Monday, March 15, 2010

Obama Hates Me!

"Rights that are defensive for an isolated individual become aggressive for a collectivity," as Schuon once put it. With the left's unprecedented power-grab and in-your-face smackdown of our freedom this week, we are seeing this adage play out in real time. I don't think I've ever felt so bullied by my own government. Look at these new t-shirts the DNC is selling -->

Well, technically, I suppose I always felt that way back when I was a moron of the left. I even had one of those t-shirts that said "Reagan Hates Me," but it was more the fashionable pretend-persecution of those who have never known the real thing. Even the truly committed leftist only projects his own hostility or existential unhappiness into politics, and then feels persecuted by his projections. The leftist exists in chronic state of intrapsychic persecution, or he wouldn't be a leftist, he'd be happy and free.

There is individual health, collective health, and what we might call cosmic health, which has to do with how adequately we are aligned with the vertical. I would like to discuss some ideas that are absolutely critical to the evolutionary health and well being of the cosmos, and follow quite naturally from the nonlocal principles that (vertically) structure reality.

As we have discussed before, leftism is by definition a perpetual rebellion against these principles -- against the Real. Thus, it is de facto the maninfestation of a spiritual illness, often, but not always, rooted in a psychological one. It amounts to a cynical and worldly suspiciousness that excludes any real explanations, "since these in their turn fall under the same law of suspicion, which drags everything down and which is the end of truth" (Schuon).

Radical skepticism (cf. the French Revolution) poisons everything and then kills you last. But even if it doesn't kill you directly, it leaves you in a humanly uninhabitable world, since it is devoid of the higher truths that nourish the soul (again, the soul, no less than the body, requires a certain kind of environment in order to flourish).

Continuing with our discussion of Michael Polanyi, one puzzling thing he noticed was that intellectuals were not only responsible (obviously) for the most destructive ideas and ruthless political movements of the 20th century, but that they enthusiastically embraced them despite the fact that these ideas, if implemented, would spell the end of their own intellectual class. That is, the very ideas leftists hold most dear undermine the liberal ideal of freedom of inquiry guided by the pursuit of truth. Today this is a truism, but how did we get to this point, in which our intellectual class is so spiritually sick?

Prosch writes that "It was the intellectuals of [the last] century themselves who played the largest part in destroying those very things that they needed and that were already theirs. Such operative perversity as this must lead one to suspect the operator's mental health, a mind blind to that which it wants and needs." Indeed, a mind which "proceeds on a path toward its own destruction, may surely be suspected of suffering from obsessions that are pushing it to such nonadaptive behavior."

As we shall see, Polanyi's analysis explains why the cognitive and spiritual pathology of political correctness emanates from the left, and could only emanate from the left, despite the fact that it makes a farce of their vaunted ideal of "academic freedom." And it is the very definition of pathology, since it causes great damage to the mind and soul of the person afflicted with it.

Führermore, once this authoritarian virus has taken over whole institutions -- i.e., leftist academia, Hollywood, the MSM, the State Department -- it becomes a truly dangerous pathogen that systematically infects those who pass through its environment (again, unless they have a very robust spiritual immune system rooted in the Real).

We see the same thing occurring with Islamic fascism, which is not -- as leftists cluelessly, but necessarily, believe -- a result of poverty, but of affluence. It is rooted in the ideas of intellectuals, who then -- just as leftists do in the West -- try to demagogically and/or violently propagate their ideas to the ignorant masses to explain their existential misery.

The only thing that has kept America (its better half, not its bitter half) immune from this process is its strong foundation in an alternative metaphysic, which we call the Judeo-Christian tradition. Likewise, the reason why continental Europe fell to the viral seduction of leftism is that it had already gravely weakened its own (super)natural defense mechanism to it.

Prosch has an interesting explanation for this. That is, in continental Europe, their political liberation was inseparable from their religious liberation -- which was in reality a "liberation" from religion, not for it.

However, in Protestant England and America, the break from religious oppression had already been effected, so that political liberation was not conflated with a rebellion against God. Thus, the Founders were able to formulate the ideal of distinct domains of church and state, not for the purpose of ending religion's influence, but strengthening it.

