One more craven apology to a whiny minority group. Count me out.
Make perfect sense to me that if you are trying to establish your national control, you don't want competition and destabilization by a large alien ethnic group...
Sound familiar?
(The Rules now, of course, dictate that White America cannot act in its own self interest as White America because that is racist, a crime worse than which there is no whicher. All other ethnic and racial groups are welcome to celebrate themselves and act, and have the government act, in their self interest.)
___
Make perfect sense to me that if you are trying to establish your national control, you don't want competition and destabilization by a large alien ethnic group...
Sound familiar?
(The Rules now, of course, dictate that White America cannot act in its own self interest as White America because that is racist, a crime worse than which there is no whicher. All other ethnic and racial groups are welcome to celebrate themselves and act, and have the government act, in their self interest.)
___
6 comments:
According to wikipedia, there's also the nightmare of "Christian privilege" in America, as noted by Tocqueville. Separation of the institutions of church and state )and no "dominion founded in grace"( but there's still a cultural privilege for Christian morals that must be stop'd for the sake of fairness to the growing diversity of America -- although in a way that, I hope, still permits more or less nontheistic leftwing Christians to dictate truth policy to power as though the state and the economy are obligated to recognize nontheistic leftwing Christianity as the establish'd Church in America.
As our neo-Lord said, "Render policy directives and justice criteria unto Caesar and unto God the non-existence that is God's."
The president has helpful things to say on this matter.
Push'd as it were to the wall by the Illinois senatorial campaign of Alan Keyes, very dark )Cush, Ethiopia( and Roman Catholic, Mr Obama accepts that »To say that men and women should not inject ]I suppose 'inject' means argue, give ratios[ their "personal morality" ]when theistic[ into public-policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition" (Audacity of Hope, p. 259).
What then? should we bring out the substantive rationales that are coded in law? Not at all. Because diversity means substance is unjust: »Whatever we once were, we are no longer just ]sc as[ a Chrsitian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Musim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation and a nation of nonbelievers ]sc kuffars, philistines, palestinians[.« ibid p. 258.
Continuing on with scary examples of oppression from the Jewish Bible and a good example from the way of Jesus:
»But let's even assume that we only had Christians within our borders. Whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's? ]Hobbes and Locke's threaten'd procedure is not to select one sectarian's agenda for formalist or positivist imposition, but to work from revelation to the sovereign -- e.g. shirking to the Sovereign's personnel an understanding of the Summa theologiae, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, the Bible, Pascal, Dante etc. Which would change not only the world, but also this world![.
»Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests that slavery is all right and eating shellfish is an abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? or should we just stick ]japhethic obedient will-to-power suit of rods, sticks, clubs[ to the Sermon on the Mount—a passage so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application? [True enough, but "Resist not evil" forbids even dualism's nonviolent resistance. "Give no thought for the morrow" forbids the least care for the economy or the work ethic. And so forth.[ (ibid p. 258)
The point promoted by the president is to change the world by leftwing humanitarian injectings into the public square or pentacle or diamond: »Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. ... not only were motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue their causes« (ibid p. 259).
Not that religious language is proper, exactly, because »our deliberative ]?![ pluralistic democracy ... demand[s] ... that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason« p. 259. This assertion is astonishing or perhaps even laughable and utopian when one considers that it is impossible to come up with a single example of argumentation and reason in the legislatures and media of the democracies. But consider'd more closely, one sees only that proposals are subjected and mystery'd ]amen-able[ to argumentation and reason.
In any case, Christian believers must accept that kuffars or nonbelievers have veto power in public policy: »Ego cannot simply point to ]not to mention teach and proclaim[ the teachings of my church or invoke God's will and expect that argument to carry the day.« The ruling Ego must appeal to principles that are "accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all" p. 259.
While »such rules of engagement« may seem to involve a )Gnostic( »tyranny« of a separation of »the secular are material worlds« from »the sacred and eternal« this is necessary because »in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice« p. 259.
That is, stuff that we refer to vaguely as "religious" is in total disarray and disharmony (e.g. whether the world is maya to be dismiss'd as rebirth hassles for bad karma or is God's fallen dominion to be sanctify'd for Christ and His Kingdom, but the population is more or less in accord on stuff for "the secular and material" -- so that disagreements are no more than whether the Commerce Clause permits obliging uninsured Americans to buy medicare from the federal government.
