Tuesday, June 30, 2015

David Brooks gets paid big bucks to make no sense at all

Take his latest NYT column.

He spends the first several paragraphs giving Christians and "social conservatives" backhanded compliments, gushing about how much he admires them.

Then he tells them they have to face a hard truth:

Put aside a culture war that has alienated large parts of three generations from any consideration of religion or belief. Put aside an effort that has been a communications disaster, reducing a rich, complex and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex. Put aside a culture war that, at least over the near term, you are destined to lose.

Then he implores them to wage "a different kind of culture war":

We live in a society plagued by formlessness and radical flux, in which bonds, social structures and commitments are strained and frayed. Millions of kids live in stressed and fluid living arrangements. Many communities have suffered a loss of social capital. Many young people grow up in a sexual and social environment rendered barbaric because there are no common norms. Many adults hunger for meaning and goodness, but lack a spiritual vocabulary to think things through.
Social conservatives could be the people who help reweave the sinews of society. They already subscribe to a faith built on selfless love. They can serve as examples of commitment. They are equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong, what dignifies and what demeans. They already, but in private, tithe to the poor and nurture the lonely.

The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life.
This culture war is more Albert Schweitzer and Dorothy Day than Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham; more Salvation Army than Moral Majority. It’s doing purposefully in public what social conservatives already do in private.

I guess poor David is utterly unable to make the syllogistic connection between strained bonds, social structures and commitments and the damn sexual revolution that he proclaims is here to stay.  No sir, no way to prove that a chaotic society logically follows from a view of sex in which immediate gratification of self is its primary purpose.

Sorry, Dave, we're not taking the bait. Especially when you think Dorothy Day has more to offer post-America at this evil juncture than Franklin Graham.

No comments:

Post a Comment