The Iraq - Al Queda Connection:
(And a Bit on WMD's in General)
To start with, I find it so amusing that certain partisans seem to think that a definitive verdict has been rendered at this time on the existence or lack thereof of WMD's in Iraq. (Based on headlines from newspapers or statements from groups of dubious repute.) Because so many of the antiwar partisans are ignorant of Santayana's dictum about history, I want to return to it briefly to remind the readers of this weblog that it took longer to find weapons of this sort in countries where there has been greater cooperation than the time thus far spent in Iraq. Until those who parrot the "no WMD's in Iraq" line take these facts of reality seriously -not to mention certain other factors that they also conveniently overlook,{1} I fail to see why anyone should give their statements on this subject (whomever they happen to be){2} the time of day.
Having noted that in brief, it is now time for what will probably be a series the next six or so weeks on the Iraq-Al Queda connections. Though it has been noted a number of times at this weblog{3} about the often-not-acknowledged connections between Iraq and Al Queda, as FOXNews will be running a series on this subject -and as they are by far the most credible mainstream American news network- this weblog will be carrying that series as each installment is made public. The first part of it can be read HERE. Others will be posted as they come along -possibly by themselves with only a headline or possibly with additional commentary as in the installment linked to in this post. (It will all depend on how much time I have to post it, my mood at the time in general, and other factors I shant go into at this time.)
Notes:
{1} For example, there is the long proposed (and well supported evidentially) theory that Iraq smuggled weapons and materials into Syria. This is a theory that has rarely been given due play in the obviously anti-Bush media apparatus. This theory is hardly a new one. Indeed, there is a lot to this story and other related ones that have gone unreported for some time by certain apparently blind partisans on this subject whom I shall neglect to name at this time. All I will say on that point presently is that it is manifestly absurd that those who mindlessly parrot catchphrases about "no WMD's" do not dig a little deeper and actually see the forest for the trees but I digress.
{2} I will follow this post up with an audio post dealing with a historical example of the kind of naivety that seems to permeate the weltanschauung of these kinds of people.
{3} Among other places this link where twenty plus pieces of evidence of varying degrees of probability are noted.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Thursday, September 16, 2004
A Weblog Post Clarification:
For those who may have questions about my stance on Iraq and "just war theory" applications -as outlined in my recent dialogue with SAM{1}, please see the link below for clarification on the matter.
Note:
{1} I refer to the part of the above post where I explain that my stance on the war in Iraq is "more practical than theoretical" - a stance I have held for about two years now - even before I finally came to my current position on the war in February of 2003. The thread where I clarify this point can be read HERE.
For those who may have questions about my stance on Iraq and "just war theory" applications -as outlined in my recent dialogue with SAM{1}, please see the link below for clarification on the matter.
Note:
{1} I refer to the part of the above post where I explain that my stance on the war in Iraq is "more practical than theoretical" - a stance I have held for about two years now - even before I finally came to my current position on the war in February of 2003. The thread where I clarify this point can be read HERE.
"Engrave the Tombstone" Dept.
(On the Mainstream Media and Liberal Inbreeding)
Shawn:
In one of your recent posts, you said that the mainstream media has been in decline for the last fifteen years. The clear decline of the mainstream media began in 1968 when the "most trusted man in America" Walter Cankersore (aka Cronkite) reported that the Tet offensive was a major victory for the Viet Cong when in fact it was the exact opposite, a fact that even the left leaning History Channel now acknowledges. In fact, it actually wiped out the VC. From then on, the NVA was pretty much our sole military opponent.
I am not so sure that this was the start of the decline or if it instead was more of a precursor of what was to come. Of course it is also possible that we are defining the term "decline" differently. When I say the mainstream media has been "in decline for about fifteen years", I refer to their dominance in shaping public opinion. You would appear to be referring to their propagandistic attempts to create impressions of "truth" rather than merely report on it. I am sure we could find examples of this predating 1968 if we looked for them; ergo I am not sure this is the start of decline in your view unless you are referring to the "Emperor has no clothes" part of it viz. Cronkite showing himself to be a seditionist rather than a reliable news source at that time. But that is neither here nor there.
As my use of the term "decline" differs from what yours seems to be, perhaps I should quantify it a bit more. Prior to the late 1980's there was virtually no other outlets except for the alphabet channels and major newspapers for news and views.{1} The first significant challenges to the major media hegemony in terms of influence was the proliferation of cable in the mid to late 1980's; however this was a challenge merely to the monopoly on news and the like, not a credible political/social alternative. The latter would only take place with the simultaneous rise of talk radio from the dead so to speak - something to which Rush Limbaugh had a signal role in with the launching of his national show in 1989.{2} Since then, it has been a steady downward spiral for the major media viz. their influence over public opinion -the past four or five years that spiral has been particularly swift. Here is an example of what I mean by the difference in influence if you will.
Back around 1989-1991 (I cannot remember exactly when) Dan Rather and CBS ran a series on Vietnam veterans which was one giant propaganda broadcast. They had people who claimed to be veterans but not a single one of them was except for a supply clerk who claimed he was a navy assassin. CBS and Dan Rather got away with that forgery back then because there was no alternative media to challenge it except for a few shows like Limbaughs but talk radio was not influential enough at that time to have an impact.
