Essays, Subornation, and YOU!

[caraig]

I thought I should pass this on, from the indefatiguable Infamous Brad Hicks. His latest essay, "Christians in the Hands of an Angry God" is quite interesting, being a discussion of religion and the Republican Party. Is it accurate? Is it true? Hard to say. There are a few logical quibbles I have with his theory.

Most of you know that I "go in for" conspiracy theories. It'd be more accurate to say that I believe that rich, powerful people tend to cooperate and work with each other, doing favors which are repayed in a sort of power-bartering. Maybe some of these sharing of favors is under a formal system of ritual and society. ("Ewige blumencraft!") It's more likely that they're established on the golf course and in the vacation homes and after the board meeting. And, of course, some conspiracies are just 'rational' human behavior and companies all doing the profitable thing (wether legal or illegal or quasi-legal.) What Brad describes is a bit more conspirational than I'm willing to grant, but depending on a lot of factors, it's possible.

How much influence can a teacher or a mentor (such as Leo Strauss) have on their students? How much influence can the dean of a school (in this case DTS) have on future graduates and current graduates? Is something like the Project for the New American Century, or the Council on Foreign Relations, a simple "thinktank," or the modern Bavarian Illuminati, or just a bunch of guys with a lot of money to throw around and an urge to seem important? Putting aside the stereotype of the corporate shark, wouldn't at least one person on the board or in the executive offices of a corporation look at what they're doing and say, "Hey, this isn't right...," or do they remain quiet because the whistleblower is fired posthaste?

All this really changes little in the way of personal development. When you come right down to it, self-honestly and self-actualization should not be affected by whatever forces run or not-run the government(s). The guidance of, "Free your mind, Fear nothing," are important no matter who's in charge. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that we have to live here, too, so a healthy dose of "Think globally, act locally," also helps. Plus a light sprinkling of Santayanna and Jefferson quotes for flavor.

Well, off to see National Treasure, now. I'll write up a review when I get back. Pax!

Comments

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Okay, time for a bit more thought on my part, and comments on your comments! Hope you're enjoying this as much as I am. ;)

So, concerning Paul's quote -- I'm not sure I agree with how you use it. You also seem to be juxtaposing several non-congruent ideas with it, at least to my way of seeing. For example, being a slave to nothing should surely include guys who get off on sleeping with as many women as possible, yet I don't hear any calls for constitutional amendments against promiscuity. On the same note, I'd have to say an epidemic of pregnant but abandoned women who can't afford to support their children (caused by the above-mentioned promiscuous men) would be far more damaging to "the very foundation of this nation and its democratic ideals" than responsible, loving families who pay their taxes and raise their children to obey the law and be good Americans.

It also appears you're conflating homosexuality and sexual immorality. Why so, please? From the Bible it would appear Jesus considered divorce far more immoral than homosexuality, since he mentions divorce several times as wrong, but never speaks at all about homosexuality. Or if you're looking at homosexuality as immoral in a more modern setting, could I ask you how you find responsible homosexual behavior any more damaging than responsible heterosexual behavior? I'm specifically not speaking of irresponsible behavior, since that's damaging no matter what number or gender the participants are, of course. ;)

Anthropologically speaking, I'd like to point you to the following two articles I've written. They were quite enjoyable to research, and I hope you find them interesting: Why not same-sex marriage? and Tolerance FAQ, take II. I'd also be interested in any feedback you might have on them, especially since they specifically address several of the points you make.

Regarding loud activists, I'd have to say the public face of Christianity today is certainly fundamentalist, and I have little to no respect for that particular mindset. However, I don't feel their lifestyle should be outlawed, any more than a responsible gay lifestyle should be. Indeed, I consider a mutually respectful gay marriage far more laudable than a fundamentalist Christian marriage where the man beats his wife and abuses his kids because the Bible says he should.

Or, to put it slightly differently, you may think a loud gay activist is wrong, and I may think a loud fundamentalist activist is wrong, but I don't think either of us have the right to tell them they can't live the way they want -- until they start hurting others without permission. Also, it's just a suspicion on my part, but I bet the fundamentalist will do that long before the gay does. YMMV, of course.

