"I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a society: to belong here is to believe in these things."Cleggeron :
"Liberal societies do not expect everyone to live in the same way, or believe in the same things..."
(Clegg is a sack of sopping wet poo, though. He follows this entirely correct definition with :
".. conformity can crush liberty. But in liberal societies, all of us must defend the freedoms of others, in exchange for freedom for ourselves. In an open society, values compete but do not conflict."What kind of mythical society that never existed is this 'open society' exactly, where values 'compete' but don't 'conflict' ? Competition implies conflict. As I've said, we had a perfectly good British culture once, half a century back and before, which covered three-and-a-half nationalities - but as the half (Ireland) could witness, it was not a perfect relationship even when all components were Christian and all looked pretty much the same. And, imperfect as it was (although it was functionally pretty effective), it was forged over centuries of dispute and struggle. What's the struggle going to be like between totally different peoples ?)
13 comments:
Ah, but they do expect everyone to believe the same things.
Global Warming.
Homosexual equality.
sexual equality.
weak criminal justice system
etc etc.
These liberal societies have a belief system as much as christianity.
I'm not saying they are wrong in all they want, but point is they don't want anything to 'compete' with what 'they' hold sacred.
Ah, but they do expect everyone to believe the same things.
Global Warming - unless you belong top an ethnic minority or you are China & India
Homosexual equality - unless you belong to an ethnic minority and/or Muslim.
sexual equality - - unless you belong to an ethnic minority and/or Muslim.
weak criminal justice system - unless you are white & middle class.
@Anon, the real kicker is that they don't even believe that those are beliefs. No, those are "facts", hence they are not debatable, and if you say you don't believe them, you are being dishonest and have an ulterior motive.
Was British society always like this? Back in the Christian age, was there a consensus that Christianity was fact, not faith? Or were even the strongest Christians still capable of recognising the difference, and accepting that some might not share their faith?
Yes Vlad, I would compare the liberal concensus to religon absolutely.
As you point out, previously the Christian culture was not just a religion it was fact, and if you dispute it, that was illegal, blasphemy.
The elites always used religion as a form of control imo, and the new liberals are just as much the same, imo the liberal doctrine should be considered a faith.
As it certainly isn't based on fact.
"What kind of mythical society that never existed is this 'open society' exactly, where values 'compete' but don't 'conflict'?"
It does make you wonder about the level of their education, doesn't it?
They're out of ideas but we knew that anyway.
They haven't got a clue what they are doing. Just hoping for the best or that they will be out of office or dead when it kicks off. Or that it will never really kick off but the existing society and values will be slowly and silently strangled. The horrible thing is that those who are agianst the list of liberal values are much more liberal than its proponents in abstract terms. The 'enemy' i.e. white indigenous males have had a 60 year training in thinking of the interests of the 'other'. The black lesbian one legged environmentalist muslim thinks that morality is fighting for black lesbian one legged environmentalist muslims and obiterating anyone who is even slighlty sceptical of their future hegemony. Apologies for the convenient hyperbole. History is merciless to the losers.
@Anon - 12.43am
These liberal societies have a belief system as much as christianity.
Religion exists, and has always existed, in all societies known to man in some form, whether it be Abrahamic or animist. Observe the ingrained dogma of the climate change brigade. One also sees similiar tendencies in humanists of the Richard Dawkins school, who are adamant that belief in God is mere superstition, while simultaneously proselytising. To quote Martin "Not having a belief is a belief".
On the perfectly good British culture many 1950s immigrants were keen to embrace this culture, and bought into the culture in the smallest of ways. Think of South Asian men who spent their first wage packets on Burtons suits, and Caribbean women who rushed out to purchase English teapots and tableware.
Foxy,
I don't actually remember saying that, but it sounds so good I'm more than happy to take the credit for it; indeed, that's just about the nicest thing anyone has said either to or about me all day.
Vladimir,
You wrote,
"Was British society always like this? Back in the Christian age, was there a consensus that Christianity was fact, not faith?"
A very good, and very important, point. It's my understanding that the law of England and Wales has always carried a presumption against judges being required to pass judgememt on doctrinal disputes as they pertain to civil law. This is where the Camecleggians Lowlifers differ from about half a millenium's worth of legal tradition. They have turned Descartes on his head so vioently that he can quite rightly be said to be dizzy from spinning in his grave. They do not think, but they assume. They assume, and therefore they are, and those who do not assume as they do might as well just not exist at all.
The collective arrogance of the Lib Dems, a party which has quite fairly been shown to have no constituency other than its own membership, will be its undoing; Barnsley is just the start. And good riddance to the worst of the worst kind of opportunistic bad rubbish.
Alas, the first anon may have missed my point, but Martin has it.
At the height of the Christian age, I think the Establishment was relatively tolerant of dissent on religious matters, with faith officially recognised as separate from fact. It wasn't always so, of course, and certainly this country has been something of a theocracy at times. But "progress" loves nothing more than smashing up traditions whether good or bad, and we find that the blasphemy laws are back and apply more widely than ever before.
@ Martin,
I don't actually remember saying that.
I remember your comment almost word for word, "In the same way that not having a belief is a belief, and not having a policy is a policy..." It has stayed with me precisely because it encapsulates the liberal mindset in such a compact nutshell.
Vladimir,
You've got me thinking. Laban, without wishing to plug my own blog, I'll be writing a piece on this theme tomorrow.
Foxy,
As ever, thank you.
X
Post a Comment