With the two signal events of the past two months (swiftboat vets and the CBS forgeries), the situation could not be more reversed. The major media twelve years ago would have buried the swift vets story without a trace; however, today the alternative media outlets (i.e. talk radio, Drudge, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, National Review Online, the blogosphere, etc) forced the major media to keep that story afloat a lot longer than they wanted to -and to Kerry's detriment. Because though the major media covered it, they quite clearly wanted to see it discredited. However, with very few sad exceptions (i.e. Bill O'Reilly) the alternative media outlined the swift vets story and demonstrated the overall credibility of the swift vets by fisking all attempts of the major media to conjure up "errors" or "contradictions" in the stories of the vets involved. That is one significant difference from years back -possibly in retrospect it it will be seen as the watershed issue for alternative media because it set the table for what came next with CBS and Dan Rather.
If this had happened back in, say 1994, about the only play it would have gotten would have been on talk radio but that would not have been enough to humiliate CBS and Rather. Today though, the alternative media (led by the Internet and the blogosphere) seized on this story and it spread to talk radio and other alternative outlets like a wildfire. Within 48 hours of breaking, there was enough blood in the water that even the rest of the major media came on board in the feeding frenzy against CBS. The rest is history as they say.
Have you read either of Bernard Goldberg's books on liberal bias, Bias and Arrogance?
No, I have not. (They are on a list of about a hundred odd books I want to read at some point though.)
If you haven't I would strongly suggest that you do. Although you will find much of it will be preaching to the choir, he does give great insights into the pysche behind the leftward slant in the major newsrooms across America. According to Mr. Goldberg, they, because they only associate with likeminded people, honestly believe that their liberal beliefs are MAINSTREAM, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Heck, I could have told you that!!! The major media is a lot like America's bluebloods: too much interbreeding is the problem. The lessons of nature include the phenomenon of physical interbreeding within too close of familial ties creating a weaker organism. If this is carried too far, then the offspring are literally incapable of reproduction. The same is the case with intellectual cultivation.
Conservative-minded people do not have a choice in that much of what they interact with is liberal nonsense; thus they are used to having their views challenged -even if this is usually not by much. (And of course conservatives usually have at least a few liberal friends.) By contrast, liberal-minded people frequently do not hang out with anyone except those who think as they do. They therefore do not receive the intellectual depth of cultivation that comes with interaction with other viewpoints. As a result of this kind of "intellectual inbreeding", it creates a weaker organism cerebrally and a marked propensity towards a worldview that is steeped in solipsism.{3} But I digress.
For example, in '72 when Nixon defeated McGovern in a major landslide, they were genuinely shocked.
They were also shocked in 1980 when Reagan did the same thing as well as in 1984 which was one of the most lopsided presidential contests in history. Likewise, W's dad won pretty comfortably in 1988.
He remembers many of these reporters saying, "How did he win? Nobody I know voted for Nixon."
I will say it again: it is intellectual and political inbreeding.
This is what we are up against and this is what going to sink their ship if they don't get their heads out of...
I think cutting it off there suffices to get the view across just fine. But the problem with solipsists is that they are in some respects constitutionally incapable of doing what you say they need to do. The reason for this is adequately noted in brief at one of the previous links in this post. I will repost it HERE as the concluding point to this post.
Notes:
{1} I know you can point to Firing Line, National Review, and the like but those were fringe sources in the sense that their circulation was miniscule compared to the major media outlets.
{2} Limbaugh's show originated four or five years earlier in Sacramento on a single radio station before it was launched nationally on fifty-six stations in 1989. Since then, he has gone onto be over six hundred stations (including Armed Forces Radio) and accumulate an audience of twenty odd million a week. And with Limbaugh's success came a new format for conservative voices which many others (i.e. Ken Hamblin, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc) were to join making this the first significant challenge to major media.
{3} I have noted elsewhere that this secular scenario has a theological parallel in what is called vital immanence. See the post located HERE for details on that.
(On the Mainstream Media and Liberal Inbreeding)
Shawn:
In one of your recent posts, you said that the mainstream media has been in decline for the last fifteen years. The clear decline of the mainstream media began in 1968 when the "most trusted man in America" Walter Cankersore (aka Cronkite) reported that the Tet offensive was a major victory for the Viet Cong when in fact it was the exact opposite, a fact that even the left leaning History Channel now acknowledges. In fact, it actually wiped out the VC. From then on, the NVA was pretty much our sole military opponent.
I am not so sure that this was the start of the decline or if it instead was more of a precursor of what was to come. Of course it is also possible that we are defining the term "decline" differently. When I say the mainstream media has been "in decline for about fifteen years", I refer to their dominance in shaping public opinion. You would appear to be referring to their propagandistic attempts to create impressions of "truth" rather than merely report on it. I am sure we could find examples of this predating 1968 if we looked for them; ergo I am not sure this is the start of decline in your view unless you are referring to the "Emperor has no clothes" part of it viz. Cronkite showing himself to be a seditionist rather than a reliable news source at that time. But that is neither here nor there.
