What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Jihad and the Republican Party

A friend and colleague at Redstate, our Managing Editor Erick Erickson, has a rousing post calling for unity within the Republican Coalition. Well worth reading in full. He concludes by asking for ideas for how this unity — one thought to hold pretty well from the early days of National Review through Reagan and even up to George W. Bush — might be reconstructed. Below is an expanded version of my comment:

(1) Shift the focus of what is called the war on terror, beginning with public rhetoric, toward the domestic front; take heed of the subversives and saboteurs in our midst; strike at them. This combined with: (2) reconciling the Party to that deep skepticism verging on hostility, which comprises the majority opinion on Iraq in this country.

I really doubt that the Democrats (were they to gain Executive power) shall conduct foreign policy as the reflexive anti-patriots of their base would like. A gradual but steady reduction of American troops in Iraq seems far more likely than immediate withdrawal.

For the fiscal boys, it’s much cheaper. We don’t need huge new expenditures of money. We need to carefully craft some laws whereby we can expose the doctrines of the enemy to vigorous prosecution. Our work will largely be a matter of legal savvy and above all public and democratic will. We may need a new prosecutor, investigator, or orator now and then. We will not need to spend even a fraction of what we are spending in Iraq right now.

For social Conservatives, it's the whole enchilada: the maintenance of the character of the Republic. Who are we? Are we a people that is going to shelter and protect the Jihad like its principles are mere Free Exercise? or are we a people confident enough to say we will stand against this wicked thing?

What was the glue that held the old Coalition together, from the early glory days of NR to Reagan?

It was a clear single thing: the Communist Enterprise; and a unified antipathy for a wicked system. Well the Jihad is no less wicked, and it has already stuck us blows no Communist ever dared.

So let us unite against it. Let opposition to the Jihad be one of our principles.

Comments (53)

"reconciling the Party to that deep skepticism verging on hostility, which comprises the majority opinion on Iraq in this country."

Yes, please add;
1)the oursuit of a more humble, less-Wilsonian foreign policy.
2)a re-thinking of our Trade policies as well as the role such organizations as the WMF and WTO play in creating global havoc.
3) a steafast pro-life postion that does not entail supporting the likes of Giuliani. If he is the nominee the whole coalition blows up. As it should.

I wasn't around much in the political world in the early glory days of NR, being too young. I came of age politically (and literally) during the era of Reagan. And I can say that what seemed to hold the party together during that time was the abortion issue. Its waning in importance to the party is going to tear the party apart.

Well, by "glory days" I meant the late 1950s and early 1960s, when Willmoore Kendall, Frank Meyer, and James Burnham were the theorists vis-a-vis Communism, with a bunch of European expats thrown in for good measure -- serious men with first-rate minds not beholden to any party. Abortion was not yet even an issue.

Reagan, of course, was an old-hand anti-Communist, even in his Democratic days. If you read, for instance, his radio address from the mid-1970s, you will see that he had not the slightest illusion about the character of Communism.

All of this was before my time, of course, but it has been the source of good (if somewhat obscure) historical scholarship for some time now. The book to read is The Conservative Intellectual Movement in American, recently reissued.

Guiliani is a deal-breaker for me, as would most of the so-called top-tier candidates in the GOP presidential race, for a simple reason: they simply do not grasp the actual nature and causes of the terrorism and geopolitical instability with which we are confronted. Period. To a man, they all accept, either implicitly or with all the fervor of the religious fanatic, the theory of benevolent global hegemony, or some sort of proxy for this. Some may emphasize democratization, as though this were both intellectually coherent and demonstrably successful, when it is neither. Others may swaddle a more calculating realism in the rhetoric of democracy, but for both groups - if such a divide even exists - the primary cause of instability is not the 'bloody borders of Islam', the mounting Islamic demographic penetration of the West, and the wrenching alterations of globalization, but the fact that there exist entire civilizational and cultural blocs which have - on their theory - not yet been incorporated into the Western/American political and economic architecture. In other words, there exist regions of the world which do not effectively recognize America and her institutions as the primus inter pares of international relations/global integration. That is the meaning of "fighting them over there" and Guiliani's insane proposal for the conversion of NATO into a global democracy league.

