Now where are the staunchiest among us who said this would never ever, pinky promise, happen?
COEUR D’ALENE, Idaho – Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. […]
The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel is across the street from the Kootenai County Clerk’s office, which issues marriage licenses. The Knapps, both in their 60s and who themselves have been married for 47 years, began operating the wedding chapel in 1989 as a ministry. They perform religious wedding ceremonies, which include references to God, the invocation of God’s blessing on the union, brief remarks drawn from the Bible designed to encourage the couple and help them to have a successful marriage, and more. They also provide each couple they marry with a CD that includes two sermons about marriage, and they recommend numerous Christian books on the subject. The Knapps charge a small fee for their services.
Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.
“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”
h/t Pablo
Positions reversed and the Left could easily raise $1K/day to pay the fine and remain defiant while scores of lawyers would offer their services pro bono.
Christians? I don’t think we have it in us. The Calvinists, Catholics, Coptics, Baptists, et al, would never agree as to whether or not this couple were in the will of God or perpetrating heresy; nor would they come together on a political principle, since one would eschew the political with a blithe “render unto Ceasar,” another would embrace liberalism and its attendant activism, and a third, well, who knows? Maybe they wouldn’t like the music played at the chapel.
Joan, the one faint hope I have is looking at all the pastor in Texas who rose up against Mayor Parker’s subpoenas.
There were from different Christian sects, but all realized that they were equally in the crosshairs of anti-theist Progressives.
The problem with that formulation Joan is that this is in no way a question of any Church doctrine, but a question of politics and political life, severed in the American political doctrine from any theological stance whatsoever. The issue has nothing to do with any particular creed or faith in some deity or lack of same. This is a political issue, period. As such, it appears to be representative of an American political doctrine which the city officials have lost, or in which they must contradict themselves. They mistake themselves and their role in office.
That the issue is a political issue severed from any theological doctrine is precisely what ought to enable believers and non-believers alike — regardless of their particular belief and disagreements therein — to come together in unity to assert political right.
See, this is what happens when you let fags out of the closet. Now you know why they were there in the first place. A society that thinks it’s normal and good for a man to take a dick up his ass is going to stick it’s dick up man ass.
It’s sad, all those nice people that said nttawwt with regards to faggitry in order to appear tolerant, are now being put in the position of saying there IS something wrong with Christianity, to maintain their veneer of tolerance.
The thing is sdferr, this is a case of politicians outlawing church doctrine. Non-believers could give a shit. If anything that are like happyfeet, cheering the destruction of religious faith. Christians have no allies in this fight.
Christians and their beliefs are not in the question LBascom, so again, it seems to me that you take a step beyond what is pertinent to the issue. The issue is what is the limit in political right we place as Americans on our government and in the common rule of law for us all, as political beings, or as human beings as such, these latter two descriptions (political beings or human beings) being utterly divorced from whatever particular religious or pious or impious beliefs or no beliefs we may hold. This is at the heart of the modern natural right doctrine which undergirds our entire political order. The difficulty here is exactly that this classical liberal doctrine or product of the European enlightenment (so-called) has been lost on so many, both on those who act against it as these city managers do and those who seek to inject theology where it has no place.
– When the hell is the true separation of church and state going to be enforced?
…..In other news:
– “And remember folks, you heard it here first!“. (The poodle-head heard round the world.)
Christians and their beliefs are the question Sdferr. They are now being persecuted for those beliefs, which, by the way, were settled politically by citizen majority through state constitutions and overturned by judges with an agenda. Christians are now going to jail for not changing their doctrine. I fail to see how that is a step beyond pertinent.
This is at the heart of the modern natural right doctrine which undergirds our entire political order.
– Yeah, the problem is it only works as long as people act individually. As soon as they act as a group in concert you have a bullying situation, which is a natural result of the majority rule. Anti-majority rule is always the reaction of the minority. What to do about it is another matter. I say shoot them all.
Those of us with beliefs in what’s inherently right or classically liberal are not organizing around anything. We are always reactive, always on the defense, taking it on the chin while we watch our original beliefs systemically attacked to collapse.
Who wins today’s modern political battles? The most successfully ‘Community Organized’; that sad coalescence of the strangest of strongly-motivated-by-ideology bedfellows.
What is common to human beings qua human beings seeking justice will not be found in the particular personal religious, faith or non-faith beliefs that they may hold — not as Christians, not as Jews, not as Hindi, not as Ba’hai, not as Muslims, and etc., through all the faith or non-faith enumerations. Our personal pieties are not common amongst us, it need hardly be said.
What is common is held to be human wholly. In this regard it is held to be universally so: justice in living (right to life), justice in freedom (right to liberty — of religious belief apart from any political ordainment or coercion to belief, for one liberty in particular among many others, such as thinking, speaking and writing as one chooses), justice in the possession of property and in the human pursuits which property can produce (right to happiness — as an end or telos).
The American political doctrine of modern natural right may be seen in this light as a fundamental abstraction from the particulars of any person to the commonalities amongst all persons, and with this great insight, as in a limit to and by this fundamental abstraction the achievement of political and communal prosperity and a well-being to be obtained in greater measure for everyone thereby. Lose this, I think, and lose what made the unique American political effort the one time wonder of the world.
That this notion or idea has been largely lost is made plain here.
What is lost is the idea our natural rights come from our Creator. Kind of a necessary first step to create a progressive Utopia.
See, that’s just not true Lee. Modern natural right doctrine has a long pedigree, but it does not originate in Biblical teaching. So, should we speak with equivocation or not seems to be the newer question you would put forth.
If religious belief is undermined to the extent we’re seeing today, what you’ll also see is exactly what’s happening: a strong component of our Republic, the bedrock (if you don’t mind the religious connotation) starts shifting like sand, and this Republic will easily collapse.
Christians (or any religious group for that matter) desire to believe in an everlasting eternal deity, one who has given them very basic rules and structure. Those rules and beliefs have always ran parallel to our Republic’s Rules of Law; so we’ve always found that Christians will suffer Government, even become it’s staunch ally.
But if any government starts undermining one’s basic religious rules and beliefs (because it desires to become man’s deity, a poor substitute for any real thing) then the Rules of Law have no eternal anchor, and become merely Words of Men. And we know the worth (and lasting power) of those.
Since no one has said it yet. . .
Shut up, ‘feets.
– On second thought we shouldn’t shoot Progressives if they complain or try to destroy religious beliefs. We should shoot them on sight for whatever reason.
Oh, I’m only making a wry observation about where Christians will actually put their money. Everyone’s passionate until the collection plate comes around for those caught in political gears. Cat herding.
The pastors in TX were being bullied to provide something that was likely available for download on their church website. These people are being harassed with fines per day, which is a hateful, ugly thing for the town to impose. It’s meant to run them off. My guess? Someone who is tight with the city wants that prime bit of chapel property and has donated handsomely to the political gears with enough torque to pull it off: the mayor, and a spurious law conveniently at hand. Follow the money. Always.
“Effective immediately, Hitching Post is no longer a wedding chapel available for public hire; instead, we are now the Hitching Post Congregational Christian Center. In order to have your wedding hosted here, you and your intended must join our church and pay an initiation fee that, by sheer coincidence, is exactly equal to what Hitching Post Wedding Chapel used to charge for weddings.
“We reserve the right to exclude any persons from our congregation according to the doctrines of our faith.
“Oh, and the City of Coeur d’Alene has just lost a nice source of property tax revenues. Too bad, so sad.”
That may last them a little while, but the ability to exclude people from membership will soon be removed due to fairness and stuff.
– Speaking of “follow the money” we just watched the NFL play the game control card with yet another “phantom penalty” in the final minute of the game to give the contest to one of their favorite teams. Hopefully at some point they’ll get caught at it and it will cost them a boat load of money and force some reforms.
“Modern natural right doctrine has a long pedigree, but it does not originate in Biblical teaching.”
You will never convince me the framers of the constitution meant “our Creator” in any way other than the Creator of our universe written about in the Bible. Modern natural right doctrine may have a long pedigree, but our constitution was written by and meant for a Christian nation. Judeo-Christian doctrine being the foundation for the concept of individual sovereignty and all.
And I understand “Creator” is in the Declaration of independence and not the constitution, but the linkage is fair in this case I think.
That may last them a little while, but the ability to exclude people from membership will soon be removed due to fairness and stuff.
Soon?
It’s already here.
>has officially booted InterVarsity Christian Fellowship for not allowing non-Christians to serve as leaders. <
i 2nd joan about lawfare
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
via
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
I think we can agree to a stipulation that the founding of the nation in the Declaration and the ultimate framing of the Constitution (upon the failure of the Articles of Confederation) are harmonious and consonant in respect of their political philosophical grounding, if yet also as distinguishable as political acts Lee. Both periods and both documents, I believe, express the political philosophical tenor of their times, which we generally refer to by name and under such terms as classical liberal, or liberal social contract theory or schemata, or as above mentioned, as modern natural right theory or doctrine.
To say “meant for a Christian nation” is I think to say meant for men and women of such and such a character, but we notice, this speaks of the character of the people and not of the political order as such. In some respect, I think we see the founders and framers put commercial relations on a high pedestal. This is by and large a pacifistic practice, this practice of commerce. Their’s was not an aim to conquer distant nations by force of arms, but to so organize their own nation to permit great freedom of action in trade and commerce as well as in the arts and sciences (we see the patent clauses of the Constitution, for instance). John Locke for instance — a modern natural right theorist held in wide respect by the founders and framers — favored this sort of thing quite highly. This was not a nation built like Spartan Lakedaemon to strive for martial glory.
