But fortunately, the United States is not like Canada. Most Canadians I've met tend to be adherents of PC liberalism, spouting their empty-minded nonsense about tolerance and embracing moral relativism, and claiming to be morally superior as a result. (Some Catholics are immune to this, but not all.) Moreover, multiculturalism continues to be the dominant ideology among the political and intellectual elites, and among inhabitants of certain cities and provinces. There is no real respect for European culture, or its particular Anglo form, as would be manifest by a public defense of it.
It is not difficult to see why critics of immigration are right in saying the elites of both countries have betrayed the people by further shredding the cultural matrix that holds the community together and gives it direction.
I can respect someone who follows his tradition out of humility more than the supposed liberal 'free-thinker' who is merely repeating what he has been indoctrinated in without realizing it. The latter denigrates the former as being a 'blind' follower, when very often the liberals are as blind, if not more so, since they do not question their assumptions or see the inconsistencies.
This is more evidence that certain laws need to be divinely revealed, even those that could be discovered by human reason alone. The plainly evident consequences of Original sin to those who believe--more on this if I finish the commentary on a post by Peter Hitchens.
It is incorrect to infer that someone who is ignorant of the Law has rejected God, but the pride that often accompanies the blindness does lead one to make those sort of generalizations.
It's also bizarre--the enforcers of PCness I've encountered online at a certain forum are often women [not a few of whom are Chinese women living in Canada], who inevitably attempt to end the discussion of the morality of actions by making assertions about the intolerance and closed-mindedness of their opponents, as if one must not only "tolerate" people or certain behaviors but differing opinions about behavior as well, by refusing to judge which opinions are correct and which are not. (In which case that assertion could be applied to them as well, since they are being intolerant of my supposed intolerance. But of course they 'feel' morally justified in doing so, because [only] they care about other people. So that's that. Charity or benevolence that tells people that what they are doing is wrong and cannot lead to happiness is just an impossibility for them.)
How often do people turn a discussion of human goods and the morality of actions into something personal, as if by saying x is wrong the exponent is simultaneously condemning those who hold to an opposite opinion or live at variance with this norm as being guilty of some vice. Unfortunately this sort of wrong-headed (fuzzy-wuzzy) sympathy (which leads to such fallacious reasoning) is very widespread, and usually our institutions of 'learning' have neither the skill nor the desire to counter it.
The knowledge of right and wrong has been replaced by a sentimentalism combined with liberal consequentialism. (Having a good intention justifies almost anything, and the only thing that is clearly wrong is physically injuring or killing someone else once he is born... or past a certain age... or possessing 'consciousness'... or... )
If non-Christians assimilate in such societies, it is more likely that they will adopt secular liberalism than the Christian tradition, no? The self-destruction of the West, indeed.
MacIntyre has much to say about emotivism and the contemporary impasse in the discussion of moral issues. Chapter 2 of MacIntyre's After Virtue is available online: Emotivism and Moral Disagreement (pdf)
An accompanying theological puzzle here.
Fr. Stephen Torraco on Fundamental Option theory
JPII, Veritatis Splendor
"A necessary supplement to Clausewitz"
23 minutes ago