Ten Times Wrong
by Lee
Now THIS is a discussion topic! Rod Dreher, formerly of National Review, has penned a column listing the ideas he had on 9/11 which have been changed, if not reversed, by the current disaster in the Middle East. Here’s his list.
1. Having been absolutely certain that the war was the right thing to have done, and that we would prevail easily, I am no longer confident that I can discern when emotion is affecting my judgment unduly.
2. I no longer implicitly trust governmental institutions, including the military—neither in their honesty nor their competence.
3. I no longer believe the Republican Party is superior in foreign policy judgment to the Democrats.
4. I no longer have confidence in the ability of our military, or any military, to solve deep cultural and civilizational problems through force alone. I mean, I thought nothing could stand in the way of the strongest military fielded since the days of ancient Rome. No more.
5. I have a far greater appreciation for how rare and fragile liberal democracy is, and a corresponding revulsion at the American assumption that it’s the natural state of mankind. Which is to say, the war has made me rethink my ideas about human nature, and I’m far more pessimistic now than I ever was.
I’ll gladly agree with all five of these. Here are my additions.
1. I no longer believe that freedom is as generally understood a concept as I once did
2. When two or more groups who hate each other have been oppressed by the same tyrant, this does not engender a feeling of kinship among the oppressed parties.
3. The third world is the third world for a reason.
4. People who are ruled by thugs and dictators and tyrants probably have no idea how to function any other way. My friend rides a motorcycle, and on the top of his helmet is a sticker, saying that if he is in an accident to please not remove the helmet, as it may be the only thing holding his skull together. Saddam was the helmet holding Iraq’s skull together, and we came along and tore it off like a Band-Aid.
5. Rudyard Kipling was far more on the money with White Man’s Burden than I would have liked to have believed.
6. I no longer believe the saying, “We don’t do that, we’re America. Tinpot dictatorships pull stunts like that.” (Thank you, George W. Bush, for that.)
7. There are some societies for whom a benevolent dictator is, at least in the short term, the best solution for stability and relative peace.
8. Never, ever, trust an Arab politician.
9. Israel is even less responsible for its problems than I had previously assumed, and I was staunchly pro-Israel to begin with.
10. Islam, by and large, is not compatible with the modern world, and will remain this way until such a time as they undergo the kind of reformation that Christianity did. And Christianity, at least the flavor preferred by the fundamentalist right, is only a stone’s throw away from being just as barbaric.
I’m sure there’s more, but these are 10. Leave your comments, flames, “Lee has BDS,” “Lee is a Christ-punching leftist,” “Lee wants the terrists to win,” or your own lists, below.
Update: Here’s a couple more.
11. I have come to realize that civilization is a far more tenuous institution than we grasp. All it takes is a major event, be it an act of God such as a hurricane destroying a city, or an act of man such as our pathetic planning for post-war Iraq, and even the most civilized of societies can turn on itself in an instant. I live in Los Angeles, a major city full of every different ethnicity imaginable. When the big one hits, how long do you think it will be until this place is a war zone? (Thank God for the Second Amendment!)
12. The only thing you really have in this world is your reputation. The damage inflicted on this nation’s reputation by this president is going to take statesman of legendary proportions to repair.
13. There are entirely too many among us for whom claiming the mantle of being right is far more important than actually being so.
Comments
1. The Constitution was written for a reason.
2. Diplomacy does not equal appeasement.
3. Ideology is not the same as philosophy.
4. Those who continuosly rationalize their leaders’ behavior are generally not the best arbitrators of right and wrong.
5. Blind loyalty does not equal earned respect.
6. Your nationality does not make you or your country the center of the Universe.
7. People who are addicted to big government do not have your best interests at heart, regardless of what their ideological motives are.
8. Religion and politics don’t mix.
9. Strength does not always equal brains.
10. “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom” should be required reading for anyone who wants a broader understanding of the Middle East and what it means to wage war there.
I’d love to hear some justification for this comment.
I knew this was going to be the one to get the most attention.
It’s simple. The fundies, as we affectionately know them, are restrained in their activities only by secular law and modern society. Take those away, and it’ll be Lord of the Flies, just like in Iraq.
Think about it. Think what a fundamentalist Christian theocracy would look like. I have no doubt whatsoever that, with society constraints removed from their religious beliefs, that they would reinstitute punishments like stoning and branding, real Biblical stuff. And that’s not too far removed from what we’re seeing now in the Middle East.
I know you’ll disagree, Brian. I think most people reading this blog will disagree. But I honestly think that if Pat Robertson could snap his fingers and have every homosexual in this country drop dead he’d do it without batting an eyelid.