Regarding: if homosexuality is truly harmful then it's not intolerant to wish it stopped -- yup, I've got to agree with you there. To take a radically different practice as an example, pederasty is something I wish stopped (and I'd guess you would too) because as far as I know it's bad for the kids who are involved in such an unbalanced power/sexual dynamic. That's why, in fact, I'm so very interested in your sources which say homosexuality is truly harmful. I'm quite curious as to whether they're referring to ALL homosexual behavior, or just to irresponsible or deliberately cruel behavior.

I look forward to hearing more from you if you get some time. Good luck with finals! ;)

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Actually, let me check one other thing too -- Jonathan, is it all right with you that we're cheerfully burbling on about this all over your LJ? ;)

[caraig.livejournal.com]

Oh, please, feel free. ^^ One advantage is that whenever either of you post replies is that I get an e-mail telling me about it, so I can follow the discussion. d(^^)b

[sodon.livejournal.com]

To your note about their not being a call for a constitutional ban on promiscuity, I can only say that I am not the government. If I had my way, I would certainly call for a ban on promiscuity. I'd also ban divorce, sex outside of marriage...etc. Which is an interesting point, however, because I certainly have no right to impose those beliefs on the nation when most of the nation would probably not want such a ban in place over them. And that is one problem with the issue right now, and one reason why Bush is calling for the ban. Last I checked, the majority of Americans are against legalizing gay marriage (not civil unions), but the liberal activist judges of our nation are trying to impose just such a thing on them. You may argue that they should because it's right, but I would argue it's not right, and that is the point of our government. It's what most of the people decide should be done, not what judges and/or the president decide.

But I digress. We were discussing personal opinions, weren't we?

As far as Jesus' comments are concerned, I think that is a poor way to make judgements: how often did Jesus mention it? To my knowledge, he never mentions rape either, or pedofility for that matter. Are we to assume that those are not immoral? Or less immoral? And what does less immoral entail anyway? Easier for God to forgive? =P Perhaps the reason that Jesus mentioned divorce more was because he was never preaching to a homosexual crowd, and that divorce was a much bigger problem than homosexuality (which comprises roughly 3% of the population, and now that I am back home, I shall find the study which shows that too). Of course, that is purely conjecture, though if you could find those passages where Jesus speaks against divorce, I'd like to see them (just because they slip my mind at the moment).

And I suppose nobody loves activists. The problem is with how gay activists have changed the thinking of people and changed the official stance on homosexuality. I know this sounds far fetched, but again, I am home, so I will come up with the actual facts behind this soon. My point is, I don't like Christian fundamentalists either, and I would preach against them just as much as I would against people who BELIEVED them, and vice versa with homosexuality.

As for the rest, I'll just have to tell you to wait for me to get my sources. Perhaps the nature of this discussion might change a little if I can accurately represent the cold hard facts of this issue, rather than ideological blabbering.

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Cool! I love a good, thoughtful discussion. I'll wait, and we can pick up again once you have your data to hand. ;)

[sodon.livejournal.com]

I just remembered. Digging out my data again would prove somewhat repetitive, since I have already presented them in an old debate at my website's message board. The thread itself can be found here:

http://www.glorysblaze.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=27f6519a9d0e4fa1ace2ba8fbee24078;act=ST;f=8;t=3

You can read the whole thing if you want, but much of it is idealistic drivel you've undoutedly heard before. Just search for all my posts and you should be fine; no one else on either side presented any facts that you or I haven't brought up already, to my knowledge. Though they may be more ideals than facts. But I digress.

I skimmed my opponent's posts again, and read mine, and I think I am satisfied with what I say, as far as it pertains to this discussion. Also, though this has nothing to do with you personally, I find it interesting to note that not a single person responded to the facts I presented. Rather, they attacked my person or just ignored me altogether. I have to be honest. If you cannot respond to the facts in that thread that I present, then I truly have no desire to continue this discussion with you. I am not trying to be offensive or superioristic; I am simply uninterested in discussing this topic with ideals that ignore the facts.

At the very least, hopefully you find the data I presented in that thread interesting, and hopefully, thought-provoking.