Tedenski izbor

branje8

Ne more pa gospodarski liberalizem biti udarna točka programa NSi, njihova naslovna zgodba, pozicijski slogan, jedro prepoznavnosti, edinstvena primerjalna prednost (…). Ker to nikakor ni zgodba večinskega potencialnega volivca NSi. Čeprav kakšen nadobuden strankin funkcionar, ki je pravkar odkril eleganco liberalne ekonomske misli, zdaj meni, da ga morajo zato kar naenkrat imeti radi vsi njegovi potencialni volivci. Ki jim v večini primerov za eleganco liberalne misli bolj ali manj visi dol.

(…)

Po vsebini pa mora NSi svoj liberalizem postaviti nekoliko v ozadje in postati, če želite, žlahtna konservativna stranka. Nikar, prosim, ne dovolite, da bi vam asociacija na Kučana za vedno onečedila to lepo besedno zvezo. Raje si tule preberite, kaj naj bi to zares pomenilo: www.kirkcenter.org.

NSi se mora dovolj jasno profilirati, da bo prva izbira za vse krščansko usmerjene volivce, tako tiste, ki bolj stavijo na tekmovalnost in meritokracijo, kot tiste, ki bi v ospredje prej postavili sožitje in solidarnost. Tudi kakšen krščanski socialist se mora prej najti pri njih kot pri kakšni naslednici Zveze komunistov ali pri kakšni skrajni novolevičarski združbi tipa Luka Mesec. Tudi vsem tistim kristjanom, ki so se ob vsaki priložnosti pripravljeni pridušati čez pohlep, sodobni materializem in brezdušni kapitalizem, mora znati pokazati, da ni pravi odgovor zatekanje h karšnemkoli kolektivizmu in centalnoplanskemu etatizmu.

Slovenska krščansko-liberalna stranka? Hm. – Blaž Vodopivec, Finance

***

Desetletje, v katerem se je zgodila finančna, gospodarska in socialna kriza, ko je država zdrknila na obrobje EU, smo se novinarji, politiki, sodniki in odvetniki ukvarjali s Patrio. Medtem ko so druge države iskale poti, kako iz krize, smo mi bojevali versko vojno med dvema religijama, med verniki v “kriv je” in verniki v “ni kriv”.

Proces Patria je samo zgovoren dokaz, da nam je tranzicijska povzpetniška elita ukradla državo, ki je ni sposobna voditi. Tako kot osemletni otrok ni sposoben voziti avtomobila, ker je pač premajhen, nevaren sebi, sopotnikom in drugim udeležencem v prometu, tako naša tranzicijska elita ni sposobna upravljati države v korist in blaginjo vseh državljanov. Ne zmrdujte se nad Hrvati, ki kupujejo naša podjetja, to je za nas sreča, naši politiki jih uničujejo.

Ostaja zgolj vprašanje, ali smo se iz Patrie morda le kaj naučili. Odziv Luke Mesca, da je ustavno sodišče spet pristransko, kaže na to, da se tudi tranzicijski podmladek sploh noče nič naučiti.

Luzerji – Uroš Urbas, Siol.net

***

The entire premise behind diversity is that people’s backgrounds color their perspectives. A deliberative body that lacks racial, gender, and religious diversity will, necessarily, lack a diversity of perspective. A committee with no women will fail to take women’s interests into sufficient account; a board with no black members will be insensitive to black concerns.

(…)

There is the heart of the argument for diversity: Old white men think one way. Young black women think another way. LGBT Latinos think differently from the other two groups, and so on. As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously said, a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

The student questioners at Stanford and UCLA got into hot water because their questions carried an obvious implication: All Jews think alike, don’t they? Or, if not alike, at least in broadly similar ways, at least about certain topics. When you put it that way, it sounds—well, pretty baldly racist. You can put it in ways that sound nicer—“We need to make sure we have a representative from the African-American community”—but the different wording can’t erase the sameness of the underlying rationale.

Here’s What Happens When Diversity and Non-Racism Collide on Campus – A. Barton Hinkle, Reason

***

In a 2009 piece in The Weekly Standard, Sam Schulman argues that gay marriage replicates “a very limited, very modern, and very culture-bound version of marriage. Gay advocates have chosen wisely in this. They are replicating what we might call the ‘romantic marriage,’ a kind of marriage that is chosen, determined, and defined by the couple that enters into it.”

