Conscience_and_Its_Enemies:_Confronting_the_Dogmas_of_Liberal_Secularism

<i>Conscience and Its Enemies</i>

Conscience and Its Enemies

2013 book by Robert P. George

Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism is a 2013 book by the political philosopher Robert P. George. The book received both positive and negative reviews.

Quick Facts Authors, Country ...

Summary

The book is a collection of essays.[1] The main topics are abortion and same-sex marriage.[1] Another topic is immigration.[2] George approaches these topics via natural law.[1]

Reception

The book was praised by Anthony Esolen in Crisis Magazine.[3] Similarly, Ed Gantt, a visiting fellow at the Wheatley Institution at Brigham Young University, suggested "the essays in this volume [were] concise, clearly argued, and enlightening."[4] He concluded that it was "a truly wonderful book, a must-read for anyone serious interested in developing a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of the important social and moral issues of our day."[4] Writing for The Washington Times, William Murchison praised the book, suggesting, "There’s not a boring or humdrum essay in the lot."[5]

Writing for The New York Times, Kay S. Hymowitz, a Fellow at the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute, called it, "a plea for liberty of conscience, or more specifically, for religious liberty."[6] She rejected the notion that George's ideas were homophobic, arguing that his "philosophical ideas [...] predate the modern concept of sexual identity."[6] She added that he was "exceptionally nimble when he spars with conventional contemporary political and social thought."[6] She concluded that he spoke "for a sizable number of conscientious objectors to America’s ruling liberal secularism."[6]

In America, Kevin M. Doyle criticized the book, arguing that it was "noncommital, sending signals in different directions."[1] George published a dissenting response in Public Discourse, the journal of the Witherspoon Institute with which he is affiliated.[7] Writing for Commentary, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry suggested George's use of natural law was reductive.[8] He added that George fails to address the fact that opposition to abortion rights was historically misogynistic.[8] Moreover, he argued that George failed to explain "how the constitutional system would work without judicial review," adding that his faith in an "informed citizenry" was naive.[8] He concluded that the book would fail to influence George's liberal critics.[8]

References

  1. [1]
    Kevin M. Doyle, Lamb, Fox, Lion, America, November 18, 2013
  2. [2]
    What 'Conscience' Really Means: Towards a Reintroduction, The National Review, July 12, 2013
  3. [3]
    Anthony Esolen, Why We Should Respect Someone Else's Conscience, Crisis Magazine, September 6, 2013
  4. [4]
    Wheatley Institution: Review of Conscience and Its Enemies Archived 2014-10-27 at archive.today
  5. [5]
    William Murchison, Book Review: 'Conscience and Its Enemies', The Washington Times, June 18, 2013
  6. [6]
    Kay S. Hymowitz, Natural Lawyer, The New York Times, June 21, 2013
  7. [7]
    Robert P. George, Conscience and Its Reviewers: A Response to Kevin Doyle, Public Discourse, November 20, 2013
  8. [8]
    Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, A Moral Authority, Commentary, July 01, 2013
Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Conscience_and_Its_Enemies:_Confronting_the_Dogmas_of_Liberal_Secularism, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.