Liberal Illiberalism
Conservatives are put into awkward positions of critiquing liberal ideas on grounds that they are impractical, unworkable, or counterproductive. Yet rarely, at least outside the religious sphere, do they identify the progressive as often immoral. And the unfortunate result is that they have often ceded moral claims to supposedly dreamy, utopian, and well-meaning progressives, when in fact the latter increasingly have little moral ground to stand upon.Liberal Illiberalism
“Yet rarely, at least outside the religious sphere, do they identify the progressive as often immoral. And the unfortunate result is that they have often ceded moral claims to supposedly dreamy, utopian, and well-meaning progressives, when in fact the latter increasingly have little moral ground to stand upon.”
Hanson is a neo-conservative. Like neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism is rooted in humanism. Which is why neo-conservatism is pluralistic (or ecumenical): it is based on “values” that, while may be affirmed by any number of religious systems (Christians, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, even Muslims and atheists that are willing to sign on) pretty much are a thing unto themselves. The “values” that they use to judge what is “moral” and what is “immoral” exist independently and have their own authority. Their authority does not come from God - they are not right and true and binding because of “thus saith the Lord” i.e. because they are the “red letter words” in the Bible because they were spoken by Jesus Christ - because if they did, a Hindu, Jewish or atheist neo-conservative (for example) would not be able to assent to them. The best that they can do is call it “western” or “rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition.” The truth, however, is that the source of authority for their moralism is human will, human reason, human experience, and human self-interest. This makes the neo-conservative morality advocated by Hanson and his peers no different from the neo-liberal counterpart. In some contexts, it is actually more dangerous, because it is easier to confuse neo-conservative humanism for the Bible. Look at the homosexual “marriage” debate, for example. The position of the religious right - marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman - is based on common law and western tradition, not the Bible, because in no place does the Bible so define marriage. The Bible never forbids polygamy (or polyandry either for that matter) or calls Abraham, King David or any of the others who practiced it sinners. But that is the only way that neo-conservatism allows the issue to be framed, because saying that homosexual “marriage” should be opposed because it is sinful is based on the authority of God, not on the reason/tradition/experience of man. So Christians - who oppose it because it is an abomination - go along with what is actually a secular humanist argument, and moreover a secular humanist argument that is sinful because it condemns something that God has not. (Note: I am not promoting polygamy, merely pointing out that the Bible never calls it a sin.)
Because neo-conservative secular humanism SOUNDS more “Christian” (or at least religious or pious) the potential to deceive many is greater than with neo-liberal secular humanism that goes out of its way to openly reject Biblical commands: you have the guy who claims that his views are rooted in and influenced by the Bible on one hand (but is lying) versus the guy who explicitly states that he rejects the Bible because it is (for example) bigoted and oppressive on another. And the neo-conservative humanist has a rather easy time making religious-sounding values/morals arguments for staking out positions that have nothing to do with what the New Testament actually teaches, and actually is in conflict with the New Testament at times. How often did we hear from this crowd, for example, of the need for our military to attack other nations so that we can spread democracy and with it religious freedom? (Oh, and defend Israel?) I didn’t see that in my Bible. Maybe it is in the http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project] Conservative Bible that omits “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” Instead, my Bible depicted in the book of Acts a church made up of mostly poor, marginalized and disenfranchised people (from both Roman and Jewish society) being able to assemble and spread the gospel with the power of the Holy Spirit, not a government military.
Neo-conservative humanist morality is just as anti-Christ as neo-liberal humanist morality. Plenty of Christians are going to find that out when the neo-cons and the neo-libs join forces to start persecuting Christians, because the day will come when Christianity is inconvenient to their common humanist agenda. Though they are mostly Catholic (either Roman or Orthodox) look at the Christians in the Middle East: Iraq, Egypt etc. The “neo” agenda (neo-con under Bush, neo-lib under Obama) was to spread democracy in those countries, and the Christians in those places … well they were the eggs that had to be broken in order to make the omelettes.
Hanson is a neo-conservative. Like neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism is rooted in humanism. Which is why neo-conservatism is pluralistic (or ecumenical): it is based on “values” that, while may be affirmed by any number of religious systems (Christians, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, even Muslims and atheists that are willing to sign on) pretty much are a thing unto themselves. The “values” that they use to judge what is “moral” and what is “immoral” exist independently and have their own authority. Their authority does not come from God - they are not right and true and binding because of “thus saith the Lord” i.e. because they are the “red letter words” in the Bible because they were spoken by Jesus Christ - because if they did, a Hindu, Jewish or atheist neo-conservative (for example) would not be able to assent to them. The best that they can do is call it “western” or “rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition.” The truth, however, is that the source of authority for their moralism is human will, human reason, human experience, and human self-interest. This makes the neo-conservative morality advocated by Hanson and his peers no different from the neo-liberal counterpart. In some contexts, it is actually more dangerous, because it is easier to confuse neo-conservative humanism for the Bible. Look at the homosexual “marriage” debate, for example. The position of the religious right - marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman - is based on common law and western tradition, not the Bible, because in no place does the Bible so define marriage. The Bible never forbids polygamy (or polyandry either for that matter) or calls Abraham, King David or any of the others who practiced it sinners. But that is the only way that neo-conservatism allows the issue to be framed, because saying that homosexual “marriage” should be opposed because it is sinful is based on the authority of God, not on the reason/tradition/experience of man. So Christians - who oppose it because it is an abomination - go along with what is actually a secular humanist argument, and moreover a secular humanist argument that is sinful because it condemns something that God has not. (Note: I am not promoting polygamy, merely pointing out that the Bible never calls it a sin.)
Because neo-conservative secular humanism SOUNDS more “Christian” (or at least religious or pious) the potential to deceive many is greater than with neo-liberal secular humanism that goes out of its way to openly reject Biblical commands: you have the guy who claims that his views are rooted in and influenced by the Bible on one hand (but is lying) versus the guy who explicitly states that he rejects the Bible because it is (for example) bigoted and oppressive on another. And the neo-conservative humanist has a rather easy time making religious-sounding values/morals arguments for staking out positions that have nothing to do with what the New Testament actually teaches, and actually is in conflict with the New Testament at times. How often did we hear from this crowd, for example, of the need for our military to attack other nations so that we can spread democracy and with it religious freedom? (Oh, and defend Israel?) I didn’t see that in my Bible. Maybe it is in the http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project] Conservative Bible that omits “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” Instead, my Bible depicted in the book of Acts a church made up of mostly poor, marginalized and disenfranchised people (from both Roman and Jewish society) being able to assemble and spread the gospel with the power of the Holy Spirit, not a government military.
Neo-conservative humanist morality is just as anti-Christ as neo-liberal humanist morality. Plenty of Christians are going to find that out when the neo-cons and the neo-libs join forces to start persecuting Christians, because the day will come when Christianity is inconvenient to their common humanist agenda. Though they are mostly Catholic (either Roman or Orthodox) look at the Christians in the Middle East: Iraq, Egypt etc. The “neo” agenda (neo-con under Bush, neo-lib under Obama) was to spread democracy in those countries, and the Christians in those places … well they were the eggs that had to be broken in order to make the omelettes.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
Discussion