I agree completely with DocJay-- I would like to see this thread go onto the main feed, so we could get a broader range of reactions!

I am very angry. 

Such "silver linings" as may (or may not) be embodied in the decision offer me no comfort.

We have a judiciary that can justify killing the unborn on the basis of "penumbra of meanings" vaguely suggesting an elastic "right to privacy." But this same judiciary apparently cannot find any "penumbra of meanings" in our Constitution suggesting that government coercion goes against our most foundational political principles.

I am appalled. 

I am astonished that our Conservative "leaders" have seemingly reacted to this assault on our freedom with what amounts to little more than a shrug of the shoulders.

If I had Boehner's job-- or Priebus' job-- I would see to it that this coming Wednesday no less than 20,000,000 Americans would celebrate Independence Day by marching down Pennsylvania Avenue (flags flying, fifes & drums blaring, etc.), then hold the largest political rally in the history of our Republic, intended to clarify the issues at stake for all Americans. 

Will we be slaves? or will we be free?

If we do not fight now-- fight hard, fight smart, fight until victory is won-- we will be slaves.

I am an American. Freedom is my birthright.

Whether or not the media is planning to use Christie's weight against him is fairly irrelevant. Nobody in their right mind would select a man as fat as Christie as a running mate, regardless of how competent he might otherwise be. Even if Christie and/or the Republicans were beloved of the media-- which they are not, of course-- I think most Americans would recoil from the idea of a man as obese as Christie being on the ticket.  

I suppose that I should have explained, for those who might be unaware, that the Torah is what most Christians refer to as "The Old Testament."

Also, I was fascinated to note She's recommendation of the Richard Sharpe series by Bernard Cornwell. In my opinion, the series is very good. The character of Richard Sharpe is very complex. The context of the series is the Napoleonic wars, and Cornwell assiduously avoids the sort of superficial analysis of the politics of that era which Brits almost invariably roll into any literary treatments of those times-- I am thinking here of the Hornblower books, in particular, which frequently lapse into cheap British jingism.

From an American perspective, the Sharpe series has ample relevance to our political traditions. Over the course of the series, Sharpe continually goes up against an entrenched (British) political and social establishment that is completely indifferent to the liberties of the common people of Great Britain. If nothing else, the series sheds considerable insight into the sort of attitudes that constituted opposition to the idea of American independence and the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

I recommend the Torah-- with particular emphasis on the Book of Exodus-- which defines and articulates the foundational spiritual principles that should be the basis of any discussion of freedom and liberty. The ancient Greeks and Romans offer us little more than pragmatic commentaries on the idea of freedom-- and, at best, they circumscribed their arguments with fairly vapid ethical considerations. But the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob offers humanity an incredibly incisive text that really gets to the heart of the meaning of freedom, and the allure of slavery. 

I would be interested to hear Maggie Gallagher's particular take on this amendment vote in NC. I would also be interested in hearing what Star Parker thinks about this. 

"On the Beach"

I am surprised that there was no mention of "It Can't Happen Here."

I  think that the comments thus far have touched on most of the germane distinctions that, more or less, in various ways, answer the original question posed by Maggie. And these comments underscore the complexities inherent in assigning a "label" to the Ricochet community. 

Personally, when discussing my political ideas and ideals with people on the "Left," I always designate myself a "Conservative." And when discussing my political ideas and ideals with people who are, one way or another, on the "Right," I always designate myself to be a "Tory"-- which is, of course, a very particular sort of Conservative.  

Dave,

I hope that you do not mind, but I have already emailed your declaration to everybody on my list of contacts. Now, I am in the process of memorizing it. Your words are stirring, but not because of any oblique rhetorical devices or stylistic force-- rather, your words are stirring because they obviously come from your heart. Your words have moved me, because they convey important truths that we all need to remember. And then live by. Thank you.

I don't personally know Claire Berlinski!!!! Should I statrt worrying????

"Race" is obviously an artificial construct. In contemporary America, it is a concept which is useful to further the "progressive" agenda, but little else. The array of perfectly obvious intellectual and moral absurdities that flow forth from the very notion of "race" is astonishing. For quite a while now, The NY Times has been about as intellectually coherent as Al Sharpton. Which is to say, The NY Times is, in fact, completely incoherent. What The NY Times says about anthying should be ignored by well-balanced individuals capable of thinking about things in a reasonable way-- in a way that takes reality into consideration.

Throughout history-- in all times and in all places-- the trade-off has always been the surrender of freedom in exchange for (a patently false sense of) "security." The sad truth of the matter is that a lot of people have always been willing to either sell themselves into slavery or else acquiesce to being enslaved. This is because bondage, of one sort or another, seemed to be the "safe" or "practical" thing to do. There have always been levels of slavery that were relatively comfortable, in relationship to the perceived alternatives. And there have always been some slaves who were materially much more comfortable than the majority of free people, in any given society. But they were still slaves. And what they gained in terms of "security" or material gain was off-set by a hideous loss of dignity. Slavery is not always called "slavery," and some chains are quite invisible to the eye. We all need to be acutely aware of those forces which are today seducing people into selling themselves into bondage and attempting to secure people with a wide variety of invisible chains.

I completely agree with 10 cent cupof coffee. Having said that, it should be perfectly obvious that, theologically, Mormons are not Christians. Does this really matter very much, in the eyes of God? I do not think so. I also think that the fact that Mormons consider themselves to be Christians and conduct themselves in ways that exemplify Christian morality is not at all  unimportant... Regarding the relationship between Christians and Jews, I think it should also be completely obvious that Christians should consider themselves to be Jewish-- and that they should pay due respect to the totality of Judaism-- even though it is impossible (for theological reasons) for Jews to recognize Christianity as being an expression of Judaism.

I am mindful of the fact that Winston Churchill only fired one general throughout WWII-- the generals who failed in their job were either "kicked upstairs," or simple moved laterally to some place where they could do no harm. Offhand, I forget the name of the fellow who was the sole exception to this policy. But he was the field general specifically charged with responsibility with crossing the Rhine. 

The initial crossing of the Rhine was, for all  intents and purposes, unopposed by the Germans, who had drawn back to a more defensible position. Once the crossing was completed, the general in charge was summarily fired by Churchill. His cabinet, aghast, asked (rather sheepishly) why Churchill had fired this general and no others. Churchill's reply: "Our army should have crossed that river wearing red jackets, with banners flying high, and bands playing triumphant military tunes!"

Just as "we are all Catholics now," so are we compelled, by the darkness enveloping the earth today, to "all be Jewish now." Whether or not this particular instance can be attributed to some explicit hatred of the Jewish people-- or whether it is the act of a deranged person who is indifferent to who get killed-- is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that the world is today filled with people who savagely hate the Jewish people and want to see them all destroyed. Growing up in NYC, I never dreamed that the day would come in my own lifetime when anti-semitism would become fashionable among American "progressives." Nor did I anticipate legions of demonic Islamists hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. God have mercy on all of us. And strengthen us to do what is right in the face of such evil.