As my use of the term "decline" differs from what yours seems to be, perhaps I should quantify it a bit more. Prior to the late 1980's there was virtually no other outlets except for the alphabet channels and major newspapers for news and views.{1} The first significant challenges to the major media hegemony in terms of influence was the proliferation of cable in the mid to late 1980's; however this was a challenge merely to the monopoly on news and the like, not a credible political/social alternative. The latter would only take place with the simultaneous rise of talk radio from the dead so to speak - something to which Rush Limbaugh had a signal role in with the launching of his national show in 1989.{2} Since then, it has been a steady downward spiral for the major media viz. their influence over public opinion -the past four or five years that spiral has been particularly swift. Here is an example of what I mean by the difference in influence if you will.
Back around 1989-1991 (I cannot remember exactly when) Dan Rather and CBS ran a series on Vietnam veterans which was one giant propaganda broadcast. They had people who claimed to be veterans but not a single one of them was except for a supply clerk who claimed he was a navy assassin. CBS and Dan Rather got away with that forgery back then because there was no alternative media to challenge it except for a few shows like Limbaughs but talk radio was not influential enough at that time to have an impact.
With the two signal events of the past two months (swiftboat vets and the CBS forgeries), the situation could not be more reversed. The major media twelve years ago would have buried the swift vets story without a trace; however, today the alternative media outlets (i.e. talk radio, Drudge, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, National Review Online, the blogosphere, etc) forced the major media to keep that story afloat a lot longer than they wanted to -and to Kerry's detriment. Because though the major media covered it, they quite clearly wanted to see it discredited. However, with very few sad exceptions (i.e. Bill O'Reilly) the alternative media outlined the swift vets story and demonstrated the overall credibility of the swift vets by fisking all attempts of the major media to conjure up "errors" or "contradictions" in the stories of the vets involved. That is one significant difference from years back -possibly in retrospect it it will be seen as the watershed issue for alternative media because it set the table for what came next with CBS and Dan Rather.
If this had happened back in, say 1994, about the only play it would have gotten would have been on talk radio but that would not have been enough to humiliate CBS and Rather. Today though, the alternative media (led by the Internet and the blogosphere) seized on this story and it spread to talk radio and other alternative outlets like a wildfire. Within 48 hours of breaking, there was enough blood in the water that even the rest of the major media came on board in the feeding frenzy against CBS. The rest is history as they say.
Have you read either of Bernard Goldberg's books on liberal bias, Bias and Arrogance?
No, I have not. (They are on a list of about a hundred odd books I want to read at some point though.)
If you haven't I would strongly suggest that you do. Although you will find much of it will be preaching to the choir, he does give great insights into the pysche behind the leftward slant in the major newsrooms across America. According to Mr. Goldberg, they, because they only associate with likeminded people, honestly believe that their liberal beliefs are MAINSTREAM, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Heck, I could have told you that!!! The major media is a lot like America's bluebloods: too much interbreeding is the problem. The lessons of nature include the phenomenon of physical interbreeding within too close of familial ties creating a weaker organism. If this is carried too far, then the offspring are literally incapable of reproduction. The same is the case with intellectual cultivation.
Conservative-minded people do not have a choice in that much of what they interact with is liberal nonsense; thus they are used to having their views challenged -even if this is usually not by much. (And of course conservatives usually have at least a few liberal friends.) By contrast, liberal-minded people frequently do not hang out with anyone except those who think as they do. They therefore do not receive the intellectual depth of cultivation that comes with interaction with other viewpoints. As a result of this kind of "intellectual inbreeding", it creates a weaker organism cerebrally and a marked propensity towards a worldview that is steeped in solipsism.{3} But I digress.
For example, in '72 when Nixon defeated McGovern in a major landslide, they were genuinely shocked.
They were also shocked in 1980 when Reagan did the same thing as well as in 1984 which was one of the most lopsided presidential contests in history. Likewise, W's dad won pretty comfortably in 1988.
He remembers many of these reporters saying, "How did he win? Nobody I know voted for Nixon."
I will say it again: it is intellectual and political inbreeding.
This is what we are up against and this is what going to sink their ship if they don't get their heads out of...
I think cutting it off there suffices to get the view across just fine. But the problem with solipsists is that they are in some respects constitutionally incapable of doing what you say they need to do. The reason for this is adequately noted in brief at one of the previous links in this post. I will repost it HERE as the concluding point to this post.
Notes:
{1} I know you can point to Firing Line, National Review, and the like but those were fringe sources in the sense that their circulation was miniscule compared to the major media outlets.
{2} Limbaugh's show originated four or five years earlier in Sacramento on a single radio station before it was launched nationally on fifty-six stations in 1989. Since then, he has gone onto be over six hundred stations (including Armed Forces Radio) and accumulate an audience of twenty odd million a week. And with Limbaugh's success came a new format for conservative voices which many others (i.e. Ken Hamblin, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc) were to join making this the first significant challenge to major media.
{3} I have noted elsewhere that this secular scenario has a theological parallel in what is called vital immanence. See the post located HERE for details on that.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Election Ecumenical Jihad and Voting Principles for Restoring Our Society:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
It has been over two weeks since your host at Rerum Novarum first manifested the intention to weigh in on the subject of the USCCB/Catholic Answers voting guides issue.{1} There was also a rather serendipitous response to an antiwar loon where the person/group I fisked in a previous weblog post on "Bush's war"{2} tried to respond with a kind of "all issues are equal weight" followup which of course served as an "appetizer" if you will for the response you are about to read. Indeed I encourage you to read that rather short post before you peruse the text below because that will enable me to avoid having to duplicate subjects covered in that thread within this one. That post can be read HERE.
