Capt. Ed delved into his own bit of moral relativism today in his post on Sovereignty...its everywhere. Ed is usually pretty good and very intelligent on world history.

Victor Davis Hanson is always good to see through Moral Equivalence b.s.

Charles Johnson has lost his marbles, and while on the topic John Derbyshire should' be kicked out of the Corner bloggers.

I would guess the point of "conservatism" in this instance would be to provide an opposition to liberalism that masquerades as conservative but is itself liberal in its fundamental assumptions and beliefs to prevent a genuine conservatism from re-asserting itself in its place.

I'm not claiming that this is anyone's conscious intention but it seems to be the practical effect.

I have a problem w/people not being able to see the path Europe has gone down bit by bit also not seeing that the journey of 1K miles in the US will begin w/a single step. This isn't the first (muzzy taxi drivers not carrying seeing-eye dogs/alcohol; footbaths in the airport) but we are getting more intrusions month by month. How many islamic crap-rules will we have to kowtow to before folks see it as crap?

The Muslims keep forgetting that globalization works both ways. On one hand, Muslims can organize their little jihad campaigns all around the world using the internet. On the other hand, we infidels can talk to one another and warn one another. And we still outnumber the Muslims 5:1, but in kill ratios, we usually outnumber them 50:1. With the size of the world shrinking, infidels are beginning to get a clue.

Since moral equivalence atheists are a demographic dead end, it looks like the rest of us will have to handle the problem. BTW, neither AP nor Charles Johnson are married and neither have kids, which kind of makes my point that the atheists don't reproduce.

Capt. Ed delved into his own bit of moral relativism today in his post on Sovereignty...its everywhere. Ed is usually pretty good and very intelligent on world history.
jp

I am not sure.

Help me out here.

I like Ed's comment here.

Then other HA commentators talk about the Serbian atrocities, while neglecting the historical fact that every side was guilty and had blood on their hands. Personally, I supported USA intervention against Serbian forces to prevent further bloodshed. I just wonder why the US involvement was not more balanced and equitable across all sides.

I like much of what this HA dude said here.

Okay, I was listening to this guy, and then he just lost me. I realize there are differences between Kosovo and Georgia. I support US intervention to stop Serbian genocide, and wish intervention had occurred to stop the other side's bloody hands as well. Furthermore, I hope that the US sends 2 carrier groups to the Black Sea, because I am upset that Russia has invaded sovereign Georgia terrority south of South Ossetia. Russia has invaded a sovereign country named Georgia. That is the issue for me.

I finally found a comment I like:

Capt’n: you were right about this when you wrote about it on your old Blog, and you’re right here; our dichotomous approach on this, has directly lead to Russia’s justification for the intervention in Georgia; and once you tie into the Left’s penchant for aggravating Seperatist tendancies around the world, by trying to classify EVERYONE as some form of Aggrieved/Victim “Minority”, thus highlighting and exacerbating Religious, Ethnic, Cultural, and Nationalistic conflicts and splits; we face not only abroad, but here at home, a very real danger of not only the fracturing of our own country and national identity which the Leftist “Democrats” (OxyMORON Alert!) would dearl love and in fact, encourage; but we can also anticipate the continuing fracturing of other nations in the world into essentially unviable competing mini-states split solely along Ethnic, Religious, Cultural, Tribal and Nationalistic lines.

Okay, I now saw this:

It’s pretty odd that Cap’n Ed finds moral equivalency between the West’s actions in Kosovo and Russia’s in Georgia. The root cause of Russia’s actions is Georgia’s intent to join NATO. Obviously this would be bad for the Russians. So they incite an ethnic minority in order to give them a pretext for either annexing or forcing regime change to a friendly government in Georgia. It’s most like Germany in the years leading up to WWII if anything.

Kosovo as a precedent is just a flimsy pretext Russia is selling the world and Cap’n and others bought it.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on August 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Everyone, including Captain Ed, is aware, I think, of Russia's motives. And those motives had nothing to do with peacekeeping, as everyone knows.

I thought the Captain was arguing, "since the Bush Admin pushed so hard and so quickly for Kosovo independence, that precedent left a bad gameplan for Russia to twist..."

Between Allahpundit's latest and Charles Johnson's recent interest in defending evolution, I've gotta wonder, what are morally-confused atheist "conservatives" conservative of, exactly?
PRCaldude

Their overall goal is to show that evolutionary biology can provide a suitable foundation for conservative thought, without fear of inconsistency. Catholic or some Christian thinkers have appealed to "natural law" in the past. Personally, I think "natural law" is very murky, except in terms of homosexuality and some Bioethics issues. The Reformers have appealed to propositions in Scripture to provide their justification for conservative thought.

