The unhappy fate of orthodoxy in a liberal world

[nyj]

Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. Some otherwise bright people have indicated their puzzlement with that axiom but it seems to me, well, axiomatic. Orthodoxy, no matter how politely expressed, suggests that there is a right and a wrong, a true and a false, about things. When orthodoxy is optional, it is admitted under a rule of liberal tolerance that cannot help but be intolerant of talk about right and wrong, true and false. It is therefore a conditional admission, depending upon orthodoxy’s good behavior. The orthodox may be permitted to believe this or that and to do this or that as a matter of sufferance, allowing them to indulge their inclination, preference, or personal taste. But it is an intolerable violation of the etiquette by which one is tolerated if one has the effrontery to propose that this or that is normative for others. - Richard John Neuhaus

 

[icedtea]

The Orthodox church has been around thousands of years.

 

[nyj]

FYI: orthodoxy (NOTE: lower case 'o') = right thinking

 

[Tangeloper]

That's the thing that gets me about Political Correctness and supposed "tolerance" that is touted by a LOT of people in today's world.

TRUE "tolerance" can be measured by how one deals with ideas they do NOT like and/or agree with. This doesn't mean ACCEPTING other's beliefs as your own... It's more like, a "live and let live" attitude.

I really wish words weren't twisted to the point that they have such a political meaning attached to them, as the word "tolerance" does now. It makes it really hard to explain ideas like this! LOL

 

[SolomonVII]

Secularism has its own orthodoxy complete with its own mythos of what is and isn't ethical and moral.

And if anyone doesn't subscribe to that particular brand of orthodoxy, they will soon enough find out just how intolerant the liberal can be.

 

[SolomonVII]

Or should I say htat secularism has its own Orthodoxy?

 

[Tangeloper]

Or should I say htat secularism has its own Orthodoxy?

Good point... VERY good point...

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. Some otherwise bright people have indicated their puzzlement with that axiom but it seems to me, well, axiomatic. Orthodoxy, no matter how politely expressed, suggests that there is a right and a wrong, a true and a false, about things. When orthodoxy is optional, it is admitted under a rule of liberal tolerance that cannot help but be intolerant of talk about right and wrong, true and false. It is therefore a conditional admission, depending upon orthodoxy’s good behavior. The orthodox may be permitted to believe this or that and to do this or that as a matter of sufferance, allowing them to indulge their inclination, preference, or personal taste. But it is an intolerable violation of the etiquette by which one is tolerated if one has the effrontery to propose that this or that is normative for others. - Richard John Neuhaus

There *is* a right and wrong. Relativism is an absolute blight on Christianity. Seeker-friendly churches, and "sin is only sin if it hurts someone else..."

I don't know if there's a technical difference between orthodox and traditional Christianity, but they are the right way. The world doesn't like it, so Christianity has gradually been shaped to meet the world's standards - but the world is a painful place.

Traditional Christianity is seen as intolerant because it doesn't buy into the notion that anything goes, but that's ok. God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and that the world hates Christianity is ok. The Lord knew it would be that way, and He suffered far more than any of us ever will.

In terms of good behaviour... we must behave well by our own standards, not by anyone else's. Traditional Christianity doesn't preclude being loving. When it becomes spiteful, it ceases to be any form of Christianity, much less conservative.

But one day we'll be in Heaven with Jesus, and it'll be better then. He's with us always, but we'll be able to hug Him and worship Him in the flesh. It'll be better then.

 

[synger]

I would think that "truth is relative" in only some VERY limited situations, when we truly don't know enough to make a clear decision. Truth for God is black and white, and this is how He has given His truth to us. True, we cannot judge people's motives. But I think that, rather than compromising the black and white truth, we must instead accept that we are flawed and may make mistakes, and even choose wrong rather than right depending on the situation.

Take the classic example of "is is all right to steal food when my children are starving?" It is wrong. It is clearly, black-and-whitely set forth in the Scripture that stealing is contrary to God's law. Would I do it? Probably. But instead of justifying it and rationalizing it as "okay in this situation" I would, with God's grace, try to say "It's wrong, but I did it because I feared the consequences of not doing it more than I feared the consequences of doing it."

It's not a relativistic right and wrong. It's weighing the pros and cons of greater and lesser evils. Letting my children starve and stealing food are both bad things. I would compromise the moral right (not stealing) to fulfill the moral duty (protecting and sustaining my children).

 

[synger]

In other situations, that comes into greater relief. I've served on a number of juries, and I think time and again how much easier it would be if we had God's knowledge of what was done and why. The "why" is not unimportant, but it is not the whole question. In law, there can be "extenuating circumstances"... but that's about as far as I am willing to go for "relativistic thinking". Because I am orthodox in my thinking (small "o") I think those extenuating circumstances are much fewer and far between than most people I talk to. I don't buy into the "I had no other choice!" excuse. There is always another choice. It may not be pleasant, and it probably comes with its own set of bad consequences, but it's still a choice.

 

[Latreia]

Consider a far more ethical and moral
concept than the completely abused
"tolerance."

