Canada is Free and Freedom is Its Nationality

Sir Wilfrid Laurier

Monday, December 7, 2009

Event Blogging the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium: Not by Accident

Please Note: This is a summary of the events and speeches in my own words for educational, information, and entertainment purposes only. It is not the speakers' exact words and should not be taken as such. It also may contain errors due to the nature of the medium. I am not responsible for any of them, use at your own risk and consult the official audio record if you want to verify or quote anything.

Richard Bastien is an Associate Fellow with the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies. He studied public finance at the University of Montreal and at Harvard University. He spent most of his career working as an economist in the Canadian Ministry of Finance, specializing in international finance

Liberalism is the dominant ideology today, the zeitgeist of our time. It affects all of our institutions from governments to churches.

Their creed is I am my own god, Contrary to Greek philosophers they believe that there is no objective good and evil. To them, we are compelled to treat all human desires and preferences as equal.

They claim that moral knowledge is impossible but through the back door they bring in their own set of moral values. There is nothing beyond ourselves, no meaning or order beyond what man imposes himself.

Liberalism says we must be tolerant of everything, but they impose their own standards in the same breath.

Liberalism must be neutral but this claim to moral neutrality betrays their fatal flaw. You cannot be committed to liberalism without being committed to an objective standard such as tolerance or peace, which is not a neutral.

Neutrality is not difficult, it is impossible.

There is a moral law recognized in every man.

This moral law came from the Jewish people, to the Greeks before Christianity even began.

This moral law is not an expression of any religion but it is expressive of an unchanging universal order.

Liberals are not neutral. They are ushering in their own agenda, secularism. Secularism means that there is no transcendence, There are no limits on human freedom except those that we put on it. Freedom and dignity are merely defences we have placed to safeguard are interests. Religion is immature.

Liberalism ultimately destroys all freedoms.

Under it's banner family, state, church, relationships, sexuality, etc are revalued.

Liberalism must destroy the old order to bring in the new one. It is a spirit of destruction.

In their view the heart of liberty is one's own right to define the nature of the universe.

Our culture is redefining human rights at every turn. For example we give people a right to an abortion which violates the child's right to life.

They are imposing their morality on all society, just as they accuse conservatives of doing.

Moral decisions before left to society are now made by technocrats and "experts'.

It is not objectionable that they have a moral agenda, what is objectionable is that they claim not to.

Liberalism negates both nature and culture.

Liberalism holds to the view espoused by Nietzsche that the whole Christian moral framework is against life. It is the one great curse, one great travesty, one great principle of revenge. We must be saved by the transvaluation of all values.

Today we have nihilism dressed in glittering garbs, it is a century of alluring nihilism.

Political correctness says that western society has been a history of white, male, heterosexual, Christian bigotry that excluded and victimized others. Therefore past social stigmas must be abolished.and preference must given to victims, as part of trying to destroy our traditional culture.

The Quebec religious course that is now taught in all schools, even private religious ones, attempts to show that all religions are equally correct because they are equally subjectives

Liberalism must understand where it came from. It is the political wing of modernism.

Modernism denies transcendence. In their worldview all is logic, propositions, things that are testable and science. Thus religion is irrational

Modernism in saying that only logic is valid, is arguing in circles and is thus irrational at it's core.

It says man is the measure of all things. That there can be no real certitude. Our senses and our brain are everything. We are pragmatic, ideas are believed if they work.

Liberalism is practical atheism. It says that religion is irration. However this is an irrational stand because you cannot prove a universal absolute.

There are two questions; Who is God? and Does God Exist?

"Who God Is?" is a question of faith.

"Does God Exist?" is philosophy and a matter of reason.

Why is there something rather than nothing? If we say there is no answer to that we must say their is no such thing as reason and meaning, a self defeating position.

Liberalism must get religion out of the public square because they have their own faith, priesthood, and dogma.

We must be clear about ideology more than we need to focus on reclaiming institutions. We are in the midst of a religious war between Christianity and Liberalsim

The Enlightenment concept of reason is more limited than the Greek or medieval view. It says only scientific reason is reason.

Modern and post-modern reason exclude God because he cannot be scientifically tested. The only thing worth studying is that which can be measured.

Modern man understands himself less well because he is obsessed with himself. Man is incomprehensible to himself without God.

We cannot solve the problem because we are the problem. We are a mystery to ourselves.

Science says we will solve that mystery, but the reality is that man is much more than anything science can measure.

Liberalism can only say morals are from fellow feeling. They come from the idea that your suffering is just as important than mine.

This leaves out the problem of evil. Why is their evil? 

There are three possible answers:

Ignorance. This Socratic idea has been discredited because smart and educated people do evil. Moral law is also written on the heart of man.

Faulty social engineering. This Enlightenment idea is faulty because it is used by people to impose their will on others and the results are actually inhumane in the end.

Original sin, the Christian idea.

Liberalism cannot deal with evil because it is not a scientific thing. Because of this they seldom condemn evil regimes or differentiate between religions because they see all gods as figments of the imagination.

Liberalism cannot see intelligible things as they are. They explain Islamist attacks as crimes which are a result as victimhood. They cannot see them as an act of war.

In the Judeo-Christian philosophy the line between good and evil is not drawn between nations or parties, but through each human heart.

Liberalism says we should act in public as if there is no God. History would say opposite. Our freedoms were brought in my Judeo-Christians. In fact, Liberals should act as if God exists. Their liberties flow from a religion.

Freedom can only be freedom to do something. It must be in service of some higher good. That good can only come from our Judeo-Christian tradition.

Q1 Question about the practical application of this division. He is an atheist who, despite his beliefs, believes in moral absolutes. Wouldn't what you say alienate some in the free speech cause? He objects to the liberal monopoly in the war of ideas.

A1 We are witnessing a monopoly. You say you are a secular atheist but believe in religious freedoms. However there is a logic to philosophical atheism and liberalism that does not allow for freedoms in the long run. You might believe in freedom because of your Judeo-Christian capital, but there are some things in the long run you cannot tolerate. How can you not tolerate abortion? But that is killing a human being. In the historical record we have had two experiences with atheist societies. Nazis and communist. Look at their record.

Q2 He is a physicist but interested in this topic because they are interested in the theory of everything, the unified field theory. There is a radical confusion between the words “every thing” (all things) and “everything” (which includes God, morals). I endorse what the other questioner had to say although he is a Christian. He likes to say that it is important for the people whom he dialogues with that he is Catholic, so there is an authentic dialogue. You seem to reference a competition between atheism and Christian. He sees the competition as being between Judeo-Christianity and scientific materialism. We should keep dialogue open for everyone who wants to use reason.

A2 Agree

Q3 You believe that people are able to be good without God. Is there room within social conservatism for charity and generosity for righteous pagans?

A3 Of course, was there anything he said that would bring that into doubt? Of course dialogue is within the Judeo-Christian heritage. Lack of dialogue is a problem with Liberalism.

Q4 With the World Youth Alliance they support human rights and are into practical agreements between people with different ideologies.

A4 Can there be dialogue between different religions and ideas? Yes. All philosophy has metaphysics. There must be a dialogue. That is what we are pleading for, but it is being denied by liberalism.

No comments:

Post a Comment