Conversely, in Europe, their separation of the two spheres inevitably led to the destruction of religion and the deification of the state. No properly religious person could ever deify the state, which is why leftist statism is excluded for the spiritually attuned but just about mandatory for the spiritually blind (objectivists and contemporary libertarians represent insignificant and ultimately self-refuting exceptions to this rule).

Being a scientist, Polanyi noticed a connection between the ideals of logical positivism and the nihilism of the left. Even today, despite the fact that positivism has been so thoroughly discredited, it remains a kind of tacit metaphysic for both scientists and for much of the educated public.

In other words, there is a widespread assumption that "only scienctific theories [are] capable of verification (i.e., proof), and that moral or ethical or political or religious ideals and principles [are] essentially unprovable, mere matters of emotional preference."

But Polanyi saw that there was a deep relationship between the very possibility of science and certain metaphysical ideals and principles "that not only could not be proved, but could not even be made wholly explicit." And just because the ideals which underlie science could not be proved, it hardly meant that they were unworthy of belief (Gödel again).

This tacit acceptance of positivism ramifies in interesting ways. On the one hand, there is the scientific worker bee who supposedly only believes what his experimental data tell him. But this is indeed a cold, dead, airless, and ultimately infrahuman spiritual environment into which the passion for nihilism rushes to fill the void. In this regard, it seems that human nature abhors a vacuum, and therefore fills the vacuum with a void -- the nihilistic void of the secular left.

Now it is surely noteworthy that the only organized opposition to liberty comes from the intellectual left, who supposedly hold their own liberty -- e.g., "academic freedom" -- to be sacred. How could someone who would instinctively rebel at the idea of a centralized and top-down "planned culture," embrace the idea of a centralized, planned economy?

Good question!

As Prosch writes, "much of the dissatisfaction with the present order of the economy came from intellectuals, from people not under these immediate threats and whose professional life would derive little benefit from scrapping the system. Those who needed cultural freedom most in order to get along with their chosen work formed the bulk of those most obsessed with the notion of curtailing it through adopting a planned economy."

And a planned economy eventually devolves to a planned culture, something which is quite evident. That is, the more left the country, the more laws must exist to constrain and control the people, exterior laws which displace the interior law written in the heart of man (to say nothing of the financial burden that converts us all from free citizens to indentured serfs); or, as Dennis Prager says, "the bigger the State, the smaller the citizen."

Yes, but what are the exact dynamics of this irrational leftist nihilism, and what caused its adherents to reject the liberal foundations of the Christian West?

To be continued... Meanwhile, repeat after me: Rights that are defensive for an isolated individual become aggressive for a leftist collectivity in charge of the media, academia, and all three branches of government.

58 Comments:

Blogger Van said...

"How could someone who would instinctively rebel at the idea of a centralized and top-down "planned culture," embrace the idea of a centralized, planned economy?"

It also seems that those who corrosively doubt all, also seem to be more than a bit inclined to conspiracy theories and planned economies - it's almost as if the thunking is "I know nothing can be known, so some other people must know everything there is to know. Damn them!"

3/15/2010 08:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thus, the Founders were able to formulate the ideal of distinct domains of church and state, not for the purpose of ending religion's influence, but strengthening it.
-- Gagdad Bob

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson

3/15/2010 09:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Thomas Jefferson said...

Dude, I was in my beloved France when the Constitution was written, giving aid and comfort to the real revolutionaries.

3/15/2010 11:00:00 AM  
Anonymous spanky said...

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a bureaucrat-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil masters will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
Spanky 2010'

3/15/2010 11:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Ironic that the party that was founded on principles of limited and decentralized government would now use its founder to justify a huge and intrusive state run by a secular priesthood. Proof once again that the left doesn't just lie, it is a lie.

