Do not be so quick to dismiss the North Korea comparison, Mike. We are witnessing tyranny today that is fostered by a false sense of freedom, a tyranny that faux tolerance ferments.
Hopefully, 'more Monday' will include an honest assessment of the wholly deficient effort by Archbishop Dolan. Here's the latest, distressing reporting from the NYT:
"Yet on Sunday, Archbishop Dolan made no mention of gay marriage during the 10:15 a.m. Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. He did not criticize state lawmakers, or offer an impassioned defense of the church’s view of marriage."
"It was not until after services when the archbishop tackled the issue, and explained to reporters why he chose not to do so during his homily."
"'This is about prayer,' he said inside the cathedral. 'I sort of needed a good dose of the Lord’s grace and mercy because I’ve been down a little lately as you can imagine.'"
Can you imagine Edward Cardinal Egan, or John Cardinal O'Connor, tending to work at the US Council of Catholic Bishops at a critical juncture, and leaving an issue of this importance to deputies? In Archbishop Dolan, I fear we may have a good, perhaps saintly man in their stead, who is just not up to operating in the political realm to protect the Church.
BatG, don't give too soon on AB Dolan. He is actually a very thoughtful person. It is likely he is drafting a well reasoned response rather than one that meets the news cycle. A breath of fresh air, IMO.
"[D]eficient?" Preposterous. The Archbishop's effort on this, from all I've heard, has been remarkable. And he has not shied away from making his case in the public square. What's that? He focused on Christ during the Mass - who would do such a thing?!
Hopefully "more Monday" will contain an explanation of how this amounts to NoKo "tyranny" stronger than "I insist that it is so!"
How, exactly, is this "faux" tolerance? What about it is not real? And how does that lead to, of all things, North Korean tyranny? Was there a gay rights movement that launched Kim Il-Sung to power that I'm not aware of? Could his regime be described in any way as socially liberal?
Please. You sound crazed and desperate when you substitute declarations for arguments.
Ah yes. Freedom apparently means the ability to pass policies Katheryn approves of. But passing policies Katheryn does not approve of is not freedom -- it's tyranny.
Thank you for showing just exactly what Repubicans mean when they talk about freedom -- not just in this context, but in every context.
Maybe Archbishop Dolan was working on New York state policies that really matter to Catholics, a majority of whom make under $50,000 per year, like Medicaid and rent control? On second thought, probably not...
New York is a state that supported gay marriage in opinion polls by 60% or more and voted for Democratic governors, senators and presidents by 60% or more (Cuomo, Gillibrand, Schumer and Obama all basically were unopposed in the state). Regardless of your overall view, many jurisdictions in the US will support gay marriage in the coming years, New York is the first. I see no tyranny here.
I think he's saying pretty much the opposite of that: that there's room in a free society for significant disagreement over policy. Lower capital gains taxes would not be tyranny and more than gay marriage.
Thank you -- this is precisely what I am saying. Liberals might be opposed to an enacted bill that lowered capital gains taxes, but they do not call it tyranny. They (at least most that I am aware of) do not claim the other side is tyrannical just because they passed a bill that liberals don't like. If the people don't like the bill, then they will elect people to repeal it (just as Republicans are trying to do with Obamacare). That is how democracy works.
Don't be silly. Of course those things are pro-freedom.
But when you use the law to infringe, say, on the right of a church to solemnize a same-sex marriage (and yes, there are churches that do that), or indeed the right of an individual to organize his personal family affairs as he sees fit, then you are indeed anti-freedom, and anti-religious freedom at that.
There are other examples, mostly in the social arena. Most of the drug war, for instance, is a good example of "tough on crime" conservatism allowed to run roughshod over individual rights, especially the 4th amendment.
There's quite a bit of overlap between the interests of conservatism and freedom, but it's far from a 1:1 correspondence.
"But when you use the law to infringe, say, on the right of a church to solemnize a same-sex marriage . . . , or indeed the right of an individual to organize his personal family affairs as he sees fit, then you are indeed anti-freedom, and anti-religious freedom at that."
Are you suggesting that either of your examples has ever occurred? The law has prevented a church from having a ceremony? "An individual" has been prevented by law from entering into contractual agreements or writing a will? Is that what you mean to argue?