Perhaps both sides should strive
most of all towards forbearance.


1 : a refraining from the enforcement of something
(as a debt, right, or obligation) that is due

2 : the act of forbearing : patience

3 : the quality of being forbearing : leniency

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/forbearance

 

[Miss Shelby]

It is therefore a conditional admission, depending upon orthodoxy’s good behavior. The orthodox may be permitted to believe this or that and to do this or that as a matter of sufferance, allowing them to indulge their inclination, preference, or personal taste. But it is an intolerable violation of the etiquette by which one is tolerated if one has the effrontery to propose that this or that is normative for others. - Richard John Neuhaus

Which is why, more often than not, I have chosen to abandon all sense of couthness and just express my opinions in the rawest form possible. It's not as if I can sugar it up and have it become any more palatable that way, why not just call a spade a spade?

 

[nyj]

Which is why, more often than not, I have chosen to abandon all sense of couthness and just express my opinions in the rawest form possible. It's not as if I can sugar it up and have it become any more palatable that way, why not just call a spade a spade?

I feel the same way most times. Ok, almost all the time, to be truthful.

But then, I have to reel myself back and remember that orthodoxy (right thinking) without orthopraxy (right acting) is worthless. Both go hand in hand. I don't like it, but dem's da breaks I suppose.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Thanks Professor Killjoy.

 

[nyj]

Thanks Professor Killjoy.

Anytime.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I cannot agree with the estimable Father Neuhaus on this one. Orthodoxy is valuable and praiseworthy, and should be the norm, but in a free society it must be optional, i.e. a matter of free choice.

And as nyj observes, orthopraxy is important too. Supposing that the right motive is all that counts regardless of actual results is characteristic of liberal, not conservative, thought. We ought not to respond to "It didn't work" with a plaintive wail of "But I meant well!"; let's leave that to the liberals.

 

[nyj]

I cannot agree with the estimable Father Neuhaus on this one.

How dare you!

Orthodoxy is valuable and praiseworthy, and should be the norm, but in a free society it must be optional, i.e. a matter of free choice.

But here's the rub Izdaari. We don't live in a society where we get to make any "free choice" we want. I can't choose to inhabit my neighbors house without his/her permission. I can't choose to not pay my taxes. I can't choose to drive my car down the wrong side of the street, or ignore traffic signs. I can't choose to punch someone if they say something which I find bothersome. Everything we do, must be done within the limits allowed by law. We live in a free society as far as it's allowable for us to voice our disagreements with any particular law, as long as we continue to abide by that law in the meanwhile.

Now, as to most of these behaviors, I bet we can both agree on them as being proper anyways. So the question then must be asked ... why are only some proper behaviors protected by law, but not all?

And as nyj observes, orthopraxy is important too. Supposing that the right motive is all that counts regardless of actual results is characteristic of liberal, not conservative, thought. We ought not to respond to "It didn't work" with a plaintive wail of "But I meant well!"; let's leave that to the liberals.

Interesting comment. Thanks, and I agree.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

But here's the rub Izdaari. We don't live in a society where we get to make any "free choice" we want. I can't choose to inhabit my neighbors house without his/her permission. I can't choose to not pay my taxes. I can't choose to drive my car down the wrong side of the street, or ignore traffic signs. I can't choose to punch someone if they say something which I find bothersome. Everything we do, must be done within the limits allowed by law. We live in a free society as far as it's allowable for us to voice our disagreements with any particular law, as long as we continue to abide by that law in the meanwhile.

Now, as to most of these behaviors, I bet we can both agree on them as being proper anyways. So the question then must be asked ... why are only some proper behaviors protected by law, but not all?

If you've noticed my Libertarian Party icon, perhaps you can predict my answer.

The only behaviors that should be prohibited in a free society are those that infringe on the rights of others. All your examples come under that heading: the "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" category. If we limit the law to those sorts of things, that's what the Founders intended and all will be well. But if we try to use the law for social engineering, even conservative social engineering for the purpose of promoting orthodoxy, we're going terribly wrong.

 

[nyj]

If you've noticed my Libertarian Party icon, perhaps you can predict my answer.

I didn't notice it, but now that you mention it ... yep.

The only behaviors that should be prohibited in a free society are those that infringe on the rights of others. All your examples come under that heading: the "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" category. If we limit the law to those sorts of things, that's what the Founders intended and all will be well. But if we try to use the law for social engineering, even conservative social engineering for the purpose of promoting orthodoxy, we're going terribly wrong.

Yet your view seems to indicate that it's acceptable to use law for promoting orthopraxy. Where however is the firm basis (i.e., orthodoxy) for why one should act right in the first place? Besides, in issues such as abortion (which I specifically didn't lead with) ... why is the fist protected, and not the nose?

 

[Debi1967]

Secularism has its own orthodoxy complete with its own mythos of what is and isn't ethical and moral.

And if anyone doesn't subscribe to that particular brand of orthodoxy, they will soon enough find out just how intolerant the liberal can be.

Now this has to be one of the truest statements I have seen posted in a long time.