3/15/2010 12:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now it is surely noteworthy that the only organized opposition to liberty comes from the intellectual left, who supposedly hold their own liberty -- e.g., "academic freedom" -- to be sacred.
-- Gagdad Bob

So that is three GOP members of Congress who are going to be joining with the AFA's Bryan Fischer who, in recent months, has declared that all Muslims should be banned from the military, homosexuality should be illegal and all gays should be treated like criminals, praised Ryan Sobra for his anti-gay rant at CPAC, and called for the stoning of a killer whale at Sea World.
Right Wing Watch

3/15/2010 12:50:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Poor aninnymouse. Jefferson wasn't warning about the religious inclinations of his fellows, or of fears of such overtaking the United States, but was referring to the Central & South American lands that were controlled and ruled mainly by the Jesuits, not by civil governments whose free peoples had their several religious affiliations. While it's true that the mind of the aninnymouse can rarely stretch beyond his beloved quotation lists, it might help to put your quote into
a bit of context,

"The livraison of your astronomical observations, and the 6th and 7th on the subject of New Spain, with the corresponding atlasses, are duly received, as had been the preceding cahiers. For these treasures of a learning so interesting to us, accept my sincere thanks. I think it most fortunate that your travels in those countries were so timed as to make them known to the world in the moment they were about to become actors on its stage. That they will throw off their European dependence I have no doubt; but in what kind of government their revolution will end I am not so certain. History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. The vicinity of New Spain to the United States, and their consequent intercourse, may furnish schools for the higher, and example for the lower classes of their citizens. And Mexico, where we learn from you that men of science are not wanting, may revolutionize itself under better auspices than the Southern provinces. These last, I fear, must end in military despotisms. The different casts of their inhabitants, their mutual hatreds and jealousies, their profound ignorance and bigotry, will be played off by cunning leaders, and each be made the instrument of enslaving others. But of all this you can best judge, for in truth we have little knowledge of them to be depended on, but through you. But in whatever governments they end they will be American governments, no longer to be involved in the never-ceasing broils of Europe. "

3/15/2010 12:51:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

BTW, since Jefferson seems to be the aninnies oracle, it might be fun for your PC beliefs to contemplate this later piece of the same letter,

"You know, my friend, the benevolent plan we were pursuing here for the happiness of the aboriginal inhabitants in our vicinities. We spared nothing to keep them at peace with one another. To teach them agriculture and the rudiments of the most necessary arts, and to encourage industry by establishing among them separate property. In this way they would have been enabled to subsist and multiply on a moderate scale of landed possession. They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time. On the commencement of our present war, we pressed on them the observance of peace and neutrality, but the interested and unprincipled policy of England has defeated all our labors for the salvation of these unfortunate people. They have seduced the greater part of the tribes within our neighborhood, to take up the hatchet against us, and the cruel massacres they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach. Already we have driven their patrons and seducers into Montreal, and the opening season will force them to their last refuge, the walls of Quebec. We have cut off all possibility of intercourse and of mutual aid, and may pursue at our leisure whatever plan we find necessary to secure ourselves against the future effects of their savage and ruthless warfare. The confirmed brutalization, if not the extermination of this race in our America, is therefore to form an additional chapter in the English history of the same colored man in Asia, and of the brethren of their own color in Ireland, and wherever else Anglo-mercantile cupidity can find a two-penny interest in deluging the earth with human blood. But let us turn from the loathsome contemplation of the degrading effects of commercial avarice. "

3/15/2010 12:52:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Or this nugget from Jefferson,

"I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that too the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all."

One wonders what he would have to say to you about this abominable piece of leftist tyranny and it's 3,769 instances of what 'shall' be done (to you).

3/15/2010 12:56:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Jefferson will always be the favorite founder of the left because, although brilliant, he was also emotional and impulsive, and said all kinds of kooky and intemperate things that can be used to justify this or that un-American fancy of the contemporary left.

3/15/2010 01:17:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

That is, the very ideas leftists hold most dear undermine the liberal ideal of freedom of inquiry guided by the pursuit of truth.

Is creating one's own problems a sort of ego-reinforcement? It gives the negative self an excuse to dig in.

3/15/2010 01:52:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes. Mind parasites bring about the very conditions necessary to justify their existence, analogous on a macro scale to the way Democrat policies make citizens more helpless and dependent, for which they then need Democrats to save them.

3/15/2010 01:56:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Gagdad said "Jefferson will always be the favorite founder of the left..."

Yes, to try and take any one quote by Jefferson as proof of his considered opinion, is foolish... hence the popularity of one liner quotes by him on leftie sites.

3/15/2010 01:59:00 PM  
Blogger Ilíon said...

