Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
Blue Yeti ·
March 8, 2012 at 2:23am
More glad tidings from across the pond as eternal optimist James Delingpole is joined by author and historian Tim Stanley, author of The Crusader: The Life and Tumultuous Times of Pat Buchanan. We get a view of Super Tuesday on Wednesday from abroad, a lyrical lament for The Herminator, a frank discussion of why the conservative party is doomed, and a crackling conversation on a litany of personal liberties including (but not limited to) drugs, drinking, guns, and you guess it -- gay marriage.
Ricochet members, subscribe here (you'll also find the direct link there). Everyone else, listen in below.
Our thanks to EJHill for the lovely wedding photograph.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
Cutlass
Sigh.
C'mon James, it's frustrating to see you include "gay marriage" on a list of "personal liberties." Please tell me this was an innocent oversight and that I don't need to take time here - of all places - to point out that the question of which personal relationships deserve government recognition has absolutely nothing to do with personal liberty?
If you favor the redefinition of marriage, I respect your view. But as conservatives it isessentialthat we maintain a high standard of intellectual clarity and take care to never employ the linguistic dishonesty of the left.
You haven't listened to the program have you Cutlass?
I'm AGAINST gay marriage. I believe marriage is a sacrament between man and woman: it is not for the State to dictate otherwise.
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
@madcap There is nothing "funny" about that picture. It has simply been enhanced to make Prince William's bride look more stunningly beautiful. It's the kind of touching-up that Vogue does all the time.
Apr '11
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
James Delingpole
You haven't listened to the program have you Cutlass?
I'm AGAINST gay marriage. I believe marriage is a sacrament between man and woman: it is not for the State to dictate otherwise. · 3 minutes ago
James, thanks for your reply. No, I haven't listened yet - saving it for tomorrow's commute. That's why I qualified the reference to your potential stance. If I misrepresented your position, I apologize.
My comment wasn't directed at the content of the podcast, but specifically at the program description that characterized gay marriage as an issue of personal liberty. Regardless of your stance, this description is not factual. The marriage debate is muddled enough as it is without proponents of traditional marriage acceding to the left's distortion of the issue. Language matters.
Nov '10
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
James Delingpole
[M]arriage is a sacrament between man and woman: it is not for the State to dictate otherwise.
Saying marriage should be banished entirely to the private realm is simply a dodge. You could privatize the entire institution of marriage and this still does nothing to absolve the issue of education in public schools (in any event, the trajectory of the country is simply not toward privatizing public education). It does nothing to address the indoctrination of children to believe that marriage is whatever one wants it to be, or that the distinction between man and woman is arbitrary. It also does nothing to immure religious practice from incursions from the state. There's nothing to be gainsaid against a government that wishes to deem traditional religious teachings about marriage a form of hate speech or bigotry. We already have intimations of this in Canada and Sweden (you can be locked up for years in prison for publicly teaching that homosexual marriage is a perversion).
Fully privatizing marriage is simply tantamount to saying that everything is a privatized creation; that there is nothing that is common; in other words, that the world has no objective meaning.
Nov '10
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
You're assuming we can have a separation of marriage and state in the same way we have separation of church and state. The freedom to marry should be akin to freedom of religion.
But you are confusing two different types of freedom.
The ultimate purpose of religious freedom is eternal salvation, the requirements of which we can cannot rationally and publicly determine. The main purpose of marriage, in contrast, is to civilize society, a goal which most of us seek. The state may be indifferent to the former, but not to the latter.
Marriage is arguably the most important of all social institutions because it both reflects and shapes the most pervasive and perhaps most problematic distinction within the human species: the natural differences between men and women.
Nov '10
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
Fully privatizing marriage is simply tantamount to saying that everything is a privatized creation; that there is nothing that is common.
Privatizing marriage is not rooted in common sense. Unlike modern notions of progress or individuality, the natural right tradition -- which undergirds our Constitution and is spoken of in the Declaration -- takes its bearing by common sense. It holds that we can discover in the nature of things what is good for us.
There are both collective and individual dimensions to happiness. If we look to nature, we see that collectively, though perhaps not individually, we are happier with laws and norms that mitigate against homosexuality. Why collectively and not individually? Because the teaching regarding the norms for most people must conform to what is possible for most people, i.e., that their nature is oriented toward heterosexuality and their choices must be shaped to it.
Individually, however, the naturally homosexual person will be distressed by this same teaching. James seems to believe, as most libertarians do, that we can tailor the collective teaching or norm to the natures of discrete individuals, which is to say that there is no collective teaching.