The extremists would soon assume power over the normal Christians, and the United Christian States of America would basically be Saudi Arabia but with better skiing.
I’ve seen fundamentalists being interviewed saying that a theocracy was the ideal govt for the USA. Death Penalty for homos, stuff like that. Sounds like Sharia to me.
And no, nobody’s saying these are representative of all Christians, etc, you know the disclaimers. I think the point is any religion can potentially wind up on the same path as Islamo-fascism.
They’ll be too worried about beating the crowds to Cracker Barrel.
Good one Brian.
You watch what will happen. Nothing.
No, worse than that, they will pray for you, talk about diabolical.
The fundies, as we affectionately know them, are restrained in their activities only by secular law and modern society.
You could not be more wrong. The fundies are “restrained” by their faith, that same faith that tells us to:
Be happy
Love your neighbor
Love those that wish you harm
Be merciful
Be pure at heart (probably the toughest one of all)
Be a peacemaker.
All of these things which does not blemish your life but enriches ours.
Alot of your 10 maxims are spot on but you make the same mistake about religion over and over, YOU embrace the messenger (while these messenger fail ulitimately), WE embrace the message, which never fails.
Tell you what. Go find the most fundamentalist church you can find, and stand outside on a Sunday morning with a bullhorn sayinf “Fuck Jesus” and hold the worst anti-Christian signs you can think of. You watch what will happen. Nothing. They’ll be too worried about beating the crowds to Cracker Barrel.
It might work that way for a town or suburb big enough to have a Cracker Barrel. If you did that in my hometown, whose biggest intersection was a four way stop sign, and the nearest McDonalds was 60 miles away, you’d get ripped limb from limb.
You could not be more wrong. The fundies are “restrained” by their faith, that same faith that tells us to:
I hate to burst your bubble, but Islam commands its followers to do exactly the same things.
Oops.
Okay, I don’t think they’d kill you. However, there would be many broken bones for Dr. Patel to fix.
How about this one: Islam declared war on the west well before 9/11/01 and the radical muslims are prepared to fight for generations. Any plan that contemplates a traditional military victory is a losing plan.
I figured all that out when I was about 12, but I’m naturally disposed to think the worst of the human race. Comes from reading too damned much I guess.
Got a real problem with this one:
8. Religion and politics don’t mix.
Religion IS politics.
Other great rules to live by are Niven’s Laws:
1. Never throw shit at an armed man.
* 1a. Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at an armed man.
2. Never fire a laser at a mirror.
3. Mother Nature doesn’t care if you’re having fun.
4. Giving up freedom for security is beginning to look naive. (Note: this originally read “F × S = k”, signifying that the product of freedom and security is a constant.)
5. Psi and/or magical powers, if real, are nearly useless.
6. It is easier to destroy than to create.
7. Any damn fool can predict the past.
8. History never repeats itself.
9. Ethics change with technology.
10. Anarchy is the least stable of political structures.
11. There is a time and a place for tact.
12. The ways of being human are bounded but infinite.
13. When your life starts to look like a soap opera, it’s time to change the channel.
14. The only universal message in science fiction: There exist minds that think as well as you do, but differently.
* Niven’s Corollary: The gene-tampered turkey you’re talking to isn’t necessarily one of them.
15. Never waste calories.
16. There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.
17. No technique works if it isn’t used.
18. Not responsible for advice not taken.
19. Think before you make the coward’s choice. Old age is not for sissies.
20. Never let a waiter escape.
Heya, I’m new here; glad to see there’re more honest conservatives on the net than John Cole. I have to offer my respect to you and Dreher for posts like these, Lee. Although I have been against the current Iraq War since 1998, that doesn’t mean I reflexively disregard the opinions of those who supported it at one point - I’m not arrogant enough to think I myself couldn’t have been mistaken. I think at this point, however, no intellectually honest person can say it was a wise move and I hope we continue to learn from this.
Personally, I’ve learned:
1. It’s absolutely critical to question every word that comes out of the mouth of leaders - especially if you find yourself nodding in agreement. Assume everything a politician says is primarily for his own personal benefit until demonstrated otherwise - and be ready to change your beliefs even then.
2. The corporate media is on the whole neither liberal nor conservative, but at heart profit-seeking. Their coverage reflects the ever increasing competition for eyeballs in print and television journalism - the need to satsify advertisers may lead to a variety of political biases, but the underlying reason is clear, and apolitical.
