Deleted at Mac Donald’s blog

At her blog at Secular Right, Heather Mac Donald regrets the growth of “civil unions” and other half-way arrangements for heterosexual couples as degrading the importance of marriage and lessening family stability, particularly as regards the negative impact of these developments on children.(It seems that in France, many heterosexual couples are having recourse to civil unions instead of getting married.) I posted the below comment. Shortly afterward, it was removed.

Heather Mac Donald, “secular rightist,” wages war against religion and Christianity, says God is a false belief that society should discard. Then she turns around and regrets the weakening of traditional marriage!

Does Mac Donald think that marriage can be sustained as the central institution of society by a mere utilitarian calculation of interests? For marriage to work, for marriage to have the appeal that draws people to it and keeps them in it despite all difficulties and sacrifices, it has to have an importance and sanctity that transcends utility and personal desires. It needs, in short, to be based on a transcendent, and thus, at least indirectly, a religious, view of life.

But, as is evident from her bizarrely hostile reaction to any sight of a person praying or thanking God, Mac Donald hates and fears religion. She sees belief in God as a bane. The only common values she will accept are those of secular reason.

Mac Donald of course has some conservative views; she sees, for example, that children need stable families with two parents. But as has been evident since she came out as an angry “conservative” atheist a couple of years ago, at her core she is the quintessential liberal: a person who wants to eat society’s central traditions (e.g. religious based morality) and have the goods that come from them (e.g., traditional family values); a person who tears down the fundaments of society, but still expects them to be there when she thinks they matter.

- end of initial entry -

Gintas writes:

If the site were what it claims on its “What is the Secular Right?” page, your comment could be a way to discuss how a society can be robustly conservative and secular, specifically with respect to the traditional view of marriage. That would be in line with the site’s stated purpose. However, the site runs thusly: “That discussion is assumed here to have already been affirmed in the positive. And now: back to mocking Christians and Christianity, where the real fun is!”

Your comment comes across not as a request to discuss the matter but as an indictment of the site’s actual practice compared to its stated purpose, which is probably why it was deleted.

LA replies:

Well, I suppose the deletion of my comment could be reasonably justified on the grounds that my tone is too sharp, that I’m characterizing her as a person (“bizarrely hostile,” “quintessential liberal”), rather than her ideas. So, as an experiment, let me attempt a more acceptable version of the same comment:

Heather Mac Donald, as one of the founders of Secular Right, argues that society should be based solely on secular reason, thus excluding religion, religious belief, and religiously based values from society; but then she turns around and regrets the weakening of traditional marriage!

Does Mac Donald think that marriage can be sustained as the central institution of society by a mere utilitarian calculation of interests? For marriage to work, for marriage to have the appeal that draws people, particularly men, to it and keeps them in it despite all difficulties and sacrifices, it has to have an importance and sanctity that transcends utility and personal desires. It needs, in short, to be based on a transcendent, and thus, at least indirectly, a religious, view of life.

But, as already indicated, in American society as Mac Donald desires it to be, there would be no religion, no Christianity, no belief in God. She has made clear over and over that she sees belief in God as at best a delusion, at worst a bane. The only common values she will accept are those that are derived from secular, utilitarian reason.

Mac Donald of course has some conservative views; she sees, for example, that children need stable families with two parents. But her secularizing project puts her in the position of the quintessential liberal who wants to eat society’s central traditions (e.g. religious based morality) and have the goods that come from them (e.g., traditional family values); who wants to tear down the fundaments of society, but still expects them to be there when she thinks they matter.

I think that in my revised comment I’ve removed any language that can be seen as a personal attack, while leaving in place the substance of my criticisms. So now the question is, if I had posted this comment, would Mac Donald have let it stand? Maybe I should post it and find out. We’ll find out if she will allow a commenter to challenge her position, and if she will reply. Perhaps the only Christian “conservative” she will consent to debate with is an avuncular pushover like Michael Novak.

LA continues:

I have posted the revised comment at Secular Right, with this introduction:

(A comment I posted here on the 15th was removed, perhaps because it was too sharply worded and was characterizing Heather Mac Donald as a person, rather than just her positions. I have accordingly revised the comment, removing the personal characterizations, while leaving the argument intact. It will be interesting to see whether Miss Mac Donald will allow a reasonable challenge to her position to be posted at her blog, and whether she will reply to it.)

Bruce B. writes:

Back when you were participating in a discussion at another site (I can’t remember which) about these types of issues, one of the commenters posted a snide remark about you attacking “something as sacred as another man’s marriage,” referring to Derbyshire. I almost did a spit-take with my coffee on the screen when I read it. How can anything be “sacred” to a Darwinian atheist?

I’ll try to find it.

LA writes:

My revised comment has been successfully posted at Secular Right. Following it, there is a further exchange between me and the overseer of the site, “David Hume,” in which I point out the bigoted comments against theists that are common there.

LA writes:

A reader points out that “David Hume” is Razib Khan of Gene Expression.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 19, 2009 01:37 PM | Send