What a specious argument on your part. By your definition everyone is "anti-freedom" except out-and-out anarchists.
I'm also waiting for the day when those who defend gay "marriage" on libertarian grounds show the intellectual integrity to rail with equal vigor against the non-discrimination laws that infringe upon freedom of association.
That depends. If you are talking about enacting lower taxes and spending through a democratically elected legislature, there is nothing wrong from a small-d democratic perspective with that.
If, on the other hand, you are saying that any democratically-passed bill increasing spending and taxes is somehow tyrannical, irrespective of the support for such a bill or the democratic process under which it was passed, you are then adopting Katheryn's view that freedom is only freedom when it comes to passing policies that you prefer (rather than policies you do not prefer).
Well most of the people that whine at the "drug war" want the right to smoke pot at their local McDonalds. Society is never going to go for that.
When it comes to gay marriage, isn't the gay person asking for more government involvement in their life? It's not simply a matter of the government leaving them alone. The government is leaving them alone, and they want government recognition and benefits. The liberterian argument for gay marriage is specious in my view but I'm not a scholar on gay marriage.
Somebody should get Mitch Daniels to look at the number of comments on the social issues posts vs the number of comments on the fiscal or foreign policy threads. Republicans may need those social cons afterall.
Kathryn, don't try to weasel out with the lazy, passive voice ("don't be so quick to dismiss..."). Mike Potemra already posted his thoughts. What do YOU think? If you really believe, as you imply, that Dolan's comparison is appropriate, just say so.
The hysteria that this issue engenders really brings out the worst in NRO. If you oppose gay marriage, fight it every step of the way. But comparing the actions of the elected representatives of the State of New York in passing a law with the political totalitarianism of China and North Korea is completely beyond the pale. You are descending to the level of the Wisconsin union protesters, who used the same sort of unhinged comparisons against Scott Walker.
Agh yes. Liberty is tyranny. War is peace. Etc. Etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHopefully, 'more Monday' will include an honest assessment of the wholly deficient effort by Archbishop Dolan. Here's the latest, distressing reporting from the NYT:
External Link
"Yet on Sunday, Archbishop Dolan made no mention of gay marriage during the 10:15 a.m. Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. He did not criticize state lawmakers, or offer an impassioned defense of the church’s view of marriage."
"It was not until after services when the archbishop tackled the issue, and explained to reporters why he chose not to do so during his homily."
"'This is about prayer,' he said inside the cathedral. 'I sort of needed a good dose of the Lord’s grace and mercy because I’ve been down a little lately as you can imagine.'"
Can you imagine Edward Cardinal Egan, or John Cardinal O'Connor, tending to work at the US Council of Catholic Bishops at a critical juncture, and leaving an issue of this importance to deputies? In Archbishop Dolan, I fear we may have a good, perhaps saintly man in their stead, who is just not up to operating in the political realm to protect the Church.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBatG, don't give too soon on AB Dolan. He is actually a very thoughtful person. It is likely he is drafting a well reasoned response rather than one that meets the news cycle. A breath of fresh air, IMO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"[D]eficient?" Preposterous. The Archbishop's effort on this, from all I've heard, has been remarkable. And he has not shied away from making his case in the public square. What's that? He focused on Christ during the Mass - who would do such a thing?!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHopefully "more Monday" will contain an explanation of how this amounts to NoKo "tyranny" stronger than "I insist that it is so!"
How, exactly, is this "faux" tolerance? What about it is not real? And how does that lead to, of all things, North Korean tyranny? Was there a gay rights movement that launched Kim Il-Sung to power that I'm not aware of? Could his regime be described in any way as socially liberal?
Please. You sound crazed and desperate when you substitute declarations for arguments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh yes. Freedom apparently means the ability to pass policies Katheryn approves of. But passing policies Katheryn does not approve of is not freedom -- it's tyranny.