3. Religion - either Christianity or Islam - is not itself the problem. Radical Islam in the Middle East is a means to an end: the Torah and the various Christian texts could just as plausably be used to justify violence and chaos, and have in the past.
Christians and Jews don’t engage in such barbarity today in large part because most believers live either in wealthy liberal democracies or are largely ignored by the press (the [few] abortion terrorists, far right elements in Israeli politics, and orgs like the Lord’s Resistance Army or National Liberation Front of Tripura, etc.).
1) trade with any, ally with none.
I have made the easy leap to isolationism...build a fucking fence, mind our own business, and bomb the fuck out of anyone who pisses us off enough, without nation building after....fuck em, let em build it back themselves, and if they irritate us, bomb em again.
Honestly i would bring all our boys and gals home, bomb Iran’s reactor into rubble and glass, and any other nuclear related targets we might have intelligence about, then I’d bomb their only oil refinery, and blockade any refined crude from getting in country with our navy till they caved.( at some point they’d have too) My guess is probably the only americans that would die would be the ones killed in accidents.
This way I wont have to worry about Iran taking over Iraq after we leave, as they would be too crippled to do so effectively. Also like to see $0.00 of foreign aid from our government for all countries.
2. The corporate media is on the whole neither liberal nor conservative, but at heart profit-seeking. Their coverage reflects the ever increasing competition for eyeballs in print and television journalism - the need to satsify advertisers may lead to a variety of political biases, but the underlying reason is clear, and apolitical
Yeah, i cant agree there. most corporate media outlets are leftist, and while competing with populist news has made CNN more populist, it hasnt had an impact on the liberal prism through which 98% of their employees view the world. MSNBC is even worse.
1. It’s absolutely critical to question every word that comes out of the mouth of leaders - especially if you find yourself nodding in agreement. Assume everything a politician says is primarily for his own personal benefit until demonstrated otherwise - and be ready to change your beliefs even then.
No argument on that one at all.
2. The corporate media is on the whole neither liberal nor conservative, but at heart profit-seeking. Their coverage reflects the ever increasing competition for eyeballs in print and television journalism - the need to satsify advertisers may lead to a variety of political biases, but the underlying reason is clear, and apolitical.
Then why does Fox News and talk radio continue to rake in profits while CNN, New York Times and the Big Three Network News continue to lose viewership and subscriptions?
3. Religion - either Christianity or Islam - is not itself the problem. Radical Islam in the Middle East is a means to an end: the Torah and the various Christian texts could just as plausably be used to justify violence and chaos, and have in the past.
No religion is not the problem. We have to remember that almost any “ism” created by Man can be used to harm another. Atheism included.
5. Rudyard Kipling was far more on the money with White Man’s Burden than I would have liked to have believed.
Great poem, isn’t it? I particularly like the line that describes the savages he conquers as “half devil and half child”. I think of that every time I see images from Zimbabwe, Darfur, Iraq or wherever. Also when I saw pictures from Yugoslavia or Rwanda in the early 90’s.
American anti-Imperialism and political correctness undermined the great European empires without realising that what replaced them would be a good deal worse. Just because America or Australia have done fine with their independence doesn’t mean that Sierra Leone or Burma or Pakistan would.
Honestly i would bring all our boys and gals home, bomb Iran’s reactor into rubble and glass, and any other nuclear related targets we might have intelligence about, then I’d bomb their only oil refinery, and blockade any refined crude from getting in country with our navy till they caved.( at some point they’d have too) My guess is probably the only americans that would die would be the ones killed in accidents.
No kidding. If we want to behave like an imperial power, we had better learn the value of the “punitive campaign”.
A few things I’ve learned:
1) Always check the facts. Don’t let pundits do your homework for you.
2) It’s important to tell the difference between someone who agrees with you and someone who’s telling you what you want to hear.
3) There are some problems that even the best and brightest can not solve.
4) Only a small fraction of the public pays enough attention to change their views on an issue. But that’s the only fraction that matters. Ignore the “base”. Ignore the fanatics. Persuade the middle.
5) Faustian bargains never work out for Faust.
6) Become enamored of neither tough talk nor intellectualism.
7) All grand theories for running the world are horseshit. Whether its communism, socialism, neoconservatism, liberalism or colonialism. The world doesn’t work the way it does in dorm rooms.
Persuade the middle.
And remember that this requires spin, evasion, and outright lies to accomplish.
Thanks for linking to that site, Lee. I went over and had some fun.
1) Liberal democracy can not be imposed on countries with little or no experience of this form of government.
2) Sometimes the devil you know is better than anarchy.
