Skip to main content

Prudent Martyrdom

Brother, can you spare a cause? In my series on Russell Kirk (not finished yet - one more point to go, and, perhaps, more to come after that) I talked briefly about Prudence. Today I find that David Warren has written (more and better, as usual) on the subject recently too. David contrasts the Christian view of Prudence with two modern views that take exception to it - the suicide bomber and the "tolerant" liberal.

As a Christian, I cannot be opposed to martyrdom, per se. So it is important to grasp the difference between what makes a Christian, and what makes this kind of Muslim, martyr. At the very least, the Christian requires to be put to death by someone else; and only as the alternative to denying Christ. He must go out of his way not to endanger persons not involved, since martyrdom can do no good to someone unprepared for it.

It is necessary to make this distinction, in order to understand how, in extremis, not only Christians, but Jews, and some people of other faiths, have been able through the centuries to choose martyrdom, as a prudent act -- each believing that his own death is for the good of all people, including himself.

This seems shocking to the post-modern mind, for which self-preservation, if not actual cowardice, is the highest prudential good.

To the Christian mind (and Jewish, Muslim, Hindu), the future of man and the world is in God's hands, and we have no more power over it than over tsunamis. So the idea of preserving ourselves, even as a species over the longest term, is vain. ...

The Church has taught through the centuries, on solid Biblical grounds, that "prudence" is among the highest virtues; that it would be actually sinful to act without taking stock of the consequences of our actions. The refusal is one of the things that drives me wild about Christian "liberals" -- who think they are holy when they have done something "altruistic", and deem irrelevant what the immediate consequences must be for others.

The last quoted paragraph struck me quite hard. Churchgoers are often accused of being robotic and Catholic liturgy and prayer can indeed be seen from the outside as very robotic. That's because the action is all on the inside. Prudence is what keeps us from blindly following rules (Mark 7:1) and it is held in a higher regard, generally, by the religious. Prudence evaluates custom and the present situation in virtue of furthering the highest Law - "Love one another as I have loved you." Indeed, prudence is what remembers that the highest law even exists. The general public thinks prudence is ridiculous, and the ridicule often seems to increase as one's education climbs. This ridicule of prudence is one of the causes of liberal extremism (not all liberals are extreme). Liberal arguments often will take the form of saying they have fulfilled some virtue (Iraq: do not kill; life issues: tolerance and "love"; welfare: there's never enough) without much regard to other virtues that need to be balanced against it. They will accuse religious conservatives of being hypocrites who do not follow their own faith when the conservative is merely speaking to the need for balance, for moderation and for awareness of probable unintended consequences. The liberal does not follow rules per se like a robot, but he often gives the impression of acting robotically as an champion of some particular cause over and against another, and of claiming that this unbalanced devotion is the virtue of the enlightened martyr.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi