Monday, September 16, 2013

Calling for a mutual non aggression pact

As much as progressives/liberals drive me mad, I think (and this is my own opinion) that the greatest damage is actually done by those that call themselves Conservatives.  GK Chesterton once stated:

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types--the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine."
We all know the madness that progressives wish to thrust upon us and can clearly point out the inherent problems with their thinking.  Yet too many are so willing to let the so called conservatives get away with taking a stance that is untrue and even damaging to the well being of others.  The greatest attestation to progressives that we can give is that they are very much against the truth.  Yet the conservatives who seemingly play on the right side of things are more than willing to forego their stated "principles" in favor of compromise.  Such people are neither hot or cold like their counterparts in progressive movement, but are lukewarm opting for a mutual non-aggression pact so as not to create tension.  And don't think this is limited to the secular world.  Take for instance the vice presidential debate from the 2012 elections where Joe Biden was called out for his visual support of abortionists.  Left untouched by the so called orthodox Catholic Media was how Congressman Paul Ryan was more than willing to compromise his "stated position" as being fully pro-life so as not to cause a notable difference between himself and Mitt Romney during the presidential run.  I can think of no one that called him out for being lukewarm on this matter, for seeking compromise with the practitioners of death out of convenience.  In fact the only one I remember saying anything about this was...well Voris...but thats obvious and hes obviously wrong because hes just a reactinary, anti-Vatican II, uncharitable bigot...Right?

But I want to now get into another so called conservative/libertarian that is often credited for being a standard bearer, and controversial at the same time.  Im speaking here of one of my favorite talkers Glenn Beck (and I actually do like his show, but some days he just makes me face palm), who today on his radio show was calling on all people of good will, especially Christians to come together and defend those in the Middle East who are under fire.  I can agree with him here, I too hope that people of good will can come together on this issue specifically and push for peace in the region.  Yet the ends don't justify the means, and in this case the way that he went about calling for this is a means that violates the truth so bad that it creates false groundwork where peace is supposed to be built on.

So what did he say, you might ask that has caused this dumber ox to write up a million word TPS report on the matter?  Simply this: He stated that people need to come together and not act as the early Christians who refused to help each other because they looked at each other as not being Christian and therefore forewent their responsibility to protect each other.  Now fore context sake Mr. Beck is an apostate Catholic, turned remarried gossip here its out there and its freely admitted.  First consider that this statement is being made by a Mormon who believes that the Church went wrong following the death of St. John, and that the Church (both East and West) was the result of Constantine's decree and therefore a man made institution built on worldly power despite the one they professed.  But moving past this, the Church did not look on the others, even the Monophysites (Coptic Orthodox) as being unworthy of help.  Mr. Beck so often will bring up topics like the Crusades or the Inquisition in passing to gin up feelings among non-Catholics to as to make a point.  As compotent as Mr. Beck might be on American ideals and history, he is not competent on Church history including relations among the major Sees, nor is he competent about the crusades or the inquisition.  He is the same on that will condemn the Crusades outright as being evil, while condemning the Earliest Christians for not fighting.  Well which way does he want it?  If he took off his Americanist glasses for but a moment and delved into the early church he would notice that the Roman Pontiff only took the step of allowing the crusade when getting the appeal from the semi-schismatic Greeks (at the time) calling for help.  So too the early church didnt battle for each other because physical violence wasn't necessary.  If his point is that we were not fighting for the rights of Arians, Pelegians or other heretics at the time he misunderstands rights and tolerance.  No one has a right to error, they might hold to it and do so against the very wishes of Christ, but its not inherent that they have a right to do so.  If someone cuts themselves off from the Church and refuses the Churches council, how can you help them?  The answer is that you cant.  Help is freely offered and freely received, if one of those things are violated we have disorder.

My point is that conservatives are just as guilty as progressives in putting forth deceit (known or not).  Truth does not belong to either party and the ends don't justify the means, and the Truth is worth fighting for because it is a person.



No comments:

Post a Comment