Well, those 2 skeptics above reject those approaches.

Forget Hobbs, forget State of Nature, forget Aquinas and the laws of nature,.... and they definitely want us to forget Romans 3:23 and the view of total depravity, which has led most Christians to hold conservative views in the past...As atheists or skeptics, they want to provide an opening for conservative thought on the basis of evolution.

I salute their efforts, but I think their project is futile.

Then again, us Christians have a more difficult task on our hands, with more and more Christians being in the mold of Mike Huckabee who has no understanding on the essentials of proper Government from a Christian perspective.

But then again, maybe I am just another Shiite?

Read the comments here for more "conservative" takes on Christianity: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/270599.php

ColtsFan,

I think there are very very important distinctions to make, the only slack I'll give Capt. Ed here is IF he was trying to explain how people perseve it and the politics of the issue. Under that pretext, of postmodern reletvistic thought that people so easily buy into they don't clearly see the distinctions and I think anyway. Too many that see no distinctions between free societies, autocracies, dictatorships, etc...there actions all appear the same to them

here is the comment, replied back to me that I think gets to the root of this rather well:

jp,

Absolutely right. Cap’n Ed and others are taking the stance that the West’s motives are as sinister as Russia’s smacks of liberal brainwashing. Just because the world media is buying the line that Russia’s attack is somehow justified doesn’t make it so. We bought the same line in the Sudetenland, and it was just as bogus as this current mess will turn out to be.

Real murder was taking place in the Balkans. Murder on a large scale. We stopped it. The West stopped it. What exactly is Russia putting a stop to by overrunning Georgia if not that state’s intent to join NATO? Lest we all forget, NATO exists for mutual *defense*. Defense from expansionist powers. Powers like Russia. If Georgia joined NATO, Russia wouldn’t be able to pull this crap. That’s all this is about. It has nothing to do with the Balkans, tempting though that might be to believe.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on August 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM

and to add, its also about that key Oil Pipeline that runs through Europe, which Oil under the Russian autocracy is key to any power on the worldstage for the remaining KGB to have. Kosovo probably was a bad precedent though.

D. Bahnsen has a pretty good review of Robert Kagans "Return of History, End of Dreams" book at his blog. Its relevant, its the school of thought McCain is coming from. Human Nature and history didn't die when the Soviet Empire fell, nationalistic pride is a powerful force.

btw, according to John Derbyshire at the Corner("conservative" atheist, and a paultard) who went completely nuts over Ben Stein's movie....this is apparently a quote some Darwinian defenders are about to come out with to claim Hitler was a "creationist" and I guess therefore like the Muslims his genocide was rooted in "Creationism" philosophy and not Darwinian, which is of course complete non-sense to the extent of going off the deep end like Charles Johnson is doing in defense.

Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis für die Überlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schöpferkraft geben muss. ("An advantage humans enjoy over animals, and what may be the best proof of their superiority, is that they have grasped there must be the power of a creator.") — Tischgespräche, Feb. 1942.

I'd like to see the rest of that passage and how its being translated, given everything else we know about Hitler's worldview.

Derbyshire is an idiot, you can email him and he'll actually respond. There are educated types like him, Johnson and many others if you read the comments at LGF and ACE, who have been taught textbook science yet are conservative in their politics. i.e. they are smarter overall than the Libs. They think they are defending science I guess, and of course reject God. What is solidifying their views though is their Relativistic thought process and understanding of the Islamist. I think Dennis Prager wrote a good article on this awhile back, the Islam threat is unfortunately making more westerners more secular, they are reluctant to go to the Christian side of this because to them they would be siding on the opposite side of the same un-enlightened coin.

Not really new to conservatism. John Locke was secular, had he been around after Darwin I'm sure he'd be on the same side of this, rejected Natural Law, etc.

I've gotta wonder, what are morally-confused atheist "conservatives" conservative of, exactly?

Themselves.

Remember that discussion we had a while back on the Narcissism that Secular Progressives are growing within our culture?

I'd like to see the rest of that passage and how its being translated, given everything else we know about Hitler's worldview.

August 14, 2008 | jp

See my post above about secular progressive narcissism.

I thought the Captain was arguing, "since the Bush Admin pushed so hard and so quickly for Kosovo independence, that precedent left a bad gameplan for Russia to twist..."

August 14, 2008 | ColtsFan

If that is what he was saying then I kinda agree with it.

The way we went about addressing the problems in Bosnia, Kosovo, etc, seems to be coming around to face us in Georgia.