Or, more simply, they are deal-breakers in my mind, because they are all nationalists, as opposed to patriots, simply. Their patriotism suffers from the deformity, the hypertrophy of patriotism, a desire to run down other nations, to imagine them transformed into facsimiles of one's own, or subordinated thereto. It is not sufficient for them to defend their native land and to secure its legitimate interests; they are impelled by ideology and grubbier interests to strive for hegemony. The problems of the world result, not from the fact that we are not in control, but from inevitable differences and conflicts of interest, the existence of malignant forces such as Islam, and, often enough, our own belligerent hegemonism. Enough.

And, for that matter, do we really believe that Guiliani would maintain the Bush administration's laudable support for the "Mexico City" policy, or the (philosophically untenable but politically expedient) opposition to federal funding of ESCR and cloning research?

Clarification: The sentence beginning with the problems of the world result, not... is a reproach of the hegemonists, not a summary of their views. Just to make that clear.

I basically agree with Maximos' summary, with one qualification: I would not go as far as he does in criticizing what he call hegemonism. But on the point of the GOP candidates' uniform misestimate of the inherently religious character of the conflict, and the fatal insufficiency of Democracy as an antidote, I concur.

But I'm thinking long-term here. Let us say that this reformation of the GOP would take 30 years. How do we begin to lay the groundwork?

Question:
"Let us say that this reformation of the GOP would take 30 years. How do we begin to lay the groundwork?"

Answer;
"serious men with first-rate minds not beholden to any party."

Why do you say, Maximos, that opposition to federal funding for ESCR is "philosophically untenable"? Is it just that you are saying if you go that far you should want it banned outright? That may be true but doesn't make opposition to funding philosophically untenable. I want abortion banned outright but also (understandably) and a fortiori oppose tax funding for it.

My intended reference was to the distinction drawn between funding for lines in existence as of a certain date, and the denial of funding for both the development of new lines, and of new lines developed under private funding. I think this untenable. None of it should be funded.

It is also worth noting, in order to render this more explicit, that the Republican Party will not be revitalized as a vehicle for conservatism unless conservatives once again acquire the capacity to act as a movement independently of the party apparatus.

On the distinction re. funding for "stem cell lines," I completely agree. Better something than nothing, though. But I don't expect Giuliani to hold any of it. Why should he?

I agree completely about the need for conservatives to act independently of the party apparatus. With that in mind, I was glad to hear that Dobson said what he did about going third party if Giuliani won the nomination. It needed to be said. I don't think anyone who succeeds him at Focus will be willing to do that, more's the pity.

In order to rally around the anti-Jihad, Jihad must first be defined and understood: it is an integral part of Islam and is necessary to it. And Islam is not going to

"reform"
: to reform means that Mohamed was wrong and is a false prophet; and Allah is not a god but a demon at best.

We on our part must declare this is so.

Therefor, to be anti-jihad is to be at war with Islam; and here is the dilemma: what are you prepared to do; and how far are you prepared to go? The anti-Jihad will be a global religious war -- one of the very things the founders of this repubic were loath to have. And this silly animosity towards being in Iraq will have to go: it is the whining of infants: just because the bad ol' neo-cons got us there doesn't mean we shouldn't be there. Or, would you rather that the Moosulman pick the ground and conditions of the war?

Well, that was mess....

Superb. But is the Republican Party too complicit with big oil -- and therefore with the Saudi royal family that thinks of the world as a sort of functional dhimmitude already -- to realistically confront Jihad? James Dobson is a pretty lonely voice crying in the wilderness these days. The GOP seems to assume all Christians (including Catholics) will twist and squirm but put up with their compromises.

Is it too late for Jeb Bush to jump into the mix?

"Is it too late for Jeb Bush to jump into the mix?"

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

You propose that Repubs must be fooled the third time?

I doubt that I will ever vote for any pol named Bush, that family is so deeply in bed with Mexican and Saudi Arabian oligarchs, so PC and liberal, so hateful toward patriots - it is just not possible that any Bush worth voting for will ever emerge.

"It was a clear single thing: the Communist Enterprise; and a unified antipathy for a wicked system. Well the Jihad is no less wicked, and it has already stuck us blows no Communist ever dared." ~ Cella

I would disagree that the problem is of this nature. There is a real problem, but it's an immigration problem, not a foreign policy problem.


