[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

Matt

> At the risk of inviting acrimony, I would like to submit a more familiar
> word with more specificity in this context -- Freedom.  It's a word rarely
> found in this forum or in Pirsig's writings, yet it would appear to be at
> the crux of this prolonged debate.  Compared to a democratic republic, how
> much freedom is enjoyed in feudal society, in a commune, a monarchy, a
> dictatorship, a socialist state, a military junta?

See at bottom

> May I suggest that the innate "spirituality" of mankind is stifled in any
> social system which does not acknowledge and foster individual freedom. 
> The
> attack on Christianity as a "socialist system" is unfounded.  Whatever you
> say about Jesus, he was neither a dogmatist nor a communist.  His precept
> "Give into Caesar that which is Caesar's" and throwing the barters out of
> the temple are acts clearly endorsing separation of Church and State.  His
> plucking of corn on the Sabbath and healing of prostitutes are radical
> departures from Jewish law and religious dogma.

Oh, please let's not go into interpreting the bible.

> 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.

Chris:
I think the History Department of Lund for one might have some rather big 
objections to this. Speaking as one who just read though a course about the 
emergence of capitalism and all this stuff  I can with confidence say that 
this is fundamentally untrue. For example you can look at the French 
revolution - Voltaires "écrasez l'infâme" (crush the sickly - about the 
church and the old order) speaks for itself.


> Gentlemen, you can wrangle over the pros and cons of leftist liberalism,
> communism, fascism, statism, and conservatism 'til the cows come home. 
> But
> the exercise of individual freedom is what this dispute is really about.

> Regards,
> Ham

Me "beef" with America is, I guess pretty much the same as a large part of 
the world, but mostly it is this Freedom talk. For some reason I hade a 
small debate over the internet some year ago with a young republican where 
he said that it was Americas responsibility to spread freedom around the 
world. I stated that freedom is relative and that there is no universal 
meaning to freedom. He stated that freedom was freedom as it is formulated 
in the constitution.

Now he was just a classical Imperialist, his speak about "Freedom" could 
very much be liked to the old "white mans burden" but I think this is not a 
too common view. I don't know. However. Freedom IS relative, and means 
different things to everybody. That needs to be remembered.

All for now

Chris