This isn’t what marriage has been through most of human history. Instead, marriage has taken the particular shape it has because it is part of a larger network, the kinship system.

(…)

Schulman doesn’t think the experiment will last: “When, in spite of current enthusiasm, gay marriage turns out to disappoint or bore the couples now so eager for its creation, its failure will be utterly irrelevant for gay people. The happiness of gay relationships up to now has had nothing to do with being married or unmarried; nor will they in the future.”

The losers will be everyone else, everyone who benefits from the various restrictions, obligations, and sacrifices that marriage imposes: “As kinship fails to be relevant to gays, it will become fashionable to discredit it for everyone.

The Failure of Gay Marriage – Peter J. Leithart, First Things

***

The question of the definition of marriage is, for many people, a fundamentally religious question. It is, of course, also a civil question in our country. But some religiously orthodox wedding vendors are finding themselves effectively compelled by the civil authorities to affirm an answer to that question that violates their understanding of their religious obligations.

(…)

They are in this sense more like religious believers under compulsion in a society with an established church than like believers denied the freedom to exercise their religion. Liberals are in this respect right to say they’re not trying to kill religious liberty. They’re trying to take it back to something like the form it had in the Anglo-American world when the Anglo-American world had a formal state religion—except now the state religion is supposed to be progressive liberalism.

(…)

This is the kind of religious liberty that John Locke lays out in the “Letter Concerning Toleration,” which extended a generous free exercise right to individuals but not to institutions with a religious character that were not houses of worship, because public institutions—indeed the public square as such—were to have a particular religious character. You can have your own beliefs about God and what He demands of you in such a society, and you can have a fair amount of room to live by those as a private individual. You can even have houses of worship where people like you can congregate and utter various heresies together in peace. But you cannot create other institutions that serve as embodiments of that religion in the society’s broader life. You can say but not do. You will be tolerated, but you will not be sovereign.

(…)

This distinction between individual and institutional religious freedom (…) is very much a part of this argument about whether a florist shop or a pizza parlor can be Christian. In a country with a non-Christian state religion that it takes seriously, the answer is basically no. The florist can be Christian as an individual, but his store can’t be, because institutions, unlike individuals, are creatures of the law and our law already has a religion: progressive liberalism.

The Church of the Left – Yuval Levin, National Review

***

Why should this person, who’s so patently devoted to the reasonable exchange of arguments, be considered beyond the bounds of civilized discourse?

Because, we are told over and over and over again, opposing gay marriage is rank bigotry, morally equivalent to arguing that African Americans deserve to be treated as second-class citizens, and certainly no different than denying their right to marry members of other races. Treating Anderson and others on his side of the issue with civility is just as morally outrageous as seriously entertaining the arguments of an educated and polite champion of anti-miscegenation laws in the Jim Crow South. The gay rights movement and many liberals increasingly want this to become the default, accepted, commonsense view.

They must not be allowed to succeed.

The shunning of Ryan T. Anderson: When support of gay marriage gets ugly – Damon Linker, The Week

***

Progressivism’s present confidence (even in the face of murder) in its prescribed hierarchies of power and victimhood is of a piece with its constant invocation of history’s “arc” and winning “side.” Both deny history’s true complexity: Rather than a clear arc, it offers what T. S. Eliot called “many cunning passages” — in which persecutors and persecuted can trade places, and even the well-meaning can lose their way entirely.

Checking Charlie Hebdo’s Privilege – Ross Douthat, The New York Times

***

I am not suggesting that extremist Islam and terrorism find a counterpart in some conservative branches of Protestantism. Despite the fevered imaginings of some secularists who try to include them both as subspecies of a dubious general category of religious extremism, they are very different. Nevertheless some parallels between Protestant Christianity and contemporary Islam are worth considering. Both can tend to scripturalism, a relative downgrading of reason and natural law, fragmentation, and a proliferation of authority centers. In this situation, it might be good to put aside calls that suggest analogies to the Reformation, and instead think about whether Islam might be helped by something akin to a “Catholicization.” I have no idea whether this is possible, but I do suggest that it might be a more useful metaphor for renewal in Islam.

(…)

Whether there will be a Counter-Reformation in Islam is, of course, something that Muslims will have to decide for themselves. But non-Muslims can help to encourage it, not least by engaging with Islam in a way that does not flinch from criticizing the religion, even while recognizing its considerable dignity and worth. Taking Islam seriously demands nothing less.