"Ironic that the party that was founded on principles of limited and decentralized government would now use its founder to justify a huge and intrusive state run by a secular priesthood. Proof once again that the left doesn't just lie, it is a lie."

I always understood that the Democratic Party was founded for the purpose of raiding the fisc for the benefit of certain well-connected individuals.

That, and so that that sneak, Jefferson, could oppose Washington indirectly.

3/15/2010 02:45:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I'm pretty sure that started with Jackson.

3/15/2010 02:54:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I believe Jefferson opposed the Federalists because he truly favored a horizontal and decentralized government, more democratic and less run by a would-be aristocracy. Nice theory, but the party soon changed with the grasping rabbleocracy of Jackson.

3/15/2010 03:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point was not "Thomas Jefferson is always right", but the falsity of the GB's assertion that the founders wanted to strengthen the influence of religion. Quite the opposite is true. While the founders had varying degrees of religious belief, all were aware of the danger posed by relgious involvement in government and supported the idea of a wall of separation.

As to Jefferson's wavering opinions, you can see a lot more here.

Or if Jefferson has somehow been written out of the founding of the country (as the Texas school board recently has done), you can see a similar page of John Adams quotes.

3/15/2010 03:07:00 PM  
Blogger Ilíon said...

Ilíon: "I always understood that the Democratic Party was founded for the purpose of raiding the fisc for the benefit of certain well-connected individuals."

G'Bob: "I'm pretty sure that started with Jackson."

I had in mind this fellow from NY -- as I have long understood it, a major root of the Democratic-Republican Party can be traced back to his NY clique.

Look at this from the link:
"... Clinton received 50 electoral votes to 77 for Adams. His candidacy was damaged by his anti-Federalist record, and by his narrow and disputed re-election as governor in 1792. (He won by only 108 votes, and the substantial anti-Clinton vote of Otsego CountyOtsego County, New YorkOtsego County is a county located in the U.S. state of New York. The 2003 population estimate was 62,196, a 2.9% increase from 1990. The county seat is Cooperstown. The name Otsego is from an Indian word meaning "place of the rock."- History :...
was excluded on a technicality.)
"

My! How we've progressed.

3/15/2010 03:15:00 PM  
Blogger Ilíon said...

I think Jefferson opposed the Federalists mostly out of personal spite and animus (and jealousy) against Hamilton.

3/15/2010 03:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, we've got a better George Clinton at least.

3/15/2010 03:18:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To Anonymous

Remember, the high water mark of Jeffersonian democracy was reached and repelled at Gettysburg during Picket's charge. It has been pretty much downhill since then, Constitutionally speaking.

I do enjoy your citations and quotations, it gives us all some insight to what you might value. This is assuming you value Jefferson. Might be a stretch considering your other posts.

Heard Obama promised a 3,000% reduction in insurance premiums for the 57 States once his healthcare bill passed. He stated this today in Ohio in front of 200 people. A Lincoln he is not.

3/15/2010 03:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

Rather than responding to Anonymous' ridiculous fantasies about the religious beliefs of our Founders, I would just point out how interesting it is that leftists always have a storehouse of such falsehoods, which is a perverse mirror image of the religious person, who has faith in things that are real but unseen. In the case of the leftist he invents a preferred history into which he then places his faith. Weird.

3/15/2010 04:48:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "... you can see a similar page of John Adams quotes. "

Everyone of those snippets are give a much fuller meaning, and different from your desires. Have you ever actually read an actual complete work of John Adams? Here's a few. Pick one, read it through. Maybe you'll learn your way out of making such stupid statements.

"While the founders had varying degrees of religious belief, all were aware of the danger posed by relgious involvement in government and supported the idea of a wall of separation."

Like I already said, attempting to use isolated quotes to prove your 'point' illustrates your intellectual lazziness, or pure dishonesty, or both.

Their chief concern was not for religion interfering with govt, but the other way around. A distinction you may be incapable of grasping, but an important one, nonetheless.

About the wall of separation between church and state, Jefferson's later letter Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller, 23 Jan. 1808 gives a better picture of his intent, than the heavily edited Danbury letter usually ref'd.

Rather than an effort to save Govt from the nefarious taint of religious peoples words, Jefferson was clearly seeking to be protect the Church's from the State, rather than the other way around, ensuring that Religion would be free from Gov't - and though he certainly would have objected to the other as well, he knew the more substantial danger lay with Gov't:

"...I consider the government of the US. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U. S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. ... I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them...."

