The Unreasonableness of Secular Public Reason | Public Discourse

“God commands respect for human life” or “God commands the virtue of chastity in sexual relations” is hardly the stuff of disrespect. It’s an invitation, the beginning of an argument. You can reject the invitation, or begin the argument another way, or demand a “translation” into terms you find more accessible. Maybe you’ll get one. But the policy conclusion—to protect human life from conception to natural death, or to define marriage as a conjugal union of a man and a woman with a view to raising any resulting children together—cannot credibly be called an imposition of a “strictly religious” view by coercive law. For it is nothing like requiring adherence to any particular view of the human person’s relationship to whatever divine reality there may be. It is not even a demand that we conform our behavior in accordance with the propositions stated by such a view. It is nothing more than the application of an ethical stricture to the legal environment, and it can be debated as an ethical stricture and as a policy worth pursuing—or not—on strictly practical grounds.

As Justice Robert Jackson said over seventy years ago, “freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much.” To close down debate with a “that’s strictly religious” objection is the opposite of liberalism, and there is no justification for it.

Source: The Unreasonableness of Secular Public Reason | Public Discourse, by Matthew J. Franck

"... the opposite of liberalism ...." Exactly!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ethics is a jealous God: self-regulation vs self-sacrifice | New Philosopher

Can self-regulation ever work? Quite possibly. But only if the parties are prepared to put ethics in its rightful place as the highest demand, instead of making it, at best, one priority among others. Morality cannot be a mere marketing tool or cultural ethos, respected and lauded but ultimately subordinate to self-interest and indeed to survival.

Source: Ethics is a jealous God: self-regulation vs self-sacrifice | New Philosopher

Patrick Stokes is limiting the terms "self-interest" and "survival" to other than what those things mean in Christianity. The Christian's self-interest and survival depends upon putting "ethics in its rightful place as the highest demand." They are one and the same. Survival is survival of the soul forever, which depends upon righteousness, which is always regardless of the fleeting things, such as the Christian's pain and suffering in the here and now. It's the very meaning of the Gospel. It's the very reason Jesus went to the cross.

I don't write that to put Patrick down. I hope it further illuminates. That's what I want.

Posted in Libertarian Capitalism | Leave a comment

Bernie Sanders Is a Racist? Ridiculous!


His ideas are being called racist and Nazi-esque by the National Review‘s Kevin Williamson. Calling it “Nordic Exceptionalism,” Williamson wrote that Sanders and the politically left want to change America’s diversity situation to be more in line with the mostly-white Nordic countries.

“The real differences between relatively homogeneous northern European societies and the sort of society we have here in the United States is rarely if ever seriously addressed by our democratic socialist friends… ‘We’d like to make America more like Norway or Finland’ is, among other things, a way of saying, ‘We’d like to make America more like a virtually all-white society.'”

Source: Does Bernie Sanders Have A Race Problem?

Give me a break! Kevin Williamson's statement is utterly moronic!

I'm not saying I'm backing Bernie Sanders for US President. I've been critical of a substantial portion of his platform.

One things for sure though. Bernie Sanders doesn't have a racist bone in his body; and people who don't understand that economic justice is at the very heart of the issue of racism, just don't understand racism.

Nordic social democracy is the best economic system going anywhere in the world on the national level. Bringing such a system to the US would do more for Black lives than giving Bernie Sanders a hard time for focusing on the domestic economy: wealth and income inequality, etc.

It's fine to ask him to speak to the issue of racism, but it's far from the only issue he needs to address. His foreign policy is every bit in need of addressing if not more. I say more because if we have a total-thermonuclear exchange, Black lives will be wiped out right along with White ones.

While we address all the issues that need addressing, let's not lose sight of global priorities. We can do the little things and the big things and all the ones between.

Posted in Monetary Reform | Leave a comment