We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, October 18. 2007
From Malanga in City Journal, a quote:
Sounds like Obama. The whole thing, The Religious Left, is here.
I suspect this is a vocal, but not sizeable, group of people who will be given good media access despite their "theocratic" inclinations. The "Social Gospel," it seems to me, has very little to do with Christianity, which concerns itself with matters of the spirit and saving souls, and thus largely rejects earthly concerns about things like power as vain distractions and temptations. I would steer clear of churches that do politics, and I believe that Dr. Dobson (who is truly wise on the subject of Christian child-rearing) is similarly foolish to get involved in political matters. It should be beneath their dignity.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The City Journal article was interesting. I mentioned yesterday in a post regarding my feeling of forces aligning for a second US Civil War. In that post I mentioned moral suasion as a force of impuissance in every phase of our society today.
Be the religious tide left or right neither has claim to any high ground. The right, to tar them all (why not) appear to be the home of pedophiles and homosexuals. The left is remains “The Church of What’s Happening now” which is abortion on demand, drugs, and the latest, greatest “sanctuary for those here to undermine our culture ..ie. Irredentism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Irredentists)
• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •
Irredentism is any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on the grounds of common ethnicity and/or prior historical possession, actual or alleged. Some of these movements are also called pan movements. It is a feature of identity politics and cultural and political geography. Since most borders have been moved and redrawn at one point, a great many countries could theoretically present irredentist claims to their neighbours
The melting pot worked for a nation with a much smaller population and where pauses were built into the system to absorb the new immigrants. We no have a toxic stew of third world flotsom and jetsom, encourgaged by their governments to come to America and break our laws doing it.
Calderon in Mexico and Fox before him ,in other times would have been put on notice that what they were doing was an act of war. Hell, we didn't even with draw our Ambassador.
Always an honor to beat Mark Steyn on a piece, although he's not ready to say "hot" war ...yet..
The 'cold civil war' in the U.S.
The common space required for civil debate has shrivelled to a very thin sliver of ground
MARK STEYN | October 22, 2007 |
William Gibson, South Carolinian by birth, British Columbian by choice, is famous for inventing the word "cyberspace," way back in 1982. His latest novel, Spook Country, offers another interesting coinage:
Yet another example of 'heaven on earth utopia' gone bad. The Catholic church's 'social justice' dogma has some of these redistribution overtones to them.
How about demanding that failed country's leaders be held accountable for good government?
We need to get back to teaching and demanding good moral behavior while also helping out on the individual/local level.
I don't know how many of the "social justice" religious left there are but they do figure greatly in the leadership positions of the old line mainstream protestant churches IMHO. There are a huge number of "activist" organizations that work the religious left side of the street.
Just some of them.
Man's attempt to create heaven on earth will never cease. When that happens, you won't need Christ or any other God and one can proudly say, " See,we are gods, after all."God, in His great love, has given us every opportunity to find a method, a type of government, a leader who will bring about this perfect earth. His patience boggles the mind.
Wealthy folk don't like to hear about the social gospel. But according to Jesus the only people more immune to the Kingdom of God than the rich might be the lawyers. Rather than deny it is there, take the tack that you disagree with the manner suggested to bring it about on earth, that is to say, the sharing of wealth. Which is of course, exactly what Jesus suggested we do, share the wealth. Or you could argue that Jesus just wasn't an economist, and gave the money bag to Judas to carry, a mistake. But don't argue the social gospel isn't in there, because it is.
You'd think the One and Only Son of the Living God, a man who could feed 5000 with a couple loaves and some fishes, and who spoke the beatitudes, might get in tune with our consumer society. But then he was fully human too, they say, and lived in a society with slavery, Roman occupation, corruption in the high priesthood, and other shit. And didn't live long, and was unable to work out an economic textbook. But he followed in the foot steps of the older Jewish prophets, who railed against the rich, as we might recall. Those prophets who started to piss and moan when the division of wealth got bad with the coming of farming, land ownership and social division in the "promised land'. They seemed to harken back to the purity of the days in the desert, and Jesus was of their line.
Sharing is one thing.
Taking wealth by force and then redistributing it to others is another.
True, indeed. And electing Hillary and taking it and sharing it legally, through democratic procedure, is another. Don't get me wrong, I'm with Robert Frost, and think, since we already have a govmint, we already have socialism in a way.
I like the discussion, but I do not like the term "division of wealth." "Wealth" doesn't exist, like air. It is created, by individual and groups of people who feel like creating it.
Some wealth exists like air. Land, for instance. The land out here was almost free for the taking for awhile. Many of those that got then, still have. Oil wealth exists almost like air, I'd think, for those lucky enough to be sitting on top of it, only need to pump it out to a starving market.
A time honored way of amassing wealth--I am not singling out the Jews here, just like the poetry--is to take it.
"And when the Lord you God brings you into the land which he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Issac, and to Jacob, to give to you, with great and goodly cities,*which you did not build*, and houses full of all good things,*which you did not fill*, and cisterns hewn out, *which you did not hew*, and vineyards and olive trees, *which you did not plant*, and when you eat and are full, then take heed lest you forget the Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Deuteronomy 6:10-12
bob--great commentary--another angle on the ''luck'' theme; do a search [curse of oil] for some great articles.
It's true Buddy, most of the societies touched by oil are worse off for it in many ways. Norway, an exception to the rule of the curse.
yah, yah, dat cooms from yirs and yirs uf making do mit da same old herring nets, yah, yah.
I'm all for churches preaching share-the-wealth. That's their province. But if the government--with its police powers--mandates it, then it has in effect criminalized an aspirational ideal which society in the long run, for its own good, must celebrate--if it is to continue to offer that greatest gift of all to the poor: upward mobility.
Mandated equality-of-results is diametrically opposite mandated equality-of-opportunity. This is a true zero-sum equation. To rule out consequences of activity is to deny opportunity.
Put another way, to deny either opportunity, to rise OR to fall, is to deny them both.
The leveling of society, the flattening that so thrills the left, would be great if it could be achieved along with a high quality of life and no excess hedonic & suicide crisis among the stifled zombies who'd otherwise be can-do jacks and jills brimming with self-respect.
The Scandinavian countries have probably gotten about as good a result as can be gotten along this path, and those folks can tell you, other problems have popped up in place of the old "inequality" shibboleths.
There's an argument to be made, not for mandated equality, which seems an impossibility practically speaking, but for a society that puts a floor under everyone, and then let 'er rip from there. Things were grim in merry old England. The poor eating grass. The dead on the street.....
As for me personally, I could accept a society that said so much, and no more. You can have x, and that's it. Say 10 million bucks or something.
And then you got to spend your time weaving baskets or reading or something. I'm not recommending this as a policy, just that it wouldn't be the end of the world in my mind.On the other hand, I admire a guy like Gates, who created all that pretty much by himself. And we have to have large corporations. And quite a bit of government too, as complex a society--sometimes I wonder how it continues to function--as we have evolved.
I won't be voting for Hillary. If any have qualms about Mitt the Mormon, take it from me, Mormons are good people.