[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ham]
Few historians would contest the fact that the establishment of a 
representative democracy, classic liberalism, capitalism, and a 
free-market economy (all in revolt against tyranny) are fundamentally 
rooted in the humanist ethics of Christian teachings, especially with 
respect to the sanctity and exercise of human freedom.

[Arlo]
Many do, and rightly so. You keep interjecting these comical 
statements, and I'm not sure if you aim is to make everyone chuckle, 
or if you really think that drumbeating a falsehood will "make it so".

All these things you mention are the result of secular-enlightenment, 
humanism if you want to call it that. There is no evidence, 
pre-Enlightenment, of any of these things, not in the Bible, not in 
the teachings of Jesus, and certainly not in the "Christian Kingdoms" 
that followed the time of Christ for a thousand years.

That the Church has attempted to redefine itself, and revise its 
history, along the line of the very philosophy that neutered its 1000 
year rule of tyranny in the West is understandable, if not obscene. 
The Church, Christianity, has always been about man's obedience to 
God's will. But if Jesus taught us anything, its that the role of man 
on earth is to alleviate his brother's suffering, while ministering the Word.

The "Christian teachings" of Jesus was simple. Feed the poor. Heal 
the sick. Shelter the homeless. Minister the Word. If you think Jesus 
would look down today on "capitalism" and a "free-market economy", 
let alone "freedom of religion", you are either grossly naive or 
simply trying to pass more of the same-old apologist pandering we see 
rampant among neocons eager for the "God Vote".

[Chris]
Lagom is a word everybody should learn.

[Arlo]
Despite Ham's expected response incorporating right-wing fear terms 
(ooo... political correctness), I think this term captures 
brilliantly what the MOQ's central tension is all about. We must have 
balance, and this balance is not a sacrifice, it is what gives us the 
best of all worlds. As Pirsig states, too much static leads to 
stagnation, too much dynamic leads to chaos. Balance in the soul, 
balance in the body politik, balance in all things.

Ham's endless trumpeting of "individual freedom" would lead one to 
believe that man's freest, and best, moments were the pre-society 
wanderings of early man. Free to do what he wishes, free from 
restraint, free from the tyranny of social life. A simple reality 
check shows this to be untrue. Man is at his "freest" when the static 
and Dynamic forces around him are in balance. And, man is only 
"intellectual" free who participates in a social dialogue. "Man" is 
not only NOT free outside of society, but intellectually he does not 
exist (biologically, most certainly).

You will find, I am sure, that for Platt and Ham, "freedom" seems to 
be exclusively a taxation issue. When it comes to enforcing their 
social values on others, from opposing gay marriage to mandating a 
national language, from deporting immigrants to banning Islamic 
cultural practices (such as wearing the hijab), "freedom" suddenly is 
replaced with the heavy hand of government. Despite all the 
ridiculous rhetoric, "freedom" for these two is always an asterixed 
term, and typically that asterix can be read as saying "to be like me".

[Ham]
But the exercise of individual freedom is what this dispute is really about.

[Arlo]
Then you'd support immigrants coming here, freely, to purse their 
liberty? Of course not. As with most blowhard ideologues, its a puffy 
rhetorical soapbox that carries no substance. You would support the 
burning of the American Flag, for those who wish to protest in this 
way, freely? You would oppose a national language, allowing instead 
the freely emergent community dynamic to determine the language(s) 
spoken therein? You would allow gays to marry, telling conservatives 
to mind their own business and let people freely marry who they 
chose? You would legalize drugs, allowing people the freedom to 
choose to get high? Or trip? You would abolish public nudity laws, 
allowing people the freedom to act however they choose, giving people 
the freedom to dress or not dress in public as they see fit? You 
would legalize prostitution, allowing people to freely trade their 
bodies for money in the "free market"? You would abolish anti-public 
drinking laws that relegate free people to "bars" when they wish to drink?

What do you think would bring more freedom to more people, public 
parks and state lands or the privatization of land and the 
abolishment of the national park system? What about the abolishment 
of the public road and waterway system? What about the abolishment of 
public libraries? These things are funded by a tax collection, does 
that mean we are not free, who have state parks, public roads and 
public libraries?

[Chris]
What is the role of politics?

[Arlo]
The role of governance in a democracy is to enact the will of the 
people. In a post-enlightenment secular time, it is given the role of 
safeguarding the freedoms the citizens have given themselves, as well 
as the structures that make these freedoms possible. As such, 
governance instantiates the values of the people. Poor values, poor 
governance. Good values, good governance. And as we have seen, "good 
values" at their highest level are those that balance the static and 
dynamic forces, preserving the Good while maximizing the potential 
for evolutionary growth. "Poor values" can be those that stress the 
static or those that stress the dynamic into a system of imbalance. 
Good values are those that value the intellectual over the social, 
while poor values elevate social values over intellectual ones.

As Case/Krimel reminded me long ago, government is not the problem. 
Government is "we".