Points to Ponder:
(On Value Relativism)
When President Reagan called the Soviet Union “the evil empire,” right-thinking persons joined in an angry chorus of protest against such provocative rhetoric. At other times, Mr. Reagan has said that the United States and the Soviet Union “have different values” (italics added), an assertion that those same persons greet at worst with silence and at frequently with approval. I believe he thought he was saying the same thing in both instances, and the different reaction to his different words introduces us to the most important and most astonishing phenomenon of our time, all the more astonishing in being almost unnoticed: there is now an entirely new language of good and evil, originating in an attempt to get “beyond good and evil” and prevented us from talking with any conviction about good and evil anymore. Even those who deplore our current moral condition do so in the very language that exemplifies that condition.
The new language is that of value relativism and it constitutes a change in our view of things moral and political as great as the one that took place when Christianity replaced Greek and Roman paganism…
What was offensive to contemporary ears in President Reagan’s use of the word “evil” was its cultural arrogance, the presumption that he, and America, know what is good; its closedness to the dignity of other ways of life; its implicit contempt for those who do not share our ways. The political corollary is that he is not open to negotiation. The opposition between good and evil is not negotiable and is a cause of war. Those who are interested in “conflict resolution” find it much easier to reduce the tension between values than the tension between good and evil. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pg. 141-142 (c. 1987)]
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept.
This is a continuation of the thread posted HERE. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE. For the sake of exactness, it should be noted that this email was received prior to the posting of the second thread of this series.
[P]erhaps before you post your response on-line, you should probaby recognize that there is historical precedent for my argument. I never heard about it, as a Catholic kid, of course; maybe you haven't either? To save you the trouble, I've included a chunk of this history, below, as taken from [this] web site.
I made a minor adjustment to your text to activate the link you sent.
The historic precedent in question? England's Magna Charta.
I know a bit about that subject actually.
No offense, insofar as your beliefs, Shawn.
But, since there is historical precedence, I thought it should be mentioned.
I appreciate your concern for irenic discussion S. And I will note what you are saying here but with a caveat: I scanned the text and it is evident that the source you are quoting is one that promotes the Baptist successionist theory. This theory is one I have dealt with in the past but do not have time to do again presently. I will therefore direct you first to a Baptist historian who has critically engaged that theory in a book from about ten years ago. I will also point you to a small essay I wrote yearly five years ago which touches on the ante-Nicene period and the development of the papal primacy.
These kinds of appeals in my experience tend to involve pitting a caricatured understanding of the papacy against certain historical situations or events that are in contrast to the previously posited caricature. I say this to be blunt, not to presume ill-will on your part S but because history is a very complex mosaic, this must be noted.
As far as the Church and State issues you raised earlier on the threads, this is a subject I have written on at this weblog in the past. See the threads in the footnote below{1} for some materials on that if you are interested. Oh and thanks again for seeking to posit a theory on what does or does not constitute a so-called "neo con." If only those who utilize that term with a degree of regularity would have the common decency to act likewise{2} but I digress.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Here are some of the threads that come to mind offhand from the archives of this humble weblog:
On Church/State Conflicts of the Present in Light of the Past, Political Ideologies, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa January 22, 2004)
More on Political Theories, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa January 23, 2004)
On Workable Remedies For Society's Problems, Etc.:--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa March 31, 2004)
Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa April 16, 2004)
{2} There are...certain individuals who similarly have a kind of fetish with the term "neo con" and like to use the expression (usually in a derogatory fashion) in application to a lot of different people. This attitude is of course similar to a kind of cultic deadagenting whereby the cult member seeks a pre-emptory assassination attempt of the character of a critic rather than have the common decency to consider the criticisms made on their merits or lack thereof...
[W]ith the case of certain personages who love to use this term who have thus far shirked in true chickensh*t fashion from taking responsibility for their own past and present statements, it seemed appropriate to your host to issue a very simple challenge to such people to identify the characteristics of what a so-called "neo con" is, what their underlying philosophies are, what are signature issues where they have readily identifiable positions, etc.
