Learn the timeless principles of liberty with ISI.
ISI introduces students to the American tradition of liberty and to a vibrant community of students and scholars. Our members get an education and a community they don’t find at their universities. And in the process, they become articulate voices for freedom and prosperity.
To get the college education you deserve, become a member today!
I hear you on many points, and am very keen on christian post-liberalism and have been listening to what I can, but using coercive force against the will of the people does not sound right, and even if you believe it is right,, will not last. What happens with imposed rules is people revolt and topple the system, prohibition is a great example. The problem I believe is you are not thinking about logistics, just because you need to do something does not mean you can actually do it! And the attempt at doing it will not only fail, but be damaging and potentially sucidal I like military history, so I'll give you one example; When the japanese overran the phillipines there were 150,000 US and phillipine troops. They were completely stranded, but in your view the United States had to save them, they were its soldiers, it was its duty and responsibility to save them and it was. The problem was the ships and the soldiers and the supplies to sail through thousands of miles of enemy held ocean against superior numerically and technically forces did not exist. Perhaps we could have abandoned the defense of Hawaii and midway to send reinforcements, which all would've met a watery grave and opened up midway and hawaii for attack. The point is, needing to do something is not the same as having the capacity to do it, and that is what dictates successful decisions.
A wonderful topic, if we can step back from feminist vision of liberation. Division of labor is complex for those who are attracted to ambition that doesn’t fit to what traditional society used to offer. But we lose too much to abandon tradition. Wendell Berry would agree with recultivating the Art of household for children and managing resource and community, outside of the earning money. Lots of women move there happily if given the chance, but without communal purpose, women also can feel isolated and dependent. And children can be exhausting in old days, but those of us with siblings look back in gratitude with a home center. My mom had 6 siblings, so extended family powerful. Anyway, we can’t go back, but I believe we have the power to create our own community, especially where you came from afford to live more cheaply, on one income.
Let's get something perfectly clear here; just because some, maybe even most of the founding fathers WERE Christian does not mean, in any way shape or form that they intended to form or formed a Christian nation. On the contrary, they understood the necessity to form a secular nation with the foundation of a secular government where separation of church and state was integral and clearly defined. You don't need religion to instill morality or to have a moral compass.
Tolerance is a virtue. You live in America, a melting pot, stop acting like victims. The problem with so many, not all, Christians (my family is all Christian) is they think their religion is being disrespected by those who say Happy Holiday's, cognizant of the fact we all live in a melting pot of many people practicing many religions. The Christians who hear Happy Holidays and melt like snowflakes thinking Christianity is being disrespected by that sentiment are simply too self-centered. They disregard the meaning and message of "love thy neighbor...". Because of that, those Christians are perceived as intolerant of other people, tolerant people, and other religions. In other words, intolerant Christians are insensitive, not to mention unrealistic. Practice Christianity, say Merry Christmas to everyone you see, nobody cares. Stop with the persecution syndrome, it's all in your head. The world does not revolve around you or the words Merry Christmas or Christianity. We all must get along in the world. That includes Christians. So go on, get over yourselves, be good Christians because THAT is your mandate, not being "Merry Christmas" police. Next.
Quite a few of the colonies had established state churches at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. We were absolutely a Christian Nation. It was only the federal level that was supposed to stay neutral.
De facto vs de jure. The founding fathers decided the government shouldn't force religion on the citizens, but at the time the population and members of government were still mostly Christians.
I greatly enjoyed this discussion. It helped me understand the defining points of Southern Conservatism. My only criticism is that the discussion never explored the Southern Conservative view of slavery. It seems to be that Southern Conservatives do not view slavery as a moral issue which seems to be the sticking point in today’s political discourse. Would love to hear Alan’s view.
Shhh! Don’t mention slavery around Alan. He has said in the videos he makes he will turn his back and walk away from you if you bring up slavery as a cause of the Civil War. He peddles white supremacy ideals and he sure as heck won’t answer you.
As a South Carolinian, I can say with 100% certainty that this dude is putting up an accent. I've never, in my entire life here in SC, have ever heard THAT kind of accent. He's putting on an old fashioned, Southern Virginia accent. That accent is so far from any SC accents that it is laughable. In regards to his arguments, we've had these debates for CENTURIES. The South was RESPONSIBLE for the Civil War. Lincoln, though he overstepped the constitutional limitations on his office, was RIGHT that the South had no constitutional rights to succeed from the Union. His argument which says, "No Southern soldiers or civilians stated the war was about slavery" is stupid, because while they of course said it was about States' Rights, the "States' Rights" they fought for were... The right to own slaves. And lastly (but certainly not the only issue I find is his argument), his complaint that Calhoun and Foote and other Southern "Conservatives" aren't read anymore is foolish, because there is little to be gleaned from extremely racist fools who created dumb arguments to justify slavery. There is nothing of worth in Calhoun or Foote.
