Tuesday, November 05, 2013

Mocking Kids into Leftism



  1. "There is no good deed they can do that will cause the truly unreflective portions of the Left to like or respect them in any way, and the respect or affection of such people should not be their goal.

    ... unless we instill the moral courage to live those values in the face of exclusion and scorn, we will fail, and our children — and nation — will suffer the consequences.

    Well said, David French, well said.

  2. This was the most relevant recent post on which to pose this question, which I would really appreciate it if you could see your way to responding to Steve:

    How is destroying abortion clinics/physically restraining doctors who try to perform abortions morally different from any other defence of a person whose life is being threatened that I take it we would take action to defend? If they are not different, then should Christians begin to take this action?

    1. i) There's a difference between a society that supports efforts to save the innocent, and a society that actively endangers the innocent, and punishes those who try to save them. In the latter case, there's less that society will allow you to do.

      ii) To take a comparison, consider the French Resistance. One could argue that at the time the Nazis invaded France, the resistance movement was justified, even though local authorities collaborated with the Nazis. Whether or not violent resistance is justified depends, in part, on the prospects for success. And that's not something one can always guess in the early stages of the movement. If, however, there comes a point where violent resistance is futile, then one needs to shift to a different strategy.

      iii) The Roman Empire was guilty of many atrocities, yet Jesus and the apostles don't call on Christians to foment revolution, or oppose it through force. There's a question of how to interpret the silence of the NT in that regard, but my immediate point is that there's no prima facie Christian duty to engage in violate resistance.

      iv) There's the question of whether some tactics do more harm than good by discrediting the cause as a whole. Is it counterproductive?

      v) Social obligations are concentric. I have a greater duty to my parents or spouse or underage children than I have to a stranger.

      vi) To take another comparison, should a man become a foreign missionary in a dangerous part of the world? That depends on what prior obligations he has. If he's a married man with children, he has duties to them that take precedence.

      If he's a single, unattached male, he can afford to take greater personal risks. He has no dependents.

      However, that also turns on whether or not he's an only child. His parents have a claim on him if they become enfeebled or feeble-minded. He should be available to care for them in their old age. If he's one of several children, then other children can assume that role. But that turns on whether or not they are reliable. So he needs to think long-term as well as short-term.

      vii) Ultimately, this is God's world. We didn't create the situation. In that respect, we're not responsible for all the terrible things that happen, and we're not responsible for solving most of them. Within reason, we should do what we can to make things better, but there's a sense in which the world is the way God wants it to be, at any particular stage in the process. God has reasons for what he ordains, including evils which are instrumental to future goods. Of course, to the extent that our efforts to improve the situation are effective, that's something God ordained.

    2. I second Steve's words. I'd like to add an illustration if I may. One of my siblings once asked me why, if I would drag a child out of the path of an incoming car, would I not likewise take a combative measure against abortion clinics like you said, since both involve saving a child? Both lives are being threatened, so why wouldn't I destroy an abortion clinic?

      My answer was and is similar to Steve's. In the case of an oncoming car, society won't martial it's forces to tear the child back out of my grasp and throw him back into the path of the oncoming car so that he dies anyway and I wind up being put in jail. This would be the case for the latter where I might bomb an abortion clinic. Society supports one and discourages the other, however hypocritical it may be. So I say I would pull a child away from being run over since that wouldn't be a wasted effort, but I won't bomb an abortion clinic. I know babies die there, but saving more lives from these clinics requires a different strategy. (Think of Texas and their legislation that is prompting abortion clinics to close their doors.)