Still Nein: A Response To Janet Albrechtsen’s Libertarian Conservative “Yes” To SSM

12

This article was originally published on 6/9/2017 at http://www.rodlampard.com/

Rod Lampard

I purchase the Wednesday edition of The Australian, not only for the mid-week news coverage, but also for the commentary. Given the hostile nature of the debate and the level of excellence I admire Janet Albrechtsen for, issuing this response is either really smart, or really dumb.

Last week I laid out some of my reasons for voting “no” to SSM in a blog post called, “Nein: Why I will be voting “no” to SSM

That remains relevant, of course, only if a high court challenge to the planned Government survey (plebiscite) on SSM, doesn’t overrule giving Australians the right to voice their opinion, on this issue, in a democratic way.

What hasn’t been blocked, although major attempts from SSM advocates have tried to do so, is the debate.

Today, in The Australian (p.14), Janet Albrechtsen, a libertarian conservative, laid out her reasoning for having changed her position on same-sex marriage. Janet argues that protecting/preserving freedom – liberty – is the reason conservatives should vote “yes” to SSM.

The problem with this position is that for freedom to exist, it must be governed. If not, why have road rules and enforce them? Why have flags on a beach to protect swimmers from unknown dangers? Why have workplace safety laws?

If I understand correctly where Janet is coming from, it is a secular humanist view of humanity. This view sees humanity as inherently good; therefore it has no problem with advocating absolute personal freedom, but that position has a distinct lack of accountability and individual responsibility. It turns a blind eye to the blood soaked ground of the 20th Century and blurs the crimes committed in the name of liberty, during the Reign of Terror in the late 18th Century. This position rejects the Judeo-Christian pillars which form the foundations for the very liberty, Janet says she wishes to protect. To argue that by voting for SSM, a person is preserving freedom, is myopic. It is short-sighted.

Freedom exists in limitation. Edmund Burke wrote, “liberty must be limited in order to be possessed”. Karl Barth, who stood up against Hitler, carefully stated: ‘Where there is no genuine authority, so there is no genuine freedom. There is only action and reaction between a despotic arrogance and an equally despotic despair. (C.D.1938, p.646)’.

Likewise, C.S Lewis, states in the Abolition of Man that, ‘the heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.’ To vote for SSM based on an idea of absolute personal freedom, no matter how sedated that might be, is as senseless and dangerous, as the words “love is love”.

I’m not yet a card-carrying conservative, but I do consider myself an ally in some of their current causes. Janet’s newfound position on SSM and her arguments for why conservatives should vote “yes” to SSM, isn’t a convincing one.

To her credit, the abuse of SSM advocates towards their opponents is acknowledged, but that Janet didn’t address the broader concerns, such as the long-term effects and the consequences of SSM on society as a whole, is the equivalent of dismissing the elephant in the room.

After holding out against the gathering storm, Janet, now seems, sadly, to be saying, “I’ve had enough of all the whining and tantrums. Just give the children what they want, or we’ll never hear the end of it.”

References:

Albrecthsen, J. 2017 Same-sex marriage: A libertarian conservative case for voting ‘yes’ Sourced from The Australian, 6th September 2017

Barth, K. 1938 Church Dogmatics 1.2: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Scripture as the Word of God Hendrickson Publishers, p.646

Burke, E. Letter To The Sheriffs of Bristol, (Sourced 6th September 2017 from https://archive.org/stream/sheriffsbristol00burkrich#page/42/mode/2up/search/liberty

Lewis, C.S, 1944. The Abolition of Man, HarperCollins Publishers

In 2009 Rod starting studying a degree through Tabor College Adelaide, graduating from there in 2013 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Ministry & Theology. You can read more of Rod’s work at http://www.rodlampard.com/

  • Antifa-ggot

    Do not give the ‘children’ of perversion any more ground. We need to take back, by force if necessary, that which has been so easily given away.

  • Karen Dwyer

    As to childish tantrums, the Dwyer household has never yet given in to one. And we are all (children included) the hapier for it.

    Giving in to tantrums leads to more and more unreasonable, selfish demands. We were in the happy position of learning that from the “well-intentioned” but false ideologies of acquaintances who had children before we did.

    And we also had grandparents and parents who loved us too much to allow us to be marred by poor boundaries.

  • How to silence Christians….our Government is doing exactly that…
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/09/if_i_were_the_devil_id_enact_hate_speech_laws.html

    • Karen Dwyer

      Excellent article link.

      And Christians (who actually pay attention to the treatment of their brothers and sisters) have been aware of these deceits for a long time.

      Witness the “blasphemy” laws and false accusations in myriad countries.

      Witness the freedom of religion clause in the UN Declaration of Human Rights being subjected to the additional phrase “except for public order / safety”. So if a mob sets fire to your church or turns up with ski masks & knuckle dusters then the freedom of Christians to (re)build a church, speak in public, return to or rebuild their homes after vandalism is denied.

      The biggest insult is the lying that goes along with it: no shame at all re false accusations, flat out denial of the consequences of such laws, and huge sense of entitlement in being paid out for fabricated “slights”.

      • American Thinker have some very insightful articles.
        Mostly US angled, but valuable to read nevertheless.

  • Tamaveirene

    Janet Albrecthson has become “too clever ” by half! Her proposition does not make any sense whatsoever. Must be something to do with those academic specs she wears!
    We could all have done without her diluted input! I can’t stand The Australian newspaper
    because it is not at all conservative – just pretends to be!