Here's a recent post I wrote on the topic:

Terrorism is an immigration problem, not a foreign-policy problem.

After reading some recent debates on the Israel Lobby, it made me realize that many people have set up a false dichotomy where one must either be pro-Israel or pro-Muslim; there is no middle ground. There is, however, that large grey area, where one can be skeptical of both, which is probably the most tenable position.

The problem with neocons is that by making “Islamofascism” a “World War,” they have skewed what is truly in the American interest (and probably in Israel’s interest too). The Wilsonian transformation of the Middle East to liberal democracy is revolutionary, not conservative. The very notion of “regime change” comes from the pages of Marxist annals, not Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk. Furthermore, there is the question whether we have any business in the Middle East at all. We do not. Less than 15% of our oil comes from the Middle East, and with alternative sources in Canada and South America, this percentage will likely decline. Even oil men, like James Baker, were skeptical of the war. And on principle, perhaps the most important point of all, we should not be intervening in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries.

Paleolibertarians like Justin Raimondo have rightly criticized the lack of conservative credentials of the neocons, exposing them for the globalist rogues that they truly are. However, in their vehement opposition to the Israel Lobby, many paleolibertarians have become apologists for Islam, in fact denying that there is any Muslim threat at all to the West. Many of them seem to have fallen into this trap that by opposing the Israel lobby, one must deny the Muslim threat.

At this point, a skeptical reader might be upset that I already have used the phrase “Israel lobby” numerous times. Think what you will, but John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt, despite the protestations of Abe “I hate Christians” Foxman, have overwhelmingly demonstrated the influence of the Israel lobby, a fact that patriotic Americans have known all along. Without the involvement of the Israel lobby, and our subsequent alliance to Israel, we most certainly would not be in involved in this lost cause in Iraq.

That being said, many of the writers at Chronicles have taken the most sensible view, that of the grey area. Americans should be outraged at the influence of the Israel Lobby, and how it has worked against the American interest, but at the same time we should not underestimate the Muslim threat - especially here in the U.S. or Europe. One only needs to walk around parts of London, Paris or Hamburg to see that this threat is real. And although the U.S. may not be a part of Europe, if Europe falls, the West is doomed.

The Muslim threat is not in the Middle East. And it is not a foreign policy problem; it is an immigration problem. Through a sounder immigration policy, Sept. 11 would not have occurred. The real problem not only for the U.S. but also for Europe, is third-world immigration. (And patriotic Americans should be most alarmed that fifth-columnist neocons like Bill Kristol think that the U.S. should spend billions to secure the borders of Israel and Iraq, while simultaneously supporting the open-borders, third-world invasion of the U.S.)

It is thus most sensible, I think, that we pursue a policy of disengagement of from the Muslim world (which is not an original idea, but a very sound one). If we truly want to end the terrorist threat here at home (as we have no business ending it in the Middle East), we should completely disengage ourselves from the Muslim world:

We should: (1) completely withdraw from the Middle East; (2) end all immigration from the Third World; (3) encourage the deportation of all Muslims from the West; and (4) end foreign aid to all Middle Eastern countries, including Israel.


http://conservativetimes.org/?p=1201

Yeah, all America's foreign 20th century wars were a result of the "Israel Lobby"--y'know, Vietnam, Korea, oh, and don't forget WWI and WWII. And the Cold War. We'd still be a 19th century paleolibertarian's isolationist dream if it weren't for that doggoned little country over on the edge of the Mediterranean and their Lobby.

And I'm sure they have _something_ to do with our not having better immigration rules and allowing the 9/11 hijackers into the country. Because it's all tied up with those neocons, and neocons are know-nothings about the Muslim threat, as well as shills (or is that shils?) for the "Israel Lobby."

Please, we've been over this before elsewhere. Yes, of course, people like Raimondo who imply that the Muslim threat is a neocon fantasy are fools. We can, hopefully, all agree about that. So could we here and now please discuss the question of Muslim immigration and the unification of the Republica party without bringing in this Israel stuff?