3/15/2010 05:03:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Van--

I think you've mentioned the same thing to him before. He is literally uneducable. Some people do not wish to know the truth. For him there is no help. It's a fatal case unless he does an existential 180.

3/15/2010 05:08:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

I wanted to share this with the coons. It is a piece by Peter Hitchens, Christopher Hitchens brother, concerning his rediscovery of God. I found it riveting. I also kept thinking of Cain and Abel while reading it. I believe you all will find some very thoughtful insights within the piece.

One of my favorite quotes was:

"Why is there such a fury against religion now? Because religion is the one reliable force that stands in the way of the power of the strong over the weak. The one reliable force that forms the foundation of the concept of the rule of law."

I believe this goes hand in hand with the concept that for America to be free, it first has to be good. Flip side, there are not enough policemen in the world to enforce goodness within a people.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255983/How-I-God-peace-atheist-brother-PETER-HITCHENS-traces-journey-Christianity.html#ixzz0iIFNWP0R

Enjoy

3/15/2010 05:10:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To Petey re:

"In the case of the leftist he invents a preferred history into which he then places his faith. Weird."

I take your admonition to mean: do not feed the bears.

I am new here, and too easily baited. But you have to admit the Anonymous among us do provide for great sport and entertainment. Who knew people could be so adamantly committed to dimwittedness and denseness? It truly is a petting zoo in a queer way. I should be moderate in my in commands to fetch and roll over, yet I am intrigued by their appetite for abuse. They are such fuzzy know nothings it begs the visitor to rub their belly and laugh.

Hopefully I am within the accepted confines of my guest's hospitality?

3/15/2010 05:24:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

If it's only for sport, amusement, or ridicule, I think that's fine. I would just caution anyone against putting real energy into an enterprise that is doomed from the start when one is dealing with such darkness.

It very much reminds me of my training in dealing with paranoid patients. The last thing you should do is directly question their beliefs, because it just triggers their defenses and reinforces their beliefs, plus they incorporate you into the delusion.

But batting around a troll for the sheer fun of it? Go nuts!

3/15/2010 05:43:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Also, meta comments are always worthwhile, eg., why do these people prefer lies to truth? I've actually posted at length on the subject, but I'm sure there are other valid theories.

3/15/2010 05:45:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To Gagdad Bob re:

"Also, meta comments are always worthwhile, eg., why do these people prefer lies to truth?"

I am not sure I understand the concept of "meta comments".

3/15/2010 06:05:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

That just means that instead of commenting about what the troll believes, it can be more fun to speculate about why they believe such things. For example, imagine arguing with a Scientologist over whether L. Ron Hubbard is really a religious prophet. You won't get very far, especially with facts and logic. Much more interesting to figure out why they think he is a prophet.

3/15/2010 06:12:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

For example, Dennis Prager believes that human beings just have an inherent need to believe in the irrational (I would say transrational). Since the leftist is without genuine religion, he transfers this need to the political plane, and believes all kinds of irrational things about race, gender, economics, culture, morality, science, etc.

3/15/2010 06:15:00 PM  
Blogger Ilíon said...

"For example, Dennis Prager believes that human beings just have an inherent need to believe in the irrational (I would say transrational)."

Since all possibility of our rational knowledge stands on a foundation of non-rational (as oppised to irrational) knowledge, it's logically impossible for any human being to believe only rational beliefs.

3/15/2010 06:18:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To Gagdad re:

"For example, imagine arguing with a Scientologist over whether L. Ron Hubbard is really a religious prophet. You won't get very far, especially with facts and logic. Much more interesting to figure out why they think he is a prophet."

Gagdad, are you suggesting L. Ron is not a prophet? Shoosh, Cruise and Travolta are gonna be pissed.

I get your drift - not sure I am all that well equipped to divine the "why of confusion" but will try.

3/15/2010 06:23:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Well, don't worry. Our default setting is always Genesis anyway. People believe lies because they turn from the light and place faith in the serpent; in short, they turn from the vertical/essential to the horizontal/contingent (the snake being the quintessential horizontal beast).

