Life matters: Our obligation to protect religious freedom

In the back of my church, there are always a set of pamphlets titled “Life matters: yada yada yada”. The other day I saw one titled as I’ve titled this post. I didn’t read it, but I nevertheless know what’s in it. An appeal for the government not to infringe on our freedom to do whatever we want, a praise of the founding fathers for getting us into this mess, and maybe, just maybe, a short mention of the fact that contraception is morally wrong. Now I could go into how religious freedom is doctrinally erroneous or how anti-contraception arguments based on religious freedom are losing arguments, but instead, I’ll just consider how ridiculously sad this is. It’s basically saying, “we give up on winning the culture wars, we fully and completely accept that vice will rule, but would you (the left) pretty please accept a conditional surrender” (the left won’t accept a conditional surrender, BTW). Is a more defeatist attitude even possible?


9 thoughts on “Life matters: Our obligation to protect religious freedom

  1. You’re not going to win a “culture war” when the media and media-driven population is 100% diametrically opposed to you. If you want to win, you need to think in terms of jus ad bellum instead of attempting to win the fallen’s hearts and minds.

    You win a “culture war” by destroying the enemy, enacting Tranquillitas Ordinis, a reshaping the culture by fiat.


    • I certainly agree that winning is not possible with everyone against us. But when you say jus ad Bellum are you suggesting that going into revolt would be the logical conclusion of the reactionary position, or simply suggesting an attitude which should be taken?


  2. I think you should approach as a war and prosecute it under the terms of Jus ad bellum. Perhaps that will entail force of arms, hopefully it won’t.

    Remember, I invoked us ad bellum and that, itself requires many steps to be taken before violence is employed. But it all is predicated upon the potential necessity of that violence.

    But then, what is politics but the continuation of war by other, even less savory means?


  3. Ah, I see what you mean. I don’t agree that politics is merely war by less savory means, although that may be the case in some places (like America). And while it’s unlikely to be successful at all, I think the best chance for reactionaries is to try to assert ourselves as the authentic right-intellectuals.

    Now I take from your blog that you’re a social liberal, and would be on the opposite side?


    • By some standards I’m social liberal; by other standards I’m a social conservative.

      That probably comes from being what is general referred to as a Pagan, though one who became one through theological differences with Christianity, not moral ones or any issues with the Church.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s