3) Religion will invariably lead to extemism. Religion and politics to tryanny.
4) Fundamental components of western democracy (freedom of speach, habeus corpus etc) are not considered fundamental by many members of western democracies who take them for granted.
5) The mass media is reactive not proactive; it will report the popular view at the time and not ask hard questions.
6) A war of ideas can not be won when one sides claims moral superiority but then judges their actions based upon the very worst actions of the other side.
7) Islam desperatly needs a reformation. Trying to impose one from the outside will not be successful. Iran is the most likely country from which a reformation will eminate.
8) Ending the addiction to oil is the biggest national security issue, far more important than the environmental implications.
9) Never underestimate politicians ability to ignore the horrors others committ because doing so would be politically problematic (e.g. every African leader re Mugabe)
10) Liberal democracy is extremley fragile, a tiny minority can damage or destroy it very easily.
1) Liberal democracy can not be imposed on countries with little or no experience of this form of government.
Don’t tell that to the Japanese or Germans. Further, by definition, a government that is voted into power by a majority of citizens (democracy) can hardly be said to be “imposed”.
2) Sometimes the devil you know is better than anarchy.
Well, if we just go by raw numbers, I’d have to say that the hundreds of thousands that Saddam killed as a result of his two aggressive wars and brutal dictatorship hardly balances the tens of thousands who have died during the occupation.
7) Islam desperatly needs a reformation. Trying to impose one from the outside will not be successful. Iran is the most likely country from which a reformation will eminate.
Iran was the source of Islamic extremism in its current menacing form. Islam’s overdue reform will probably come from Muslims living peacefully in the US.
3. Religion - either Christianity or Islam - is not itself the problem. Radical Islam in the Middle East is a means to an end: the Torah and the various Christian texts could just as plausably be used to justify violence and chaos, and have in the past.
I call bullshit because…
51As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. 52And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them[c]?” 55But Jesus turned and rebuked them, 56and[d] they went to another village.
-Luke 9
I can probably twist the words of Karl Marx into supporting Capitalism. That doesn’t mean that objectively speaking, they support Capitalism.
Don’t tell that to the Japanese or Germans. Further, by definition, a government that is voted into power by a majority of citizens (democracy) can hardly be said to be “imposed”.
1) Both countries unified into modern nation states without foreign intervention. Iraq is a creation of Britain.
2) Germany already had experience with democratic government. You may remember it as the Weimar Republic.
3) Japan has been almost a one party state run by the Liberal Democratic Party.
7) Islam desperatly needs a reformation. Trying to impose one from the outside will not be successful. Iran is the most likely country from which a reformation will eminate.
From the sounds of it, you and Lee don’t get what the Reformation was. It was a major push to throw off the “traditions” and other crap that the Roman Catholic Church had elevated to unacceptable positions of authority. Reformed Protestant Christianity is much closer to 1-3rd century Christianity than Roman Catholicism is. That doesn’t mean that Roman Catholics aren’t Christians, it just means that Roman Catholicism has been tainted by centuries of deviating away from the path laid down by scripture.
Islam cannot have a Reformation, unless you throw out the Hadith which to pretty much everyone except a minority of Muslims is heresy.
2) Germany already had experience with democratic government. You may remember it as the Weimar Republic.
Padders said “little or no experience”. I interpret the Weimar Government as “little”
3) Japan has been almost a one party state run by the Liberal Democratic Party.
Still a democracy!
From the sounds of it, you and Lee don’t get what the Reformation was. It was a major push to throw off the “traditions” and other crap that the Roman Catholic Church had elevated to unacceptable positions of authority. Reformed Protestant Christianity is much closer to 1-3rd century Christianity than Roman Catholicism is. That doesn’t mean that Roman Catholics aren’t Christians, it just means that Roman Catholicism has been tainted by centuries of deviating away from the path laid down by scripture.
The Reformation originated in Germany, which was relatively liberal at the time. The Reformation spread most quickly to the Netherlands and England, but did not take hold in Spain, with it’s theocratic king and subsequent Inquisition. It is with the freedom to speak out, to criticize, and to publish that Muslims will be able to achieve their reform and the US has a good climate for it.
2. Diplomacy does not equal appeasement.
By the same token, appeasement does not equal diplomacy.
But I honestly think that if Pat Robertson could snap his fingers and have every homosexual in this country drop dead he’d do it without batting an eyelid.
Wow, you really do misread Christianity, don’t you? No, if we’re playing this hypothesis game, what Pat Robertson would probably do is have every homosexual become heterosexual with a snap of his fingers.
