasing was poor. I meant to say your view is that American society should be permissive of Christian employers and institutions that discriminate against gays. Although I do find your instinct to be protective a good thing, since family abandonment and homelessness are significant problems in the gay community.
Posted by Step2 | September 6, 2010 5:33 PM
This comments thread reads like a "Fine By Me" campaign.
Posted by Steve | September 7, 2010 12:22 PM