What you mean by Judeo-Christian doctrine (I don’t tend to use this term Judeo-Christian so much myself, in small part because I think it had arisen in a sort of apologetic for embarrassing Jew hatreds, but in major part because preferring to distinguish Jewish theological doctrine from Christian, so as not to mash them each into unintelligibility and confusion) being the foundation for the concept of individual sovereignty I cannot say I know or understand, but would be happy to examine. Sovereignty in the Biblical writings most likely deserves our attention for its own sake.
Still and all, if you declare you will not be moved by examining in detail the traces of our modern natural right teachings, so be it, for I doubt not that given a prejudice to refuse persuasion you can certainly achieve that.
The owners of the wedding chapel should say “fuck it” and appeal. This could take years to wind through the appellate courts before hitting SCOTUS, at which point Justice Roberts will claim that forcing Christians to marry gays is a tax and therefore permitted under the Constitution.
People mocked me when I said this was coming. The only surprise to me is that it happened so quickly. I can tell you right now that no pastor in my church would perform such a ceremony. Ever. Which means that when the government decides to set its boot heel even more firmly on our collective necks, more than a small number of us are going to resist.
I’ve been saying for a while that the Burning Times ™ are coming. It cannot be avoided, in my opinion. Shit like this only hastens the arrival.
>I don’t tend to use this term Judeo-Christian so much myself, in small part because I think it had arisen in a sort of apologetic for embarrassing Jew hatreds,<
i like it for 1 : the main guy, who started christianity, and his buds were jewish 2: the founders, whose biblical literacy was shall we say, extraordinary, compared to the "intellectuals" of our present age, saw themselves as "the new jews" fighting the pharaoh/king george.
Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport
George Washington
August 18, 1790
California State University, the largest university system in the country, has officially booted InterVarsity Christian Fellowship for not allowing non-Christians to serve as leaders.
Notwithstanding the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution (incorporated into all of the State Constitutions via the Incorporation Article of the 14th Amendment), there is this:
It is so nice when State agencies (read: “taxpayer funded groups that control the citizenry” ) can ignore the very document that authorizes their establishment. And make no mistake, State colleges are restricted by that same Constitution, like it or not. That Fellowship ought to sue the specific college, the Dean and Professors thereof, every other themed organization still allowed on that campus and the entire State-funded university collective (both CalState and UnivOfCalif branches) in Federal Court, rolling a d20 to see how many zeroes should be in the punitive damages column. (Roll it again if it doesn’t seem high enough.)
stay away from the “health care system” news
34,500 New Yorkers can’t buy guns because of ‘mental health’ issues
Be that as it may, the issue here is the tool being used, which is new, shiny and sharp. How did it get into the toolbox, and does it belong there are the questions we should be asking.
I’m willing to concede that deciding to live in New York is prima facie evidence of mental illness.
“I don’t tend to use this term Judeo-Christian so much myself, […]
in major part because preferring to distinguish Jewish theological doctrine from Christian”
You can’t separate Jewish doctrine from Christianity. The reverse, I guess, is not true. But for a Christian the fact that Jesus is the only one that is able to live the Jewish doctrine without flaw is a key feature of the faith.
“Still and all, if you declare you will not be moved by examining in detail the traces of our modern natural right teachings, so be it”
That was a low shot. My limitation was strictly: I don’t believe “the framers of the constitution meant ‘our Creator’ in any way other than the Creator of our universe written about in the Bible”
Do you believe the framers used “the Creator” in a context other than that provided by the bible?
Pablo, may I say, chide really, you do not comment here enough.
I’d say the same to squid in a second, I would…
>I think we see the founders and framers put commercial relations on a high pedestal. This is by and large a pacifistic practice, this practice of commerce. <
bs my property is my property baracky be damned.
Is “commercial relations” like “the pursuit of happiness”?
Blechhh.
To avoid all this nonsense, let’s just pose the question. What’s the bit text that all Judeo-Christians have used to found our Republic?
See, they left extensive notes and diaries.
Forget the whole deism bullshit and all of that. I think it’s roughly correct to view them as either extremely orthodox or just slightly askew as Christians.
All of that has nothing to do with the natural rights of man.
“Natural”. From nature.
It’s there in title. If you try to stab me I will stab you so guess what I get to carry a stabber. That’s it. It’s there in the text. For a couple hundred years straight you can trace this. The phrasing itself comes from a long line of “not bible”.
This isn’t up for debate if evidence matters.
Christians of every stripe and non-believers can all agree on this matter.
That’s the simple point that sdferr is making.
If you try to kill me I get to kill you first without repercussion as an agreed upon issue when we all meet up at the tavern later.
That’s what natural rights are. Debate me on this and I’ll know you’re full of shit. Seriously, I will know that you’re full of shit.
>That’s the simple point that sdferr is making.<
dude more bloviation .
Y manbutter no rebutter?
Manbutter no rebutter. Why no rebutter manbutter?
[But, more seriously, if newrouter is speaking what you yourself would like to say you should ask yourself why? You can’t engage as an adult? Because you’re wrong? Because, like newrouter, you’re manbutter with no rebutter?]
> Why no rebutter manbutter?<
you be sdferr?
> Why no rebutter manbutter?<
what's the temp on the sous vide machine?
no, me=America.
you, gaytoucher, man-milker.
>no, me=America.<
good luck with that
me:
Casting Crowns – Thrive
Iz that gayz band???????
I was sorta hoping that this time you’d finally give me a link to a Federalist text or maybe a lesser work from Hobbes. You know, one of those ones that would show how I was super wrong and everything.
Oh well! Maybe next time.
[I know I’m adopting a snotty, supercilious tone here. Fuck it though. There is too much bullshit clogging up the works everywhere we look nowadays. I’m not a giant fan of “conservatives” who conserve fuck-all.]
>Iz that gayz band???????<
is christ a proggtard??????!!11!!
>I was sorta hoping that this time you’d finally give me a link to a Federalist text or maybe a lesser work from Hobbes. <
nah just a hopeful tune.
bh
All of that has nothing to do with the natural rights of man.
“Natural”. From nature.
with all do respect, “natural rights” aren’t nature. Looking at the natural world, nature is a mean bitch. There is no justice, property rights, et al. It’s eat or be eaten with all the attendant strategies fine tuned into instincts for species survival. Individuals in nature? No such thing.
Now whenever someone speaks of Natural rights of Man, as sdferr does above it is man qua man. (A phrase that Ayn Rand, atheist, uses)
Yet, why is man’s “nature” different than the nature he finds himself in? The capacity to reason? Ok. But where did it come from and why would that privilege an individual over the group (herd, pride, gang, collective)?
Rand was born and raised in Judaism. The founding religion of ethical monotheism. There is a God and He wants people to be good. One can reject the God part, but still retain the idea that man is special and set apart of the rest of nature.
All natural/Creator/God given rights are given to Man, not animal or plant.
It really is the First Assumption. We can either assume Man has special status in this world or he has no more intrinsic moral worth than a rock.
And it works for ALL individuals, regardless of their station. The Bible makes it clear that its law is applicable to king or poor alike.
THAT is what makes the principles of Judaism and Christianity different.
See, if you don’t care about the Western canon enough to understand our republic — even a little! — I’m not sure how you’re conservative.
We’re not the same thing. This isn’t friendly-fire. I simply don’t think you’re on the team if you don’t do the slightest bit of work.
Your sort has a tendency to go queer like Bill O’Reilly.
>Darleen says October 19, 2014 at 10:23 pm
bh<
over here please ;)
Dar, I think the answer is as simple a thing as I pose it. As I think sdferr posed it.
It’s worth noting that neither of us put it against God. Because it isn’t.
But, natural meant something in that context at that time. It did. We can find what it meant to them at that time by reading what they said and they meant at that time.
“Natural” was significant. It was significant in the way that they were directly following Locke and Hobbes. It’s there. They speak about it directly.
Again, this in no way speaks against God or how he’d direct things.
They spoke about this. Directly. So did Hobbes. It’s there in the text. Directly. Openly.
> if you don’t care about the Western canon enough to understand our republic — even a little! — I’m not sure how you’re conservative.<
yea. so what is your idea about an offensive on the forces of statism/communism/facism/islamism/ et al. luv to hear it. also what is the sous vide temp?
Stop being such a little bitch, nr. I know you’re kinda queer about me. It’s gross though.
> It’s there in the text. Directly. Openly.<
so site with the sous vide temp.
>Stop being such a little bitch, nr. I know you’re kinda queer about me.<
your words
me
Follow Me
You want a cite on natural rights from Hobbes?
HE WROTE A FUCKING ENTIRE WORK ON IT! IT’S IN LIBRARIES!
YOU’RE FUCKING RETARDED! YOU’RE NOT A CONSERVATIVE!
>YOU’RE FUCKING RETARDED! YOU’RE NOT A CONSERVATIVE!<
true the "conservatives" like rove, bush ie ruining class suck. me be retard 1776
If you were a conservative you’d understand that our Founding Fathers were incredibly aware of Hobbes around the time of our founding.
They weren’t full of shit.
>bh says <
dude be angry. why?