Thank you for showing just exactly what Repubicans mean when they talk about freedom -- not just in this context, but in every context.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe Archbishop Dolan was working on New York state policies that really matter to Catholics, a majority of whom make under $50,000 per year, like Medicaid and rent control? On second thought, probably not...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNew York is a state that supported gay marriage in opinion polls by 60% or more and voted for Democratic governors, senators and presidents by 60% or more (Cuomo, Gillibrand, Schumer and Obama all basically were unopposed in the state). Regardless of your overall view, many jurisdictions in the US will support gay marriage in the coming years, New York is the first. I see no tyranny here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Eric
So when conservatives talk about lower taxes and spending, private property rights, right to life, gun rights, etc we are actually anti-freedom?
Hmmmmmm. That's going to be a hard sell outside of the good folk at Daily Kos.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think he's saying pretty much the opposite of that: that there's room in a free society for significant disagreement over policy. Lower capital gains taxes would not be tyranny and more than gay marriage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you -- this is precisely what I am saying. Liberals might be opposed to an enacted bill that lowered capital gains taxes, but they do not call it tyranny. They (at least most that I am aware of) do not claim the other side is tyrannical just because they passed a bill that liberals don't like. If the people don't like the bill, then they will elect people to repeal it (just as Republicans are trying to do with Obamacare). That is how democracy works.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't be silly. Of course those things are pro-freedom.
But when you use the law to infringe, say, on the right of a church to solemnize a same-sex marriage (and yes, there are churches that do that), or indeed the right of an individual to organize his personal family affairs as he sees fit, then you are indeed anti-freedom, and anti-religious freedom at that.
There are other examples, mostly in the social arena. Most of the drug war, for instance, is a good example of "tough on crime" conservatism allowed to run roughshod over individual rights, especially the 4th amendment.
There's quite a bit of overlap between the interests of conservatism and freedom, but it's far from a 1:1 correspondence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But when you use the law to infringe, say, on the right of a church to solemnize a same-sex marriage . . . , or indeed the right of an individual to organize his personal family affairs as he sees fit, then you are indeed anti-freedom, and anti-religious freedom at that."
Are you suggesting that either of your examples has ever occurred? The law has prevented a church from having a ceremony? "An individual" has been prevented by law from entering into contractual agreements or writing a will? Is that what you mean to argue?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a specious argument on your part. By your definition everyone is "anti-freedom" except out-and-out anarchists.
I'm also waiting for the day when those who defend gay "marriage" on libertarian grounds show the intellectual integrity to rail with equal vigor against the non-discrimination laws that infringe upon freedom of association.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat depends. If you are talking about enacting lower taxes and spending through a democratically elected legislature, there is nothing wrong from a small-d democratic perspective with that.
If, on the other hand, you are saying that any democratically-passed bill increasing spending and taxes is somehow tyrannical, irrespective of the support for such a bill or the democratic process under which it was passed, you are then adopting Katheryn's view that freedom is only freedom when it comes to passing policies that you prefer (rather than policies you do not prefer).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm trying to picture a gay tyranny fermenting in faux tolerance, yet disguised as freedom. Can't do it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSounds just like North Korea to me!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, K-Lo. We await with bated breath your explanation of just what that could possibly mean.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell most of the people that whine at the "drug war" want the right to smoke pot at their local McDonalds. Society is never going to go for that.
When it comes to gay marriage, isn't the gay person asking for more government involvement in their life? It's not simply a matter of the government leaving them alone. The government is leaving them alone, and they want government recognition and benefits. The liberterian argument for gay marriage is specious in my view but I'm not a scholar on gay marriage.
Somebody should get Mitch Daniels to look at the number of comments on the social issues posts vs the number of comments on the fiscal or foreign policy threads. Republicans may need those social cons afterall.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKathryn, don't try to weasel out with the lazy, passive voice ("don't be so quick to dismiss..."). Mike Potemra already posted his thoughts. What do YOU think? If you really believe, as you imply, that Dolan's comparison is appropriate, just say so.
The hysteria that this issue engenders really brings out the worst in NRO. If you oppose gay marriage, fight it every step of the way. But comparing the actions of the elected representatives of the State of New York in passing a law with the political totalitarianism of China and North Korea is completely beyond the pale. You are descending to the level of the Wisconsin union protesters, who used the same sort of unhinged comparisons against Scott Walker.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse