Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
The Avenger

Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021
Subj: Re: Illiberal upstarts reinvent conservatism
Posted: Thu May 12, 2022 at 03:44:48 pm EDT (Viewed 140 times)
Reply Subj: Illiberal upstarts reinvent conservatism
Posted: Wed May 11, 2022 at 04:50:51 pm EDT (Viewed 195 times)



    Quote:
    This is a pretty long interview but it's a highly readable introduction to the New Right. The people being interviewed are the hosts of the podcast, Know Your Enemy, which I very recently started listening to. In this instance, the enemy is the New Right.


I am aware of them but thank you for the link. I am glad they have a transcript. I often can read it faster than listening to it for some things. May give them a listen at some point too, I only listen to podcasts occasionally.


    Quote:
    https://newrepublic.com/article/164643/illiberal-upstarts-reinvent-conservatism



    Quote:
    These people are not libertarians and they're not corporate lapdogs. They're in favor of a welfare state but only if it's structured in accordance with their beliefs, and what they believe in is the moral theology of the Catholic Church, which they want to impose not only on our institutions but on our very brains.


The catholic church surprises me. Given the influence of the conservative evangelical movement within the US, I am surprised it is not based on that or more an abstract view of Christianity, being most view the US as being a nation founded on Christian principles.

It does seem like a growing movement in conservatism has theocratic ambitions. I am unsure of the number exactly but it does seem larger than before and some are already in power.


    Quote:
    And you know how my originalist approach to the text of the Constitution seems problematic to some here? Well, the New Right is discarding originalism in favor of Catholic natural law theology. Because that's what happens when you stop limiting yourself to the actual text and your best guess as to the original intent. You find yourself with nothing to stop you from applying whatever arbitrary paradigm you happen to like.


While I agree with your concern on the application of a theocratic based state it is hypothetically prevented by the First Amendment.

I hate to break this next part to you but there is not a judge alive or who has lived that has taken the strict intention as written. Even the guys on the court now that claim to will modify definitions as needed. And that has been the case throughout US history.

The fact that there are unenumerated rights should also not be that controversial to you. Given the 14th Amendment and the 9th Amendment in particular.

It is simply not always clear what was meant in certain views. And there are clearly different views on the matter. Consider the Establishment Clause alone. Conservative judges are happy enough to ignore it or break it down when it seems pretty clear that the reading indicates that state sponsored religion is not ok, but the language as it is does not inform us as to where the specific line is. And Courts have fought about it for ages.

The Constitution itself is also full of alot of material that does not count as such anymore. Militias are rarely used for instance so what does the Second Amendment mean?

I agree with literalist at times, but I often think it is only applied to attack opposed points of view. It does not specifically say x so it is not allowed assumes black and white and the law is clearly not like that.

And even if the Founder's were fairly perfect for their time one could make the case that the system on the whole is something of a failure given political realities. As it says nothing about the internet or regulation of it and as a society we are not doing much about it. Instead we apply what is there.

The Constitution also does not specifically mention alot of things there are rights too. Marriage being one of the easiest ones is not listed, but marriages hold from one state to another, even just considering the classic heterosexual kind.

Sorry for the tangent. I agree with your general point that nobody should be ruled by anothers religion or really beliefs but I just think the law and Constitution are very vague in certain areas.





    Quote:
    By the way, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are Catholic.


Which is fine, it should not matter. People can be whatever they want. I have more concerns with Roberts friendliness to business, Thomas's hostility towards any befinicial regulation, Alito being a partisan and Kavanaugh being apparently out for revenge in his approval hearings.

Barrett I know I do not agree with, but I do not know enough to comment.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software