Having gotten the subjects in that post out of the way in advance, we are better able to move onto this intended study of a few key voting issues in the upcoming election. I must note in advance though that I have long admitted publicly on occasion that there are some fundamental disagreements between myself and Catholic Answers viz. the approach taken on religious, political, or cultural issues.{3} However, with the election coming up, it seems appropriate to join in solidarity with them on a salutary aim of theirs in this election: the education of voters.
I also confess to having a far more ambitious approach towards contributing to the consistent moulding of thought patterns amongst those who consider themselves "conservatives" primarily{4} than do groups like Catholic Answers.{5} However, I am not naive enough to think that the systematical approach I take to issues will bear nearly the fruit in the short term that would be ideal.{6} For to fruitfully apply a prescription such as I have been outlining at sundry times and in divers manners at this weblog from virtually day one of its existence requires a couple of things to be tended too. For example, it involves at the very least not only (i) informing the electorate but (ii) persuading them to elect a solid core of leaders who will be open to these kinds of ideas.{7} And of course any legitimate idea in my view must conform to certain criterion to be considered viable. That brings us to the Catholic Answers (CA) voters guide but first a few brief notes on the USCCB and their discouragement of the distribution of the CA voters guide.
The ever-handy EWTN has noted recently that Citing papal and Vatican documents, "Voter's Guide" identifies five issues it calls "non-negotiable": abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual "marriage." Supporting any of these issues, according to the guide, would disqualify a candidate as a viable option for a faithful Catholic. By stark contrast, the USCCB guidelines for voting shows an amazing degree of homogenization of subject matter. A classic example of this is abortion.
The position that abortion has in the CA voting guide is unequivocal. But the USCCB guide appears to treat abortion as if it is on equal footing as other issues such as the death penalty and its application, social justice issues of various sorts, or "global solidarity." I am not about to demean any of these subjects of course; however there is a "hierarchy of truths" here as there is elsewhere. And abortion being the death of life that it is cannot be put on par with prudential regulations of the death penalty usage or appeals to "global solidarity" -which are themselves somewhat nebulously understood in the manner whereby their promoters often utilize the terms.
Now lest some readers see in statements such as this an attempt to bash the USCCB, I can only appeal to my trackrecord at this weblog and on message boards and other media forms over the years. Those who are familiar with my postings there know that I am not one of those who trashes the USCCB the way a lot of people do.{8} However, it is true that at times I do make criticisms of some of their policies -albeit in a more measured manner. Having noted that, I confess to an inability to see how the USCCB guidelines on this subject can be considered "helpful" to voters in the manner that the more focused CA voting booklet is.
For when they are going into the voting booth --and in the absense of a clearly defined weltanschauung ala what this weblog seeks to provide for its readers-- what most voters need are snapshots of the myriad of issues and their relation to the hierarchy of basic truths. Another way of saying it is that voters in those circumstances do not need loquacious texts. I therefore have to come to the support of CA on this matter because my very clearly delineated view of things happens to concur with the particular issues that CA focuses on. The rest of this post will be to set them out in a manner that goes beyond Catholic circles.
After all, it is not enough to approach this from a Catholic standpoint when these issues affect the whole of society and bear careful consideration by all people of good will. For that reason, I will situate each of the five issues within the general framework of my operative point of view to point out why it makes sense (apart from religious purposes) to vote in accordance with CA's guidelines on these matters. The most basic framework we can work off of is the classical theory of mankind having three fundamental interrelated rights. Those rights, as defined by Claude Frederic Bastiat are as follows: life, faculties, and production. And furthermore, these rights are deemed "fundamental" because they are given not by man-made laws but by the Creator. To quote Bastiat himself on these matters:
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
In other words, these rights do not depend on legislation nor can legislation be the grantor or revoker of these rights. Instead, these rights are given to us by God and they therefore precede all manmade laws. In the matter of application, I have woven into the matrix two concepts of the Christian tradition which are in varying degrees implied in Bastiat's work -two concepts which are limiting factors on the above rights in a society. Before I touch on them again, it is important to show how Bastiat frames the entire subject of what constitutes law.
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
One of the limiting factors that I add to the three fundamental rights of man is that of what has traditionally been called the common good. It is clear in his definition of the law that Bastiat was operating under this same presupposition; otherwise, his definition of law as the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense would have a degree of internal contradiction to it. And in his understanding of the concept of "legal plunder" --a concept that politicians of virtually all stripes are tone-deaf to these days-- the common good principle stands out in bold relief:
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
Now I know for a fact (and have long lamented) that the Republicans fail in varying degrees (sometimes miserably) in conforming themselves to the limits of the law as outlined by Bastiat above. That is not the point of this post to outline except to note it briefly and also that the Democrats are generally much worse still. I will get to that point in a moment but first, notice the common good thread that permeates Bastiat's outlook. It therefore makes sense that the three fundamental rights of man must be checked by the common good or (in other words) the assertions of "rights" by one party cannot be recognized if they contain an intrinsic undermining of the common good of the society as a whole. That is one check if you will.