3/15/2010 06:32:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Gagdad said "He is literally uneducable. Some people do not wish to know the truth. For him there is no help."

Yeah... I know, sorry about that. Don't quite have my equilibrium back yet.

wv:besingsh
wordveri's either talking deep equilibrium... or it's very coonfused.

3/15/2010 06:48:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To Gagdad re:

"People believe lies because they turn from the light and place faith in the serpent; in short, they turn from the vertical/essential to the horizontal/contingent (the snake being the quintessential horizontal beast)."

The snake being the quintessential horizontal beast I find interesting from the Eden story point of view. It is my understanding that the Eden story came from ancient Sumeria. In its first telling the "snake" represented a Great River God, which was seen as slithering throughout the entire world, brining with it predictability and great bounty. Since Eden was located at the nexus of four rivers, it was the cause (tempter) of man becoming "conscious", or godlike in his command of the material world (knowledge of right and wrong), thus separating him from his "unconscious" forbearers (beasts of the field). When incorporated into the Hebraic books, the serpent tempts man by seducing woman. Interesting twist. Both tellings are correct and meaningful, but one has to wonder why the Hebrews dropped the river god concept and included Eve as the weak link. Did the Hebrews see women as a more powerful motive force than the Sumerians' river god in awakening the consciousness of man? I think this concept of women being the civilizing force was stated by Goethe. Not sure, but it does jive with my existence; the wife wants a new clothes dryer.

BTW, I enjoyed your book. Do you plan another?

3/15/2010 07:04:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Not really. This might be it. I prefer the immediacy of blogging anyway.... Although, if I could come up with a theme and an organizing structure to contain everything I want to say, I might give it a shot.... One shouldn't write a book unless it's absolutely necessary, since there are already way too many books.

3/15/2010 07:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Van said:
Everyone of those snippets are give a much fuller meaning, and different from your desires.

For someone who claims to have read as much as you do, you sure have trouble constructing an English sentence that is grammatical and makes sense.

Since you have read and understood all of Adam's writings, and those of the other founders, perhaps you can point out some particular passages that you think contradicts anything I've said here. So far you haven't.

Rather than an effort to save Govt from the nefarious taint of religious peoples words, Jefferson was clearly seeking to be protect the Church's from the State, rather than the other way around,

Both actually. That's the nice thing about the "wall of separation" metaphor -- walls work both ways.

What's your opinion of the Treaty of Tripoli? Unlike Jefferson's letters, that actually had the force of law, and reads "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."

3/15/2010 08:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He is literally uneducable.

Funny, I feel just the same way about you.

You can't seem to grasp the simple fact that someone can understand what you are saying and still disagree with you. Apparently the force of your belief system is so strong that anybody who is not immediately bowled over by it must be under some form of demonic possession. I've known some pretty intellectually arrogant people in my time, but you may take the prize.

3/15/2010 08:11:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Do you stalk all of them, or just me?

3/15/2010 08:18:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

aninny said "blah blah blah Tripoli blah blah blah..."

To avoid my lack of interest and attention doing further harm to the English language, see my comment on 12/09/2009 02:56:00 PM on this OC Post for the last time I once again was tired of answering that tired and out of context 'point'.

3/15/2010 08:36:00 PM  
Blogger John said...

I have been away for several days.

Before catching up on recent Coon talk, here´s an important ON TOPIC
--
WUWT link: English translation of
¨Post-normal failings¨Jaap Hanekamp
http://climategate.nl/2010/03/15/post-normal-failings/

3/15/2010 09:05:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"However, in Protestant England and America, the break from religious oppression had already been effected, so that political liberation was not conflated with a rebellion against God. Thus, the Founders were able to formulate the ideal of distinct domains of church and state, not for the purpose of ending religion's influence, but strengthening it."

Indeed, and if one wishes to gain a proper context for the founders' understanding of law, Blackstone is the one to read. Here is the full text online of Blackstone's Commentaries . Current Anon. (really, they do get confusing) would do well to start there.

3/15/2010 10:03:00 PM  
Blogger John said...

