Blog Archives

Religious Liberty And The Trump Way

President Donald Trump is about to sign an order on religious liberty protecting Christians from the Gaystapo.

On this, as on much else, there had been rumours Trump was going to renege on his promises. On this, as on much else, Trump will prove he can deliver.

However, it's fair to say we must all get accustomed to Trump's style. He invites Mitt “Meow” Romney to talks for a possible job as Secretary of State : it takes weeks for the world to understand he was simply mocking and humiliating the poor idiot. He appears to favour Ryancare and to want it passed, it takes weeks for the world to understand he did not want to be accused of sabotaging Ryan and was going for the best possible outcome for him (Ryan smashes against the wall, and can't accuse him of anything) or for the second best (Ryancare passes and Trump has merely helped the guy to get something done). Then we will, one day, have another version, that passes, and Trump will get all the merit for stepping up to the plate and doing the job for the incompetent cuck. Boy, this one is a smart cookie.

Trump has a strange style. He isn't there for the fast win. He doesn't care what you think of him today provided he has his eyes focused on his objectives. Those who think he will be caving in on the wall just make me smile. He doesn't need the funding now, and prefers to eat his enemy one bite at a time. Gingrich tried the total war and lost. Trump isn't acting without thinking. Trump is the “art of the deal”, not the Samurai type.

The executive order on religious liberty will probably not be as though as the draft, though politico & Co. have all interest to cry wolf. But again, what has not come now will come later. It isn't smart to think Trump will compromise what has brought him to victory to please little darling daughter and son-in-law, and all those people ranting against whom got him elected.

At the same time, you must not expect a Crusader or an ideological fighter. Trump is a businessman, not a warrior. He is good at extracting all he can (and some more) when he can, with patience or with vengeance according to the situation on the ground.

The “Trump Way” will not please us always. He will not deliver on everything. He will drive us mad at times (Romney? Really??!!); but there is logic and purpose in what he does, and he will end up doing enormously better than every Clinton, Romney or McCain would have done.

Those who are most disappointed in him are those who have thought “America First” meant brutal Isolationism no matter what, or those who thought they had found the Spotless Crusader. Unrealistic positions both.

Three months later, Trump has already delivered Gorsuch, which is huge, and has taken decisive action in many other areas (from the TPP to the coal industry, from the pipelines to North Korea, from Syria to the Canadian wood and milk; this without counting the executive orders battled by absurdly politicised judicial activists). The future already looks much different than if Hitlery had won, and Gorsuch's appointment alone takes care of that.

My suggestion: keep calm and trust the Donald.

M

Three Cheers For The Wall Street Journal

Jacques Blanchard, “Allegory of Charity”

Seldom have I read such pithy exposition of Catholic thinking from a non-specialised media outlet.

Try this (emphases always mine):

Wealth and poverty are catalysts for bringing the rich and the poor together in community, and community is the hallmark of the church’s mission on Earth. Government is not community. Government is one of community’s tools, a coercive one we use when it is necessary to force people to behave in ways they would not otherwise behave voluntarily.

Already these three lines are of devastating effect for all those – very many in old, tired Europe – identifying Government with “good”, and the vehicle through which every “good” must be, well, coerced.

It goes on:

But that word—voluntarily—is key, and it’s where Mr. Ryan’s religious detractors go awry: Charity can only be charity when it is voluntary. Coerced acts, no matter how beneficial or well-intentioned, cannot be moral. If we force people to give to the poor, we have stripped away the moral component, reducing charity to mere income redistribution. And if one really is as good as the other, the Soviets demonstrated long ago that it can be done far more efficiently without the trappings of church and religion.

This is another good dollop of sanity which would (I assure you, oh fortunate American readers) surprise many a European, because they have been trained to think basically from the cradle – and from elementary school at the latest –  that coercion is the way to achieve an outcome considered “moral”. This is at the root of the oppressive Nanny-ism present in particular in the English society, with an army of busybodies intent in trying to crucify perfectly normal drinkers and smokers out of the completely bonkers persuasion that they must be saved from themselves. 

We see an extremely disquieting reflex of this thinking – Government legislates about morality, therefore morality is the monopoly of the Government – in the more and more automatic desire to ban whatever the Government does not approve of. For example, once Government has given sodomites official recognition, the questioning of their perversion should be made illegal  – under the guise of “hate crime”, “homophobia”, or “discrimination” – because if the Government has decided for the morality of a behaviour, this morality cannot be publicly questioned without being subversive. 

The article mentioned echoes this with the following words:

All people have the moral obligation to care for those who are less fortunate. But replacing morality with legality is the first step in replacing church, religion and conscience with government, politics and majority vote. 

  When you replace morality with legality, you give the legislator – and in modern terms, the Government – the monopoly over morality. A dictatorship of government-given oppressors ensues, because this mentality unavoidably tends to make opposition to one’s own moral positions illegal. It there is a menace to freedom nowadays, it is this tendency of thinking and legislating in terms of “hate”. 

Then the hammer falls directly on the genitals of the US Church hierarchy, so short-sighted and enslaved to easy populism for many decades and now about to pay the price of their inanity. The WSJ authors put it in these words: 

 The bishops dance with the devil when they invite government to use its coercive power on their behalf, and there’s no clearer example than the Affordable Care Act. They happily joined their moral authority to the government’s legal authority by supporting mandatory health insurance. They should not have been surprised when the government used its reinforced power to require Catholic institutions to pay for insurance plans that cover abortions and birth control.

The Church asked the government to be the coercive enforcer of morality, and now the enforcer wants to do the same with them. In a last beautiful warning, the article states:

To paraphrase J.R.R. Tolkien (a devoted Catholic), the government does not share power. Paul Ryan knows this. The bishops would be wise to listen to him.

Three cheers for the WSJ for hosting such enlightened minds on their columns.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: