An amazing conversation. In particular, I loved the how religious, philosophical and constitutional perspectives came into alignment. And I cannot agree more with the need for a realignment of the university system toward its fundamental goals.
Social Justice is not anti-religious or anti-Christian, it is a secular heresy of Christianity—remember, "heresy" doesn't necessarily mean refutation, but simply an unauthorized offshoot.
Both belief systems place a sacred victim at the center of our moral universe, with this sacred victim (in the SJ case "the marginalized") the deciding factor in every decision, the being/entity we should pray and atone toward; both are built more or less on "The first shall be last and the last shall be first"; both have a Damned and Elect and Original Sin etc etc.
Christianity's foundations (at least in the West) began to crumble quite awhile ago and it was ripe for a hostile takeover by an ideology morally similar yet radically different (the SJ universe being entirely human and political), and it also makes sense that Christianity would be dethroned by the same tool it used to kill off the pagans: slave morality. What can a Christian say when a blue-haired They tells them that the entire meaning and purpose of life should be about healing and restoring the sacred victim, but this time the people who play the role of Judean peasants in the Roman Empire are Trans children and poor black people, the great victims of Western Christian civilization? This is just a warped mirror-image version of the moral beliefs all Westerners have been raised with for centuries.
"Christianity's impact on the West is a tribute to the power of its basic conception, which is the absolute centrality of the position of the victim." (Eric Gans)
Hi CP. Interesting theory. But of course SJ wishes to displace all religions making it anti-religious. Unless, I suppose, you are saying it is a religion, hence it is not anti-religious. But that does not sound logical. For me, SJ feels more like a Caliphate or Marxism that wants to control every aspect of life. Nothing western here. Although SJ has been very disruptive, its success comes primarily from academia and the minds it warps. Thankfully, IMHO, once we shine a light on it, and dismantle the SJ machine, it will be limited. The "people" are not generally supportive of SJ or hate, in general. They just don't understand SJ is borne in hate. But hey, I could be falsely engaged in wishful thinking.
As for whether or not SJ is a religion, I would split the difference and call it a political religion, which I've seen defined as:
"Political religion is the sacralization of a political system founded on an unchallengeable monopoly of power, ideological monism, and the obligatory and unconditional subordination of the individual and the collectivity to its code of commandments. Consequently, a political religion is intolerant, invasive, and fundamentalist, and it wishes to permeate every aspect of an individual’s life and of a society’s collective life."
While at the same time adding that SJ does provide people (mostly the young, secular and alienated) with meaning, purpose, community, morality etc in ways that mimic or replicate religion.
I agree with what you say about the hate part, underneath all the clouds of dogma there is a seething resentment and a desire for vengeance, but I agree with Chris' longer historical view: the problem here is that the New Left has seized the means of cultural production and that these people have conquered most of our educational establishment, from kindergarten to the Ivy League.
That's why I always compare Chris to Hercules and the Augean Stables: there's a whole lot of manure that's gonna have to get cleaned up...
I just spoke to a friend who is a retired Catholic nun. She had not heard of Chris Rufo, but she had DEFINITELY heard of Bishop Barron. I guess Bishop Barron is a VERY big deal, according to the nun. I sent her a copy of the interview. She had never heard of the "woke" phenomenon, so I thought this might give her a bit of an introduction.
Something of an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. "Catholic theologian" is probably more accurate and honest.
But this other comment by Christopher is just as "problematic":
CR: "... rejection of any natural limits and using technology to transcend not just the categories of male and female, which are embedded in the human experience, but all the way down ...."
"all the way down" might have some merit as much of "gender ideology" is no better than the "merging of science, magic, and religion" -- as Canadian physician & cultural anthropologist Sahar Sadjadi once put it:
Though that is maybe partly why the religionists are up in arms -- "transgressing" on their turf. Hence the charges of "heretic!!" 🙄
But too many in that same camp seem to "think" that there's some magical and "immutable" "essence" to "male" and "female" in the first place:
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
But by standard biological definitions for the sexes, "male" and "female" denote ONLY those with functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless; see the Glossary:
Don't know about "transcending" those categories, but transwomen who cut their nuts off don't "change sex" -- as Christopher once suggested; they just change themselves into sexless eunuchs:
Major part of the whole problem with transgenderism is that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin has entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for the sexes -- and for "gender" which is an even bigger dog's breakfast. Includes too many "biologists", "psychologists", and "social scientists". Don't think the problem is going to be resolved until more people are willing and able to define exactly what they mean by those terms:
“ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
True. He also came to the faith through St. Thomas Aquinas as a 15 year old, and through his deeply intellectual arguments. Bishop Barron encompasses (and often reference) the whole canopy of Western prophane philosophy, but then moves far beyond the scope of purely secular thinkers.
It’s clear from Steersman’s use of terms like “religionists” that he thinks “intellectual” necessitates being a secular atheist. Nonsense, but quite common in atheist leftist circles.
The capitalist "substructure" appears to me to be promoting the neo-Marxist "superstructure." We have "woke" corporations and the ESG scores and DIE policies throughout all sorts of businesses and as part of corporate culture. Isn't this contrary to the long-term interests of capitalists or those working in capitalist economies? Why are entities primarily concerned with earning profits adopting these mechanisms of policing ideological correctness? Does the neo-Marxist agenda include hollowing out the capitalist superstructure and owning it? Will a corporation make more profits on its widgets if it's got a neo-Marxist orientation? If so, how?
Is the neo-Marxist ideology that compatible with capitalist free-market systems? More broadly, what's the connection between a culture and an economic system?
@Christopher F. Rufo Dear Mr. Rufo. I write under the inspiration of your person, the values and views you preach. Your great discussions (including the recent one with Bishop Barron), writings and documentaries provide a very factual argument in the fight against the ‘new culture’. I have written a personal letter to you and would like to pass it on to you. I would be honored to get in touch with you.
Please allow me to include a very brief bio:
Konrad Milewski, author of ‘Escape from the American Cage’. Activist for a better America, whose vision ensures the flourishing of humanity - with the guarantee of interpersonal solidarity, free market forces, democracy, a militarily strong state and law derived from morality originating from the highest ideal, the Creator. A promoter of a culture based on Christian values and Christian vision of the world. A proclaimer that Truth, Dignity and Love - along with the right to life, to freedom and happiness flowing from the opportunity to ensure a decent life and a personal relationship with God - are inalienable rights and properties of every human being. A preacher that personal freedom must always be linked to taking full personal responsibility for words, behaviors, and actions. Man has free will and constantly makes moral choices. Coordinator of international humanitarian efforts. Experienced life and well-being coach. Experienced in international leadership, information technology, digital transformation, and innovation management in multinational companies. Married and father of three children. He was born in Poland, in Europe. Lives and works in the US - as a first-generation immigrant. A follower of Christ. Devoted Catholic.
Um, no. he is not. This is an instance of Rufo’s (who does excellent work on many issues) essentially ‘90s normie conservative nature coming through. Barron is good in many ways, and far better than most of the present hierarchy, but not the country’s “leading Catholic intellectual” by a long way.
I'm not Catholic but am a Christian and I'm glad you talked about this. It is absolutely an anti human movement.
Appreciate it!
A wonderful conversation. Thanks
For your enjoyment, Jordan Peterson
https://youtu.be/ArULvNzyxxY?si=ehyUs3Hd011Mx28y
Both good men!
An amazing conversation. In particular, I loved the how religious, philosophical and constitutional perspectives came into alignment. And I cannot agree more with the need for a realignment of the university system toward its fundamental goals.
Social Justice is not anti-religious or anti-Christian, it is a secular heresy of Christianity—remember, "heresy" doesn't necessarily mean refutation, but simply an unauthorized offshoot.
Both belief systems place a sacred victim at the center of our moral universe, with this sacred victim (in the SJ case "the marginalized") the deciding factor in every decision, the being/entity we should pray and atone toward; both are built more or less on "The first shall be last and the last shall be first"; both have a Damned and Elect and Original Sin etc etc.
Christianity's foundations (at least in the West) began to crumble quite awhile ago and it was ripe for a hostile takeover by an ideology morally similar yet radically different (the SJ universe being entirely human and political), and it also makes sense that Christianity would be dethroned by the same tool it used to kill off the pagans: slave morality. What can a Christian say when a blue-haired They tells them that the entire meaning and purpose of life should be about healing and restoring the sacred victim, but this time the people who play the role of Judean peasants in the Roman Empire are Trans children and poor black people, the great victims of Western Christian civilization? This is just a warped mirror-image version of the moral beliefs all Westerners have been raised with for centuries.
"Christianity's impact on the West is a tribute to the power of its basic conception, which is the absolute centrality of the position of the victim." (Eric Gans)
Interesting perspective. Will need to give it some serious thought.
There is a professor of philosophy at Assumption College named Molly Brigid McGrath whose written some interesting things about this:
https://lawliberty.org/forum/social-justice-rites-sacrificial-politics-sacred-victims/
https://philpapers.org/versions/MCGTAO-14
She is well worth reading.
Thanks!
Hi CP. Interesting theory. But of course SJ wishes to displace all religions making it anti-religious. Unless, I suppose, you are saying it is a religion, hence it is not anti-religious. But that does not sound logical. For me, SJ feels more like a Caliphate or Marxism that wants to control every aspect of life. Nothing western here. Although SJ has been very disruptive, its success comes primarily from academia and the minds it warps. Thankfully, IMHO, once we shine a light on it, and dismantle the SJ machine, it will be limited. The "people" are not generally supportive of SJ or hate, in general. They just don't understand SJ is borne in hate. But hey, I could be falsely engaged in wishful thinking.
Hi,
As for whether or not SJ is a religion, I would split the difference and call it a political religion, which I've seen defined as:
"Political religion is the sacralization of a political system founded on an unchallengeable monopoly of power, ideological monism, and the obligatory and unconditional subordination of the individual and the collectivity to its code of commandments. Consequently, a political religion is intolerant, invasive, and fundamentalist, and it wishes to permeate every aspect of an individual’s life and of a society’s collective life."
While at the same time adding that SJ does provide people (mostly the young, secular and alienated) with meaning, purpose, community, morality etc in ways that mimic or replicate religion.
I agree with what you say about the hate part, underneath all the clouds of dogma there is a seething resentment and a desire for vengeance, but I agree with Chris' longer historical view: the problem here is that the New Left has seized the means of cultural production and that these people have conquered most of our educational establishment, from kindergarten to the Ivy League.
That's why I always compare Chris to Hercules and the Augean Stables: there's a whole lot of manure that's gonna have to get cleaned up...
Well said.
thanks!
A very nice discussion. There were so many spots in this conversation where I could tell that there is a lot more to explore.
Thanks!
I just spoke to a friend who is a retired Catholic nun. She had not heard of Chris Rufo, but she had DEFINITELY heard of Bishop Barron. I guess Bishop Barron is a VERY big deal, according to the nun. I sent her a copy of the interview. She had never heard of the "woke" phenomenon, so I thought this might give her a bit of an introduction.
Great! Yes, Bishop Baron is deservedly very well known in Catholic circles.
"Catholic intellectual"?
Something of an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. "Catholic theologian" is probably more accurate and honest.
But this other comment by Christopher is just as "problematic":
CR: "... rejection of any natural limits and using technology to transcend not just the categories of male and female, which are embedded in the human experience, but all the way down ...."
"all the way down" might have some merit as much of "gender ideology" is no better than the "merging of science, magic, and religion" -- as Canadian physician & cultural anthropologist Sahar Sadjadi once put it:
https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/3728
Though that is maybe partly why the religionists are up in arms -- "transgressing" on their turf. Hence the charges of "heretic!!" 🙄
But too many in that same camp seem to "think" that there's some magical and "immutable" "essence" to "male" and "female" in the first place:
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
But by standard biological definitions for the sexes, "male" and "female" denote ONLY those with functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless; see the Glossary:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Don't know about "transcending" those categories, but transwomen who cut their nuts off don't "change sex" -- as Christopher once suggested; they just change themselves into sexless eunuchs:
https://christopherrufo.com/p/house-of-horrors-988/comment/16583265
Major part of the whole problem with transgenderism is that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin has entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for the sexes -- and for "gender" which is an even bigger dog's breakfast. Includes too many "biologists", "psychologists", and "social scientists". Don't think the problem is going to be resolved until more people are willing and able to define exactly what they mean by those terms:
“ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
Yes, theologian is accurate, but the way that he engages with the public and in secular debates makes it fair, in my mind, to also use “intellectual.”
True. He also came to the faith through St. Thomas Aquinas as a 15 year old, and through his deeply intellectual arguments. Bishop Barron encompasses (and often reference) the whole canopy of Western prophane philosophy, but then moves far beyond the scope of purely secular thinkers.
It’s clear from Steersman’s use of terms like “religionists” that he thinks “intellectual” necessitates being a secular atheist. Nonsense, but quite common in atheist leftist circles.
The capitalist "substructure" appears to me to be promoting the neo-Marxist "superstructure." We have "woke" corporations and the ESG scores and DIE policies throughout all sorts of businesses and as part of corporate culture. Isn't this contrary to the long-term interests of capitalists or those working in capitalist economies? Why are entities primarily concerned with earning profits adopting these mechanisms of policing ideological correctness? Does the neo-Marxist agenda include hollowing out the capitalist superstructure and owning it? Will a corporation make more profits on its widgets if it's got a neo-Marxist orientation? If so, how?
Is the neo-Marxist ideology that compatible with capitalist free-market systems? More broadly, what's the connection between a culture and an economic system?
Yes, I address these exact questions in my book!
@Christopher F. Rufo Dear Mr. Rufo. I write under the inspiration of your person, the values and views you preach. Your great discussions (including the recent one with Bishop Barron), writings and documentaries provide a very factual argument in the fight against the ‘new culture’. I have written a personal letter to you and would like to pass it on to you. I would be honored to get in touch with you.
Please allow me to include a very brief bio:
Konrad Milewski, author of ‘Escape from the American Cage’. Activist for a better America, whose vision ensures the flourishing of humanity - with the guarantee of interpersonal solidarity, free market forces, democracy, a militarily strong state and law derived from morality originating from the highest ideal, the Creator. A promoter of a culture based on Christian values and Christian vision of the world. A proclaimer that Truth, Dignity and Love - along with the right to life, to freedom and happiness flowing from the opportunity to ensure a decent life and a personal relationship with God - are inalienable rights and properties of every human being. A preacher that personal freedom must always be linked to taking full personal responsibility for words, behaviors, and actions. Man has free will and constantly makes moral choices. Coordinator of international humanitarian efforts. Experienced life and well-being coach. Experienced in international leadership, information technology, digital transformation, and innovation management in multinational companies. Married and father of three children. He was born in Poland, in Europe. Lives and works in the US - as a first-generation immigrant. A follower of Christ. Devoted Catholic.
https://www.americancage.org/
konradinio@gmail.com
“American’s leading Catholic intellectual?”
Um, no. he is not. This is an instance of Rufo’s (who does excellent work on many issues) essentially ‘90s normie conservative nature coming through. Barron is good in many ways, and far better than most of the present hierarchy, but not the country’s “leading Catholic intellectual” by a long way.
Who would you suggest is a more prominent figure than Bishop Barron?