Posted on 01/13/2005 5:40:39 AM PST by kjvail
Dear Dr. Johnson! Samuel Johnson, that is: eighteenth-century London's "literary dictator," most famous today for conversations he may not have even realized James Boswell was recording for a projected biography.
Johnson also wrote poetry, of which only one couplet remains famous:
How small, of all that human hearts endure, That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!
In this age of total government, these words remind us that government once played a far smaller part in men's lives than it now does. Under the rule of King George III, Americans paid only a few pennies per year in taxes. Yet Americans thought he was a tyrant; Johnson defended him.
C.S. Lewis, after reading many private letters written during England's civil war, was surprised to discover that none of them mentioned the war at all. By modern standards, it was a mere skirmish.
And I think this is one's general impression when reading old literature: poetry, novels, letters, diaries. We find very little in them about politics, unless the writers were themselves politicians. "Public affairs vex no man," Johnson could observe without contradiction.
Until recently, governments had fairly limited appetites, if only because they had limited means of taxation, propaganda, and surveillance of their subjects. The government under George W. Bush is far more ravenous than that of George III -- not because Bush is a worse man than the old king, but because the nature of government has changed, whether it takes the form of liberal democracy or dictatorship. Indeed, "spreading democracy" may be just one way of spreading modern tyranny.
This is why it always sounds quaint to me when liberals warn us obsessively against one particular form of government: theocracy. They see the threat of theocracy in every Christmas creche, in legal restrictions on abortion, in public school prayer, in the rise of the Religious Right, in the Pledge of Allegiance, in any official reference to the Almighty ("In God we trust").
But just what are we being warned against? What =is= theocracy, anyway? Its vigilant enemies never bother to define it. If the danger signs they cite are any indication, Western man has lived under theocracy for most of his history -- and in some respects, he still does.
How bad is it? Judging by, say, Chaucer's CANTERBURY TALES, not too bad. His pious pilgrims seem quite content in a religious society. And judging by, say, the tavern scenes in Shakespeare's HENRY IV, even people who were none too pious didn't feel oppressed by life under an official state religion.
I wonder if even life under an Islamic theocracy is the horror it's supposed to be. Some of the religious laws may be severe, but these are apparently far fewer than the myriad government restrictions we take for granted.
Not to mention taxes. There is nothing in the nature of theocracy, however defined, that warrants the predatory tax rates that are now standard in the modern democracies. And in fact the old governments now considered theocratic imposed far lower taxes than modern states do -- though they still faced frequent resistance, sometimes violent, when they tried to collect them.
Johnson's couplet reflects the fundamental peace of mind most men assumed in an age when they lived under Christian governments. Even at its worst, when torturing heretics and oppressing minorities, the religious regime was generally pretty inactive, and left most human activities alone.
Of course there were lurid exceptions; we hear about them all the time -- so often that they warp our judgment. This is why it's valuable to read the literature of those ages, in which ordinary life is recorded, and can be measured, apart from the scattered episodes by which the modern mind judges those ages.
Religious persecution reached its peak not under theocracy, but under communism; Lenin and his successors outlawed Christianity and murdered millions of Christians and Muslims. Atheism was the official state doctrine (as it still is in China). But of course this has never scandalized liberals, who seem to see no menace in an atheistic state -- only in Christmas carols in public schools.
Dr. Johnson attached little importance to particular forms of government. But he would have seen that liberal democracy, as we know it, is a deadlier enemy of human liberty and well-being than the "theocracy" of liberal fantasy.
Furthermore, the left screams about any politician that would allow their faith to inform their decision making process and Kerry claims that he would have kept his personal faith entirely independent of his public decision making process. He can only do so because he has no real faith. Is the left willing to make decision independent of their normal world view? Are they willing to set aside 100% of their values and make decisions that conflict with what they strongly believe in? If not, then why do they expect others to do it? Do they somehow believe that making decisions that you believe are wrong and foolish is a good decision making process? No wonder they keep selecting politicians who can't make a decision without taking a poll first.