{* This comment commenced before reading other posts: it was good to hear, again, from TJ, re The Americas, faith, Church/State.
* On Topic - Ezra Pound, Idaho´s smartest native - admired both TJ and Il Duce!}

¨...However, in ... America, the break from religious oppression had already been effected, so that political liberation was not conflated with a rebellion against God.¨
NORTH America, I suggest: our ´Latin´ neighbors embrace leftist tribalism. Innumeracy, scientific illiteracy, narco-traffic, and Ibero-mania may condemn SA to more generations of anguish.

Welcome to South America and el Istmo:
¨...the more left the country, the more laws must exist to constrain and control the people, exterior laws which displace the interior law written in the heart of man...¨

3/15/2010 10:40:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To Anonymous re:

Both actually. That's the nice thing about the "wall of separation" metaphor -- walls work both ways.

I believe Jefferson understood that the act of faith was a higher pursuit not suitable for the business paying bills and balancing a checkbook. Jefferson never foresaw a people choosing to believe in mere mortals. When mortals worship mortals has Jefferson's wall of separation been breached?

Separation of church and state suggests that citizens know the difference between faith and rational process. The habit, or should I say, the deep need of the left to believe in something (usually a mortal or a plan) repeatedly contradicts their admonitions regarding separation.

Do you find this contradiction puzzling?

3/16/2010 05:06:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Anonymous wrote:

"You can't seem to grasp the simple fact that someone can understand what you are saying and still disagree with you."

First of all we have almost no way of telling one "anonymous" from another. Many posts under that non-name indicate a wholesale lack of comprehension of the core ideas communicated in this blog.

Frankly I welcome the rare appearance of an outsider who really does seem to grasp some of what raccoons believe and actually do a reasonable job of challenging some of those beliefs. So far all such challenges have been in vain, but at least some were brought in good faith.

As for your absurd apparent belief that the US was founded by people hostile to religion... seriously dude, what planet are you from?

3/16/2010 07:19:00 AM  
Blogger Ilíon said...

And even were it true (as it is not) that the men who wrote the US Constitution were hostile to Christianity -- which is what those folk almost always meant when they used the word "religion" -- the "Founding Fathers" includes *all* the citizens of the US at the time the Constitution was enacted.

3/16/2010 07:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for your absurd apparent belief that the US was founded by people hostile to religion... seriously dude, what planet are you from?

And where did I say they were? They weree "hostile" (your word) to the idea of an official, established church. They were hostile to the close integration of church and state which was the default mode in Europe. They were hostile to the wars of religion that had devasted Europe not that long before.

The founder's own religious beliefs varied and were liberal by the standards of the time, tending towards deism and unitarianism, because more traditional and authoritarian forms would not permit the existence of dissident sects.

This is something any high school student should know, so it's hardly a wacky belief.

3/16/2010 08:29:00 AM  
Blogger Ilíon said...

Anonymouse: "They weree "hostile" (your word) to the idea of an official, established church. They were hostile to the close integration of church and state which was the default mode in Europe."

You really don't understand what you're talking about, do you?

The Framers of the US Constitution were not against the establishment of religion -- they saw, as we do not, establishment of religion as a valid governmental action -- they were against the Federal government either:
1) establishing any particular sect at the federal level;
2) acting to disestablish any establishment of religion in the roughtly half dozen States which had an established religions.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, "

This simply means that the Federal government is to remain wholly silent regarding establishments of religion. It simply means exactly what it say: it does not dictate hostility to Christianity.

3/16/2010 08:49:00 AM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Tigtog - As incredibly intelligent as was the Apostle Paul, this may disappoint you: “But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." II Cor 11:3

What was he thinking? Surely he knew better than to reference a talking snake.

3/16/2010 09:30:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said ""The founder's own religious beliefs varied and were liberal by the standards of the time, tending towards deism and unitarianism, because more traditional and authoritarian forms would not permit the existence of dissident sects."

(Sorry guys, can't resist... maybe others reading will find it useful)

Obviously since they established a Constitution with no established church, and then several years later ratified amendments to emphasize the fact that the Federal "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", they did not want the Federal Govt making religious decisions for the states - or infringing upon they or their peoples free exercise thereof. But the fact that the much vaunted 'wall of separation' was constructed more of loosely woven whicker than of leftist stone, should be obvious from the fact that even Jefferson attended church services within the Capitol building.