However, because there can be diverging interpretations of what constitutes the common good -particularly in a pluralistic society- another check or balance is needed. That principle is the principle of "public order" -one that has been explicitly manifested in Catholic doctrine since 1965{9} and one which provides an objective verificator if you will for the criteria of common good. And from a logical standpoint, this limitation makes sense because without it, there is a risk of applications of the common good which would be subjective in nature.
Now that the three fundamental rights and their two logically limiting factors have been taken into account, let us consider the guidelines within the CA booklet. According to EWTN, abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual "marriage" are the main issues of focus. Consider where they fit into the matrix of the points covered in this post.
Abortion and euthanasia are violations of the fundamental right to life. Human cloning -particularly since the main motivation for cloning is to often provide "spare parts" for other human beings- is if not a direct violation of the right to life{10} of the cloned person then at the very least it is proximate to the right to life to fall under that classification.{11} Fetal stem cell research -because often stem cell research is conducted on cells from aborted fetuses- can be said to be proximate to the right to life and disqualified for that reason alone as well.{12}
Besides the connexion to the fundamental right to life, the principles of common good and public order can also be said to be violated by fetal stem cell research and human cloning. And homosexual so-called "marriages" are blatant violations of the common good of society but also just public order insomuch as marriage is the root and matrix of all societies. As marriage goes, so society goes; ergo there are reasons both logically as well as anthropologically for opposing without compromise on this issue as well.
In summary, there are reasons adequately noted above for supporting CA's guidelines on avoiding politicians who support these issues which go beyond Catholic religious reasons. Hopefully if you are not Catholic and want to contribute to restoring our society, you will whenever possible vote against politicians who support these issues. Otherwise, you are only contributing to the problem and not to the solution whether you realize it or not.
Notes:
{1} Though in an audio post of miscellaneous notes and notifications this intention was reiterated with more detail.
{2} A September 11th Confutation of Extremist Liberal Canards Viz. the War on Terror
{3} This is a potential series of posts in and of itself.
{4} Though "libertarians" and maybe some "liberals" may find this approach to be of interest as well.
{5} In fairness though, it must be noted that this weblog is not nearly as limited subject-wise as Catholic Answers is -since I can basically muse on whatever I want to and that includes non-apologetics subject matter. (The latter of which is the bulk of what is posted here at Rerum Novarum.)
{6} The readership at this humble weblog is nowhere near what Catholic Answers readership is. However, I have noted before and on more than one occasion my belief (based on the email I receive) that our reading audience is among the finest and most intelligent out there.
{7} These are ideas that are not only radical but also common-sensical; ergo they have the potential to transform political and social philosophies from within by providing a systemization to issues that in virtually all cases is sorely lacking - even among the most intelligent and well informed of people. That is what we want to help in promoting above all else.
{8} My handling of the whole Reflections situation should have made this eminently clear to those who were following the earliest threads at this weblog. (See the archives of this weblog for details if interested.)
{9} In the past, there were persecutions of people even in Catholic states because the criteria of the "common good" was not recognized to be limited by what is properly called "just public order."...In order to be consistent in one's approach, they must be emphasized together. Otherwise, dire consequences can result.
The Catholic Church since the promulgation of the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae has recognized the connexion between these two factors. However, I do not defend the notion of public order in the matrix of a just societal government because of DH...
As a Catholic, I accept it of course as pertaining to divine revelation. (As this is what the Declaration quite clearly taught on the matter.) However, when discussing the subject with non-Catholics, I appeal to the principle only as a logically sound principle. (Because it is.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2004)]
{10} Obviously if the clone is used for "spare parts" then there is a violation of the right to life.
{11} These kinds of positions proximate to life are those which while they can arguably be said to not be direct violations of life nonetheless are so intrinsic to it that to allow for them is to undermine by logical extension the fundamental right to life. Furthermore, the clone also has the right to life and of course stripping it of parts is a violation of its right to faculties: the second of the three fundamental rights.
{12} I. Shawn McElhinney: Pre-Rerum Novarum Stem Cell Commentary (circa August 20, 2001)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
It has been over two weeks since your host at Rerum Novarum first manifested the intention to weigh in on the subject of the USCCB/Catholic Answers voting guides issue.{1} There was also a rather serendipitous response to an antiwar loon where the person/group I fisked in a previous weblog post on "Bush's war"{2} tried to respond with a kind of "all issues are equal weight" followup which of course served as an "appetizer" if you will for the response you are about to read. Indeed I encourage you to read that rather short post before you peruse the text below because that will enable me to avoid having to duplicate subjects covered in that thread within this one. That post can be read HERE.
Having gotten the subjects in that post out of the way in advance, we are better able to move onto this intended study of a few key voting issues in the upcoming election. I must note in advance though that I have long admitted publicly on occasion that there are some fundamental disagreements between myself and Catholic Answers viz. the approach taken on religious, political, or cultural issues.{3} However, with the election coming up, it seems appropriate to join in solidarity with them on a salutary aim of theirs in this election: the education of voters.
