tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post230818209637790405..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Bush Derangement Syndrome, Iraq & Liberal DemocracyBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28962795761319474122009-01-19T10:24:00.000-07:002009-01-19T10:24:00.000-07:00This is only true until the french attacked Christ...This is only true until the french attacked Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Not exactly; don't forget the dominant form of Christianity in France was Roman Catholicism; THAT'S what was attacked.><BR/><BR/>Not only the catholics persecuted the Christians, and it seems the true Christians were attacked to a certain degree by the majority deists. That would be an interesting post to write. To what extent did the deists of France persecute the true Christians, who were underground?<BR/><BR/>Maybe because they were underground, they weren't touched at all.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81887127010830187422009-01-19T10:19:00.000-07:002009-01-19T10:19:00.000-07:00This is only true until the french attacked Christ...This is only true until the french attacked Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Not exactly; don't forget the dominant form of Christianity in France was Roman Catholicism; THAT'S what was attacked. And many of the Founders (orthodox OR heterodox) had a strong disdain for Roman Catholicism. That led figures like Ezra Stiles, himself an orthodox Christian theologian and President of Yale, to put up with attacks on Christianity under the auspices that they were just attacking tyrannical Roman Catholicism.><BR/><BR/>I agree with that.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59387104994085884182009-01-19T08:43:00.000-07:002009-01-19T08:43:00.000-07:00This is only true until the french attacked Christ...<I>This is only true until the french attacked Christianity.</I><BR/><BR/>Not exactly; don't forget the dominant form of Christianity in France was Roman Catholicism; THAT'S what was attacked. And many of the Founders (orthodox OR heterodox) had a strong disdain for Roman Catholicism. That led figures like Ezra Stiles, himself an orthodox Christian theologian and President of Yale, to put up with attacks on Christianity under the auspices that they were just attacking tyrannical Roman Catholicism.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63343567671597478322009-01-18T19:11:00.000-07:002009-01-18T19:11:00.000-07:00One of the many revisionist myths of the "Chr...One of the many revisionist myths of the "Christian Nation" proponents is that the American Founders did not support the French Revolution. The opposite is true.><BR/><BR/>This is only true until the french attacked Christianity.<BR/><BR/>The models for nontyrannical government in the Muslim world are Turkey and Indonesia and I suppose Malaysia.><BR/><BR/>Indonesia and Malaysia are tyrannical big time; the tyrannical majority of muslims over everyone else, adhering to the koran.<BR/><BR/>I'm almost certain Figi is the most republican country in the world; run by Christians.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27326311677105460772009-01-18T13:44:00.000-07:002009-01-18T13:44:00.000-07:00fanaticism = badfanaticism = badTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25934153743744766162009-01-18T13:03:00.000-07:002009-01-18T13:03:00.000-07:00As a libertarian, I can't support the authoritaria...As a libertarian, I can't support the authoritarianism of Russian or Singapore. However, on empiracle or observable grounds, I note that while you need capitalism, property rights and rule of law (i.e., markets) to create wealth, authoritarian political mechanisms seem to be just as good at providing the structure as democratic ones.<BR/><BR/>There are a few key differences between Russia and Singapore. Russia is European in its culture and as such "authoritarianism" isn't as authentic to them. Asia, on the other hand, has authoritarianism much more deeply embedded in its traditions. And, until recently there was a huge problem with corruption in Russia that leaves residues of arbitrariness in Putin's rule. Arbitrariness and corruption are the opposite of "rule of law" and are terrible for effective functioning markets.<BR/><BR/>Singapore is one of the least corrupt, or "arbitrary" nations on Earth. If you can play by their rules, they'll be fair to you and provide a nice place to live.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, authoritarianism in pursuit of "quality of life" -- which is a secular end -- though not the most desirable form of government, is much better than authoritarianism in pursuit of religiously fanatical ends.