I don't think they care what it means - they scream "theocracy" in one moment, in the next they hold a big concert for poor oppressed Tibet, which is, oh, hey - a theocracy.
the most important unit of government in the usa is the neighborhood theocracy. uno -- the one where 12 good men and true swear to the God of the bible, with their hand on the bible, to uphold the standards of justice said bible represents.
Sobran's take is all of an inch wide & an inch deep. Any valid points in the article, and there are some, are mired in the mud of this very shallow stream of thought. The 'yeah buts' fill oceans of history...past & in the making.
I've speculated that the primary factor in our nation's economic growth (as measured by growth in the GDP) over the last 50 years has not been improvements in productivity, growth of technology, etc. . . . it has been what I call the "monetization" of activity that was never tracked in dollars and cents. A mother who stays home and raises her kids, for example, is providing a valuable service to the family that never shows up in the nation's GDP. But once those kids are in a day care center that is paid out of the family budget, the act of child-rearing suddenly assumes a monetary value that can be measured.
"I've speculated that the primary factor in our nation's economic growth (as measured by growth in the GDP) over the last 50 years has not been improvements in productivity, growth of technology, etc. . . . it has been what I call the "monetization" of activity that was never tracked in dollars and cents. A mother who stays home and raises her kids, for example, is providing a valuable service to the family that never shows up in the nation's GDP. But once those kids are in a day care center that is paid out of the family budget, the act of child-rearing suddenly assumes a monetary value that can be measured."
A very good insight that could well be true.
Stop wondering, Joe, go live there and find out for yourself.
I'll pay for your one-way ticket.
Check this article and look at the RAT spnsors for "moral" legislation:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319926/posts
Seems that the RATs are intent on pounding home the theme of "theocracy" to alarm and terrorize. All philosophcal matters of theology and governance aside, we are seeing the entire realm of moral debate reduced to simple emotionalism and sloganeering.
The next time a liberal whines about the right imposing their morality on others, respond that the left imposes their morality on every paycheck you receive. Their morality is imposed through the social security and medicare taxes, and the list goes on.
Which begs the question, how long have you lived there? I'm willing to at least say I don't know for sure. What I do know for sure is government propoganda cannot be trusted. I also know for sure that our religion of civic Americanism dogmatically defines any non-democratic country as a "tyranny" Even when those leaders are elected democratically but don't subscribe to our version of democratic orthodoxy.
I was watching "Kull the Conquerer" this past weekend, slow day LOL, not a great movie. In any case something struck me. Theres a subplot where Kull attempts to free all the slaves, initially he is stopped by the court eunic who says "no King is above the law, it cannot be changed" Of course at the end Kull becomes the great hero when he smashes the law and frees the slaves (sounds vaguely familiar LOL). Of course it is assumed by the movie that everyone then lives happily ever after, nothing is said about where all those slaves are supposed to go or what they are supposed to do. In fact in the earlier scene when Kull frees the palace slaves they all look at him like he is crazy and one makes the statement "I have no where else to go".
This is not an argument for slavery of course, but rather an argument against man tinkering with the law - Burkean conservatism 101: The law of unintended consequences - sudden radical changes are bad.
Our system however is not based on a God-given law that does not change - that would be a theonomy. We have a modernist democracy, where everything is subject to change. Sovereignty is vested in "the people", who, being half-educated and distracted by bread and circuses, are easily manipulated to support whatever goals of the ruling cabal. Today we have replaced the eternal law of God with the ever changable law of man's passions and perversions.
Is this inevitable in a secular democracy? American Christians are (largely) so indoctrinated with the ideals of freemasonry that they see no difference between an Islamic (false religion) theonomy and a Christian (true religion) theonomy. Athiests, in the course of worshipping license under the guise of freedom, reject any restrictions on behavior at all.
Remember this story about Saudi Arabia's 'religious police'?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm
Sure I remember it, do you remember?
