Can a democratic republic work?

As noted in my last post, it was proposed (from the Introduction to The Closing of the American Mind) that the Founding Fathers believed:

From the earliest beginnings of liberal thought there was a tendency in the direction of indiscriminate freedom. Hobbes and Locke, and the American founders following them, intended to palliate extreme beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, which lead to civil strife. The members of sects had to obey the laws and be loyal to the Constitution; if they did so, others had to leave them alone, however distasteful their beliefs might be. In order to make this arrangement work, there was a conscious, if covert, effort to weaken religious beliefs, partly by assigning ... religion to the realm of opinion as opposed to knowledge.

Going forward, it seems that Mr. Bloom is proposing (at least in the introduction) that the current problem of relativism can be traced to minority groups wanting to remain distinguishable from a conforming mass of people under the Constitution as designed in the quote above.

Granted, I haven’t finished the book (or even the introduction), but there seems to be an inherent problem here. It is turned on its head. Relativism would be the result of “assigning ... religion to the realm of opinion as opposed to knowledge”, not the other way around.

The result of core sets of beliefs being converted into simple opinions of equal value would then give rise to every minority group (defining minority not by race, but by any belief whim) wanting their agendas to be given equal value.

Because there may be real resistance, eventually, this want becomes a demand, causing chaos - such as we are witnessing today – to the extent of again turning things on their heads: unorthodox beliefs being demanding acceptance as knowledge/fact, and traditional beliefs being regulated to the dustbin at best and outlawed at worst. (It is clear that in the current climate the simple acceptance of a coexistence of the homosexual/transgender/etc. agenda is not enough. Beliefs opposed to these agendas, even if held privately or by a church, will not be tolerated in any form.)

Is the constitutional republic as we know it inherently unworkable in the long term, or is it a function of other influences at this particular time in history? Would returning things to a previous order of beliefs under the same constitutional system simply repeat the process?

More on this later, including possibly some thoughts (by Russell Shaw) peculiar to Catholicism in American from the book American Church.

Oremus pro invicem!

Years ago I bought an "important" conservative book, but apparently never read much of it, as only the 3rd page had a dog ear.

Started it again, and came across this in the first few pages:

From the earliest beginnings of liberal thought there was a tendency in the direction of indiscriminate freedom. Hobbes and Locke, and the American founders following them, intended to palliate extreme beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, which lead to civil strife. The members of sects had to obey the laws and be loyal to the Constitution; if they did so, others had to leave them alone, however distasteful their beliefs might be. In order to make this arrangement work, there was a conscious, if covert, effort to weaken religious beliefs, partly by assigning ... religion to the realm of opinion as opposed to knowledge. (my emphasis.)

Having just finished Russell Shaw's American Church, this quote, seems relevant. Many American Catholics become good "Americans" whose religious beliefs are just opinions, as good as everyone else's? This explains dissent, cafeteria Catholicism, etc.

 

Oremus pro invicem!

Reading now ....

“Reading” audio version of Crime and Punishment. It has been years since I first read it, but C&P retains its relevance.

Almost finished a first time read of The Three Musketeers. I can see its attraction (swashbuckling adventure) for a younger reader, but the proliferation and acceptance of mistresses by the protagonist(s) is a turn off for me. One redeeming feature of this tale is the chapter entitled "Bethune". Just the title, not the content.

Am also reading American Church (or the Cardinal Gibbons Legacy?) by Russell Shaw. Shaw always is very readable. (Am I biased because he was a Requiem Press author?)

I am not very far into it, but can tell it will bring insight into how the Catholic Church in America got to its present state with relation to American society and culture. (In some respects, the Requiem Press title by John Meehan The Two Towers gives some insight into this also.) The telling point will be the predication or suggestions for the future which come at the end. I think it may be very timely especially if you throw in the traditional vs. modernistic (and suddenly American) view of marriage (see news on the variance between the San Diego and Philadelphia dioceses’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.)

Oremus pro invicem!

Snow

This week there are many trips to the airport as sons and their (at least one) fiancée leave to go back to where they came from.

 

Now it is getting hazardous as we have a winter storm.

 

May all travelers be safe.

 

Oremus pro invicem!