Waiting on the Night to Fall
>They weren’t full of shit.>
i never said that
bh
I really care less about where the beliefs come from – again, Ayn Rand was an atheist and I certainly think she “got” American principles.
I care about behavior.
I could give a rats ass if someone is a President, Queen, celeb or owner of a hotdog cart. We are all individuals with certain inherent rights and we will deal with each other on a voluntary, mutually agreed upon basis.
Inherent rights has to be assumed otherwise there is no man qua man. And civilization cannot endure.
It was significant in the way that they were directly following Locke and Hobbes. It’s there. They speak about it directly.
I know they do. And many of the Founders were very religious people who found no contradiction in Natural Rights and God. It’s akin to the silly idea that science and God are in conflict.
>Inherent rights has to be assumed otherwise there is no man qua man. And civilization cannot endure.<
nah the feudal state is the human condition. liberty is the exception.
We’re on the same page for the great majority of that, D. I like how you’re recapitulating natural rights and then moving to the assumption as true as a rule.
The thing is, yeah, it’s extremely beneficial to agree on these rules. It’s less so to disagree about the various aspects therein.
That’s civilization for ya.
Totally agree.
> I like how you’re recapitulating natural rights and then moving to the assumption as true as a rule.<
dude cass sunstein and nudge. hieroglyphics. how phoney.
>The thing is, yeah, it’s extremely beneficial to agree on these rules. It’s less so to disagree about the various aspects therein.<
1 +1=2 but sometimes 3. dude what is the sous vide temp?
Keep pretending to be a conservative, nr. Maybe really dumb people still believe it.
Guess what? Jeff is about as religious as I am probably. Guess what the second? If you’d actually read this very blog you’d understand this. Guess what the third? You don’t need to bludgeon us into agreeing with you, we’ll quite often do so based on tradition and outcomes.
But you’re still too fucking stupid for that. You just have to keep on hectoring. And you haven’t read a single fucking word that our Founders put to paper.
Fuck off. You’re without merit or virtue.
Lots of people read John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government but very few bother to read his First Treatise. Wonder why that is?
“By nature” we say or mean that from an acorn grows an oak tree and not a maple, whereas from the helicoptering maple seed grows a maple tree and not an oak. She’s terribly consistent this way, Miss Nature, as well as terrifying in some of her aspects. This nature “thing” is in a manner of speaking discovered truth. Men figured it out somewhere along the way. Prior to that no one seems to have spoken of it.
To nature we contrast the “ways” or “rules” or “customs” [nomoi] of various people, which might vary from manners of dealing with their dead, to manners of clothing or shield or ship construction, say. Again, one people among the multitudes of peoples worship the Olympian Gods, another people worship other multitudes of gods — say for instance those found in the Hindu teachings or in the ancient Egyptians’, and yet another people the four-letter named God and so on. These conventional teachings are not nature. Or so the poets tell us.
Why does Ayn Rand say “qua“? It’s probably because she was a fan of Aristotle.
>But you’re still too fucking stupid for that. You just have to keep on hectoring. And you haven’t read a single fucking word that our Founders put to paper.<
hi bh/sdferr tag team. got any tits ?
>“By nature” we say or mean that from an acorn grows an oak tree and not a maple,<
heteronormative fascist. says commies.
sdferr, while you’re blathering on about nature and Locke and blah blah qua blah, I refer you to the following:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
14.1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Gee thanks edrobotguy, I’m sure that must be interesting stuff we ought to consider amidst our blatherings.
What we find is that in the general sense “nature” meant a thing at that time by those speakers.
So then we might also see why it was set off as its own thing in these extremely specific places. Because the person/people writing the sentence meant what they meant in context. Not what might be overtaken by force of will later on.
> I’m sure that must be interesting stuff we ought to consider amidst our blatherings.<
mostly your blathering. you be pw a++ bloviator . on to 2015!!11!!
yo sdferr how’s that sous vide doing?
Conservatives conserve what exactly?
You guys get what I’m saying with that, right? You don’t get to wave away our shared canon and pretend to be on the same team because you feel like it,
I’m not particularly concerned with progressives who say blah, blah, blah to tradition.
Have you no sense that how we came to the passages cited above by edrobotguy matters, newrouter, i.e., that “how you get there matters”? If it does not matter, then to be sure this can be taken as mere bloviation. If, on the other hand, the course we take determines the ends we make, then perhaps spelling things out makes a difference in kind worth pursuing.
>sdferr says October 19, 2014 at 11:42 pm
Gee thanks edrobotguy, I’m sure that must be interesting stuff we ought to consider amidst our blatherings.sdferr says October 19, 2014 at 11:53 pm
Have you no sense that how we came to the passages cited above by edrobotguy matters, newrouter, i.e., that “how you get there matters”? If it does not matter, then to be sure this can be taken as mere bloviation. If, on the other hand, the course we take determines the ends we make, then perhaps spelling things out makes a difference in kind worth pursuing.<
yea thanks clown
To quote a friend of American modern natural right doctrine:
*** [. . .] But with respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. The historical documents which you mention as in your possession, ought all to be found, and I am persuaded you will find, to be corroborative of the facts and principles advanced in that Declaration. ***
“elementary books of public right” says he.
bh/sdferr tag match madison wi nov 4 2014
“To quote a friend of American modern natural right doctrine:”
have you an understanding of the philosophy involved that you could state it in a manner that would yield an understanding of what the fuck you mean?
Personally, in all sincerity, I enjoy the fact that you keep showing up after all the abuse I’ve laid upon you, nr.
Sure, you have no idea what’s going on but you have a six pack in you and, damn it, ain’t that a country song. Bless you for your service. And by service I do mean hectoring me like some sort of scary deviant all the time.
Bless you.
> And by service I do mean hectoring me like some sort of sorta scary deviant all the time.
Bless you.<
who threw the 1st punch? also i what is the current sous vide temp?
also ii may you Thrive
Madison: Memorial and Remonstrance
>but you have a six pack in you and, damn it, ain’t that a country song. <
huffington post contributor!! congrats.
Thanks, Lee. Meatspace has been very distracting from the intertubes lately. Now for the cross-country relocation!
It’s natural for a man to assume his transcendence of nature. I wonder why that is…
Kenneth, what is the frequency?
[…] Pastors face jail time & fines for not marrying same sex couples. […]
Damnit! I miss all the fun.
I think Mcgehee has the right idea here , with the addenda that the core doctrine espoused at the Hitching Post Congregational Christian Center ought to be firmly rooted in Gen. 1:27-28.
As for the problem Darleen pointed out here InterVarsity ought to offer to change it’s Doctrinal Basis after the Black Student Union does.
I’m still working my through the very interesting discussion on natural rights and whether natural rights are or are not founded in a divinely inspired moral order.
It’s a slow slog through that jungle. Lot’s of creeping stangler vine type stuff to hack through.
As to why the blah blah blah matters, the Free Exercise Clause doesn’t protect what you think it does, as per the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia writing for the majority*. Also, the Court has never incoprorated the Free Exercise Clause as per the 14th.
So unfortunately, the philosophical basis, or the blah blah blah is really all we have to go on.
* And, just like the last time this came up, I can’t remember the particular case, other than it’s Scalia using the precedent set when the court told the Mormons there was no consitututional right to polygamy to tell the indians there’s no constitutional right to chew peyote.
The new and disturbing thing here is we’ve moved off of government telling you what you can’t do, even when your religion tells you to do it, to government telling you what you can’t not do, even when your religion tells you not to do it.
My opening foray into the natural right’s discussion:
sdferr wrote:
I think this is precisely where modern [note the emphasis] natural right theory fails, built, as it is, on a foundation of sand. And that faulty premise is that we’re first and foremost political beings, and only secondly religious ones –if even that.
The question natural rights theorists have been begging since Hobbes at least is this: if our rights come from our nature, where does our nature come from? And if you say, “from nature,” then you have to ask, where does nature come from?
Among other things, I’m reading Francis Oakley, at the moment, so this stuff has been on my mind of late. And also because of this book that I stumbled across just last weekend.
The modern seems to seeded by Machiavelli, who had his criticisms of the ancient natural right theorists. He says: “But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of the matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.” [Pr. XV]
Empiricism thus becomes the touchstone.
Madison, we note in his Memorial and Remonstrance makes politics a second-order kind of rule “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.”].
And in the most simple terms, it is the second order. But in this sense I might simply assert that — as apart from Madison’s depiction — we think there was a time when there were no cities requiring politics while yet there were human beings already present on earth.
It is not clear to me that natural right in itself requires any deity as commonly understood as foundation, but as Plato has pointed out, we cannot imagine getting along without the idea of the good. Others have said the Plato means this idea of the good as a substitute for the gods or god, a stand-in, however he conceives of that number or unity. Here we are back in the neighborhood of the “airy-fairy” complaint Machiavelli levels.
If empiricism is the touchstone because Machiavelli pointed out that people do what they want rather than what they ought, then we’re in Darth Vader Alters the Bargain territory, and might as well pray.
And for Plato, the ideal good, pure good as good as goodness could be, was a kind of god. So yes, we’re back in the airy-fairy neighborhood, but only because we never succeeded in leaving.
We’re like the Prisoner that way; there’s no getting off The Island.
Was Madison then a bad interpreter of Machiavelli’s aim? Or was he on the contrary all the better a one than might appear at first sight?
