I think you've missed an important part of Deneen and other's position which is that, Liberalism itself, while claiming some level of neutrality, is itself a religious system. It's just the water that we swim in. It has its own virtues and goods and heresies - there is no neutral. I'd prefer the state's understanding of "promoting the general welfare" be rooted in the christian vision of the Good over the Liberal, individualistic (maybe atheistic when it comes down to it) version.
In a sense, the state is always going to promote some notion of what is good, and do so in a way that is at least a simulacrum to religion. After the last 20 years or so - being one of the few millennials that remembers the old world where there was at least a neutral understanding of christian virtue that the populous held - I'd say I'd prefer we rewind the clock away from the anything goes I'm my own determiner of the good, and if you tell me otherwise you are evil, back to a world where there was social stigma around certain behaviors and activities.
The question of whether the state ought to stigmatize certain behaviors that it once stigmatized rests on a certain understanding of the good. Could you please articulate for us the good that the state was aiming for? And then what behaviors ought to be stigmatized?
You can't turn back the clock though. Whatever you choose it will be a forward move somehow -- and in that sense, it won't be identical to what you remember and there will be unintended consequences. You might find that preferable to what we have now and that's fine -- but don't think we can artificially resurrect something that occured organically in the past apart from all its contingencies (think of Jurassic Park but with sociology).
That’s not the goal - though sometimes I do like the joke modern problems require premodern solutions.
The point is that Philosophical Liberalism is not neutral, it never was. And we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot protecting it when it is the primary cause of the rise of secularism.
What a wonderfully comprehensive yet concise overview of a critical debate. I will purchase Congdon’s article, though I’m sure I can trust your summary. I suspect what we have here is another instance of how we can become complicit in what we otherwise deplore—or should deplore. Before we award Antigone a halo, we should ask what sense she makes without Creon.
No Antigones without Creon: less a warning than a disclosure of postliberal politics. The move from separatist purity to coercive purification is historically and psychologically easier than Hauerwasians may want to admit.
I also suspect Congdon’s argument is not simply, “Hauerwas caused Trump.” That would be crude. More likely, postliberal theology supplied habits of thought, networks, and rhetoric that later political postliberals could radicalize.
Your overview invites close attention to what you have already said and will now pursue. Thank you!
This is why in the US we have a ‘Constitution’ and like ‘The Creeds’ of the past, it was intended to be internally organic, flexible and subject to revision through group consensus. It is not a perfect document and was never expected to be such, but to completely ignore it and or surreptitiously work around it for one’s own selfish means and aggrandizement, is centrifugally pejorative and leads to continuous confliction, division and the subjugation of the citizenry. A balanced [Theology of Differentiation] coupled with the fortitude of [Political Moderation], is paramount to successfully moving the country forward productively.
Does the post liberal who seeks a move toward a church-dominated social and political order, a form of Christian nationalism, hold that this is formally a Christian nation, or is that a useful fiction to drag along the masses into their program?
Does the post liberal who seeks a move toward a church-dominated social and political order, a form of Christian nationalism, hold that this is formally a Christian nation, or is that a useful fiction to drag along the masses into their program?
I think you've missed an important part of Deneen and other's position which is that, Liberalism itself, while claiming some level of neutrality, is itself a religious system. It's just the water that we swim in. It has its own virtues and goods and heresies - there is no neutral. I'd prefer the state's understanding of "promoting the general welfare" be rooted in the christian vision of the Good over the Liberal, individualistic (maybe atheistic when it comes down to it) version.
In a sense, the state is always going to promote some notion of what is good, and do so in a way that is at least a simulacrum to religion. After the last 20 years or so - being one of the few millennials that remembers the old world where there was at least a neutral understanding of christian virtue that the populous held - I'd say I'd prefer we rewind the clock away from the anything goes I'm my own determiner of the good, and if you tell me otherwise you are evil, back to a world where there was social stigma around certain behaviors and activities.
The question of whether the state ought to stigmatize certain behaviors that it once stigmatized rests on a certain understanding of the good. Could you please articulate for us the good that the state was aiming for? And then what behaviors ought to be stigmatized?
You can't turn back the clock though. Whatever you choose it will be a forward move somehow -- and in that sense, it won't be identical to what you remember and there will be unintended consequences. You might find that preferable to what we have now and that's fine -- but don't think we can artificially resurrect something that occured organically in the past apart from all its contingencies (think of Jurassic Park but with sociology).
That’s not the goal - though sometimes I do like the joke modern problems require premodern solutions.
The point is that Philosophical Liberalism is not neutral, it never was. And we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot protecting it when it is the primary cause of the rise of secularism.
Secularism is not intrinsically problematic though. Christendom kingdom building came with its own benefits and drawbacks, as does post-christendom.
In fact, I think you can make a pretty strong case that secularism is itself a form of christendom "continued by other means."
What a wonderfully comprehensive yet concise overview of a critical debate. I will purchase Congdon’s article, though I’m sure I can trust your summary. I suspect what we have here is another instance of how we can become complicit in what we otherwise deplore—or should deplore. Before we award Antigone a halo, we should ask what sense she makes without Creon.
No Antigones without Creon: less a warning than a disclosure of postliberal politics. The move from separatist purity to coercive purification is historically and psychologically easier than Hauerwasians may want to admit.
I also suspect Congdon’s argument is not simply, “Hauerwas caused Trump.” That would be crude. More likely, postliberal theology supplied habits of thought, networks, and rhetoric that later political postliberals could radicalize.
Your overview invites close attention to what you have already said and will now pursue. Thank you!
Wonderful! I look forward to the sequels.
This is why in the US we have a ‘Constitution’ and like ‘The Creeds’ of the past, it was intended to be internally organic, flexible and subject to revision through group consensus. It is not a perfect document and was never expected to be such, but to completely ignore it and or surreptitiously work around it for one’s own selfish means and aggrandizement, is centrifugally pejorative and leads to continuous confliction, division and the subjugation of the citizenry. A balanced [Theology of Differentiation] coupled with the fortitude of [Political Moderation], is paramount to successfully moving the country forward productively.
Does the post liberal who seeks a move toward a church-dominated social and political order, a form of Christian nationalism, hold that this is formally a Christian nation, or is that a useful fiction to drag along the masses into their program?
Does the post liberal who seeks a move toward a church-dominated social and political order, a form of Christian nationalism, hold that this is formally a Christian nation, or is that a useful fiction to drag along the masses into their program?
That was all new information, thanks for the lesson.