I also confess to having a far more ambitious approach towards contributing to the consistent moulding of thought patterns amongst those who consider themselves "conservatives" primarily{4} than do groups like Catholic Answers.{5} However, I am not naive enough to think that the systematical approach I take to issues will bear nearly the fruit in the short term that would be ideal.{6} For to fruitfully apply a prescription such as I have been outlining at sundry times and in divers manners at this weblog from virtually day one of its existence requires a couple of things to be tended too. For example, it involves at the very least not only (i) informing the electorate but (ii) persuading them to elect a solid core of leaders who will be open to these kinds of ideas.{7} And of course any legitimate idea in my view must conform to certain criterion to be considered viable. That brings us to the Catholic Answers (CA) voters guide but first a few brief notes on the USCCB and their discouragement of the distribution of the CA voters guide.
The ever-handy EWTN has noted recently that Citing papal and Vatican documents, "Voter's Guide" identifies five issues it calls "non-negotiable": abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual "marriage." Supporting any of these issues, according to the guide, would disqualify a candidate as a viable option for a faithful Catholic. By stark contrast, the USCCB guidelines for voting shows an amazing degree of homogenization of subject matter. A classic example of this is abortion.
The position that abortion has in the CA voting guide is unequivocal. But the USCCB guide appears to treat abortion as if it is on equal footing as other issues such as the death penalty and its application, social justice issues of various sorts, or "global solidarity." I am not about to demean any of these subjects of course; however there is a "hierarchy of truths" here as there is elsewhere. And abortion being the death of life that it is cannot be put on par with prudential regulations of the death penalty usage or appeals to "global solidarity" -which are themselves somewhat nebulously understood in the manner whereby their promoters often utilize the terms.
Now lest some readers see in statements such as this an attempt to bash the USCCB, I can only appeal to my trackrecord at this weblog and on message boards and other media forms over the years. Those who are familiar with my postings there know that I am not one of those who trashes the USCCB the way a lot of people do.{8} However, it is true that at times I do make criticisms of some of their policies -albeit in a more measured manner. Having noted that, I confess to an inability to see how the USCCB guidelines on this subject can be considered "helpful" to voters in the manner that the more focused CA voting booklet is.
For when they are going into the voting booth --and in the absense of a clearly defined weltanschauung ala what this weblog seeks to provide for its readers-- what most voters need are snapshots of the myriad of issues and their relation to the hierarchy of basic truths. Another way of saying it is that voters in those circumstances do not need loquacious texts. I therefore have to come to the support of CA on this matter because my very clearly delineated view of things happens to concur with the particular issues that CA focuses on. The rest of this post will be to set them out in a manner that goes beyond Catholic circles.
After all, it is not enough to approach this from a Catholic standpoint when these issues affect the whole of society and bear careful consideration by all people of good will. For that reason, I will situate each of the five issues within the general framework of my operative point of view to point out why it makes sense (apart from religious purposes) to vote in accordance with CA's guidelines on these matters. The most basic framework we can work off of is the classical theory of mankind having three fundamental interrelated rights. Those rights, as defined by Claude Frederic Bastiat are as follows: life, faculties, and production. And furthermore, these rights are deemed "fundamental" because they are given not by man-made laws but by the Creator. To quote Bastiat himself on these matters:
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
In other words, these rights do not depend on legislation nor can legislation be the grantor or revoker of these rights. Instead, these rights are given to us by God and they therefore precede all manmade laws. In the matter of application, I have woven into the matrix two concepts of the Christian tradition which are in varying degrees implied in Bastiat's work -two concepts which are limiting factors on the above rights in a society. Before I touch on them again, it is important to show how Bastiat frames the entire subject of what constitutes law.
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
One of the limiting factors that I add to the three fundamental rights of man is that of what has traditionally been called the common good. It is clear in his definition of the law that Bastiat was operating under this same presupposition; otherwise, his definition of law as the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense would have a degree of internal contradiction to it. And in his understanding of the concept of "legal plunder" --a concept that politicians of virtually all stripes are tone-deaf to these days-- the common good principle stands out in bold relief:
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
Now I know for a fact (and have long lamented) that the Republicans fail in varying degrees (sometimes miserably) in conforming themselves to the limits of the law as outlined by Bastiat above. That is not the point of this post to outline except to note it briefly and also that the Democrats are generally much worse still. I will get to that point in a moment but first, notice the common good thread that permeates Bastiat's outlook. It therefore makes sense that the three fundamental rights of man must be checked by the common good or (in other words) the assertions of "rights" by one party cannot be recognized if they contain an intrinsic undermining of the common good of the society as a whole. That is one check if you will.
However, because there can be diverging interpretations of what constitutes the common good -particularly in a pluralistic society- another check or balance is needed. That principle is the principle of "public order" -one that has been explicitly manifested in Catholic doctrine since 1965{9} and one which provides an objective verificator if you will for the criteria of common good. And from a logical standpoint, this limitation makes sense because without it, there is a risk of applications of the common good which would be subjective in nature.
Now that the three fundamental rights and their two logically limiting factors have been taken into account, let us consider the guidelines within the CA booklet. According to EWTN, abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual "marriage" are the main issues of focus. Consider where they fit into the matrix of the points covered in this post.