Empiricism became the touchstone because the older schemes didn’t work, or in another more assertive way of putting it, weren’t true, certainly weren’t true about the physical world. So as modern mathematical physics took hold on the basis of empirical reasonings, utterly persuasively so for the men who witnessed this, it’s in a way little wonder that our later political theorists ape to follow Machiavelli’s lead. That’s one of the things the human being apes do really well: they copy, they imitate.
Then we notice that by Jefferson’s time these “new” ways of doing politics are already so old he can say of them that they are nothing new [“. . . Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of. . .”].
Damn me though if those old “new” ideas wouldn’t be startlingly shocking to the young’uns today who’ve never encountered them, to say nothing of the adults who’ve lived under their sway for decades without having the least knowledge of them.
Let me try this. Could the American principles set out by the founders have come from other than Judeo-Christian doctrine? That is, the concept of individual self determination? If they were Muslom or Hindu or Buddhist or atheist would they have been as concerned with the liberty of the individual? I don’t see it myself, and what I do see, the collapse of American exceptialism, seems to be directly linked to the loss of Christiam virtue among the people and the relitively new idea that religion has no place in the public square.
America was America when they were putting plaques of the ten cmanents on courthouses. Not so much since they started ripping them down.
10 commandments that is…
I’m still in the dark what you mean by individual self determination as a component of some Christian doctrine Lee. Seems to me self-determination as a commonplace term showed up some time around the turn of the 19th into the 20th century (I’m just guessing generally at to time there), but I sure don’t recollect it showing up in any English translations of the New Testament I’ve ever read.
as to time
Could the American principles set out by the founders have come from other than Judeo-Christian doctrine?
We can look at Jefferson’s citations for source. He names by name Aristotle (not a Christian), Cicero (also not a Christian), John Locke (a Christian) and Algernon Sidney (also a Christian). What these men have in common seems to be political natural right theory. If Jefferson conceived the sense of the Declaration to have been derived from biblical teaching, he could have said that, but he didn’t.
Pablo, belated congratulations! Nice pic. Where and when are you relocating?
Sdferr, I’m at work on an iPhone so I don’t have the time or resources to give the answer to your question about individuality and Christianity it deserves. Sorry, if the thread ain’t dead tonight maybe I’ll find the time to give it a go.
As to your second point, I don’t think when Jefferson wrote that our rights come from our creator he anticipated confusion over whom he meant.
Re: Machiavelli and Madison
Apologies for the bad form, but don’t we first have to establish that Machiavelli influenced Madison’s thinking?
Re: interpreting Machiavelli:
You have to read both The Prince and the Discourses on Livy. My hypothesis is that we’re all bad interpreters of Machiavelli, having taken description for prescription. In other words, I don’t believe that Machiavelli intends for the would-be Prince to actually act like the princes of the world do act.
Empiricism is method, not a philosophy.
Self-determination is implied in several Christian doctrines, e.g. free will, inherent moral value (in the sense of worth, not the corrupt modern sense of preference) of the individual as creature created in the image of the creator, etc.
I also happen to think self-determination rather accurately encapsulates life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if not poetically.
Apologies for the bad form, but don’t we first have to establish that Machiavelli influenced Madison’s thinking?
That’s surely true in all propriety. And I can’t say that I have the direct evidence which would be required in hand: i.e., that Madison had in his library copies of Machiavelli’s works and signs upon those volumes that he had read them, marked them up and such like. Or in addition, citations in Madison’s writings directly to passages in Machiavelli indicating Madison’s grappling with those ideas.
Still, to the extent that Madison was well read, read Locke, read Hobbes, I believe we can draw on the proper sense in which these men wrote as Machiavelli’s political progeny in order to draw lines of association, if yet indirect lines, to the modern political project Machiavelli founded, and which Madison, following Hobbes and Locke sought to implement.
But maybe we ought to undertake a close reading of Machiavelli prior to any of that with a view to his intentions, since these assertions of mine (and others) about Machiavelli’s project won’t establish sufficient agreement as to the meaning and import of that project.
And now I have to go finish repainting my front porch.
Because winter is coming.
Winter is always coming.
Check in later.
I readily agree empiricism is closely bound to method (moreover that we moderns exercise this method without giving it a moment’s thought in regards to its origins or establishment). I won’t go quite so far as to say that empiricism isn’t a philosophy unqualifiedly, if only in the sense that empiricists too seek wisdom or truth in their efforts, despite that their efforts may not be exhaustive.
Would it be totally ridiculous to say that empiricism is a philosophy of method, and therefore limited in intended application?
That strikes me as a good start McG, but there’s a fundamental problem implicit in the idea of philosophy itself which intimates no limit up to possession of truth of the whole and all the parts of the whole, which philosophy has to struggle to explain. So if empiricism imposes a limit upon itself it seems to reduce to a mere art, techne or practice. Here there are many implications to consider.
Nonetheless influenced by Machiavelli by way of Hobbes by way of Locke doesn’t mean interpreted.
Agree with you about close reading in orignal sources, by the way. My asspull to authority is thatI distinctly remember agreeing with a Professor that the Machiavelli of Discourses is different from the Machiavelli of The Prince. But I certainly don’t have my class notes close to hand, or even the “readings” anthology the course used, let alone a copy of the Discourses.
No it wouldn’t be totaly ridiculous. But it would still be wrong,
Look, empricisim is to philosophy as hammer is to toolbox. Should the only tool in your toolbox be a hammer? If so, does that make the world, everything in it, above it and below it, nothing but nails for the pounding?
We can begin with a simple question or two. Does Machiavelli want the Church to play an active role in politics? Ok, no, not so much. In fact, he wants the Church out of any active role in politics. So, how about Madison? Is his aim to bring the Church into an active role in politics? (I’m speaking very generally here using the “Church” as a shorthand and hope to be allowed as much). Well no, it appears that Madison sees no active role for the Church in politics. And yet, Madison clearly places the Church’s role in human life as an order present in precedence to political life.
I suppose I think of Machiavelli’s intention as one. Whereas the Prince and Discourses on the first Ten Books of Livy are addressed to two differing audiences, and so are sculpted from Machiavelli’s unitary intention to reveal two aspects of his intention tailored to these two differing audiences — a single object seen from two divergent points of view.
With respect, I thought we we’re discussing natural rights, not the proper role of the Church in the body politic.
The tone reads colder than it would have sounded were having a discussion about important things regarding big affairs over bourbon shot and beer chasers.
The misplelings and misuse of apostrophes are how you know it’s over bourbon shots and beer chasers!
The modern natural right political doctrine as we receive it from the founders and framers places the Church outside the reach of the political order, no? That’s where this whole discussion began above, I thought. This was done with distinct reason in mind, or so I think of it. Why? Does the assault by the city on the Idaho minister couple prove to us that the intentions of the modern natural right theory are simply wrong as to the proper order of political right, and that the Church in the persons of the Idaho couple must be bound in any proper order of political right?
I’m not entirely certain. But I think it tries to. And I think this is where the question begging starts.
Unless we’re going to argue man’s religious yearnings are somehow less natural than are his political desires.
And I think this is where the question begging starts.
I’m not sure what question begging. Say.
The liberal society as I conceive and as I think it was conceived by the founders and framers necessitates two distinct spheres, commonly known as the public and the private. The private sphere is our property in Madison’s expanded sense of property, which includes our thoughts, our beliefs, our speeches, our intimate bodily lives — all which our public and political life we have conceived as designed to protect. Our public sphere of life we hold in common, whereas our private sphere of life we do not. Is this question begging?
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
– John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798
Address to the military
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
– Benjamin Franklin
“Good government generally begins in the family, and if the moral character of a people once degenerate, their political character must soon follow.”
– Elias Boudinot,
president of the Continental Congress, later a congressman from NJ, and president of the American Bible Society
“A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district – all studied and appreciated as they merit – are the principle support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty.”
– Benjamin Franklin; March 1778
Seems as though the Founders considered morality, virtue and character as conditions precedent to good government. The question, then, is from whence these come? Are they a product of Man’s intellect or guidance from a Creator? I certainly couldn’t tell you without reference to Ernst’s liquid assistance. But the answer to all of that may be what is oft attributed to Ben Franklin: “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
We don’t hold beliefs in common? We don’t have a common morality? Religion doesn’t have a place in the public sphere, because it’s belief, and belief is private? Our intimate bodily lives, like our beliefs are private, but if you run a wedding chapel in Coeur d’Alene, you for damn sure better give your public primatur to sodomitical nuptials, because we have a right to publically declare profess and celebrate our sodomitical union?
See, I don’t think you’re drilling down far enough sdferr. You’re trying to start from a second order question, to whit –what is the best political regime in which people can exercise their natural rights? I’m saying we need to start with: where do natural rights originate? Or maybe (since I think we can all agree that natural rights originate in nature –naturally!) is nature (i.e. the world and everything in it, above it and below it, intentional or accidental?
Because we have to decide that before we can decide what natural rights are or what quality they hold for us.
Montana, Red. God’s country. Departure is imminent. My only regret is that I won’t be here to see Buddy Cianci take office once again. The other side of that is that I won’t have to watch Gina Raimondo take office either.
Montana’s a good place in which to see them coming for you. Real clear lines of sight.
Pablo, will you be there in time to vote against the plagiarist?
The Christian says the Messiah has come. The Jew says the Messiah has not come. The Buddhist says, who?