Islamic Counter-Reformation – Paul Marshall, First Things

***

In last year’s Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination, historian Stefan Ihrig demonstrated the extent to which the formation of modern Turkey inspired the Germany imagined by Adolf Hitler, for whom Atatürk was a “star in the darkness.” Now, in the forthcoming Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismarck to Hitler, Ihrig turns specifically to the undeniably influential though historically neglected role of the Armenian Genocide in German discourse on “the total annihilation of a people.” That neglect persists even now, as much of the world marks the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Caught between acceptance and denialism, the Armenian Genocide remains “a piece of history that is not allowed to be history.

German History and the Armenian Genocide – Harvard University Press Blog

***

I did not join the [Turkish] Foreign Service because I was detained almost 20 years ago, when I was a 25-year-old tour guide. The reason? I dared to answer a couple of questions about 1915 from a group of American tourists visiting the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara. That day changed my life. I’m not naïve; I knew answering their question in public would be risky. And I would have probably refrained from doing so had they not asked me first whether there is freedom of speech in Turkey. Trying to make light of it, I quipped: “Yes, there is freedom of speech, but freedom after speech can get tricky.” I did not know my joke would turn into self-fulfilling prophecy.

Shortly after explaining to my group why the term “genocide” is problematic for Turkish officialdom, I was arrested by guards in the museum, taken to a police station and interrogated for five hours. This unexpected encounter with Turkish law enforcement convinced me about a couple of things. First, I realized how difficult life in Turkey would be if I were of Armenian descent. “Are you Armenian?” was the first question I was asked in the police station. When I said “No,” the police officer laughed and said I was not the first Turkish traitor they had interrogated. To this day, I wonder how life in Turkey would be if my name was Onik instead of Ömer.

My Armenian journey – Ömer Taşpınar, Today’s Zaman

***

And when the actual anniversary arrives and the president makes a statement, as every president for the past two decades has done, that statement never includes the g-word.

But this year is the 100th anniversary and some wondered if this would be the time President Obama honored a promise he made on the campaign trail in 2008 to use a word that would be cause for arrest in Turkey. There were signs that the centennial was ratcheting up the stakes. Kim Kardashian, America’s most famous Armenian, traveled — with her husband Kanye West and sister Khloe — to her ancestors’ homeland to express her solidarity on the issue. Pope Francis, much to the chagrin of the Turkish government, called the events the “first genocide of the 20th Century” in a speech at St. Peter’s Basilica, adding that “concealing or denying evil is like allowing a wound to keep bleeding without bandaging it.”

President Obama had recently reversed a 50-plus year policy on Cuba and initiated the first direct communications with the Iranian regime in more than 30 years. But on Tuesday, his staff told Armenian-American groups in a meeting at the White House not to get their hopes up.

The Word Obama Can’t Bring Himself to Say – Adam B. Lerner, Politico

***

Following Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’ visit to Moscow, there is fresh talk of a potential alliance between Russia and Greece against Europe.Alongside the two countries’ religious affinity and shared anti-Western ideology, Greek commitments to host future Russian pipelines, and Russia’s readiness to provide financial support (strengthening Athens’ position ahead of negotiations with the IMF) have laid the emotional and economic foundations for this alliance.

(…)

Indeed, it looks like nothing can shake this newfound bond. But that is to reckon without Aleksandra Protsenko, 67, a retired secondary school headmaster from rural south-eastern Ukraine and president of the Greek community of Mariupol. An increasingly influential figure in Greek and Ukrainian politics, Protsenko’s position regarding separatist aggression near the Azov coast, home to some 100,000 Ukrainian Greeks, could become a stumbling block to renewed Greek-Russian co-operation.

(…)

After several civilians of Greek extraction were killed during the shelling of Mariupol suburbs in October 2014, the symbolic meaning of the city increased tenfold. Several public appeals by Ukrainian Greeks to the Greek government to save them from the horrors of war has only bolstered the importance of Mariupol in Greek public debate. And although it is not stated explicitly, Russia is blamed for the sufferings of Greeks.

The Russia-Greece Alliance Has a Big Local Problem – Vsevolod Samokhvalov, Open Democracy

Advertisements

Prosimo, upoštevajte, da so komentarji namenjeni civizirani izmenjavi mnenj

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s