Abortion and euthanasia are violations of the fundamental right to life. Human cloning -particularly since the main motivation for cloning is to often provide "spare parts" for other human beings- is if not a direct violation of the right to life{10} of the cloned person then at the very least it is proximate to the right to life to fall under that classification.{11} Fetal stem cell research -because often stem cell research is conducted on cells from aborted fetuses- can be said to be proximate to the right to life and disqualified for that reason alone as well.{12}
Besides the connexion to the fundamental right to life, the principles of common good and public order can also be said to be violated by fetal stem cell research and human cloning. And homosexual so-called "marriages" are blatant violations of the common good of society but also just public order insomuch as marriage is the root and matrix of all societies. As marriage goes, so society goes; ergo there are reasons both logically as well as anthropologically for opposing without compromise on this issue as well.
In summary, there are reasons adequately noted above for supporting CA's guidelines on avoiding politicians who support these issues which go beyond Catholic religious reasons. Hopefully if you are not Catholic and want to contribute to restoring our society, you will whenever possible vote against politicians who support these issues. Otherwise, you are only contributing to the problem and not to the solution whether you realize it or not.
Notes:
{1} Though in an audio post of miscellaneous notes and notifications this intention was reiterated with more detail.
{2} A September 11th Confutation of Extremist Liberal Canards Viz. the War on Terror
{3} This is a potential series of posts in and of itself.
{4} Though "libertarians" and maybe some "liberals" may find this approach to be of interest as well.
{5} In fairness though, it must be noted that this weblog is not nearly as limited subject-wise as Catholic Answers is -since I can basically muse on whatever I want to and that includes non-apologetics subject matter. (The latter of which is the bulk of what is posted here at Rerum Novarum.)
{6} The readership at this humble weblog is nowhere near what Catholic Answers readership is. However, I have noted before and on more than one occasion my belief (based on the email I receive) that our reading audience is among the finest and most intelligent out there.
{7} These are ideas that are not only radical but also common-sensical; ergo they have the potential to transform political and social philosophies from within by providing a systemization to issues that in virtually all cases is sorely lacking - even among the most intelligent and well informed of people. That is what we want to help in promoting above all else.
{8} My handling of the whole Reflections situation should have made this eminently clear to those who were following the earliest threads at this weblog. (See the archives of this weblog for details if interested.)
{9} In the past, there were persecutions of people even in Catholic states because the criteria of the "common good" was not recognized to be limited by what is properly called "just public order."...In order to be consistent in one's approach, they must be emphasized together. Otherwise, dire consequences can result.
The Catholic Church since the promulgation of the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae has recognized the connexion between these two factors. However, I do not defend the notion of public order in the matrix of a just societal government because of DH...
As a Catholic, I accept it of course as pertaining to divine revelation. (As this is what the Declaration quite clearly taught on the matter.) However, when discussing the subject with non-Catholics, I appeal to the principle only as a logically sound principle. (Because it is.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2004)]
{10} Obviously if the clone is used for "spare parts" then there is a violation of the right to life.
{11} These kinds of positions proximate to life are those which while they can arguably be said to not be direct violations of life nonetheless are so intrinsic to it that to allow for them is to undermine by logical extension the fundamental right to life. Furthermore, the clone also has the right to life and of course stripping it of parts is a violation of its right to faculties: the second of the three fundamental rights.
{12} I. Shawn McElhinney: Pre-Rerum Novarum Stem Cell Commentary (circa August 20, 2001)
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Briefly on the False Notion of "Equal Weight" Catholic Voting Issues:
(A Rerum Novarum Clarification Post)
Though We at Rerum Novarum have indicated an intention on more than one occasion to weigh in on the elections issue viz. the Catholic Answers and USCCB voters guides, what you are reading here is not that planned post. The latter text is at this time slated for release tomorrow. Instead, this is a followup response to a person or group who refer to themselves as VOTEINFORMED.
Upon sending them the link to my September 11th confutation of one of their idiotic peacenik tracts, they responded with an email containing four separate links in it and no accompanying text. As all four links are Catholic related -and attempt to argue for Catholics voting for John F-word Kerry and other Catholic Democrats, these issues will be touched on as a kind of preface to the planned commentary. Here is the text of my email -their subject title will be in black font.
Subject: RE: Fwd: 1000 DIE IN BUSH'S WAR
I suppose in sending these links you are under the assumption that these links cannot be fisked in the same manner as your tract was. I am not impressed with this kind of fallacious appeal to authority -indeed no one who values sound logic is. The fact that you ignored my criticisms of your article and responded with more links only validates my categorization of you as being infected with the intellectual malady of solipsism. Thank you for validating that point.
Now to briefly deal with these links:
LINK 1
Apparently you figured out that Rerum Novarum is authored by a Catholic. Brilliant sleuthing there - the Sherlock Holmes medal is surely yours for uncovering that well concealed fact.
Having noted that, apparently you think that a 50% score by Catholic politicians on the issues in the USCCB's guide is commendable. I have news for you: not all issues are of equal weight and those you mentioned fail in the areas of greatest doctrinal weight. (While the issues where they "pass" if you will are ones where there is latitude for private prudential judgment as recognized by the Catholic Church.) This will be dealt with in my upcoming election guide analysis of the voters guides as pro offered by USCCB and also Catholic Answers.