Do we hold beliefs in common?
These three will agree they each want justice when made a victim to theft or robbery, nor will any accept to be murdered or to see their kin murdered. So will the far distant resident of Calcutta agree.
Humans everywhere want justice: even the thieves want justice, though they also want to commit injustice by thieving (having his cake and eating it). This is why the poets make their gods to want justice — the poets too want to be loved.
We won’t do better than nature, if we’re looking to a source. This is where we find our commonality, such as it is, even against all the gods and goddesses men may push forward in their heaps and variations, or all the creator stories men may tell.
Humans everywhere want justice
Nope. “Justice” as defined by American principles is different in intent and application than “justice” as defined by a majority of Muslims.
We won’t do better than nature, if we’re looking to a source.
Nature’s nature or Man’s nature?
“All acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law: since each one’s reason naturally dictates to him to act virtuously. But if we speak of virtuous acts, considered in themselves, i.e., in their proper species, thus not all virtuous acts are prescribed by the natural law: for many things are done virtuously, to which nature does not incline at first; but which, through the inquiry of reason, have been found by men to be conductive to well living.” Thomas Aquinas
OT: Mark Levin, is straining himself over the Reagan Democrats right now. Mark’s a smart guy who says what needs saying, but Reagan Democrats? thirty years on? I don’t think so.
Though Thomas Aquinas read Aristotle in Latin translation only, he understood him pretty damned well.
OT2: was in WalMart last night and I noticed all these Star Wars toys with the Disney logo on the box and it hit me –Mickey Mouse is The Sith Master.
OT3: Casey McGehee won NL Comeback Player of the Year by a vote of his professional peers.
Back OT
There’s no meaningful way that you can say the Founder’s had Buddhism on the mind, so that’s a non-starter as an argument.
That said, and pace Darleen*, justice is clearly a universal. And the desire for justice comes from nature. Still, where does our nature come from? Intention or Accident?
We may define justice different from the Muslims, but the belief that people ought to given what they’re due is in fact common to all cultures. Where we disagree is in deciding what people are due.
I dunno Ernst, when they say “all men” I simply take them at their word.
Nature’s nature or Man’s nature?
That’s why Intention or Accident matters.
Are we in fact bodily ensouled creatures made in the image of the Creator? Or just a highly evolved Ape suffering from the delusion of conscioussness because of the way our synapses fire across the hemispheres of our brains (or some damn thing?)
Ernst
I admit to a quibble … Justice exists for all or it exists for no one.
Many other cultures exclude certain categories of people from justice. For me, that means they do not actually believe in justice by definition.
Hey, I missed all this earlier, Pablo, so let me offer you a belated congrats on getting married!
And, now, wow, Montana. Congrats, again. Beautiful country out there.
That’s why Intention or Accident matters.
Very much so.
Specifically, the Founders said “all Men are created equal, … endowed with certain inalienable rights… among [which] are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness[.]”
They didn’t say all religions were created equal.
What the Framers did was to not penalize someone for preferring one religion over another.
My guess is that they had confessional disputes between Catholics and Protestanst, as well as between various Protestant confessions, in mind.
That and a dislike for state-sponsored and sanctioned churches.
I think that’s just another way of saying that cultures disagree about what it is in fact that people are due (in the sense of treating people as they deserve to be treated).
They believe in justice; it’s their understanding of what justice objectively is that’s faulty.
So are we to think the founders would allow there may be some perfect religion outside their ken and that once discovering this perfect religion they would make an exception to their decision to hold religious-political unification at arm’s length? I think not, but that Buddhism counts just the same for their intentions as any of the other peculiar beliefs of which they were aware. The point is simply the strenuous disagreement amongst the varying faiths, a disagreement the founders (and the enlightenment thinkers who preceded them) took as motivation to the very decision.
Re: strenuous disagreement as a motive for holding religious-political unification at arm’s length:
3 things
1) It’s actually re-unification, since religion and politics rode in the same cart for most of human history. (Interestingly, it was first the Jews, and later their Christian cousins who made the divorce possible –that’s the thesis Oakley is pursuing in the series I linked this morning.)
2) Strenuous disagreement, has some virtue in itself in that it allows us to discover Truth. (Of course, now that we’re all value-creating Supermen, who needs to discover Truth?)
3) I’m glad we both agree the Buddhism is a rabbit-hole that takes us out of the discussion.
Yes, well now you speak for a cipher.
Now you’re saying that there was more to your point about Buddhism?
Fine. I’m happy to go back and reread the original comment.
But it seems to me that if you don’t start finding some universals to hang your argument on, you’re going to wind up agreeing with Darth Vader that you’re not in fact being treated unfairly every time the
social contractbargain is altered.I have no idea what you’re getting at Ernst. But at this point I don’t have the energy to bother with this any further. If you choose to continue speaking for a nothing, be my guest . . . just don’t claim you’re speaking for me.
Universals, or objective as opposed to subjective or relative notions about truth, nature, morality etc. are why the question of whether Nature and Natural Rights are Intentional or Accidental.
I’m sorry you don’t get what I’m trying to get at. My point is and remains what I first brought up this morning: if our rights come from our nature, where does our nature come from? And if you say, “from nature,” then you have to ask, where does nature come from [i.e. is nature the result of an intention or of an accident]?
If I can posit this without abuse from people who know that I speak in good faith I’d offer the problem I often wrangle with myself.
How is God a better answer to initial conditions than other things? If it’s absurd that the universe just is and we’re living in that absurd universe you don’t actually alleviate that condition with God. He’s just this alternative unknowable we’re using instead of the Big Bang or the state of things before matter and cause and effect.
But what caused the universe you ask? Well, what caused God? This equally unquantifiable entity. That doesn’t solve anything either in these terms when we’re judging mindless accretions of sentient matter.
They’re similarly ungraspable things that have the possibility to keep you up at night or write really bad open mic poetry.
Likewise, I don’t understand how our unfathomable Father is understood to issue a “Dummies Guide to Liberal Republicanism”. It never happened. IT NEVER HAPPENED. When we look back to the source material there we find an environment that allows such but isn’t predetermined to be so. Same with the other.
God isn’t a political answer. Anymore than the mindless universe is. The’re just there and we grapple with them but that isn’t what moves a man to invent a better government. Nah, that’s this other thing entirely.
> we’re living in that absurd universe you don’t actually alleviate that condition with God.<
perhaps you do if every time you see a story about new galaxies, constellations, et al that what that picture truly is is a sumthing that happened 1000s, 1x1o^6 .. "light years" ago. the night sky is tv for yesterday.
Shorter me: I attempt to consider God and he’s unknowable.
Yet I hear that he’s not only knowable but everyone and their brother knows what He’s saying about our political theory.
All y’all probably have a few Bibles at home like I do. In a couple of them the Word is in red ink instead of black. What you’ll notice is how God is trying to teach us things that are simply incongruent with rational political theory.
Turn the other cheek? Is this what we should do with Obama? Is it better that we suffer this 70 times rather than raise our hands the first time? That’s wise advise in one way but really, really, really, not great advice politically. Hence, Huckabee. And don’t poo poo the guy. He’s like O’Reilly. He has a cadre of fools behind him as well.
C’mon, guys, we’re speaking with friends here. You can admit that this argument has quite often panned out as bald populism. That it’s often the very enemy of true liberalism.
Yup. Good neighbors too. It’s God’s country.
The plagiarist is out. The new candidate is a moonbat and the election will clearly be a hate crime against her.
Maybe try talking to Him.
Tonight I will entertain your objections with a single caveat, newrouter. I mean this, I will do my best to engage you upon that which you raise as an issue.
The one caveat is that you will agree to be a serious adult. You will act worthy of response.
Hey, you ever think about how God is infinite but we’re quite often a three out of four at best when these dicks are rating us on Yelp? Weird, isn’t it? It’s so weird that I might invite the unknowable universe into my heart so that I might find succor in it’s unknowable greatness to find comfort from the unyielding greatness of our Father.
To my understanding that’s excellent advice. Dicentra has added the further element of not being so proud and foolish as a person. Again, good advice.
> from the unyielding greatness of our Father.<
bh,
you go out back at night and look at the moon. that happened about 1 second prior to your eye seeing it. move out with the rest of the planets the time differential increases. do hubble stuff and you are doing space archeology. those things they see now may not exist "now". so we are "stranded" on a planet looking for a philosophy that doesn't subjugate us.
Best comment you’re ever written, newrouter. Yes, we’re on the same page there.
We’re insignificant. Maybe someone loves us as we can’t even conceive of.
But, yeah, God doesn’t check that sort of box for me. When I think of God I start thinking of never-terminating number sequences and similar math. I’m a fairly straight up individual. If everyone says that God is infinite and unknowable that’s how I attempt contact. If that isn’t the case, if he’s just a guy called Gary who publishes newsletters out of his house then maybe I’d get in touch with him.
What has to be understood here though is that I understand our Father to be infinite and (what the word actually means ->) awesome.
But he’s actually more like a guy we might call Thomas H. and hang out with and drink a beer?
Who the hell is this Guy you’re talking about?