No decay is involved in agreeing to disagree whether porno available 24/7 to youngsters via internet is corrosive and degrading while also agreeing to agree that it is for the desublimational transitional aiôn constitutionally protected speech as the Founders intended in accordance with the inherited Christian moral consensus (Federalist #2) on which their experiment depends.
But really since, after all, revelation doesn't have to be kept box'd up in the inward path off the radar _this_ world_ but could be expounded or shirk'd into the world, as perhaps Dante attempted with his Divine Comedy vis-a-vis the Summa theologiae, or Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, "religious" argumentation doesn't really have to be suppress'd in public discourse because of diversity in "religious" stuff.
The necessity really follows from the essence of "faith" and "reason" -- which operate in different domains )faith as faithth, fem. faces for the inner path out of the world and into this world? and reason as js7558 RShYWN? granting ?manna for the building of structures in the world? 1x at Ezra 3:7(
»Reason—and science ]the revelation of the path of karmic cause-effect from first for us to first in itself, or v.v.[—involves the accumulation]sc clouds[ of knowledge based on realities that we can all apprehend. Religion, by contrast, is based on truths that are not provable through ordinary human understanding—the "belief in things not seen." ]quoting Hebrews 11:1 re faith[« Audacity of Hope, pp. 260f.
This isn't an impossible thesis, but it doesn't prove that a religious politics of revelation or "Dominion founded in grace" is impossible or incoherent or vile sectarianism etc.
If politics and economics are to proceed by "reason plus science" then this would seem to thwart any "injections" of personal morality values, since personal values aren't "realities that we can all apprehend."
What's foundational must be some sort of general consensus manna tradition that is accessible to all, which is valuational somehow -- including the value-neutrality, deadness or humility that is perhaps the proper valuational judgement or 'sense of proportion' binding neutrally upon »those who polis the the boundaries between church and state« (p. 261).
»Politics is hardy a science, and it too infrequently depends upon rason. But in a pluralistic democracy, the same distinctions apply. Politics, like science, depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality« p. 260.
If this isn't a utopian statement, the president presumably refers to a manna tradition of accumulated clouds generally available for political jumping up and down vis-a-vis about.
This theory of religion, though, surely is utopian: »politics (unlike science) involves compromise, the art of the possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on the impossible.« p. 260 The history of "religion" shows no compromising going on, but only fanatical insistentnesses? ... But perhaps by "impossible" the president signifies I'm possible in a version that permits the nonego sum to develop under negation (greek 'me') as object 'me' toward ruling unconsciously as (ego).
Yet the example proposing that in our aiôn Isaac would properly be removed from father Abraham who manifestly binds his son or ego in order to receive proper parental care form the Department of Children and Family Services (pp. 260f) brings me to the preceding remark that »When science teachers insist on keeping creationism or intelligent design out of their classrooms, they are not asserting that scientific knowledge is superior to religious insight. They are simply insisting that each path to knowledge involves different rules and that those rules are not interchangeable.« p. 260.
I wonder if the "religious" who have "religious insights" for some sort of "path" ]an inner path out of _the_ world? for 'making may kings' in accord with the American "sublime" p. 260[ should accept that consider'd reasonably, scientifically the apparent universe evidences no intelligent design.
The president doesn't assert simply that consider'd strictly empirically and rationally the universe does not seem to be created in six 24-hour days and so on, but that "intelligent design" is unscientific and un-rational -- a mystical 'insight' that is added on to obvious, empirical randomness, no-teleology accidental just-happen'd-ness. )Without teleology and creationism, our scientific researchers couldn't state their basic theory which they do negatively, sc that the universe and its species are not-design'd, have no natural teleology, aren't guided by God, etc(
In the president's previous list of praiseworthy leftwing American social reformers (p. 259) is William Jennings Bryan -- the most famous Christian creationist, though with a view to the Bible, not to creation science, as far as I recall. In this list, his name is third of five, the middle item, or reckoning all the names 'Bryan' is seventh of thirteen, again the middle item. In the NT, nt513 axinê 'axe' occurring in the apocalyptic verses Matt 3:10, Luke 3:9. nt315 is anagnazô to necessitate.
What me worry? I don't think so.
Post a Comment