ISIS shatters the Dreamscape of Rawlsian Liberalism

Judging solely from the sheer number of American headlines and protests, the Hobby Lobby case wins the award for biggest American tragedy of the summer. Clearly this does not match reality. Why is it that the mainline media rages against the “tragic injustice” of this case concerning “Women’s contraceptive rights,” but speaks only squeamishly, dispassionately, and spinelessly about the Christian/Yazidi genocide in Iraq?

Americans are quite comfortable speaking of injustice in terms of human rights. ‘Rights’ have become the trump card in American political discourse. Whoever accuses someone of violating rights first–and gains the support of mainstream media/hollywood–wins the cultural battle.

Thus, “violating rights” is the au courant description of ‘evil’. Why use that radical religious word or bother to morally differentiate between ethical actions when you can just say someone violated your “rights”?

In Iraq, ISIS terrorists have crucified, raped, and decapitated thousands of Christians because of their faith. Rights language is inadequate to describe the horror these people face. This is not merely a rights violation; it’s cruel, sadistic–evil. To lump murder, genocide, rape, and crucifixion in the same ethical/political “rights violation” category as refusal to pay for contraception, is to trivialize the moral savagery of genocide.

The origin of rights talk may be traced to Enlightenment philosophers. More recently, political philosopher, John Rawls(d. 2002), taught that if you took religion and comprehensive philosophy out of the public square, citizens could make compromises on the level of the lowest common denominator which would benefit society. Instead, we’ve witnessed a decline in robust political reasoning/discourse and an increase in ad-hominem attacks and meme-politics. (Compare a MSNBC/Fox soundbite debate to Buckley’s FiringLine.) By creating a wall of separation between man’s deepest principles/ethics and his political actions, Rawls and his disciples have destroyed the language and moral reasoning necessary to confront the barbarity of ISIS.

Though Obama preaches passionately, signing executive orders about gay “rights,” he fails to articulate real principles when confronting ISIS’s slaughter of Christians. Obama’s ISIS press conference just before one of his vacations was tardy, dispassionate, and irresolute.

Behold, Rawls’s neatly boxed political dreamscape today, shattered by the savagery of ISIS terrorists who reject democratic compromise.

To confront evil with courageous words and actions, we must use language that doesn’t cozily fit into the Rawlsian political landscape. We must distinguish the moral differences of ethical actions and engage a language of faith and human dignity.  Old words such as virtue and vice, right and wrong, sin and mercy, good and evil need to find a way back into public discourse. Roosevelt and Churchill described the reality clearly in World War II, as did Reagan and Thatcher in the Cold War. They respectively described the actions of Hitler/Nazis and the Communists as evil, and they all possessed the humility to call upon God and pray publicly in the face of  it.

It’s no surprise that the international leaders most influential in speaking against the depravity of ISIS have been the religious ones, mainly Pope Francis, and just recently the Archbishop of Canterbury, among others. These men and women understand the physical, spiritual, and psychological tragedy of true evil, and the moral courage and action required to defeat it.

I encourage anyone who seriously wishes to support Christians in Iraq to read and put to action these suggestions. 5 Things You Can Do Right Now as ISIS Threatens Iraqi Christians and Shiites – UPDATE.