>Who the hell is this Guy you’re talking about?<
i stay with jesus. the night sky is deceptive from a physics point of view. reality on earth too might be that way:
Family Says Their Home’s Secret History Led to a ‘Demonic Infestation’ That Terrorized them for Years — and Here Are Some of Their Terrifying Photos
bh
I grew up around a bunch of religion, family and friends. Jewish family & friends, my cousins are Roman Catholic (my ex-husband is RC). Mormon paternal grandparents. I was raised Presbyterian (I will not set foot in that church again after its betrayal of Israel) and currently attend a friendly community Christian Church though I feel very comfortable with Conservative Judaism.
When I talked about First Assumptions earlier, it really is just another way of saying “leap of faith”. I believe the beauty of the universe isn’t an accident. I do not accept that “something” can be created out of “nothing”. You can’t get intelligence from random non-intelligence.
First beginnings may be unknowable in the sense of our own human limitations — our physical senses are very limited. But our intelligence grants us enough rationality to invent tools to exceed our limitations.
And every discovery is for me a gift of further seeing the intricate and breathtaking design of existence.
I am humbled. I am grateful.
Obama gotcha down? Shake it off! He will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaD5_XJl0AY&feature=youtu.be
bh
I guess I’m saying I seem to find a lot more acceptance of the role of religion and spiritual journeys growing up than I do now.
God was still unknowable, but it was more of a personal challenge rather than a dismissal.
What I find is how I share the same concerns all the rest of us find as conservatives.
“I guess I’m saying I seem to find a lot more acceptance of the role of religion and spiritual journeys growing up than I do now.”
What we were doing worked. Only idiots change a working tire.
Now nothing works and I mourn the loss of common piety with our fellows because it did seem to work quite well. If we can leave it there we can gloss over the political issue easily enought. There really is nothing to be gained by our arguing on this point.
That’s how I feel about the notion of the Divine creation of natural rights as well. If we can leave it be as it’s been for centuries I’m happy to be a civilized person based on that fundamental agreement with a quibble or two that will never, ever matter.. If I’m to forced to agree with that which simply isn’t true then it becomes a matter of honor.
*** This is throw away anecdotal material. ***
But, lots of y’all are friendly with God in a way that was pretty much blasphemous in my early education.
God isn’t my friend. He’s awesome. He’s infinite. He’s not someone you talk to about the affairs of men.
I’m not kidding with this. Part of our disconnect here might be that you’re all hippies who think Jesus is that long hair dude playing guitar at church and I’ve always considered it essentially heaven-disqualifying to imagine for a second that God has a second of time for you and I.
Honestly though, I do still cleave to that notion. All this hippy shit about Jesus being your co-pilot? That’s just straight up blasphemy to me. God isn’t your buddy. He didn’t hold your hair while you puked that one time in college.
He doesn’t write political documents either. Stop with this blasphemy.
I think the value, the worth in the idea that natural rights flow from natural law, that both are discernable to human reason because they were designed to be discerned lies in this: order, or at least an ordering principle with which to relate to each other, to other people different from us, to the rest of nature, and too the universe beyond that.
Anything else ultimately devolves into Will to Power.
And that, in turn, is what we’re witnessing with this case, and all the other cases like it.
How do we decide between conflicting political principles? Right now we decide be who has the loudest megaphone. Tomorrow, it might be by who has the biggest gun.
And if I may say, with all humility and consideration, to my way of thinking, the idea that God is unknowable is a recipe for existential despair.
Aaaaand now I see that maybe I misunderstood what bh meant by God is unknowable.
God is unfathomable, i.e. incapable of being perfectly (i.e. objectively) understood.
I hear God is unknowable and I start having vision of Telly Savalas and Max von Sydow.
In case anyone is wondering where I’m coming from, it’s almost entirely from here
SIDENOTE/THOUGHT:
Virtue has existed since Man has existed.
When we Americans here speak of Virtue, however, we are referencing Christian Virtue – a variant that many, if not most, of The Founders, such as John and Samuel Adams, believed was superior to the Ancient versions and to the versions being produced by the French Enlightenment.
By the by, have all y’all seen the latest Rolling Stone?
Listen To Our Hearts
Set Me Free
Jesus, Friend of Sinners
Who Am I
Casting Crowns – East to West
It’s a bit late at night so let’s hit this just for shits and giggles, Ernst.
We’ll all agree that nothing said in this thread matters in terms of team cohesion.
But, yeah, God is actually unknowable. It’s a cardinal sin to pretend otherwise. Not kidding. It’s called Pride. So, hmmm, maybe confess or be damned.
[Deleted a couple of my own comments here because they didn’t read as footloose and fancy-free as intended.]
There’s something to be said for self-del
…
Related:
Hopefully one of the thirteen hundred plus commenters over there informed Mr. Tracinski that it’s called the Spanish inquisition for a reason.
This keeps bouncing around my head, “How do we decide between conflicting political principles?”
Yes, how do we do so? For myself I’d look directly to our constitutional agreements laid out specifically and avoid endless sectarian conflict if possible.
Thanks for the reply bh.
Believe it or not, I’m no more interested in sectarian conflict than you are. But I still think we need to understand the roots or premises underlying our constitutional agreements. And in this case, I think we need to grapple with the fact that modern natural law theory is rests upon an insecure foundation.
>God isn’t my friend.<
dude doing what the universe is doing is on another level. i hope for his -understanding-
Now maybe I’m wrong, and the problem isn’t natural law, but the fact that we are sometimes want to pretend we’re still based upon natural law when we’ve fully committed to legal positivism –or some such theory.
Anyways, I just think the idea of defending the marriage brokers on religious grounds is going to result in the supreme court enunciating a test to determine when a church is a church, and when a church is a religiously based business subject to prevailing legal norms regarding public accomodation. The way to beat this back is on the grounds that, of course you can’t compel a “minister”, ordained or not to perform a wedding between two men or two women or two men, a woman and a goat, and that’s because those aren’t marriage per se. And to do that, we need to get back to natural law.
Not just any natural law theory will do, however. Because if we take Hobbes’ state of nature as our starting point, then why shouldn’t men marry men and women marry women?
You’d be better of trusting in his mercy. Because dude –he understands you better than you understand you.
This I find to be secure, basic, and grounded. This is why we can consider all men to be equal even though this isn’t apparent upon first glance (some are quite infirm and evil, for instance). But any infirm and evil man might put a dagger into the best of us. And often do.
>God isn’t my friend.<
no something special/different/ something you can't fathom
Towards the post itself, I’d say that’s exactly the problem.
I don’t think I see the problem there. It seems to me that he’d laugh about this idea for days and days and days.
He’s say something about Progeny and then he’d keep laughing.
bh, is that Hobbes, or Locke?
Sorry, Hobbes, Cive.
I’m off to find the Hobbes quote were he acknowledges that man has a natural right to another man’s person –just as that other man has a natural right to the first man’s person.
We needn’t agree with Hobbes in any particular. I often don’t. We simply see how suddenly we’re talking about explicit natural rights here not in some more abstract sense that you can kinda/sorta see in the proper lighting if you tilt the text just right.
But the explicit natural rights are what matter, because in Hobbes, I have a natural right to torture, rape, maim, murder and then consume you. Just as you have the same right to do it to me before I do it to you (to borrow from Hill Street Blues.
In Hobbes world, there’s no natural rights worth having.
Hence, Rousseau, who turned Hobbes inside out the same way Marx did to Hegel.
I’m uncertain of the scholarly basis for the assertion I’m about to suggest, but as I understand the terms, natural law is distinct from natural right in the canon. As I take it, natural law refers to a predominantly Catholic teaching, deriving from Aquinas and through him, from Aristotle in Aquinas’ synthesis of Aristotelian teaching with Christian doctrine. Natural right begins more or less with Socrates, transmits to Plato and Aristotle, and is revived with changes in emphasis by later thinkers like Hobbes following Machiavelli, along with others like Spinoza and later, Locke modifying Hobbes’ scheme. Anyhow, it may be useful to preserve those terminological distinctions.
The right aspect of natural right goes to justice. It’s not at all clear that Hobbes presumes that murder is right, is it? In fact, he does not. The escape from his ‘state of nature’ is found in right.
Specifically, the right the seek the protection of a stronger man content to rape and torture you instead of serving you for supper once the thrill is gone isn’t it?
Do men work their evil because they find it in their texts or to they do their evil and then find the justification for it after they’ve lived long enough to write the book? (Obviously there’s a bit of both.)
For myself, Hobbes lays out an extremely important natural right. You get to kill people who mean you harm. This wasn’t always on the table. Is this a dangerous pathway to later continental thought?
I’m not sure. In the superman’s hand, yeah, it’s not offering much by way of moral caution. I do know though that Hobbes would quite clearly tell those people living in shtetls that you might want to give a thought or two to buying some weapons because whether they’re lords or bishops you do get to kill folks as a rule.
Perhaps we’re getting hung up here in a way that I’m missing.
When I’m speaking of killing I mean the revolutionary idea of not being a dirt-eating peasant anymore who bows and scrapes because he’s lucky to live out his life taking abuse in his unquestionable level of existence. No, these are advancements in the understanding of citizens (De Cive). Not for those who have always been free to do what they might will.
As to terminological distinctions, I just found this in Hobbes, Lev I.14
“The RIGHT OF NATURE, which writers commonly call jus naturale [bold emph mine]….