Please, get over your isolationist wet dream. This nation has been "meddling" since the war of 1812, if not earlier: the French Revolution. This nation has been in the Middle East since the Barbary Pirates.

This nation is a world power and will remain so until it becomes thoroughly socialist and the liberals succeed in bringing it down. At that time it will become a third world dung heap and a client state to either Red China or the Caliphate.

The first requirement of a Conservative is to be a realist: to recognize what is. You Austerites , despite your claim to "reason", cannot see reality, nor can you see two steps ahead.

Immigration is part of foreign policy. You have to enforce it against the national desires/interests of the origin states.

To achieve your immigration objectives, you will need to remove the current political class. You will need to remove the current culturally dominant Left from it nooks and crannies.

Before you can even do this, you must persuade a significant minority of the public that this revolution is necessary. You must do this in the teeth of opposition that has control of the very media you need to convince the people. The Left has control of cultural outlets: try publishing a book, an article, or a film once the battle is seriously joined. The opposition has control of the lawmaking: ever heard of hate crime?

And how much time do you think you have? You don't even have two generations let alone one. The Left has had almost ninety years; the dhimmi political class has had over twenty.

Oh, as for the vaunted 2nd Amendment: this government does fire upon and kill its citizens. Just ask the dead miners from the turn of the last century. Ask David Koresh even if he was a nut and his group a cult: we had to kill the children in order to save them from abuse-Reno.


Is "conservatism' as an intellectual force spent?

On one hand we have the Coulters, Hannitys and Limbaughs who offer little more than multi-media coloring books for a dumbed-down audience that has never heard of, much less read Kirk, Weaver or Voegelin.

On the other, we have the Kristols, Novaks and Neo-cons re-defining conservatism as an "armed doctrine" to justify the re-ordering of the world on a model to their liking.

On the edges are a variety of cranks; some obsessed with all things Jewish, others calling for the privatization of the military and space.

To move forward we may have to look back. It seems a necessary first step is to acknowledge that the Enlightenment and Christian Civilization are incompatible. In the process we will discover ancient truths that can guide us to building a saner society.

I don't think that the swipe at Austerites is really legitimate. Auster and Bede probably would have less in common than might appear at first glance. A lot less, in fact.

But it's an interesting question, to go back to Paul's main post: Is it possible for conservatives to form a coalition around opposing the jihad?

My answer is just frankly that I don't know. It depends, I suppose, on whom we want in the coalition. After all, there were some conservatives (throat-clearing) who weren't all that much on-board with the Cold War and the opposition to Communism, either. Perhaps the most interesting question here would be how much of the grassroots, not the cranks at the edges (in Kevin's felicitous phrase), we could get on-board with such an opposition. There, I think leadership could do a lot. If you had a president or presidential candidate who was strongly pro-life, who wasn't a crank, who spoke out strongly about the jihadist threat, and who tied this to immigration, I think grassroots conservatives would listen. The problem we have now on that front is that everyone is concerned about the 2008 election. Grassroots conservatives who might be interested in _someone like_ Duncan Hunter or Tancredo (imagine a Tancredo sans the nuking Mecca and torture comments) are now so worried about beating Hillary in '08 that the only people they can think about are Giuliani (fretting and wondering what to do) and Romney (fretting and wondering if he's for real, perhaps trying to get others to have some enthusiasm for him), because these are "electable."

...are now so worried about beating Hillary in '08 that the only people they can think about are Giuliani (fretting and wondering what to do) and Romney (fretting and wondering if he's for real, perhaps trying to get others to have some enthusiasm for him), because these are "electable."

One of the surest paths to irrelevance is to fret over one's relevance.

To move forward we may have to look back. It seems a necessary first step is to acknowledge that the Enlightenment and Christian Civilization are incompatible. In the process we will discover ancient truths that can guide us to building a saner society.

The American government is a product of the Enlightenment. Your statement throws it out the window. Christians of much sterner stuff than what is apparent here did not declare it incompatible so that it should be discarded.When are you going to understand that the American experiment is an outgrowth of The Protestant Reformation a swell as the Enlightenment?

Would you like to go back to being serfs under a feudal lord with a king governing by the divine right of kings? Or would you like to go back to an Emperor who demands to be called a god. What about Pharaoh. Shall we try a Babylonian emperor? Or do you prefer the Holy Roman Empire under the foot of the Pope?

When are you going to understand that the American experiment is an outgrowth of The Protestant Reformation a swell as the Enlightenment?

The 20th century is a case study of what happens when human beings tried to divorce the 2nd Great Commandment ('Love your neighbor as yourself') from the 1st ('Love the Lord your God w/all your heart, soul, mind, and strength'). Chesterton, Belloc, McNabb all saw where unbridled capitalism and socialism led, sans the transcendence of the Judeo Christian faith. Here we are: postmodern nihilism and a barbaric foe chomping at the bit to fill the ruins of the old West.

Funny how blind one is from inside the Beltway and at the top of corporate office bldgs to this.

"One of the surest paths to irrelevance is to fret over one's relevance."

Zippy, truer words were never spoken. This one belongs with things like, "The shortest path to obsolescence is to try to be up to date." And come to think of it, they're related.

I forgot to connect the dots: the Enlightenment project progressed through the Protestant Reformation to the present dissolution of the American -- indeed the West generally -- project. "Let's go to the mall (gym, walk the dog, etc.)" on Sunday, the day of the Resurrection, is the softcore nihilism that refuses the connection between life and love on the one hand, and between Creator and creatures in hubris extraordinaire on the other.

Thankfully, the Magisterium, Scripture, and Tradition still ride the waves as St John Bosco foresaw. Cheers

The American government may perhaps be a product of the Enlightenment (more's the pity), but the Republic is not. There is in the basic foundation of the American political tradition the iron of antiquity; because that foundation hinges on an assumption about the objective reality of Truth and Justice. A step of faith. The world is intelligible, and men are free, because Justice exists.

Our government increasingly resembles a plutocracy, its cynicism and avarice poisoning us, but there is still life in the Republic, and she will not vanish without a trace.

I'm not dead yet

"Would you like to go back to being serfs under a feudal lord with a king governing by the divine right of kings?"

You mean do I want to live like a lot of people do in the modern welfare state? Or, do I want a system where the Chief Executive can wage undeclared wars?
Do I want to live in an Empire that uses paid Hessians to police far-away subjects? Or where Self-Worship includes child-sacrifices? Hell no.

The Enlightenment removed God from our civilizational narrative and slowly reduced man to a mere beast. And we called it Progress.


Mr Cella:

The American government may perhaps be a product of the Enlightenment (more's the pity), but the Republic is not.

Please explain how you so twisted what I said :

The American government is a product of the Enlightenment. Your statement throws it out the window. Christians of much sterner stuff than what is apparent here did not declare it incompatible so that it should be discarded.When are you going to understand that the American experiment is an outgrowth of The Protestant Reformation a swell as the Enlightenment?

to indicate I meant the current socialist distortion. The context of my statement refers to the original constitutional government.To whom did you think I was referring when I wrote: Christians of much sterner stuff than what is apparent here did not declare it incompatible so that it should be discarded? To make it clear so my words will not be twisted again: I was referring to the pastors and theologians who were contemporaneous with the American Founding.

The world is intelligible, and men are free, because Justice exists.
The world is intelligible because a reasoning God created it: Wisdom declares she was with God when He created the world-Proverbs. And God, through revelation, tells us of the nature the world: its meaning, purpose, and state. Justice exists because God loves his creation and declares: "you shall love your God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your strength....And you shall love your neighbor as yourself...On this hangs all the Law and the prophets." -- I don't have the bible open to the verses, so, Mr. Cella, you will have to bear with me and not twist my words. Justice also exists because God's righteous nature demands it.
the iron of antiquity

The iron of antiquity, sir, is serf, lord and a king who claims divine right; it is an iron shod Pope who thinks he is Christ on earth; it is the divine Caesar; it is the god-king pharaoh; and it is the pagan oppression of Nebuchadnezzar. It is the darkness of the world wide Babylonian mystery religion.

There is no foundation of the American Republic in the "iron of antiquity" because the pagan world held to the divinity of the king who had absolute sway over his subjects.

The power now invested in the centralized State would offend any monarchist. As for your other comic-book drawings of Whig history,in many ways these are the Dark Ages - with the Pope holding the keys to the resistance.

