On Islam and advanced liberalism, it seems to me you can look at both as heresies that strip down Christianity in the interests of making it simple, easily comprehensible, and directly applicable by force to all the affairs of this world. It seems to me though that Islam retains more truths, and more complex truths, than liberalism does. That's why it's been able to sustain the life of millions and millions of people for more than a thousand years. Liberalism, I think, is too much opposed to life to match that.
In both settings Christians are able to practice their faith although they're subject to disabilities. Right now I'd rather be a Christian in Sweden than in Iran. I'm not sure how much that can be relied on. Islam has at least a theoretical place for Christian communities, but you can't say the same for liberalism. In many places it's already a crime to say "you know, the practice of homosexuality is really bad," and in Sweden it's a crime to say that even in church. How long do you think it will be before someone decides it's unlawful discrimination to deny priesthood to women or child abuse to raise children as Catholics?
I don't think I said anything that implied indifferentism, or the view that error has the same rights as truth, or that the state isn't obligated to favor, protect and act in accordance with what's true, including what's true religiously. My basic thought is there are limitations on what you should expect from government, that it shouldn't normally be set up as an alien authority independent of the beliefs and understandings of the people on the most basic issues, and that it should procede in a constitutional and orderly way in accordance with basic laws providing for distributed and limited power and various requirements of consent. So I would say:
The U.S. government should indeed recognize Catholicism as the truth about God, man and the world and act in ways that make sense in light of that truth,
The way that should come about is that Catholicism should be generally recognized by Americans as the truth of things, so on the whole they naturally treat it as the final point of reference in political life, and
The primary way that should come about is that Catholics persuade people their way is the right way.
I don't think any of that can or should be forced. I agree that civil laws should conform to revealed and all other truth, and you don't have to wait for 100% agreement before that happens. Government and laws are needed because there are lots of important issues, including the basic question of what the point of the whole enterprise is, that you don't get 100% agreement on. It does seem to me though that government should normally be in line with common understandings on basic issues — if it isn't there are going to be lots of problems — and if the common understandings are wrong then the first step is to persuade people they're wrong.
Thanks for the questions and
Thanks for the questions and the extracts.
On Islam and advanced liberalism, it seems to me you can look at both as heresies that strip down Christianity in the interests of making it simple, easily comprehensible, and directly applicable by force to all the affairs of this world. It seems to me though that Islam retains more truths, and more complex truths, than liberalism does. That's why it's been able to sustain the life of millions and millions of people for more than a thousand years. Liberalism, I think, is too much opposed to life to match that.
In both settings Christians are able to practice their faith although they're subject to disabilities. Right now I'd rather be a Christian in Sweden than in Iran. I'm not sure how much that can be relied on. Islam has at least a theoretical place for Christian communities, but you can't say the same for liberalism. In many places it's already a crime to say "you know, the practice of homosexuality is really bad," and in Sweden it's a crime to say that even in church. How long do you think it will be before someone decides it's unlawful discrimination to deny priesthood to women or child abuse to raise children as Catholics?
I don't think I said anything that implied indifferentism, or the view that error has the same rights as truth, or that the state isn't obligated to favor, protect and act in accordance with what's true, including what's true religiously. My basic thought is there are limitations on what you should expect from government, that it shouldn't normally be set up as an alien authority independent of the beliefs and understandings of the people on the most basic issues, and that it should procede in a constitutional and orderly way in accordance with basic laws providing for distributed and limited power and various requirements of consent. So I would say:
I don't think any of that can or should be forced. I agree that civil laws should conform to revealed and all other truth, and you don't have to wait for 100% agreement before that happens. Government and laws are needed because there are lots of important issues, including the basic question of what the point of the whole enterprise is, that you don't get 100% agreement on. It does seem to me though that government should normally be in line with common understandings on basic issues — if it isn't there are going to be lots of problems — and if the common understandings are wrong then the first step is to persuade people they're wrong.
Rem tene, verba sequentur.
Rem tene, verba sequentur.