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-721774017400198942009-01-18T12:40:00.000-07:002009-01-18T12:40:00.000-07:00Well, popular sentiment and BDS has made it imposs...Well, popular sentiment and BDS has made it impossible to discuss the issue; I was inclined to postpone it for 20 years.<BR/><BR/>But while we have the floor and are being dispassionate, I'd say that "liberty" is seldom discussed by Strauss---he is concerned with tyranny. One might say that "Straussianism" was combined with Reagan/Thatcherism, the notion that man desires to "breathe free."<BR/><BR/>Depose the tyrant, and the people will choose democracy.<BR/><BR/>This is only somewhat accurate, because liberty is useless without order, without the freedom from being murdered. And so we see in Russia a "consent of the governed" for authoritarianism. Still, despite his illiberal machinations, it seems to me that the Russian people are choosing Putin quite democratically. So too in Singapore, which used to be known as the toilet of Asia, there seems to be a consensus for that authoritarian government, as it's resulted in order and prosperity.<BR/><BR/>And the "liberal" part of "democracy" becomes problematic when religious sentiment is ignored. The models for nontyrannical government in the Muslim world are Turkey and Indonesia and I suppose Malaysia. But we cannot ignore that their systems must be congenial to the prevailing social <I>ethos</I> of Islam---you certainly can't turn Istanbul into Amsterdam.<BR/><BR/>Christopher Hitchens' truly secular state is quite aways away. In fact, Amsterdam might become Istanbul first. But that's another discussion. ;-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10923023018036045482009-01-18T12:28:00.000-07:002009-01-18T12:28:00.000-07:00I thought about qualifying my statement with remar...I thought about qualifying my statement with remarks on Japan and Germany. Germany was smack dab in Western Europe a "liberal democratic" zeitgeist. And Japan's particular Asian sense of shame and authoritarianism made them amenable to accepting our "liberal democratic" orders. Those two examples are serious ones. They provided Bush, Kristol, Wolfowitz with confidence that when Hussein was easily defeated as he was, we could establish a liberal democracy there as we did in Japan and Germany. To tell you the truth, when this went down, I had no idea whether it was going to work as it did in Germany & Japan, or whether the naysayers on the left & right were right that it would turn into a quagmire. But they were right.<BR/><BR/>And it wasn't just the Lew Rockwell or the Counterpunch crowd. It was advisors for the first Bush (GHWB) who told him we had to leave Hussein in power for *those very reasons.* <BR/><BR/>I can't tell you how many times since 1991 I spoke to folks who said, they supported the first Iraq War but couldn't fathom why GHWB didn't "finish the job." Well now we know. But, as with the French Revolution, things weren't so "self evident" back in the early 90s, both in the early 1790s and 1990s.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44237775681044206422009-01-18T12:03:00.000-07:002009-01-18T12:03:00.000-07:00For instance, Bush's Straussian advisors who pushe...<I>For instance, Bush's Straussian advisors who pushed him into this war (who tend to be atheists) understand that the Declaration of Independence's ideas of "unalienable rights" to liberty and equality are NOT authentically Christian, but essentially modern ideas.</I><BR/><BR/>They argue that, but it's not necessarily true. Strauss' great lacuna is religious and specifically Christian thought, as Voegelin points out in their correspondence.<BR/><BR/><I>I also believe that Bush & his Straussians advisors...</I><BR/><BR/>The "Straussian" thing is way overblown. Take a class from Strauss at the University of Chicago, and you're a "Straussian."<BR/><BR/>The charges of atheism and Jacobinism are unsubstantiated. The French revolution was indeed "modern," as it put man as the measure of all things. Even if he was an atheist [he was, functionally], Strauss opposed modernity in favor of "classical" natural right, and wouldn't have supported invading Iraq. In "Natural Right and History," he mocks Wilsonianism, the idea of "making the world safe for democracy."<BR/><BR/>But you're quite right about the BDS at that other blog. I was appalled. I gave it more credit than that.<BR/><BR/><I>You can't "nation build" and establish liberal democracy by force in most of the illiberal un-democratic lands.</I><BR/><BR/>You mean like Japan and Germany?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com