This is surely not a difficult thing to do; however, the manner in which the perpetrators have fled like vampires from a crucifix from the aforementioned challenge has been for Us very telling to say the least. Certainly We understand why they want to avoid that one so it seemed appropriate to issue the second and much easier challenge: produce evidences to argue for the existence of these so-called "neo cons." We at Rerum Novarum first noted this idea publicly in late October of 2005 in an audioposting[...] and followed it up a bit later with a brief revisiting of the subject with Christopher Blosser.
In other words, it has not been for want of trying on the part of some people to challenge these kinds of people to put up or...well...you know the rest. The aforementioned unsavoury sorts (to put it nicely) have ignored such simple requests for accountability and have continued to prattle on about these so-called "neo cons" including labelling certain parties as such when they have not bothered to explain what their criteria is for doing this. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]
This is a continuation of the thread posted HERE. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE. For the sake of exactness, it should be noted that this email was received prior to the posting of the second thread of this series.
[P]erhaps before you post your response on-line, you should probaby recognize that there is historical precedent for my argument. I never heard about it, as a Catholic kid, of course; maybe you haven't either? To save you the trouble, I've included a chunk of this history, below, as taken from [this] web site.
I made a minor adjustment to your text to activate the link you sent.
The historic precedent in question? England's Magna Charta.
I know a bit about that subject actually.
No offense, insofar as your beliefs, Shawn.
But, since there is historical precedence, I thought it should be mentioned.
I appreciate your concern for irenic discussion S. And I will note what you are saying here but with a caveat: I scanned the text and it is evident that the source you are quoting is one that promotes the Baptist successionist theory. This theory is one I have dealt with in the past but do not have time to do again presently. I will therefore direct you first to a Baptist historian who has critically engaged that theory in a book from about ten years ago. I will also point you to a small essay I wrote yearly five years ago which touches on the ante-Nicene period and the development of the papal primacy.
These kinds of appeals in my experience tend to involve pitting a caricatured understanding of the papacy against certain historical situations or events that are in contrast to the previously posited caricature. I say this to be blunt, not to presume ill-will on your part S but because history is a very complex mosaic, this must be noted.
As far as the Church and State issues you raised earlier on the threads, this is a subject I have written on at this weblog in the past. See the threads in the footnote below{1} for some materials on that if you are interested. Oh and thanks again for seeking to posit a theory on what does or does not constitute a so-called "neo con." If only those who utilize that term with a degree of regularity would have the common decency to act likewise{2} but I digress.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Here are some of the threads that come to mind offhand from the archives of this humble weblog:
On Church/State Conflicts of the Present in Light of the Past, Political Ideologies, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa January 22, 2004)
More on Political Theories, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa January 23, 2004)
On Workable Remedies For Society's Problems, Etc.:--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa March 31, 2004)
Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa April 16, 2004)
{2} There are...certain individuals who similarly have a kind of fetish with the term "neo con" and like to use the expression (usually in a derogatory fashion) in application to a lot of different people. This attitude is of course similar to a kind of cultic deadagenting whereby the cult member seeks a pre-emptory assassination attempt of the character of a critic rather than have the common decency to consider the criticisms made on their merits or lack thereof...
[W]ith the case of certain personages who love to use this term who have thus far shirked in true chickensh*t fashion from taking responsibility for their own past and present statements, it seemed appropriate to your host to issue a very simple challenge to such people to identify the characteristics of what a so-called "neo con" is, what their underlying philosophies are, what are signature issues where they have readily identifiable positions, etc.
This is surely not a difficult thing to do; however, the manner in which the perpetrators have fled like vampires from a crucifix from the aforementioned challenge has been for Us very telling to say the least. Certainly We understand why they want to avoid that one so it seemed appropriate to issue the second and much easier challenge: produce evidences to argue for the existence of these so-called "neo cons." We at Rerum Novarum first noted this idea publicly in late October of 2005 in an audioposting[...] and followed it up a bit later with a brief revisiting of the subject with Christopher Blosser.
In other words, it has not been for want of trying on the part of some people to challenge these kinds of people to put up or...well...you know the rest. The aforementioned unsavoury sorts (to put it nicely) have ignored such simple requests for accountability and have continued to prattle on about these so-called "neo cons" including labelling certain parties as such when they have not bothered to explain what their criteria is for doing this. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)