>>>Do you like to read more into what I write than what is there, or are you just angry?<<<
Let me refresh your memory on what you wrote:
>>>”Well they would have called it neoclassical, but it amounts to the same thing. It stems from the popular Gibbonian idea of the perfection of pagan antiquity. The movement was not just architectural, but sociological as well. Thomas Jefferson is one of the best exemplars of this. And, though it’s a little after the time of the founders, works of art like the “Apotheosis” do represent the popular feeling about the Founders (in this case Washington). No one can see that mural and not think “pagan,” you’d have to be willfully ignorant of the times and the spirit of that age.”<<<
I asked others to read your pretense of being intellectual superior to the rest of us, and they all thought you slandered the Founding Fathers. May I suggest you be less tongue in cheek, and more to the point (and more general American rather than Northeast elitist in your verse).
Regarding your statement, “Specifically I was critiquing the idea that we can interpret that which is “of no private interpretation.”
It just might be possible you misinterpred that verse [from 2 Peter 1:20]. For it is also written:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
If Peter has stated it was not for PUBLIC interpretation, then I might agree with you on that point.
>>>”I should tell my liberal friends about it.”<<<
Personally I cannot stand to be around them, even my sister.
>>>Since they consider me so reactionary I make Rush look like a communist they’d no doubt find it amusing.>>>
Liberals consider the same about Joe Lieberman.
>>>However in the Christian spirit of charity I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have recently had a bad experience with some ACLU college types, and consequently are looking for an argument to vent your anger.<<<
Nope, except for the knowledge that they have been slowly but systematically destroying our culture for over 50 years, I have no other. For the record, one method the ACLU has used is to constantly undermine the Founding Fathers.
>>>I should point out that personally I don’t think Jefferson was a particularly “good Christian.” His anti-Catholic sentiment — especially his irrational hatred of the Society of Jesus — precludes that epitaph in my book.<<<
In the Christian spirit of charity I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have recently had a bad experience with some supporters of Thomas Jefferson. It is worth pointing out that Jefferson was also opposed to Protestants who wanted a particular Christian denomination to be imposed as the dominant religion. I believe his exact quote was: “every sect believes its own form the true one,
every one perhaps hoped for his own [to become the dominant one], but especially the Episcopalians
& Congregationalists.” It appears the Catholics were the least of his worries.
>>>...as a Catholic I’m a little disappointed you didn’t try to correct my “ignorant” denunciation of the “Apotheosis” as pagan idolatry.<<<
As a non-Catholic, I have no idea why you are disappointed. But, the Apotheosis aside, I am puzzled why you think Americans consider George Washington to be divine. We do look up to and respect him for the deeply spiritual, courageous, and honorable man he was. But I have never met anyone who thought he was anything more than an instrument (a servant) of God.
I asked others to read your pretense of being intellectual superior to the rest of us...
Don't be silly, there was no pretense. That you aren't a student of 18th century liberalism was evidenced in your first comment to me. I have no desire to go over the whole history of neoclassicism in all its manifestations and its leftists successors from the 16th up to the 20th century with someone who enters a conversation with accusations of ACLUism. I have to put up with leftists on a day to day basis, and I can tell you the radical irreligious ones don't really care what the religious beliefs of the Founders were. To them thats in the past. It has no baring on the now.
Besides which, undermining the country by suggesting that the Founders were themselves irreligious doesn't make any sense. In their mind that would be strengthening the country. It does not follow. If anything, they feel that the religious right's annexation of the Founders -- as they would put it -- is unhistorical, but only because they see the American Revolution as an essentially leftist anti-authoritarian one. And unfortunately for your world view they are not completely wrong on that one. This is a hard thing for some late-comers to the conservative movement to accept, but the reality is, and there is no escaping this fact, that although most of the Founders would be incredibly conservative transposed into a modern context -- as would almost all early liberals mind you, radicalism being a one way street unfortunately -- in their own time they were indeed the liberals. In that time pretty much ANY republican ideology would be a leftist one intrinsically. The conservatives would have been the loyalists. This is easer to take once you accept that liberal doesn't mean "bad" in all contexts (personally I think liberalism is a sin, which makes me appear to most American conservatives and liberals as a pessimist, but thats just me). For example modern conservatives are really just 19th century liberals. Or rather what they want to "conserve" is really just an older school of whiggish liberalism.
Were the Founders merely pagan wannabes? No.
Did they come out of a time when the ideals of pagan antiquity were given the highest regard, and the Christian world that replaced it lamented as a dark age of superstition? Yes.
I'm sorry, I can't change reality to fit your world view.
BTW, in accusing me of being an elitist for criticizing Jefferson you have provided me with what is perhaps the funniest peace of comedy I have yet seen on FR, and have only reinforced my opinion of your education in these matters.
Incidentally, only gods are above criticism.
You can call me arrogant if you want to and you might well be right, but it doesn't prove me wrong.
Your "self confessed" isolation from American leftists seems to have resulted in a rather deformed understanding of their ideas and motivations. It will limit your ability to converse with, and perhaps correct, them. In the future I suggest you avoid accusations of association. It is a form of ad hominem, and can only be used if you want to shot someone down sans debate. Even if it works, you can't count it as a victory for your ideals.