The following is a partial list of those murdered on April 19, 1993 by employees of the government of the United States of America and financed by taxpayers:
Katherin Andrade, 24
Jennifer Andrade, 19
Aldrick Bennett, 35
Susan Benta, 31
Mary Jean Borst, 49
Pablo Cohen, 38
Yvette Fagan, 34
Doris Fagan, 60
Lisa Marie Farris, 26
Ray Friesen, 76
Dayland Gent, 3
Diana Henry, 28
Paulina Henry, 24
Phillip Henry, 22
Stephen Henry, 26
Vanessa Henry, 19
Zilla Henry, 55
Novellette Hipsman, 36
Floyd Houtman, 61
Cyrus Howell, 8
Rachel Howell, 23
Star Howell, 6
Sherri Lynn Jewell, 43
David Michael Jones, 38
Michelle Jones, 18
Serenity Sea Jones, 4
Bobbie Lane Koresh, 16 months
David Koresh, 33
Jeffery Little, 31
Nicole Elizabeth Gent Little, 24
Livingston Malcolm, 26
Douglas Wayne Martin, 42
Lisa Martin, 13
Sheila Martin, 15
Abigail Martinez, 11
Audrey Martinez, 13
Juliete Santoyo Martinez, 30
Crystal Martinez, 3
Isiah Martinez, 4
Joseph Martinez, 30
Jillane Matthews
Alison Bernadette Monbelly, 31
Melissa Morrison, 6
Rosemary Morrison, 29
Sonia Murray, 29
Theresa Noberega, 48
James Riddle, 32
Rebecca Saipaia, 24
Judy Schneider, 41
Mayanah Schneider, 2
Steve Schneider, 48
Laraine B. Silva, 40
Floracita Sonobe, 34
Scott Kojiro Sonobe, 35
Aisha Gyarfas Summers, 17
Gregory Allen Summers, 28
Startle Summers, 1
Hollywood Sylvia
Lorraine Sylvia, 40
Rachel Sylvia, 13
Doris Vaega
Margarida Joanna Vaega, 47
Neal Vaega, 37
Martin Wayne, 20
Mark H. Wendell
What's the difference?
"I wonder if even life under an Islamic theocracy is the horror it's supposed to be. Some of the religious laws may be severe, but these are apparently far fewer than the myriad government restrictions we take for granted."
Obviously, written by a man! Islamic religious law is a real horror for women living under it. I don't think they are much concerned about taxes, just about the morals cops who will arrest them if an ankle shows or they are wearing any trace of make-up or nail polish.
If the author of this article is concerned about the over reachings of our government, he has the freedom to work for change. He wouldn't have that under Islam.
As for the English Civil War...why would Johnson or Boswell mention thge war, it would have endangered their lives. It DID affect my family and I have access to the documents that prove it. My family came to America as compensation from Charles the 2nd for the beheading of a family member by Cromwell.
I could go on but this man's logic confuses me.
So their actual sin is not complying with Western ideas of morality and dogmatic egalitarianism. Well by all means, send in the Marines now! Now you are closer to the truth. The purpose here is not to defend Islamic regimes, but rather to point out its no black and white - secular democracy good, theonomy bad. That's childish.
My family came to America as compensation from Charles the 2nd for the beheading of a family member by Cromwell.
Which hopefully makes you more sympathetic to good King Charles (a theocrat by any definition) than the Jacobin-like Cromwell
Are you talking about juries? Nobody is required to swear on a Bible to sit on a jury nor to testify in court.
The following is a partial list of those murdered on April 19, 1993 by employees of the government of the United States of America and financed by taxpayers:
The people who died at Waco were murdered by Bill & Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno, not for any reasons of religion, but strictly because of politics, to illustrate their talking points vs the 'lunatic fringe', right wing talk radio, militia groups & the VRWC, etc. It was an image making opportunity, to make Clinton look tough, an opportunity to identify the 'enemy',--the politics of demonization. Religion was only incidental to the incident. And that is the difference.