The world is intelligible because a reasoning God created it: Wisdom declares she was with God when He created the world-Proverbs. And God, through revelation, tells us of the nature the world: its meaning, purpose, and state. Justice exists because God loves his creation and declares: "you shall love your God with all your heart, and all your mind, and all your strength....And you shall love your neighbor as yourself...On this hangs all the Law and the prophets." -- I don't have the bible open to the verses, so, Mr. Cella, you will have to bear with me and not twist my words. Justice also exists because God's righteous nature demands it.

I don't disagree with any of this. Are these truths not ancient? Then why does antiquity provoke such eloquent hostility from you?

When I refer to antiquity I do not mean "any old ancient system"; I mean the inheritance of Western Civilization, of what used to be called Christendom. I mean what our fathers build and we inherit. I mean the true institution of the University, which precedes the Enlightenment; I mean the parliament, which is older; I mean the written charter of government, or constitution, which is older.

I did not set up this strict opposition between Antiquity and Enlightenment, between Christendom and the Age of Reason, because I deny that it is so strict, or even that it is really intelligible. The Schoolmen can hardly be described as unreasoning men.

What I dispute is your statement that the "American government is a product of the Enlightenment." At the very least it is incomplete, and oversimplification.

Paul--
It is certainly true that the trend among the Founding Fathers was deism, with an Enlightenment belief in a clockwork universe, rather than in a personal God, and that their philosophy was more founded upon the Greek (as materially reflected in the architecture of their homes and public buildings) than upon the Bible, while their law was more founded upon the Roman than the Mosaic, or upon, for instance, the Beatitudes.
You only need to consider the famous (or, perhaps, infamous) Jefferson bible, in which he went through it with a blade, cutting out all the miracles from the history of Jesus Christ, to realize this.
If this was njartist's meaning, then I have to agree.

Guys. Look. This is an old argument which perhaps should be left for another thread (if either of you want to send me an essay on it, I would seriously consider it as a guest posting). Just to take Rodak's example, tell me, where was Jefferson when the Constitution was written? In Paris. And the notion that his "bible" could compete in influence with the real thing, is perfectly ludicrous. Not that I believe you hold this position. But things need to be kept in perspective. The American political tradition is wider than only the most famous Founders. It included, in good democratic form, a huge portion of the colonial population. The little democracies of towns and villages, the heritage of self-government in the states, even the organizational structures of the churches -- all these contribute to who we are, and they manifestly owe more to Christian community than to Enlightenment abstraction.

For myself, I think the Enlightenment gets a bad rap, and sometimes undeservedly. I've often thought of writing a deliberately provocative article for some journal called "In Praise of Enlightenment Rationalism." Mine would be the Christian rationalism of Locke and the many empiricist, evidentialist Anglican and Dissenting apologists of the 18th and to some extent 16th and 19th centuries rather than the virulently (and irrationally) anti-religious "rationalism" of the philosophes, with which the Enlightenment is too often strictly identified. But I agree with Paul that that's a different arg. for a different time.

My theory of the real threat of Islam is not a fear of the Jihadis. My fear is the eventual rise of Islam as a cultural and political power in the West through conversion. There are now millions of Muslims living in an increasingly secular Europe. Christianity is on the wane--particularly Christianity that has a real affect on the daily lives of ordinary people. Therefore, people are alienated and dissatisfied with their lives, which have no anchor. Couple this with the probable downturn in the global economy, and you will have millions of individuals looking for SOMETHING to give meaning to their lives.
Islam is good at providing this something, in a very stripped-down, simple, but compelling way. That, to my mind, is the danger. And I don't know how you fight it, other than by outlawing Islam. And if that were tried, I don't know how it would be enforceable. It would currently be unconstitutional in this country.

"I think the Enlightenment gets a bad rap, and sometimes undeservedly."

No one is suggesting we throw it overboard wholesale. Rather, we will take it's better elements and integrate it into a the civilization that we build on the rubble of this one.

"I don't disagree with any of this. Are these truths not ancient? Then why does antiquity provoke such eloquent hostility from you?

Antiquity doesn't provoke hostility. Cultic catch phrases such as "iron of antiquity" provoke irritation: they are phrases with meanings only available to the person writing them and/or his grad students.