“A LAW OF NATURE, (lex naturalis) … [ditto]”
It’s one of Hobbes’ laws of nature that “the condition of man is a condition of war of every one against every one; in which case every one is governed by his own reason; and there is nothing he can make use of, that may not be a help unto him, in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth, that in such a condition, every man has a natural right to every thing; even to one another’s body [ditto, ditto]. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man[.]”
de Cive XIII. But it is easily judg’d how disagreeable a thing to the preservation either of Man-kind, or of each single Man, a perpetuall War is: But it is perpetuall in its own nature, because in regard of the equality of those that strive, it cannot be ended by Victory; for in this state the Conquerour is subject to so much danger, as it were to be accounted a Miracle, if any, even the most strong should close up his life with many years, and old age. They of America are Examples hereof, even in this present Age: Other Nations have been in former Ages, which now indeed are become Civill, and Flourishing, but were then few, fierce, short-lived, poor, nasty, and destroy’d of all that Pleasure, and Beauty of life, which Peace and Society are wont to bring with them. Whosoever therefore holds, that it had been best to have continued in that state in which all things were lawfull for all men, he contradicts himself; for every man, by naturall necessity desires that which is good for him: nor is there any that esteemes a war of all against all, which necessarily adheres to such a State, to be good for him. And so it happens that through feare of each other we think it fit to rid our selves of this condition, and to get some fellowes; that if there needs must be war, it may not yet be against all men, nor without some helps.
The flip side to that is people get to kill you too. But I’m working from Leviathan, not De Cive.
de Cive 1, XV. Yet cannot men expect any lasting preservation continuing thus in the state of nature (i.e.) of War, by reason of that equality of power, and other humane faculties they are endued withall. Wherefore to seek Peace, where there is any hopes of obtaining it, and where there is none, to enquire out for Auxiliaries of War, is the dictate of right Reason; that is, the Law of Nature, as shall be shewed in the next Chapter.
Strong and/or evil people have always been able to kill others though, Ernst. In great numbers. Brutally. And they’ve never needed any justification. Hobbes didn’t create this possibility or encourage it.
I’ve always taken Hobbes as one who rather sneakily mentioned how men kill one another in such ways without making any big noise about their rank or position. That’s the context.
The important point, I think, is that the Hobbesian natural man is Eric Cartman
In which case, why shouldn’t society “evolve” and allow homosexuals to recover their lost right to marry one another?
It’s not the killing per se that I object to bh, it’s the notion that it’s natural for men to prey on each other. That puts us in “sophisticated but otherwise unremarkable ape” territory.
As to how that relates to the first question (i.e. deciding between conflicting political principles), if we’ve evolved past the state of nature, then why should we care whether marriage is natural or a “social construct”?
It seems to me, the progressives take both positions to argue heads I win, tails you lose.
in re Cartman, I’d say that Hobbes recognized that no man was without sin.
Towards gay folks marrying? Seriously, I can’t even imagine Hobbes tackling the problem. I’m not even sure how you’d explain it to him. (Not gay people existing. He probably knew a few. Just the idea of gay marriage.)
Two passages, more or less describing the same phenomena, the first from de Cive,1 V. , the second from Leviathan, Ch. VIII. Both these, I think, go directly toward the elimination of enmity sought in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
de Cive. 1 V.: . Furthermore, since the combate of Wits is the fiercest, the greatest discords which are, must necessarily arise from this Contention; for in this case it is not only odious to contend against, but also not to consent; for not to approve of what a man saith is no lesse than tacitely to accuse him of an Errour in that thing which he speaketh; as in very many things to dissent, is as much as if you accounted him a fool whom you dissent from; which may appear hence, that there are no Warres so sharply wag’d as between Sects of the same Religion, and Factions of the same Commonweale, where the Contestation is Either concerning Doctrines, or Politique Prudence. And since all the pleasure, and jollity of the mind consists in this; even to get some, with whom comparing, it may find somewhat wherein to Tryumph, and Vaunt it self; its impossible but men must declare sometimes some mutuall scorn and contempt either by Laughter, or by Words, or by Gesture, or some signe or other; than which there is no greater vexation of mind; and than from which there cannot possibly arise a greater desire to doe hurt.
………………………………..
Leviathan Ch. VIII, para’s. 5-7: Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater value from his contemners, by damage; and from others, by the example.
So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.
The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.
Here I’m a simple Burkean. What exists and has done so successfully for quite awhile doesn’t require explaining or justification.
How have men evolved past the state of nature? Certainly not for Locke. So far as he is concerned, we’re always in it and our predominant choice (our civil contract) is to live otherwise.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be a winning argument these days.
Madison, Federalist 51:
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Most of which we’ve systematically removed because vox populi,.
Agreed. Not that I have all or even a couple of the answers but I think the core problem lies in your mention of legal positivism.
There are rights springing up all over the place now without any understanding whatsoever that the genius of our system was in its maddening factionalism and how we kept saying over and over again about how the government can’t do this and can’t do that.
okay, calling it a night.
good chewing ideas with you guys
We’re generally advocating against the systematic removal of the limits on our government. That awful action (“there ought to be a law!”) has been nothing but the most terrible tragedy of which we are aware, a civic suicide as Lincoln put it. The golden American thread has been lost, as observed way up this “thread” near the beginning. On the one hand, we hope to recover the golden American thread. But on the other, we first have to acknowledge that it has gone missing, and why that is so.
Later, Ernst.
I’m thinking about your caution between the difference between natural law and natural rights btw, sdferr.
There’s a decent chance that I’m lapsing into a bit of Catholicism here unintentionally.
. . . that the Hobbesian natural man is Eric Cartman
With every passing day and the entrance of more complete information, it looks to me as though the deceased Michael Brown would better exemplify a man choosing to remain in a Hobbean state of nature, and thereby forcing Officer Darren Wilson to join him in it.
There’s not a chance I’ll find the citations anymore now because a previous discussion reminded me that I don’t have my old, noted Aquinas books anymore. But, loosely speaking, I reckon our our ol’ buddy Tomas tied law and rights by way of justice. That fella had a good head on his shoulders.
When modern political philosophy set it’s sights lower, intentionally or not, we traded the cultivation of virtue as the end of the ideal society for the containment of vice. And since we no longer talk about virtues –at least not publicly– what counts as vice has been defined ever downwards. Just like deviancy.
I have enjoyed the discussion, Gentlemen.
We were warned many times about the jacobin caprice of democracy. We were told to make changes difficult and slow occurring so that greater comity was required to shift the weight of the republic than a slick demagogue riding a fad or hysteria could muster. We’ve greased the wheels and cut the brakes. Now our best hope of salvation is running out of gas or having the engine seize somewhere between here and the canyon wall.
le chandail a démêlé
I suppose there is still hope to be found in The Convention Of The States effort.
Question: Will a GOP takeover of the Senate – which we know will not produce really any of the change that is desperately needed – kill what ardor there is for the Article V Movement?
Augustine said something about all the pagans’ virtues being but splendid vices. Not true virtues in the light of God’s kingdom come. I suspect that Aquinas’ principle must be the universal in God’s dicta, rather than justice, which is a local (and hence failed or fallen) sort of criterion. The Machiavellian rejoinder is that this airy-fairy story isn’t universal at all, but dreamlike and insupportable on consideration of a skeptic’s evidence, hence the “rebirth” of the ancient virtues in a modern empirical garb. The wheel goes round, when someone notices that the presumed universality of empirical science rests inescapably upon an unexamined foundation of human common sense, which cannot account [“why science?”] for itself for lacking knowledge but must skip over that examination, assuming it merely. We end up roughly in Nietzsche’s puzzlement.
palaeo, I’d make a slight modification – Now our best hope of salvation is punching holes in the gas tank or putting sand in the engine so that it seizes somewhere between here and the canyon wall.
If the vehicle is sound, the gas tank and engine can be replaced once the vehicle’s direction is reversed. Still difficult, but probably easier than trying to create a working vehicle from the wreckage at the bottom of the cliff.
This is where Spinoza isn’t so bad. What Spinoza says is stop being so foolhardy as in our normal judging with this state of affairs. I don’t find this stance to be mystical or without reason.
While I understand the basic lunacy of humans forgoing reason in our arguments I do understand the basic reason of our understanding to forgo that which we will not be able to compute.
There are statements which can’t be proven even if they are true.
I should note the arguments that Strauss has made on these points but I’m not yet there. Sdferr has made some compelling arguments here. It should be noted.
Yep regarding our need to take a healthy tacit stance. I rather prefer, for instance, Nietzsche’s perplexity (as opposed to his answers to his own perplexity) to Hegel’s confidence that he’s not got particular persisting questions. So that awhile after Nietzsche’s confrontation with our modern gap, men discover we can fruitfully return to the ancients with a view to recovering their unburdened confrontation with these same issues, more or less the first such confrontation of which we have any record, and bonus for them, carried out in a freedom of which we could only dream. This to our great boon.
Just out of curiosity, how do you propose to make the square peg of ancient aristocratic virtues fit in the round hole of a demotic age?
There are true statements that can’t be proven scientifically, but that can be proven logically.
Granted, we live in a era of quantification, and not everyone is going to accept a unquantifiable proof.
Let me pose a similar question. What if that which we believed didn’t matter to the reality of the world. That that which simply was simply was without out any further considerations.
That’s where I find myself. That’s the position I find myself in when I think about how to answer this.
If I say something clever here it will change nothing but our opinions. What is, is.
I mean this in a simpler Godel sense. It’s a true statement that we can make true statements that our reasoning will not ever be able to prove logically. That isn’t scientism or relativism.