1/2
Edited on March 8, 2012 at 12:28pmNov '10
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
The public teaching that conforms to nature, which when inculcated generally leads to greater happiness generally, requires different roles for men and women. The choice consistent with nature is one that teaches men to be good husbands and fathers and women to be good wives and mothers. The roles of men and women are interrelated, particularly the dominance and submission inherent in them, both sexually and otherwise. So that, while our duties are not natural, our choices become duties when rendered into collective norms for the whole.
2/2
Oct '10
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
Robert L., you seem to be sweeping from the particular to the universal awfully quickly. Isn't one of the important things about natural law (or right reason, or whatever formulation you want to use) that it is natural? So get the state out of the way. Then we won't have to mix up 'public education' with 'public teaching', or 'community' with 'nation state'.
Oct '10
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
Great podcast, by the way - MORE DOCTOR TIM!!!
Sep '10
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
James, insert Mitt Romney for David Cameron in your conversation about the British PM and you would not be able to tell a difference. They both come across as sugar-coating toff's embarrassed to be conservatives. I suspect Romney will fold like Cameron if elected.
Edited on March 8, 2012 at 6:32pmNov '10
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
genferei -- I see your point; my point, however, is that virtually everyone (left or right) at least implicitly admits that nobody learns or acts on principles of conduct fully on their own; that some assistance is required. Even anarchists in their confused way believe in preserving some sort of moral order: they believe people need to be taught to be anarchists -- which really means: they consider it wrong to oppose their view; it is wrong to oppose their anarchy. The same applies to liberals/relativists: they consider it wrong to oppose their relativism.
So nearly everyone agrees that there must be some generally agreed upon set of moral principles. And any society including one dedicated to the preservation of freedom relies upon shared or common knowledge and acceptance of proper norms of conduct.
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
Cutlass
James Delingpole
You haven't listened to the program have you Cutlass?
I'm AGAINST gay marriage. I believe marriage is a sacrament between man and woman: it is not for the State to dictate otherwise. · 3 minutes ago
My comment wasn't directed at the content of the podcast, but specifically at the program description that characterized gay marriage as an issue of personal liberty. Regardless of your stance, this description is not factual. The marriage debate is muddled enough as it is withoutproponentsof traditional marriage acceding to the left's distortion of the issue. Language matters. · 9 hours ago
FYI, James doesn't write these descriptions, I do and I admit that I sometimes resort to a touch of hyperbole or controversy to get readers to click on the play button. A large part of this show was devoted to personal liberty, but I should not have lumped gay marriage into that part of the description. Apologies to you and the bride.
Edited on March 8, 2012 at 10:24pmAug '11
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
No doubt, the children will be... we can only hope that the X chomosomes from the father are dominant, and where boys are concerned, inconsequential.
Jul '11
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
@Robert Lux
I have to completely disagree. I agree with James and Tim here - just like you don't want the left's morality imposed on you - I don't want your morality imposed on me either.
The origin of the marriage laws has to do with some backwards European history of women not inheriting their parents wealth, and hence needing protection for father and husband. Well, this is no longer the case. Inheritance is available to all - and paternity is a matter of a DNA test. (Maternity is kinda obvious). If the "a Married Man and woman are the same person in the eyes of Law" is dropped, then widowed wives of slain military men and firefighters would have to be taxed inheritance. That, my friends might be the sure shot end of inheritance tax.
Moreover, unless you guys view the Government being the same as God, I am confused as to why the Government has to sanction a marriage? Isn't God good enough for you?
Jul '11
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
The "moral education and or brain washing of our children" is another subject that has no answer in the conventional wisdom of either parties... Why are christian kids not going to christian schools? Why is teaching the religion of progressive tolerance any different than teaching creationism?
The issue here is not who is in-charge as in what party is running the government; but that of who is in-charge - i.e why are these decisions made by the Government at all? Just like the Government is not God or Priest and cannot sanction marriages, so also Government is not a parent / grand parent and should not be allowed to instill morality in children. I am not suggesting that every one be a priest, parent, teacher and work for a living - but everyone should have a choice.
The only way this could happen is through privatization. You choose what school your kids go to - and if they don't need to read "Heather has two moms", so be it.
Sep '11
Re: Radio Free Delingpole #10: Doomed
Has everyone forgotten WFB's long meditation on anti-Semitism in which he concluded that Patrick Buchanan was an anti-Semite? Has Buchanan changed his spots? For all his undoubted intelligence and rhetorical talents, why keep giving the man a platform? Why help him flak his book? MSNBC was bad enough, why does Ricochet have to get in line?