In other words to further their liberal orthodoxy - never doubt liberalism is a religion to these people.
The real difference was the death toll in Waco was higher than Saudi and as far as I know the Saudi police didn't light the fire that killed those young girls.
The point is if you were not an American and saw the travesty at Waco, without being part of the culture and knowing what we all know from being immersed in our mileau you would think it was a really horrible thing the government did, killing all those innocent women and children (which of course it was). You would also likely think it was an event which is indictive of our culture and our government (which it may or may not be, but that's another thread)
Conversely we here in America (and the rest of the secular West reached by the likes of BBC) hear a story about a horrible atrocity committed by the police forces of the Saudi government and that is seized up to demonize whatever the pundit doing the talking wants to demonize - including the left's favorites whipping boys "theocracy" and religion.
Religiously ignorant Westerners and the anti-Christian media can't or won't illustrate the differences between Christianity and Islam, it serves the latter's purposes not to do so.
The fact is the only society that is not a theonomy (based on the laws of God) is one whose laws are completely utilitarian in character - a nightmarish tyranny of the half-educated and the downright demonic. In a word - a democracy.
The point is if you were not an American and saw the travesty at Waco, without being part of the culture and knowing what we all know from being immersed in our mileau you would think it was a really horrible thing the government did, killing all those innocent women and children (which of course it was). You would also likely think it was an event which is indictive of our culture and our government (which it may or may not be, but that's another thread)
Good point.
The real difference was the death toll in Waco was higher than Saudi and as far as I know the Saudi police didn't light the fire that killed those young girls.
Whether it was government workers in the case of Waco setting the fire or the religious police in Saudi preventing rescue, we're still talking about murder & left splitting hairs over degrees of murder.
Provocative subject--still mulling some half-formed thoughts around going back to the orig subj--fear of theocracy. For later.
I see it as part of the original subject which is why I bring it up.
For in order to create a fear of "theocracy" one must first create a fear of religion. Nothing does this better than the fortuitous appearance of a strange, dissident cult masking itself as religion - replete with alleged child molesters nonetheless! Whether the allegations are true or not is irrelevant - simply follow the advice of Himmler - a lie told often enough becomes the truth.
This fear of religion is a two step process as I see it. First we must muddy the water - create the impression that all religions are equal. What is the same is, of course, equal (tho not necessarily the other way around). This idea is firmly planted in the Western mind. Thanks to centuries of Freemasonary dominance. So we move on to the next step.
You then identify some strange cult with a mainstream religion, in this case the Branch Davidians with Christianity and make the connection that since all forms of Christianity are equal, all forms of Christianity are the same. Once that idea is firmly planted you can branch out, as the left has done here recently calling the Republican "religious right" the "American Taliban" and whatnot. Thereby equating a violent cult of Islam with Christians. This makes perfect sense to the religiously ignorant who accepted the first lie - Branch Davidians = Christianity (or Tim McVeigh, or pedophile Catholic priests, pick you target, it doesn't matter)
They further perpetuate this lie in the mainstream media. Try and think of a recent movie (beside Passion of the Christ) or even a TV show that doesn't portray Christians as violent, hateful, stupid or silly. I doubt you can. In fact it is the primary theme on nearly every network day in and day out.
Case in point - two or maybe 3 weeks ago "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" ran an episode where the killer was a woman who was convinced God was telling her to kill people in retribution for their sins. It worked out in the end that she had been manipulated by someone else to believe that. Making her both stupid and dangerous.
The worse example that comes to mind in a movie was "King Arthur" - the Bishop was a liar and a cheat, the Christian family Arthur's men went to rescue harbored some nut who locked up pagans (women and children of course) in his cellar to starve to death... etc. It was at that point I turned the movie off, so no telling what other nastiness was associated with Christians after that point.
Don't underestimate the power of these types of images on the half-educated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.