Sure, either way, homosexuals cease to exist, but only one involves mass death. It’s interesting how non-Christians always assume that Christians would choose the option involving death, and not conversion. That’s what Christians try to do, convert people.
Not kill them.
And this is true even for “fundies”.
But, failing conversion, they want them dead.
Fundies are evil bastards once you get to know them....
The extremists would soon assume power over the normal Christians…
Why do you assume this? Because the “extremists” are better armed? Trust me, there are lots of “normal Christians” out there who possess hunting rifles, and know how to use them…
But, failing conversion, they want them dead.
Assuming this is true for the sake of argument, wanting something is not the same as making it happen.
Also, per an earlier thread, I explained that even wanting to kill someone is a sin.
Fundies are evil bastards once you get to know them....
How many fundies have you gotten to know, and what about them is so “evil”?
I believe the Bible is essentiually true, and I am a creationist (Old Earth variety). Am I a fundie? Am I evil?
1. Nothing is sacred, and ideology is for the impractical.
2. Everything you were taught to be proud of by your nationality will be refutted by yet another nationality.
3. You can’t help those who don’t wish to be helped. A government that tries to do so has fools as followers.
4. Arabs live and die by the sword.
5. As much as we’d like to scapegoat Israel for the Middle Easts problems, we’re wrong. the people that live inthe Middle East have only themselves to blame for thier shameful behaviors.
6. Islam isn’t an excuse to kill people. Niether is the bible, nor Torah. We should stop trying to accomodate the belief that there is a culture to be learned in this modern Islamic bloodbath.
7. Unless Americans take a vested interest in thier government we will contiinue to see a decline in effective government.
8. Bi-partisan debates in American politics are a joke. People are arguing Coca Cola or Pepsi. Same drink in theory.
9. Stop listening to Europe. After they pilfered the world for thier own benefit, proliferating Christianity and robbing poorer countries, they created a nanny state to take care of themselves. Who cares wht they think?
10. Money is a fallacy. Credit is the new gold standard.
11. No one stands for anything anymore, and historians would have you believe there is nothing so sacred to fight for. Except that history disagrees.
Wow, you really do misread Christianity, don’t you? No, if we’re playing this hypothesis game, what Pat Robertson would probably do is have every homosexual become heterosexual with a snap of his fingers.
Sure, either way, homosexuals cease to exist, but only one involves mass death. It’s interesting how non-Christians always assume that Christians would choose the option involving death, and not conversion. That’s what Christians try to do, convert people.
Not kill them.
And this is true even for “fundies”.
Strictly speaking, you’re correct.
The problem is that there are a LOT of people who do these things (e.g. fag-bashing) in the name of Christ/Christianity.
And you get good Christians who will sometimes stand up and speak out and repudiate these people. More in some areas of the country than others.
This is why people tend to equate Islam with Jihadist - you don’t tend to see people of faith standing up to repudiate the actions.
(And I’m not sure at all which side of the line I would put Pat Robertson on. In my gut, I think he’d rather see the fags dead than converted. And for this reason and others, I don’t consider him a representative Christian.)
But, failing conversion, they want them dead.
Or feel content in the idea that you’d be damned to hell for not converting. Both are wishes of death, or at the very least ill will.
Praying for the soul of another is fundamental to building a superiority complex.
When the big one hits, how long do you think it will be until this place is a war zone? (Thank God for the Second Amendment!)
Considering many of your surrounding areas are a war zones already, I would stock up now on ammo.
Here’s but one example from J.K. Rowling, on her current Potter book tour.
“I had one letter from a vicar in England—this is the difference—saying would I please not put Christmas trees at Hogwarts as it was clearly a pagan society. Meanwhile, I’m having death threats when I’m on tour in America.”
Yup, no threats of violence from bible bangers here. Where is Fred Phelps?
I’m an anilinationist, fuck our enemies from without and within.
Ah...since we are entering ideas......here’s some of mine:
1. Reformations are preceded by education.
2. People tend to make God in their own image.
3. As a rule, people tend to gravitate towards others that are like themselves. True diversity is rare. It is also true that people avoid that which is different.
4. Because of 3 and 4, a person assigns moral values to things and actions based on how similar and agreeable they are to that person, and tends to reject other moral systems because they are not similar or agreeable.
5. To live backwards is evil; stagnation and soft compliance spells the death of the soul.
6. Most people who reject moral value systems do so because of personal discomfort or a sense of a loss of personal freedoms.
To explain....the Reformation was preceeded by the introduction of the printing press in Europe...people could read the Bible and other books and understand them. That is what will drive an Islamic Reformation....education of the masses. Number 2 is pretty self-explanitory, #3 can be seen in every blog out there, including Drumwaster and this one....most of the posters here agree with what Lee says, and vice versa with DWR. #4? Look at how I have been treated on this blog when I post a different take on the COTUS and POTUS authority. #5 can be seen in countries like Saudi Arabia and France, where national growth and productivity is crippled by a sense of entitlement of a lack of sociological direction. As for #6....well, that I call my AS idea....when someone decides something is ‘wrong’ because it forces them to give up or reject something they desire, or it makes them accept something that they do not agree with on an emotional level.
And how the hell would you have gotten to know many fundamentalists in Seattle? Oh yeah, the West Coast is also known as the Pacific Bible Belt. Sorry, forgot.
Thrill,
Padders said “little or no experience”. I interpret the Weimar Government as “little”
The Weimar republic did not fall because of its own problems. It fell because of the Treaty of Versailles. Well, technically it didn’t fall as it formed the foundation of the Third Reich.
Still a democracy!
By that standard, so was Mexico for most of the 20th century, despite the PRI having a near death grip on their system.
The Reformation originated in Germany, which was relatively liberal at the time. The Reformation spread most quickly to the Netherlands and England, but did not take hold in Spain, with it’s theocratic king and subsequent Inquisition. It is with the freedom to speak out, to criticize, and to publish that Muslims will be able to achieve their reform and the US has a good climate for it.
You don’t even get the underlying issue, Thrill. The Reformation changed nothing in the Bible. It brought Christians back to an understanding of what it means to be a Christian that is very similar to what the Apostles and Jesus preached in the first century. It also threw out everything that could not be supported exclusively by canonical scripture.
For Islam to be reformed, a lot of textual changes would have to be made, and they won’t be accepted by most foreign Muslims. Christianity did not have to do this. It simply had to throw off what was transparently man-made (tradition and “church law") and go to Sola Scriptura.
Islam cannot be reformed the way Christianity was, and it is insulting to ask Muslims to change their religion to suit our views of them. I would not ask even a Satanist or a worshipper of Kali to do that.
And how the hell would you have gotten to know many fundamentalists in Seattle?
Most of the fundie wing of my family lives in Washington state, many in Seattle. Drop your stereotypes.
You don’t even get the underlying issue, Thrill.
In addition, Thrill implies that the Reformation was a liberal development; it wasn’t in any sense of the word. The Reformation was in fact a conservative backlash by Luther and others who felt that the Catholic Church had become far too involved in the secular affairs of men, i.e., the socio-political intrigues of various nations, not too mention the famous indulgence contraversy, and had lost sight of Christianity’s basic principles. The Reformation, originally, was about bringing Christianity back to what was felt to be its original precept--that all governments and human institutions were transitory and would be rendered irrelevant after Christ’s return.
PJ:
American anti-Imperialism and political correctness undermined the great European empires without realising that what replaced them would be a good deal worse.
You have obviously forgotten what a great human being King Leopold II of Belgium was - he tortured and brutalized his way across the Congo, killing as many as 10 million people, and leaving the country the basket case it is today.
Things didn’t get worse after colonialism - actually they stayed the same. A bunch of petty dictators screwing the locals out of whatever they can get their hands on. The big question is, where did they learn it all from?
Getting back to the original post, I’ll address some things that are related to me personally:
2. I no longer implicitly trust governmental institutions, including the military—neither in their honesty nor their competence.
This is a vague, vacuous statement that 1)implicitly argues that the entire military, from the CinC down to the foot soldiers, can no longer be trusted, and 2)begs the question that if all govt institutions can no longer be trusted, then is there a need for ANY govt institutions, including congress, law enforcement, and the judiciary? After all, even if a “reformer” comes in, whose to say now that he/she isn’t manipulative and corrupt as well? Dreher is simply participating in an exercise in hyperbole here.
4. I no longer have confidence in the ability of our military, or any military, to solve deep cultural and civilizational problems through force alone. I mean, I thought nothing could stand in the way of the strongest military fielded since the days of ancient Rome. No more.
This statement is a demonstration of sheer ignorance. NO military force in the history of our nation has solved “deep cultural and civilizational problems” through force alone. Not a single one. A military can rebuild a nation following the use of force, as MacArthur’s experience in Japan following WW2 demonstrates, but solving cultural and civilizational problems is something that has always gone beyond sheer force. The sheer stupidity of Dreher’s statement here and deliberate ignorance of history to make a point is absolutely astounding.
5. I have a far greater appreciation for how rare and fragile liberal democracy is, and a corresponding revulsion at the American assumption that it’s the natural state of mankind. Which is to say, the war has made me rethink my ideas about human nature, and I’m far more pessimistic now than I ever was.
More ignorance--the Founding Fathers themselves did not believe that liberal democracy was the “natural state” of mankind; that is the reason the principles of the Constitution and bill of Rights were crafted, to help prevent the country from falling back into a state of monarchy and dictatorship. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers were far more pessimistic about human nature than Dreher could ever hope to be--apparently he forgot that at the time, only propertied males were allowed to vote and the Senate was picked not by popular mandate, but by state governments for the very reason that the Founding Fathers equated true democracy with mob rule.
In short, this is the jeremiad of a neo-con whose had a lot of his liberal assumptions about human nature blown out of the water, leaving a philosophically bitter husk of a man. Ironically, Lee actually made a better explanation of his current perceptions despite the post being based on this drivel.
More ignorance--the Founding Fathers themselves did not believe that liberal democracy was the “natural state” of mankind; that is the reason the principles of the Constitution and bill of Rights were crafted, to help prevent the country from falling back into a state of monarchy and dictatorship.
One point: the “natural state” theory is straight from the Bush playbook. The thinking was that since democracy and order were the natural state of mankind, the postwar scene would be a snap. A little cleaning up here and there as the Iraqis assumed their natural democratic state.
And we all see how that worked out.
This was the point of my #1.
The natural state is natural law, according to John Locke, and we give up the freedom of natural law to protect our right to have property, and produce wealth from the things we do with it.
Germany had a lot more experience with democracy than just the Weimar Republic. The constituent states had been democracies to one degree or another for years, and at the end of the 19th century Germany was one of the most liberal democratic countries around. Hence the song, Deutschland Uber Alles, which is about how the German political system is far more free and enlightened than anyone else’s. Unfortunately it doesn’t specify exactly what political system it’s talking about, which is how the Nazis managed to twist it to their ends.
And I would respectfully point out to Lee and the people that agree with him that Bush has maintained that people yearn for liberty and freedom, not necessarily ‘American’ democratic tradition.
And I would respectfully point out to Lee and the people that agree with him that Bush has maintained that people yearn for liberty and freedom, not necessarily ‘American’ democratic tradition.
My point still stands. Liberty and freedom may be universally yearned for, but they can mean polar opposites to two different people.
Ah....but you recognize that I am right on this point?
Don’t tell that to the Japanese or Germans. Further, by definition, a government that is voted into power by a majority of citizens (democracy) can hardly be said to be “imposed”.
Well, they became democracies—after being completely conquered and occupied by permanent massive armies of troops—an occupation that technically continues to this day.
I would also point out that, democracy aside, both countries had long political histories with emperors and kings. Iraq doesn’t. They though of themselves as one nation, one people, racially superior to others. Iraq is three peoples, three nations each of whom hates the other.
And both countries were powerful because they technologically advanced, educated, industrially powerful and civilized. Iraq wasn’t powerful and what power it had was because it was sitting on oil.
Iraq will be stable and fully sovereign by 2015.
Ah....but you recognize that I am right on this point?
Sure, absolutely. But I don’t see the significance. It would be like me saying “Bush said 2+2=6” and you responding with, “I would like to remind you that Bush said “2+2=5.”
Well, they became democracies—after being completely conquered and occupied by permanent massive armies of troops—an occupation that technically continues to this day.
No it doesn’t. The Allied military occupation of Germany technically ended on 12 September 1990 with the signing of the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany and the abolition of the Allied Control Council.
Concerning Japan, the San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, ended the Allied occupation, and when it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was an independent state (except Okinawa, which remained under American control until 1972, and Iwo Jima, which thus until 1968).
One point: the “natural state” theory is straight from the Bush playbook. The thinking was that since democracy and order were the natural state of mankind, the postwar scene would be a snap. A little cleaning up here and there as the Iraqis assumed their natural democratic state.
And Lee, just to be clear, on this point, I agree with you---Bush’s actions in this case indicate a philosophy opposed to traditional conservatism. That was what irked me so much about Dreher’s argument--he sounds like a liberal who’s just woken up and realized that the human race isn’t all flowers and candy, and proceeded to make an intellectually unsophisticated argument based on these presumptions.
At least your post outlined your criticisms from a basepoint of reason--Dreher’s is all emotion and bitching and generalizations that could easily be misconstrued. Perhaps not entirely his fault, but he ought to learn to communicate more effectively if he hopes to not be misunderstood.