CIA funded the fake left which led to the current madness of ‘cultural Marxism’ (fake Marxism) in order to curtail real Marxist philosophy and I would not be surprised if the CIA is behind using the madness around this discourse now to politicize people towards some political goal/agenda
Men sure are fighting for women not to leave them out, so take away her rights, marry her off, knock her up early.smh...Capitalism is the real reason men are suffering, not a another autonomous human being minding their business. PS..Funny how Europeans talk about beginning of time, like civilizations and customs did not exist before you raided them. Many civilizations thrived without "Christian" Religion and their families were more communal and their were rituals to guide boys into manhood. Society built a handicap ramp for ramp and women are tire of the ramp being built on their backs. #West4b
Charles is absolutely correct here, the solution to something you don't like isn't to call the government in an impose your will. Its to convince society that what you believe is the better path and have people voluntarily adopt that path. There are hundreds of everyday things like alcohol, guns or sugar that do more measurable harm to society than porn does. Should we ban all that too? No of course not. But that's the problem with these arguments, people start with "I don't like X, ban it" and don't for a second think how that could be accomplished. Even in this debate Allie says "well I don't understand all that technical stuff", ok then why are you demanding an outcome, when you don't understand the thing you are trying to regulate. Shouldn't you at minimum be required to propose how something should be banned and think about the cause and effect of that decision? Of course Allie, and many like her, haven't thought about this because the end result is the only thing that matters. This is authoritarianism 101. Just because you like the outcome does not mean the ends justify the means. Allie would clearly understand this if the discussion was about banning guns but that's only because she likes one thing and dislikes the other.
His "anna" story sounds dishonest or like "Anna" has a poor friend group. I am as libtardy liberal as they come and i have never seen anyone telling a friend to leave their spouse over a shallow disagreement. I mean sure, if we are talking persistent abuse, mental or physical, but cmon. If you have something to say don't use straw man examples
Communist and socialist ALWAYS tell you which of your rights they are going to take away from you. And its, always "for your own good". Your bull-shit alarm should be sounding loud and clear as you make sure you have your constitutionally protected rights well defended. IMHO....
There is the gender binary, but there is also gender, which is not the same thing as sex. Sex and gender form a duality which is difficult to express in the clear and distinct concepts of Descartes, but which nevertheless is real. To deny the duality is to practice gender ideology. What Dreher is spreading here is gender ideology. Gender, whatever it is, is not simply biological sex. Mr. Dreher is a practicing ideologue of gender. Patriarchy and El Machismo are gender ideology, they just to be its most ancient forms. Dreher´s philosophy is positivistic and falls outside of the authentic philosophical tradition of Thomism, of the analogia entis. It is if you like a "modern" philosophy, but I would prefer simply to say that it is simplistic, reductivistic and false.
"Those brave men..." he says about the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Typical. But then look at what Dreher was saying about the George Floyd protests. There you had communists and leftists and rabble. But that is exactly what was said in the 1960s about the protesters. It is a typical manipulation. Like that of those Republicans who preen themselves on Lincoln while at the same time rejecting every popular movement, the labor movement, the women´s movement. But don´t worry, we would have been right there with Lincoln and Martin Luther King. One argues that minorities got all possible rights back in the 1960s and that nowadays they are nothing but leaches who milki the taxpayer, like all those vermin illegal immigrants.
We in America have a system of mass incarceration whose victims are largely black and Latino. Mr. Dreher keeps that out of his discourse. But of course his vision of evil obsesses on homosexuality because it allows you to practice at will a radical form of othering. "They..." And if you talk about social justice, you are one of those woke people, and that makes you a soft totalitarian. And Black is White and White is Black. And if you look at the history of The American Conservative you will see its substantial link with a White Supremacist ideology which it tries to repackage in "intellectual" terms. In other words it has tried to pull a fast one on you.
I am a U.D. graduate so it is nice to see something from My Old School, but I am not so happy with Mr. Dreher. What I hear him saying is that one should let the Public Order go to hell and turn one´s attention to ....what then? To small Christian communities? I am all for small Christian communities within the Unam Sanctam, the Catholic Church. And that is what gets lost here. It is the trendy thing, this notion of Mr. Dreher: Christian Nationalism, Theocracy, Trumpist Theology. Resentment is trendy. Mr. Dreher has some objections to Trump, but they are of a stylistic order. Dreher is the great champion of Mr. Orban´s Hungary. He tells us not to worry about HIS authoritarianism since it is not so bad as the Totalitariansm of those who are not on board with Orban (and his cruel and intransigent vision of immigrants, Moslems, others). It is not so called "dangerous." And what I would like to point out is the contrary, namely that it is dangerous: that racism, that theocratic ideology, that occult cruelty. It is dangerous to the public order, to Democracy and the Rule of Law, to the integrity of the Faith.
I have a pretty clear memory of the early days of the ACA, when "the government" couldn't get a simple web application to work. Is this "the government" that's allegedly tracking the individual movements of over 300 million people - to make they don't go "where they're not supposed to go"?
He’s a liar. The US has strict laws in place to control how and when govt agencies can collect personal info. Russia wants you to think your own govt is the enemy. Sound like Trump too. Don’t be ignorant
A thoughtful conservatism should seek to conserve what is good rather than just assume the good in whatever it conserves. And it ought to maintain order so virtue can flourish instead of invoking virtue simply to impose order.