"When I refer to antiquity I do not mean "any old ancient system"; I mean the inheritance of Western Civilization, of what used to be called Christendom."

All right. so we're only going back to the divine right of kings, the Holy Roman Emperor, and an iron shod Pope who thinks he is Christ on earth.

"I mean the parliament, which is older; I mean the written charter of government, or constitution...

So, now we've moved forward some in time. In fact, we've moved to England: Magna Carta, breaking the concept of the divine right of kings, and establishment of an effectual parliament. Where we have Protestants throwing off the yoke of the papalcy and the divine right of kings. Where men can now read the bible in the common language: the bible is no longer hidden behind a cultic language and to which access is denied to even the "believer". Where begins to enter the political arena the biblical concept that each man stands as an individual before God, is responsible for his own salvation, and has no head but Christ; and that such a person requires freedom of conscience; and thus freedom of speech.

"What I dispute is your statement that the "American government is a product of the Enlightenment." At the very least it is incomplete, and oversimplification."

I said: "that the American experiment is an outgrowth of The Protestant Reformation [as] well as the Enlightenment..."

NJartist, I think that even if a concern about the romanticization of the "pre-modern" past has some point to it, your aggressive, somewhat overstated, and obsessive way of bringing up this subject is not profitable. (Not to mention the fact that Paul already pointed out that the argument over the value of the Reformation and Enlightenment is OT.)

This was the direction the thread went; hence, comments are relevant.

To have a conversation terms must be defined and people must be quoted accurately. I suspect some people here are, for the first time, being challenged beyond what they are used to.

I suspect some people here are, for the first time, being challenged beyond what they are used to.

Thanks for the good laugh! Paul Cella had been sitting in his hermetically sealed little ideological cage until njartist came along to "Enlighten" him by revealing the Truth about those Dark Middle Ages!

What a hoot!

You're welcome Kevin. While you're laughing, please note that Paul missed Rodak's point about the Jefferson "bible". It had nothing to do about whether or not Jefferson was a participant in the writing of the Constitution. It had to do with the mindset of a number of those who founded the Republic.

Just to keep you laughing: a number of those who did create the Republic also created the American Episcopal Church - including Franklin.

Sorry, Meant Zippy.
My apologies to Kevin. Happens when you're grinning.

If I'm not mistaken, Paul Cella and I were discussing Jefferson's Deism, the Jefferson Bible, and Jefferson's anti-Christian letters at another web site about six years ago. The picture you have of swooping in to pull the wool off the poor benighted boy's eyes is far more hysterically funny than you seem to think it is. Do you wear a Mighty Mouse cape to go with your copy of Candide?

Say something new and interesting, already.

I apologize profusely for the odious phrase "iron of antiquity." Perhaps I should more painstakingly redact my combox remarks.

This, however, did fill me with mirth: I write in "phrases with meanings only available to the person writing them and/or his grad students"

My professors are Zippy, Lydia, Bill, Jeff and many others. Do I sound like a grad student?

No Zippy, capes are so outdated; and, who wants to see a nerd in a anatomically correct body suit? Don't answer that question.

I took you for a professor Paul. I just recognized the tone from my grad school days. I am used to coffee shop conversation with professors and students from various majors: the most fun were the psycho-majors.

An essay devoted to this subject is a must. "A
Conservative Defense of the Enlightenment" would
make for some interesting conversation.

njartist is correct, I think, in pointing out that Paul missed my point about the Jefferson bible. The point is not that the Jefferson bible influenced the founders of the Republic, or the writing of the constitution. The point is that the Jefferson bible is a demonstration of the influence of the Enlightenment on Jefferson.
I believe that it is also the case that the sectarian divisions between the various Christians living in the colonies at the time of founding is the very reason that the nation was not, and could not have been, founded as "Christian." There were just too many definitions of what "Christian" meant to too many different groups of people. And, of course, the Deists would have wanted nothing to do with it. So we get vague references to the "Creator" and to "God," but no references to Christ, or any patriarchs, saints, angels, or apostles.

The point is that the Jefferson bible is a demonstration of the influence of the Enlightenment on Jefferson.

