Comments on: Around The Horn – 12.10.09 http://treadinggrain.com/2009/miscellany/ Running with theological scissors Wed, 23 May 2012 13:24:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Heather Lynn Griffin http://treadinggrain.com/2009/miscellany/comment-page-1/#comment-1506 Heather Lynn Griffin Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:46:58 +0000 http://treadinggrain.com/?p=1839#comment-1506 I'm throwing this set of articles at your attention for next week :-). They're by a political and economic theorist that I follow named Mark T. Mitchell. Mitchell draws from some of my favorite thinkers, like Michael Polanyi and Wendell Berry. He's a regular contributor to an excellent group blog called The Front Porch Republic (www.frontporchrepublic.com). Here's a money quote from a November Blogpost called "Same-Sex Marriage, Abortion, and the Limits of Localism" http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=7063: "Can a society survive if the vast majority of the populace do not share a common culture and together affirm a collection of common ideas? Is an affirmation of “liberty for all”—where liberty means the freedom from any constraint or authority—an adequate foundation for a society? Or does, in fact, this sort of absolute liberalism consume itself in the very logic of its existence? Can a society exist when all that unifies it is the continual emancipation of desire? The obvious answer, it seems to me, is no. But where can one find a common culture? The affirmation of certain basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness devoid of any metaphysical conception of what it means to be a human being falls short. Rights claims without acknowledgment of obligations and ends suited to human beings are little more than emotivist utterances that can be asserted and expanded with ever-increasing shrillness and incoherence. This is precisely where we are today. The same-sex marriage “debate” is the logical outcome of a society steeped in the language of rights where the understanding of rights has been separated from any notion of the human person as more than a bundle of expanding appetites. Such a “debate” cannot be won by either side, for winning a debate implies rational discussion, but in an emotivist context, the only victory is gained by force." A related entry: "Third Party?", outlining 10 positions of an alternative political party. http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971 I’m throwing this set of articles at your attention for next week :-) . They’re by a political and economic theorist that I follow named Mark T. Mitchell. Mitchell draws from some of my favorite thinkers, like Michael Polanyi and Wendell Berry. He’s a regular contributor to an excellent group blog called The Front Porch Republic (www.frontporchrepublic.com).

Here’s a money quote from a November Blogpost called “Same-Sex Marriage, Abortion, and the Limits of Localism” http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=7063:
“Can a society survive if the vast majority of the populace do not share a common culture and together affirm a collection of common ideas? Is an affirmation of “liberty for all”—where liberty means the freedom from any constraint or authority—an adequate foundation for a society?
Or does, in fact, this sort of absolute liberalism consume itself in the very logic of its existence? Can a society exist when all that unifies it is the continual emancipation of desire? The obvious answer, it seems to me, is no. But where can one find a common culture? The affirmation of certain basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness devoid of any metaphysical conception of what it means to be a human being falls short. Rights claims without acknowledgment of obligations and ends suited to human beings are little more than emotivist utterances that can be asserted and expanded with ever-increasing shrillness and incoherence. This is precisely where we are today. The same-sex marriage “debate” is the logical outcome of a society steeped in the language of rights where the understanding of rights has been separated from any notion of the human person as more than a bundle of expanding appetites. Such a “debate” cannot be won by either side, for winning a debate implies rational discussion, but in an emotivist context, the only victory is gained by force.”

A related entry: “Third Party?”, outlining 10 positions of an alternative political party.
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=6971

]]>