« Real Identity Issues | Main | The Dog-Philosopher »

July 08, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yes but what's that mean?
It's in the imperative form.
"Dave take out the garbage."
"Marcy do the dishes."
The assumption is we're asking, he's asking, but there's nothing in the spoken words to even indicate that. And nothing humble in the request.
So he's nuts and inconsistent and his theology won't bear the weight of the obvious.
Which means his moral stance and its actions are intellectually inconsistent, invalid. But there they are anyway, proceeding pretty much unopposed, as far as actual, you know like stopping him kind of things goes.
And as some of us have said before, the end point of any moral system is what gives it substance. Fuzzy imaginations to the bye that's what pertains.
The lifted goal of why it's right and wrong.
Sisdestepping that with "just because" and "everybody knows" was enough for quite a while, but it's lost its efficacy.
Without something there to make them valid, all these moral attempts - which is all politics ever is, besides the janitorial/maintenance aspects of it - come crashing back to earth, and its red teeth.
There's no argument against the crazy evil forces but power. Power can be gained by iterations and reiterations of moral strength. "These things are wrong because..."
And you need something there with more weight than "we don't like them."
Obama gets stepped on for treading in that morass, honestly and with humility. Faith is ridiculed when its proprietary marks are so plain.
But ridicule will not lead people.
Most of you's feet are clean, but you're not getting much of anything done either, and it's very very late.
Without religion you're going to have nothing but Darwinian nastiness and carnal wounds and malign negligence - which is what you're whining about in the first place.
Redefining religion to include the non-crazy would help, maybe, but who among you's going to do that, who can?
"God bless America" indeed.
And while You're at it get them sumbitches outta here.

Yes, but here is the nub of it: godless, hyper-educated Straussians and just plain opportunists using religion as a cover and wedge to accomplish goals that are as secular humanist as anything in Nietzsche.

True liberalism does not purport to establish moral values, but to create a space where each can tend his or her own garden in peace, worship God as he or she sees fit, and to pursue his or her own vision of the good life.

Implicit in that view, that liberalism, is no doubt a vision of the the good, but it is not fleshed out as a doctrine, only held open as a space for others as well as oneself.

When liberalism confronts intolerance it is confounded. It can create an open space for antying but fantaticism, for fanatacism, what was once called "zeal," is forever filling the open space with non-negotiatible creeds. "For us or against us," "Decider decides good from evil." "Liberals are left behind," etc.

Now that we have fanatcisim fanned from above, true liberal are confounded and the best I have seen is Gerzon, but he is left fuming, since his inclusive gestures cannot really include his intolerant
adversaries. Representing fully one's contempt for and resistance unto death of the intolerant is very difficult for today's triangulating peace makers. The most civilized approach I know is satire, the atavistic gene in the liberal tradition. Beyond that, as you say, is building or rebuilding traditions of tolerance and care and caritas through active civic engagement. We suggest that at gifthub.org and theworldwewant.org.

Tnanks for your comment, Roy. I agree with so much of it, including your frustration at the way secular people often disparage religion and the religious. I don't see fanatacism as religion, but as blasphemy. The problem is not religion, but blasphemy from the pulpit and the hustings, preaching greed, vanity and hate in the name of God. We need more of the Gospels not less.

Great comment, Tutor. Watching some of the talking heads talk about Lieberman this morning had me thinking about triangulation again. The pundits can only talk about the political strategies, and the meme of the hour is that what is happening with Lieberman is bringing to the Dems the same kind of enforced unity we have been seeing in the Repubs for some time.

Again bloggers and Democratic activists are wanting to get any Dems who still support the president. Well, that's not the issue, the issue is the Lieberman has never missed an opportunity to triangulate against Democrats for "hurting the war effort by hurting the president". It doesn't matter how many "liberal" causes he votes for because he and the Dems who continue to support him are destroying the Democratic party because they are willing to sacrifice any Democrat to the left of them. Wake up you idiots, 60-70% of Americans are now against this and those triangulated out are left with no choice but to create new political structures outside of the Democratic party. The "we don't want you message" becomes too clear to ignore.

I gather Hillary has said publicly that she would not support an independent run by him, which was more than Dodd would say (D-Sen. Conn.). The language games they will play to keep things open ...

How do we elect a Constitution when ours is being swept aside through evasion and creative compliance? When the game is corrupt, who wins on the field is secondary to addressing the endemic ills at the "Commissioner" level.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)