Category: The Dish

John Podhoretz describes this post, which refers to a new scientific study on the effects of male genital mutilation, as a "psychotic diatribe." I know it’s a stretch for JPod, but what part of the argument does he disagree with? That circumcision has a profound effect on sexual pleasure? That many men may not to want to have a part of their body mutilated without their consent? I’m not saying it should be illegal. I am saying it’s wrong. Maybe JPod could actually craft an argument against mine. If it’s not too much work.

Rod Dreher takes issue:

There are basically two kinds of people in this country who identify as conservatives: libertarian conservatives, and traditionalist conservatives. This reader (and Andrew) hail from the libertarian wing of conservatism. We traditionalists might be vile Christianists, to use Andrew’s pejorative term, but we are certainly conservatives. What unites libertarians and traditionalists is, broadly speaking, suspicion of the accumulation of power, especially in the hands of the state. What divides us are matters of culture, authority and morality. To put it broadly, for libertarians, the good life consists of a state in which individual liberty is maximalized. For traditionalists, the good life consists of a state in which free people behave virtuously.

Who doesn’t want to live in a state where "free people behave virtuously"? But what if they don’t? Rod wants the law to direct people’s moral choices and forbid some. I’m more skeptical of government than that. Rod’s second formula also begs the question of what "free people" are. Most of the "virtue-promotion" among traditionalist conservatives is really about sex: forbidding it, stigmatizing it, restraining it, hiding it, fearing it. It’s about controlling sexual freedom by law and the police. I think people’s sex lives are their own business. And I think that’s a more authentically conservative (and Christian) position. It’s Chapter Three in "The Conservative Soul": the case against Christianist prohibition on abortion, end of life issues, and procreative sex.

Not too hard. Why am I not surprised? Slashdot:

"A mechanic’s car is always the last to get fixed."

But a mechanic still knows what he’s doing. This is the federal government.
 

A neurosis, not an enthusiasm:

Pure political junkies don’t really notice this as they can always live “in the moment.” They are like the guy in Memento: everything is perpetually new. Every new issue is taken upon its face value, and analogies are just tools used to bludgeon the other side and not to remind us that we have been here before.

A racegoer arrives for the second day of Royal Ascot 2007 on June 20, 2007 in Ascot, England. By Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images.

A reader writes:

I’ve been reading your coverage of Obama lately, as well as the rest of the of the Democrats statements on faith. I am my brother’s keeper, feed the hungry, tend the poor, generally look out for each other; it all sounds like the mission of the Church to me. Has the church failed that miserably that we now have to look to secular government, which is fundamentally less efficient than individuals looking out for each other, to fix the woes of society? If the answer is yes, that saddens me. 

What also saddens me is the number of young Christians who are jumping on the band wagon. Sure, we should be doing all the things Obama preaches; but why should we create a massive government to do them? Why can’t we just go out and tend the sick, feed the poor, look after the widow, etc? Even Christians have forgotten this personal, Christian responsibility, an idea that can exist very well with Republicanism. It seems that my generation has truly abandoned the Church to its fate. And the sad part is, maybe, for now, that’s the best option.

The problem with Christianity for those who seek earthly power is that Jesus explicitly renounced such power. Socialism and left-liberalism and "compassionate conservative" are really devices with which the state assumes the moral obligations of the individual – and increasingly robs the individual of the resources to be charitable herself. Christianism – of both left and right – is not just a variation of Christianity. It’s an attempt to coopt Christianity to empower the political leader. That’s why the politicians like it: it gives them the moral highground, and more money, and eventually more power. All of which leads to less freedom and less genuine faith.

Rude Pundit opines:

What Hersh’s article tells us is not just that the decisions about the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib came from the highest levels of the Defense Department (and the Bush administration). It’s that the very nature of the men who were creating the policy led naturally to the abuses. It’s what they know. It’s what they do. It’s who they are. For if they can treat an American two-star general like a syphilitic camp follower, what chance did Iraqis have?

The point of torture is always torture.

A brilliant stroke, if it comes off. Good for Rice for thinking of it. She still needs a counter-weight to Cheney. But it will be controversial in Britain, I bet. A former prime minister going to work for an American president? Somewhat humiliating.

Move along now. Nothing to see here.

The wonder-drug for politicians: