I can certainly understand liberals’ point when they say that civil servants must execute the laws, that anyone who can’t do so with a clean conscience should resign, that the law cannot accommodate all consciences and that the operation of the state mustn’t be held hostage to any such impossible attempt. Sometimes there are disagreements about questions of morality and justice, and the state has no choice but to choose.
To the liberals I say again, I don’t blame you for enforcing a choice. I never said that a government can be neutral toward different comprehensive theories of the Good, such that people of many opinions can, so long as they forswear violence and coercion, all participate together in public life under such a neutral framework. You did.
You may recall that this was the basis of liberalism’s claimed right to rule over the rest of us.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Throne and Altar 
[…] Kim Davis disproves liberal theory […]
But you forget, freedom of belief doesn’t apply to bigots.
Bigots of course, are people with alternative views of the good.
Liberal officials illegally issued marriage license to gay couples a few years ago, and were cebrated for it (by liberals). See also “sanctuary cities”. See also the recent SCOTUS decision about gmarriage which made no pretense of applying any legal theories to the matter.
They *never* obey the law when it conflicts with their ideology.
They always lie. It’s silly to address anything they say without first outlining which 95% of it is a steaming pile of malicious hypocritical falsehoods.
Real liberals never believed (or asserted it) for a moment. Quite the contrary.
Take Alain Badiou, the grand old man of the French Left and long-serving professor of philosophy at the Ecole Normale Superieure (the training college for university lecturers and high school principals): “If you say A – equality, human rights and freedoms – you should not shirk from its consequences and gather the courage to say B – the terror needed to really defend and assert the A” and again, “Materialist dialectics assumes, without particular joy, that, till now, no political subject was able to arrive at the eternity of the truth it was deploying without moments of terror. Since, as Saint-Just asked: ‘What do those who want neither Virtue nor terror want?’ His answer is well-known: they want corruption – another name for the subject’s defeat.”
The Leftist press (at least in France) has always singled out for particular ridicule those Social Democrats who want a “decaffeinated revolution” – 1789 without 1793.
It’s certainly a big part of liberal apologetics among American political philosophers.
If you say A – equality, human rights and freedoms – you should not shirk from its consequences and gather the courage to say B – the terror needed to really defend and assert the A” and again
This is totally contradictory. If B, you can’t have A.
That some liberals have tried to embrace the contradiction proves nothing.
It’s an odd situation because Mrs. Davis would not be sanctifying a true Biblical marriage through her validation of a three-party contract granting final authority to settle a “marriage” dissolution to the State. In a very odd twist, Mrs. Davis is essentially in jail on account of refusing to allow homosexuals and dykes to willingly consent to an incredibly submissive relationship with the State.
[…] from Bonald: Kim Davis disproves liberal theory. This is precisely correct. Kim Davis is not poster-child/martyr for freedom of religion, so much […]
https://creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com/2015/09/07/god-hates-kim-davis/
Kim Davis is a servant of Satan!
So what is the rule here on obvious bad faith trolling (as in pretending to be on one side in order to discredit and/or mock it)?