I'm sorry, but this is supposed to be news?

If you are interested in arguing against Paul's thesis (at least as I understand it) you have to argue that the founding of America was nothing but a product of the Enlightenment, and that the founding itself is constitutive of America as such.

What is this obsession with the Jefferson bible? I tossed that in there merely as one small example, about which there is general knowledge, to indicate that the use of the words "God" and "Creator" in the founding documents did not really (or fully) indicate what is meant by "God" or "Creator" when spoken from most Christian pulpits.
It has been only that disparaged Enlightenment *abstraction* that has kept the sectarian Protestant denominations from pulling the national fabric apart, and from attempting to keep Catholicism from taking root here at all. In Europe, they fought wars of religion. Here, due to ideals of liberty, forged in the Enlightenment, a person's religion, or lack thereof, was his private business and no business of the state.
It was what I said AFTER I mentioned the accursed Jefferson bible that was my main point.
My thesis is that the Enlightenment ideals were a necessary condition for the survival of the nation. Western civilization did not, and has not fully yet (e.g. Yugoslavia,Ireland), kept Europe from violently dividing and redividing along sectarian Christian fault lines, precisely because the cultural heritage of those ancient states proved stronger than the influence of Reason and the Enlightenment.

Rodak: It's possible to just flip your argument on its head. Considering the direction subsequently taken by revolutions aiming at "Reason and Enlightenment," may we not say that "Enlightenment ideals" survived in this nation because of the "necessary conditions" of Christianity and the philosophical traditions of its great churches.

Even the Declaration of Independence, a document which no one disputes Jefferson's influence upon, does not hinge upon those platitudinous abstractions and wild idealism of the Jacobins, much less the sheer abstract lunacy of the Commies. It lacks the stupid arrogance of those latter systems.

In many ways it is a calm, sober, and careful document. The American People, having "altered or to abolished" a form of government now "institute a new" one, "laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." I mean, this modesty is unheard of in the later Enlightenment experiments.

And of course the most important phrase in the Declaration is not the one normally recited -- or at any rate not all of it.

"We hold these truths."

"My thesis is that the Enlightenment ideals were a necessary condition for the survival of the nation."

Those ideals were leavened by the Christian milieu in which they arose. However, do you maintain that our continued survival is dependent on Enlightenment ideals? Or, is our crisis the result of those ideals taken to their logical conclusion?

In fighting the Jihad, we'll need more spiritual substance than slogans about "freedom" and "equality", no?

"...may we not say that "Enlightenment ideals" survived in this nation because of the "necessary conditions" of Christianity and the philosophical traditions of its great churches."

Paul--
It would be nice if we could. But, as I said, the history of Europe argues against it. America was unique in the West at having the opportunity to forge a brand-new national identity, based on Enlightenment ideals of liberty, without a national religion, or even a predominate sectarian majority.
Christianity did not stop Russia from going Communist. It did not stop Germany, or Italy, from going fascist. It did not stop Ireland from being torn by religious strife. And on and on. All of the religious denominations, as well as the ideals of the Englightenment, came to this continent from Europe. But, only here does religion still thrive (relative to what's going on in Europe) *along with* a legal superstructure of Enlightenment ideals.

We could 'round and 'round on this. Was the American Founding a "brand-new" identity, comparable to the brand-new identity brought by sword and fire to France after her Revolution, or Russia after her's? Some states retained established religions deep into the 19th century. Virtually all the several states retained the political system, mutatis mutandis, they had lived under for decades and even centuries -- small republics and village democracies.

America may have been saved from particularly religious strife, but it's not like she escaped strife altogether on account of those ideas of liberty. A terrible confrontation between rival notions of liberty was just around the corner.

You say the history of Europe argues against my view; I say the history of America, in contrast to Europe, argues against yours.

Paul--

Saying "America may have been saved from particularly religious strife, but..." seems to overlook the hugeness of what is implied by that "but" when one considers the endless religious wars of Europe.
Religious strife was, after all, a major impetus for the original colonization of North America. The future avoidance of such strife was a key factor in the formation of this Republic with no official religion and with freedom of conscience, based on the rights of the individual citizen.

As you say, we could go 'round and 'round on this. I've said my piece on it.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.