LINK 2
Ditto to my previous comments. You are under the illusion that all issues in the USCCB guide are of equal weight. That is not remotely accurate but again - I will be dealing at least indirectly with this subject when I post a non theological defense of the five key issues from the Catholic Answers voters guide: all of which have greater weight by far (as well as significantly less latitude for prudential judgment) than "global solidarity", "social justice", or applications of the death penalty (among other issues in the USCCB guide.
LINK 3
This also retreads the previous two link topics. I must admit that the giant icon with a link to the Unfit for Command book (contra Kerry) is certainly interesting. The article blurs the distinctions because "gun control" is not a Catholic teaching by any stretch nor is minimum wage legislation. (The latter falls into the subject of social teaching but there are differences of opinion in how this is applied.) All this does is vindicate my long-held media dictum but before you continue to make my case for me by demonstration, there is the final link of the four you sent:
LINK 4
Need I remind you (again) that the issue of the death penalty is one involving a prudential judgment??? Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (which has far more authority than any USCCB document) recognizes this fact explicitly. I have gone over the death penalty issue many times and frankly, while I would probably not agree with Bush's usage of it when he was governor, at the same time, this is an ancillary issue and is trumped by far with Bush's adherence to the issues surrounding human life which are not open to debate amongst faithful Catholics.
In summary, nice try with the links but I am not fooled for an instant. Now then, do you care to respond to my fisking of your original tract or are you simply going to send links [in response] and not interact with the arguments of others???
(A Rerum Novarum Clarification Post)
Though We at Rerum Novarum have indicated an intention on more than one occasion to weigh in on the elections issue viz. the Catholic Answers and USCCB voters guides, what you are reading here is not that planned post. The latter text is at this time slated for release tomorrow. Instead, this is a followup response to a person or group who refer to themselves as VOTEINFORMED.
Upon sending them the link to my September 11th confutation of one of their idiotic peacenik tracts, they responded with an email containing four separate links in it and no accompanying text. As all four links are Catholic related -and attempt to argue for Catholics voting for John F
Subject: RE: Fwd: 1000 DIE IN BUSH'S WAR
I suppose in sending these links you are under the assumption that these links cannot be fisked in the same manner as your tract was. I am not impressed with this kind of fallacious appeal to authority -indeed no one who values sound logic is. The fact that you ignored my criticisms of your article and responded with more links only validates my categorization of you as being infected with the intellectual malady of solipsism. Thank you for validating that point.
Now to briefly deal with these links:
LINK 1
Apparently you figured out that Rerum Novarum is authored by a Catholic. Brilliant sleuthing there - the Sherlock Holmes medal is surely yours for uncovering that well concealed fact.
Having noted that, apparently you think that a 50% score by Catholic politicians on the issues in the USCCB's guide is commendable. I have news for you: not all issues are of equal weight and those you mentioned fail in the areas of greatest doctrinal weight. (While the issues where they "pass" if you will are ones where there is latitude for private prudential judgment as recognized by the Catholic Church.) This will be dealt with in my upcoming election guide analysis of the voters guides as pro offered by USCCB and also Catholic Answers.
LINK 2
Ditto to my previous comments. You are under the illusion that all issues in the USCCB guide are of equal weight. That is not remotely accurate but again - I will be dealing at least indirectly with this subject when I post a non theological defense of the five key issues from the Catholic Answers voters guide: all of which have greater weight by far (as well as significantly less latitude for prudential judgment) than "global solidarity", "social justice", or applications of the death penalty (among other issues in the USCCB guide.
LINK 3
This also retreads the previous two link topics. I must admit that the giant icon with a link to the Unfit for Command book (contra Kerry) is certainly interesting. The article blurs the distinctions because "gun control" is not a Catholic teaching by any stretch nor is minimum wage legislation. (The latter falls into the subject of social teaching but there are differences of opinion in how this is applied.) All this does is vindicate my long-held media dictum but before you continue to make my case for me by demonstration, there is the final link of the four you sent:
LINK 4
Need I remind you (again) that the issue of the death penalty is one involving a prudential judgment??? Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (which has far more authority than any USCCB document) recognizes this fact explicitly. I have gone over the death penalty issue many times and frankly, while I would probably not agree with Bush's usage of it when he was governor, at the same time, this is an ancillary issue and is trumped by far with Bush's adherence to the issues surrounding human life which are not open to debate amongst faithful Catholics.
In summary, nice try with the links but I am not fooled for an instant. Now then, do you care to respond to my fisking of your original tract or are you simply going to send links [in response] and not interact with the arguments of others???
Monday, September 13, 2004
Miscellaneous Notes:
I updated the thread of links posted on September 11th from various weblogs. The additions made included a new thread (Charles de Nunzio's September 11, 2004 weblog post) but also an old one (Fr. Reginald Martin OP's Homily of September 11, 2002). This was done in the custom of "bringing forth things both new and old" (cf. Matthew xiii,52).
I updated the thread of links posted on September 11th from various weblogs. The additions made included a new thread (Charles de Nunzio's September 11, 2004 weblog post) but also an old one (Fr. Reginald Martin OP's Homily of September 11, 2002). This was done in the custom of "bringing forth things both new and old" (cf. Matthew xiii,52).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)