It’s a proven law of the universe.
Just out of curiosity, how do you propose to make the square peg of ancient aristocratic virtues fit in the round hole of a demotic age?
I don’t think that’s at all what can happen, or to say “how” anything remotely approaching such a thing would happen. The first problem we confront, it seems to me (and I’ve lived through this problem myself in some small measure), is to trouble ourselves to recover the intentions of the ancients simply in order to understand what it was they were thinking and advocating. This isn’t at all within our reach, certainly not as a matter of course. It’s freakishly hard to do, is what I mean. I think it can be done, don’t get me wrong about that, but the gulf between our ordinary language and theirs is tremendous. Just look at the back and forth on this blog about stuff like “culture” and “values” and so on and so forth. We moderns (probably like pretty much all people of any time and any place) don’t like to put away our habits of thought, or drop our common jargons, if we even are lucky enough to recognize our ways of speaking and thinking as habitual or jargon ridden.
And that would only be one of the elements of beginning. We’d have to care to do the work, is another. And after a few decades of arguing off and on that people should care, I’m reasonably comfortable concluding that by and large people aren’t going to be easily persuaded that they should do so and do it with a view to their own practical benefit.
And how close are we at this point to the substance of the ancients’ views? Ha!
By coincidence, I was poking around elsewhere on the web while waiting to see if you and sdferr were still around, and I came across this apt observation:
I think we can agree that what we believe doesn’t matter to the reality of the world. Take for example the proverbial post-modernist who thinks gravity is a social construct.
At the same time, the reality of the world ought to matter to what we believe, should it not?
Do I not express the exact opposite viewpoint in my comments? Don’t I say the exact opposite of this?
apologies for the craven html fail there.
My suspicion, and it’s only a suspicion because I simply haven’t done even enough shallow reading to have more than a passing notion. Is that the work has already been done for us by Thomas Aquinas.
But that assumes the neo-Thomists weren’t, and aren’t, completely off their gourd.
And like I said, I just haven’t done the reading.
Okay, fine, I’ll admit it. I’m a bit touchy here.
Mea culpa. Maxima.
I’m sorry if I’m not agreeing with you as obviously as I thought I was.
I was trying to communicate the idea that the world doesn’t care what we think about it, but we ought to care what we think about the world if we’re going to –not simply function– but actually flourish in it.
In a all-true scotsmen know proverbial post-modernists go splat when they attempt to queer gravity sort of way.
[reconciling ancient and modern]
I meant to suggest that long before we attempt to reconcile these two things, one of which — the modern — is more or less in our possession (and that’s doubtful in itself), the other of which we haven’t got at all, we’re encumbered with recovering the one we haven’t got first, and then checking to see whether we’re missing something about the one we take for granted to have, since the recovery of the missing component may actually alter our view of the one we thought we owned.
Nope, that’s on me. Entirely. My fault.
hazards of the format, so no worries mate.
Cheers, Ernst.
sdferr, now you’re into the existential weeds of the essential otherness of the past.
As a historian, I hate that.
But I see your point.
Ain’t that the beauty of it? On the one hand, we prance around as if we pwned those old bastards. On the other hand, we don’t have a clue what we’re talking about when we say that.
existential, ontological, whatever. Hand me the Round-Up
So the weeds are the difference. Let’s kill ’em and be done with it.
But then why bother with that? Since that’s what we’d already done simply by ignoring them.
Casting Crowns – All You’ve Ever Wanted
That just means what we know is always going to be provisional, and we should be humble enough to admit that
That’s kind of what Leopold von Ranke had in mind when he said that every age is equally near to God.
The question there has to be “Why do we need the weeds?”
Not an easy or simple answer will suffice. To give one a go anyhow: because our “own” theoretical edifice is failing. It doesn’t work the way our near antecedents thought it would work. But then, to what ought we turn in the alternative?
Well, what alternatives are available?
Oh, how about these ancient fuckers who created all our political jargon from scratch? Let’s see what they had to say about the perennial problems we confront?
I like Depeche Mode more betterer
I was speaking specifically to the idea that the other is unknowable because we are not them and their thoughts are not our thoughts.
Agree our paradigm is failing, and has been for a long, long time.
by “our” I mean what we used to call the West
–because we couldn’t call it Christendom anymore.
I was speaking specifically to the idea that the other is unknowable because we are not them and their thoughts are not our thoughts.
I have specifically repudiated this terrible idea. It’s bullshit, in my view. If it were so, no communication would be possible at all, and no one believes this.
“It doesn’t work the way our near antecedents thought it would work. But then, to what ought we turn in the alternative?”
I wonder if they didn’t have it roughly right but that we might now encourage more factionalism everywhere and all the time between states
It’s this idea of a unified federal government that tossed Madison’s work into the shitheap. Why doesn’t New Hampshire start giving Mississippi a whole bunch of shit if it turns out they’re a bunch of layabout loosers? Some states are better members and we should start talking about it.
For what it’s worth I have no idea if New Hampshire or Mississippi are good states. I do have some thoughts about Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin though.
It does seem as though the “roughly right” worked fine for a long damn time. I think the founders and framers expected a stiffer defense to be put up by the independent Americans of their independent mode of life and governance, that they would be at least a little surprised by how easily their beautiful structure was taken down a brick at a time by people working at the distant margins of society from government (which is to say in the schools), and even through the government acquiring ever greater sway in those margins (again, the schools). We Americans proved to be chumps and vilely greedy short-sighted scum, is what we did us. And we done us sumpin’ awful. Ain’t we proud now?
hazards of the format again, my 11:20 is in response to your 10:33, since at 11:11 bh & were still making up, so I hadn’t yet read your 11:11 clarifying your 10:33.
Also, I read your “let’s kill ’em and be done with ’em” as sarcasm in response to my Round-up quip.
Apologies for belaboring a miscommunication.
Fucking internet.
Ok. Still, I thought “I think it can be done, don’t get me wrong about that” is pretty plain English.
Those thought wouldn’t be “meh, sucks, sucks donkey balls, and closest thing to heaven on earth,” would they?
Well, I missed that in trying to keep up with the conversation.
Sosumi for not having a fast computer and an even faster internet connection.
Imma just gonna toss this out here as a thought experiment and I might well be wrong.
But, bh proposes that Americans have by and large never been particularly educated or virtuous. That it’s more of a systemic thing. That it’s never been a democracy. And it’s only in a democracy that we’ve found these problems.
Better to not have every Tom, Dick and Harry show up to the polls. (Or women.)
See, I’m just proposing this as a thought experiment. Just as a notion that maybe Americans have often been busy going about their work and drinking whiskey and not creating mob action at the polls.
Ehhh, I’m probably right here, ain’t I?
That just means that a French aristocrat understood Americans better than America’s founders and framers understood Americans.
Mind reader!
Yes, you probably are right. Tocqueville might offer to lend a hand, for sez he, the Americans as he found them are like natural Cartesians (I think he means severe skeptics here) who’ve never read a page of Descartes in their lives (cuz they dunno so much how to read French), nor never needed to, so cursedly skeptical are they by nature.
But, when you let the Irish take over the whole east coast and then women are voting in prohibition you’re just sorta fucked as a nation.
Again, that’s not my thought here. I’m not arguing against democracy. That would be crazy. No one would ever say such a thing.
I’ve argued as much bh. I’m in favor of property qualifications, and (civic) literacy tests.
I’m also intrigued by a notion I heard Walter E. Williams promote: weighted voting by tax bracket. Everybody get’s one vote, but the more you pay in taxes, the more votes you get.
Elect Curley.
“Granted, we live in a era of quantification”
I think this is largely a facade. We ignore numbers we don’t like such as Antarctic ice increasing or violent crime decreasing all the time. The move to the empirical as the sole valuable arena to win in was used to tear down the status of the older culture but the new would be culture is not empiricist. It thinks History wants things, lives and prospers by the false dichotomy, and delights in tautological conditions that create heads I win tails you lose situations. The US like the world can’t handle the empiricism it claims to demand. Vogue vogue strike a pose.
It occurs to me that the hammer and sickle motif was only half right given the famines and poverty that followed the great revolution. You get lots of hammer but the sickle won’t be needed much as the harvests dwindle.
“the era of quantification” points directly to the [c]up-sizing to the perfect breast. It’s a fix, the fix is in, but just ignore those wrinkles on the side there, since the heft is what we’re counting after all.
You’re in good company there.
We can never, ever say this though.
I heard the problem formulated this way not too long ago: We educate to process information, but we don’t actually teach how to think in the first place.
How do you know he’s
a kingan expert?He
ain’t got shit all over ‘imgots a Ph.D.Or an MBA, J.D.
hell, even an Ed.D qualifies as “ain’t got shit all over ‘im” and that’s a bullshit degree if ever there was one.
Also, in response to palaeo,
The would-be culture isn’t empiricist because empiricism can’t answer existential questions. And as you say, a modicum of empiricality shovels a lot of shit for people looking for easy answers as to why they, like Mongo, are just pawns in the game of life.
Came across this linked at Insty.
Now combine with the New Left takeover of academe so as to indoctrinate the young and filter for political correctness those desiring to advance to higher degrees and we get private and public sectors being increasingly run by and for one political type.
Perhaps colleges will adopt an new model which is more like the pre-Griggs one businesses used. One can hope but it would be simpler to just drop the whole Griggs-gorian system.