[Ham] Few historians would contest the fact that the establishment of a representative democracy, classic liberalism, capitalism, and a free-market economy (all in revolt against tyranny) are fundamentally rooted in the humanist ethics of Christian teachings, especially with respect to the sanctity and exercise of human freedom.
[Arlo] Many do, and rightly so. You keep interjecting these comical statements, and I'm not sure if you aim is to make everyone chuckle, or if you really think that drumbeating a falsehood will "make it so". All these things you mention are the result of secular-enlightenment, humanism if you want to call it that. There is no evidence, pre-Enlightenment, of any of these things, not in the Bible, not in the teachings of Jesus, and certainly not in the "Christian Kingdoms" that followed the time of Christ for a thousand years. That the Church has attempted to redefine itself, and revise its history, along the line of the very philosophy that neutered its 1000 year rule of tyranny in the West is understandable, if not obscene. The Church, Christianity, has always been about man's obedience to God's will. But if Jesus taught us anything, its that the role of man on earth is to alleviate his brother's suffering, while ministering the Word. The "Christian teachings" of Jesus was simple. Feed the poor. Heal the sick. Shelter the homeless. Minister the Word. If you think Jesus would look down today on "capitalism" and a "free-market economy", let alone "freedom of religion", you are either grossly naive or simply trying to pass more of the same-old apologist pandering we see rampant among neocons eager for the "God Vote". [Chris] Lagom is a word everybody should learn. [Arlo] Despite Ham's expected response incorporating right-wing fear terms (ooo... political correctness), I think this term captures brilliantly what the MOQ's central tension is all about. We must have balance, and this balance is not a sacrifice, it is what gives us the best of all worlds. As Pirsig states, too much static leads to stagnation, too much dynamic leads to chaos. Balance in the soul, balance in the body politik, balance in all things. Ham's endless trumpeting of "individual freedom" would lead one to believe that man's freest, and best, moments were the pre-society wanderings of early man. Free to do what he wishes, free from restraint, free from the tyranny of social life. A simple reality check shows this to be untrue. Man is at his "freest" when the static and Dynamic forces around him are in balance. And, man is only "intellectual" free who participates in a social dialogue. "Man" is not only NOT free outside of society, but intellectually he does not exist (biologically, most certainly). You will find, I am sure, that for Platt and Ham, "freedom" seems to be exclusively a taxation issue. When it comes to enforcing their social values on others, from opposing gay marriage to mandating a national language, from deporting immigrants to banning Islamic cultural practices (such as wearing the hijab), "freedom" suddenly is replaced with the heavy hand of government. Despite all the ridiculous rhetoric, "freedom" for these two is always an asterixed term, and typically that asterix can be read as saying "to be like me". [Ham] But the exercise of individual freedom is what this dispute is really about. [Arlo] Then you'd support immigrants coming here, freely, to purse their liberty? Of course not. As with most blowhard ideologues, its a puffy rhetorical soapbox that carries no substance. You would support the burning of the American Flag, for those who wish to protest in this way, freely? You would oppose a national language, allowing instead the freely emergent community dynamic to determine the language(s) spoken therein? You would allow gays to marry, telling conservatives to mind their own business and let people freely marry who they chose? You would legalize drugs, allowing people the freedom to choose to get high? Or trip? You would abolish public nudity laws, allowing people the freedom to act however they choose, giving people the freedom to dress or not dress in public as they see fit? You would legalize prostitution, allowing people to freely trade their bodies for money in the "free market"? You would abolish anti-public drinking laws that relegate free people to "bars" when they wish to drink? What do you think would bring more freedom to more people, public parks and state lands or the privatization of land and the abolishment of the national park system? What about the abolishment of the public road and waterway system? What about the abolishment of public libraries? These things are funded by a tax collection, does that mean we are not free, who have state parks, public roads and public libraries? [Chris] What is the role of politics? [Arlo] The role of governance in a democracy is to enact the will of the people. In a post-enlightenment secular time, it is given the role of safeguarding the freedoms the citizens have given themselves, as well as the structures that make these freedoms possible. As such, governance instantiates the values of the people. Poor values, poor governance. Good values, good governance. And as we have seen, "good values" at their highest level are those that balance the static and dynamic forces, preserving the Good while maximizing the potential for evolutionary growth. "Poor values" can be those that stress the static or those that stress the dynamic into a system of imbalance. Good values are those that value the intellectual over the social, while poor values elevate social values over intellectual ones. As Case/Krimel reminded me long ago, government is not the problem. Government is "we". Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