If we continue to take the side of those attacking our allies, then what's the point of anyone being allied with us?

Our allies may be ignorant, but they are not stupid.

If Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Bana, (who published open literature outlining their plans for the destruction of the West), can't be taken at their word by "conservatives", then what's the point of conservatism, exactly?

I guess it depends on how we define conservative.

Here's the thing we must remember. All these gentlemen are well spoken and have a platform to present their views. The difference is that Spencer, Qutb, and al-Bana actually know what they are talking about and generaly stick to what they know.

And, I guess, this kinda reflects why the Hot Air that M.Malkin envision turned into just another blog after she and Brian left.

Something else to consider is that Spencer, Qutb, et al., understand religion. Secular Humanists like Allahpundit and C.Johnson just think they understand.

In some cases we religious conservatives have common ground with secular conservatives, but in other cases we exist in two separate Kingdoms.

Thanks jp. Here is my take.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on August 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM

I agreed with the quote. But wasn't the Bush Admin. encouragement and active support for Kosovo independence the key issue for Captain Ed? We were the first ones to support Kosovo. We set a bad precedent.

They think they are defending science I guess, and of course reject God. What is solidifying their views though is their Relativistic thought process and understanding of the Islamist. I think Dennis Prager wrote a good article on this awhile back, the Islam threat is unfortunately making more westerners more secular, they are reluctant to go to the Christian side of this because to them they would be siding on the opposite side of the same un-enlightened coin.
jp

Good point. They like to use our "intellectual capital" while at the same time denying the foundation of it.

But here is one thing I have been noticing....whereas AP and LGF and other "conservative atheists" may reject God, they possess a healthy skepticism, negative views of reality, and distrust that propels them to want restraints on big government, spending, etc, that often leads them ultimately back to core conservative positions, (i.e, utopia on Earth is impossible, collectivism is wrong, etc).

The Huckebee crowd scares me. They confuse the individual Christian with the role of government, and they come across saying, "well, we need to be nice"....or "we need to just get along with everybody." The Huckebees or, rather, the "new younger Christian activists" I have met, would rather discuss how we ourselves are destroying the environment, so we need to just get along with the global warming crowd..." Granted, most of these younger folks tend to be emergent church folks, but there is a lot of religious left wing stuff in there.

Not really new to conservatism. John Locke was secular, had he been around after Darwin I'm sure he'd be on the same side of this, rejected Natural Law, etc.
jp

I knew Locke had unorthodox views of Scripture. He was a latitudinarian. But I did not know he was secular.

Granted, he was a full-blown empiricist who advocated a "tabula rasa", denying the a priori character of the mind.

Then other HA commentators talk about the Serbian atrocities, while neglecting the historical fact that every side was guilty and had blood on their hands.

What Serbian "atrocities"? The same "atrocities" the Jews supposedly commit against the Palestinians? It was all a concocted lie, and we bombed the wrong people b/c Clinton needed a distraction during his impeachment hearings. McCain supported the bombing, as well.

well, with Locke I think he's secularlist since he though man was basically good. Thats a fundamental flaw in logic and not biblical to me, this line of thought is what made Jefferson think the French Revolution was the same as the American Revolution and about "Liberty". anyway, he just came to mind in trying to compare conservative atheist/agnostics to past thinkers.

Interestingly, alot of these conservative atheist are alot more libertarian than mainstream conservatives, all for "limited Govt." etc......which if you beleive mankind is basically good it makes sense. What Huckabee gets right I think, is that the lack of Christianity and sin are why we have laws and why even a morally based Libertarianism isnt' fully possible because of it. There was on article he wrote on this that made alot of good points. a pure free market would work great if you take Sin out of the picture. that said, Huckabee goes too far for me on some issues but alot of that is political pressures. they don't have absolute power to do what they want. Huck governed in a democratic controlled state.

I think "natural law" is very murky, except in terms of homosexuality and some Bioethics issues.

Did you read David VanDrunen's "A Biblical Case for Natural Law"?

as for Capt. Ed on this, I understand his point about Kosovo but he seems to go too far for me in making it and when doing this there are great distinctions to point. The US atleast stopped a slaughter, Russia is trying to seize land and oil interest and recreate their evil Empire.

its rather obvious Russia had been planning this play for awhile, their military was ready to launch the invasion in no time after the ruffle in South Ostentia broke out with Georgia. It was a play on their part, working with their Operatives within Osentia....Georgia took the bait and our Media is too stupid to point it out.

plus South Ostentia doesn't want Indpendence really they will be absorbed into Russia if they get away with it. If we completely lie down all of Georgia will along with their oil pipeline, they are testing us.