Flying Monkey Overlord:
For Islam to be reformed, a lot of textual changes would have to be made
I need you to clarify this: are you saying that Islam is so fundamentally repressive and violent that any change is impossible? Please explain.
Heartless Libertarian:
The Reformation was in fact a conservative backlash by Luther and others who felt that the Catholic Church had become far too involved in the secular affairs of men
And this is a major problem with Islam.
“In Islam, God is Caesar” -Samuel Huntington
The Reformation, originally, was about bringing Christianity back to what was felt to be its original precept--that all governments and human institutions were transitory and would be rendered irrelevant after Christ’s return.
I hate to sound like I’m arguing semantics, but I would call that anything but conservative. Radical perhaps.
When I say that Islam needs a “Reformation”, it’s probable that a better word is “Renaissance”. How about that?
I hate to sound like I’m arguing semantics, but I would call that anything but conservative. Radical perhaps.
From a semantical perspective, the conservative nature of the early Reformation was its adherence to the notion of early, that is to say, Traditionalist, interpretation of Christianity. As an analogy, most American conservatives adhere to an interpretation of democracy that attempts to hew to those of the Founding Fathers while maintaining a healthy respect and faith in the ideals they set forth.
Remember that not all forms of radicalism are inherently wrong--the form of government that was initially set up here was quite radical for its time, even taking into account its influences from English common law. For the Romans, early Christianity was certainly radical in part because they refused to subscribe to the cult of the Emperor, and were thus seen as trying to undermine the Empire as a whole.
When I say that Islam needs a “Reformation”, it’s probable that a better word is “Renaissance”. How about that?
Even this is somewhat misleading. The Renaissance is popularly seen as the cultural emergence from insular, stunted Christianity, but the reality is that Judeo-christian themes and influences dominated European culture all the way up to the early 1700s. A better term, perhaps, would be an Islamic Enlightenment that respected the contributions of early Islam while questioning the application of certain interpretations to the realities of the everyday world, but as the French Terror shows, even that can devolve into its own form of cultural oppression.
I think this ultimately gets back to Lee’s point earlier that what we know as “liberal democracy” is not a natural state for human kind and is dependant on a centuries-long development of respect for individual rights. Because this concept is antithetical to most interpretations of Islam (the whole idea of the religion being ultimate submission), it’s difficult for me to believe that OUR kind of democracy would have any hold in the Islamic world.
A better term, perhaps, would be an Islamic Enlightenment
Good enough. I still say that it will originate among Muslims in the US.
it’s difficult for me to believe that OUR kind of democracy would have any hold in the Islamic world.
Maybe so, but can it really be that they will never have a choice between nothing but brutal dictatorships and complacent monarchies?
Next entry: Best. Prime Minister. Ever.
Previous entry: The Gang's All Here
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 7041
Total Logged in members: 3
Total guests: 80
Total anonymous users: 1
Hal_10000,
Irmo,
noxiousphysicia,
,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
The $8.7 Billion Hole
(4 total, Last @ 10:43)
Ed Kline: There’s a part of me that thinks we should still keep trying to fix these countries. But there’s a growing part that thinks this would be just throwing good money after bad. The world will make you a libertarian yet Hal.
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 08:46)
Seattle Outcast: What about the vermin sure to co inhabit the place with muirgeo1? Surly if you could overcome your allergy for the plywood shack you would then have to deal with that too? Would a .45 auto be overkill for shooting vermin? On second thought, I'll just torch the place and…
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 07:52)
AlexinCT: I know “the wealthy” make for great rhetorical fodder on the campaign trail, but I really would like to see someone runningn for election acknowledge that these evil greedy rich elite are actually also the ones who take the business risks required to real create jobs. Every time I hear…
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 07:25)
Seattle Outcast: Why not stay at muirgeo’s? He’s got a vacation home :) I'm allergic to cheap plywood shacks...
Calculate the impact of Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire..
(10 total, Last @ 06:01)
Retluocc1: Why not stay at muirgeo’s? He’s got a vacation home :) Okay, now THAT made me laugh.
Last 30 Comments
I’d love to hear some justification for this comment. You sound like Rosie O’Donnell with this nonsense.
Tell you what. Go find the most fundamentalist church you can find, and stand outside on a Sunday morning with a bullhorn sayinf “Fuck Jesus” and hold the worst anti-Christian signs you can think of. You watch what will happen. Nothing. They’ll be too worried about beating the crowds to Cracker Barrel.
You know, come to think of it, insulted Christians threatening to boycott your product is as almost as bad as getting beheaded.