Individual choice and free will were of high importance to the Founding Father's generation, they desired that matters of religion be left to the conscience of the people... however, the idea that 'the people' should be spared the burden of coming into contact with any religious materials or sentiments when out in public, or from any possible connection to those working for the government, is historically and philosophically ignorant in the extreme.

Too often when we hear "religious beliefs varied and were liberal by the standards of the time, tending towards deism and unitarianism", it is being used to suggest that they were just a nudge and a wink away from modern irreligiousity, which is an absurd temporal provincialism. For every Ethan Allen you may find, you'll discover a Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and a Roger Sherman looking disapprovingly down their noses at you.

I know, because twenty something years ago I set out to prove to a friend that the "founder's own religious beliefs varied and were liberal by the standards of the time, tending towards deism and unitarianism"... and after reading beyond my handy dandy quotes pages and into the actual documents of the Founders, letters, newspapers and books from their times (much of which can now be found online at Gutenberg.org or the Online Library of Liberty and elsewhere), it became obvious that I was laboring under an ideological pretension, and I've spent the time since then reading what they wrote themselves, as well as the materials, ideas and other influences which caused them to write and create what they did.

True, the Federal govt shouldn't be making any laws regarding religious matters, but neither should we need to put up with ACLU'ish hysterics over a church organization being prohibited from utilizing a school auditorium for fear of 'breaching the wall between church and state'.

3/16/2010 09:36:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Van--

Yes, I didn't intend to discourage you from commenting -- as you say, others may well benefit from your comments, even though the troll cannot.

3/16/2010 09:44:00 AM  
Blogger Russell said...

Anon: "The founder's own religious beliefs varied and were liberal by the standards of the time, tending towards deism and unitarianism, because more traditional and authoritarian forms would not permit the existence of dissident sects."

Stuff and nonsense.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

The sticking point: There were 88 Episcopalian/Anglican members, which was 54.7%. And 3 Unitarians, a whopping 1.9%.

And don't try to pigeonhole Franklin as only a Deist. The guy wandered around in his personal beliefs over the years, but always was a staunch supporter of the church nearest to him in town. His later writings indicted that he was more of Christian than anything else.

3/16/2010 10:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you really imagine that you can refute me with facts and logic? Ha! Always remember that I am a leftist, and therefore superior to what you naively call "truth."

3/16/2010 10:19:00 AM  
Blogger Dougman said...

I have a name for Anonymous
"...Legion, for we are many."

WV:conship

3/16/2010 01:45:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Gagdad said "...I didn't intend to discourage you from commenting..."

Oh I know, no problemo... but that one comment I made was a fast 'n furious reaction response... the Mrs. has noted that I'm a wee bit touchy since Ryan left...not quite back in balance yet I suppose.

But... while I guess I can see that in my last post too... but we did manage to stop Obamao's 'Race To The Top' dis-education program in MO though - woo-hoo!

3/16/2010 04:36:00 PM  
Blogger Tigtog said...

To NoMo re:

"Tigtog - As incredibly intelligent as was the Apostle Paul, this may disappoint you: “But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." II Cor 11:3

What was he thinking? Surely he knew better than to reference a talking snake."

I don't think for an instance that Paul referenced anything other than the story of the Garden as told in Genesis. He was after all knowledgeable of the Hebrew telling and was a 1st century citizen. So yes, in Paul's words he speaks honestly.

My point is the Eden story is ancient, its providence is from the mouth of the Tigres and Euphrates and its particulars changed when adapted by the Hebrews. My larger point is that the two stories portray the same fact: man became conscious and was able to control his environment using this consciousness, and likely it was women's needs/demands that caused a cessation of our wanderlust that allowed the process of civilization to begin.

One other implication from a comparison of the Hebraic versus its earlier version is that under the Hebraic version we were never intended to fall from the Garden, while the earlier version explains why we chose to leave the Garden by cultivating it. I like Gagdad Bob, believe we were designed to leave the Garden by the Creator of the Garden. The original sin is much like Pandora's box, once you leave "unconsciousness" you can never return.

The inherent question is were we designed to live as a beast of the forest or as a conscious being? I think the later is what we were intended for.

3/16/2010 04:37:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Van, that's great news!!!

3/16/2010 07:52:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home