Re: (Fwd) Liberal Slant - Watching the Conservative

February 4, 2001

>> Can people who believe in a material God, literal

>> scripture, the Rapture, understand the Constitution and

>> the First Amendment?

dateline: 2/3/01 9:44 AM Dan Watkins

said:

> Surely at the time of the American founding 90+% of the

> American population believed just that (well, maybe not

> that many believed in the rapture). I'm reminded of a story

> de Tocqeuville tells about an American judge who was asked

> by his bailiff how to swear in as a witness a man who said

> he didn't believe in God. The judge was nonplused because

> he had never run into anyone who did not believe in God.

Dan Watkins,

I believe if you go behind the words " believe in a material God " you will

find that in no way did 90+% of the American people believe that way.

Of course, the judge was nonplused, " God " was some sort of First Cause

200+ years ago for most Americans. Today, we have an incredible amount of

specificity and concretizing. Then, for most people " God " was assumed but

didn't really mean that much. How else could the pendulum have swung so

greatly as to produce the great revivalist movements of the colonial era

which were then followed by decades of doldrums with church attendance

significantly lower than it is today.

Lehnert N. Riegel

February 4, 2001

Dear Lehnert,

" Lehnert N. Riegel " wrote:

>

> Dan Watkins,

>

> I believe if you go behind the words " believe in a material God " you will

> find that in no way did 90+% of the American people believe that way.

>

> Of course, the judge was nonplused, " God " was some sort of First Cause

> 200+ years ago for most Americans. Today, we have an incredible amount of

> specificity and concretizing. Then, for most people " God " was assumed but

> didn't really mean that much. How else could the pendulum have swung so

> greatly as to produce the great revivalist movements of the colonial era

> which were then followed by decades of doldrums with church attendance

> significantly lower than it is today.

>

I really don't know what you're getting at here. Yes, I think that

people understood God as a " first cause, " but not in an Aristotelian or

modern-scientific sense. Rather, the will of God was understood to be

the first (and the final) cause of all things. What do you mean when you

suggest " going behind " the words " believe in a material God " ?

(Incidentally, I don't think that people, then or now, believed or

believe in a material God, but in a spiritual God). Are you suggesting

that most Americans at the time of the founding were something like

Jeffersonian sophisticates?

Of course, the level of overt piety (church attendance and such) in a

given place varies from time to time. Years ago in Ireland I noticed,

especially in small villages, that some of the men would bring their

wives to Mass, but they would themselves hang about outside the Church

(or in the entrance way) instead of attending themselves. I wouldn't see

this, though, as evidence that they weren't " real Catholics, " or that

they had some kind of sophisticated understanding of Catholicism. They

were probably just bored with it.

Viewed in Jungian terms, it is probably precisely when a culture becomes

*most* impious that an enantiodromia sets in, and there is a " revival. "

When most people are basically pious (even if they do tend to neglect

their religious duties), there is no need for revival.

Why are people so afraid of organized religion, anyway? Of course, it

has in the past sometimes been a reason to fight, but human beings will

always have a reason to fight.

Regards,

Dan Watkins

February 4, 2001

I don't think it's a question of 'organised religion', Dan, so much as one of

fundamentalist, 'One Way, Turn or Burn', extremisim. What we're warching in

most revivalist movements, be they Christian or other, is a clinging to the

literal letter of the " Law " (as moderated by their current 'law-giver'), as

opposed to religion in the sense of oneself re-enlivening its roots - that is,

in

a 'revealed' as opposed to 'discovered' - series of beliefs which are based on

nothing *except* (often extremely emotional and xenophobic) other beliefs,

often only dimly understood even by those who first propound them.

The various translations of the Bible, for example, being somewhat lacking in

accuracy (for all that they make up in zeal), renders the particular 'Law' in

question even more questionable... when - and I stress the word - it is a

question of extremism... When not, the fact that there are different

interpretations is of a completely different (and non-confrontational) nature.

What Deborah calls the 'Cotton Mather' attitude is one that so pushes the

duality of good and eveil, that even the good become evil in its eyes, and this

you know ... I'm sure we don't have to rehearse the entire New England witch-

hunt here again... or the McCarthy witch-hunt (just to mention two in the US

where we're actually talking about xenophobia within the fold of the same

nominal belief-system).

What interests me, though, is that you actually *know* this, so why are you

arguing against it? Who are you trying to " save " from what? Are you saying

the Liberal Media is NOT owned by forces unnamed and faces unseen? Are

you protecting the Christian Right from 'liberals and socialists' (and - worse

yet! - communists)? What is it that's got your dander up?

I think you will find that the ideas of 'God', the 'Rapture' and all the others

evoked in these articles, really *are* quite material for many of the people

you protect. I think that if the French Extreme Right Wing ever got as

powerful as the American Extreme Right just has, America would be among

the first countries to take action against it (at least above the board).

American, British and European money kept the Apartheid government in

South Africa quite stable for more than 40 years before they decided it

needed a tumble (probably to hide their own involvement). Certainly kept the

South Atlantic in 'Allied' hands during all of that period. I'm not saying this

is

not common government practice, but I do wonder about its 'ethics'.

Bearing in mind, too, that there are gods and gods beneath the veneer of

'mono-theism', do you honestly believe that *all* these gods - 'lords of hosts'

and other such 'jealous' gods as well as all the 'gentle Jesuses, meek and

mild' - are equally... I won't say 'necessary', but... 'wholesome'?

I'm intrigued.

Are you, perhaps, saving *us* from ourselves and our own 'woolly thinking'? I

really don't understand.

Why, for example, have you found a reason to fight?

m

February 4, 2001

In a message dated 02/04/2001 9:11:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dwatkins5@... writes:

> Dear Mike,

>

> cloudhand@... wrote:

> >

> I'm sure we don't have to rehearse the entire New England witch-

> > hunt here again... or the McCarthy witch-hunt (just to mention two in the

> US

> > where we're actually talking about xenophobia within the fold of the same

> > nominal belief-system).

>

> These two are hardly comparable.

>

~ actually they are quite comparable. Both are fear-driven, looking to

blame and seeking someone to point a finger at for reasons unbeknownst

to the protagonists.

A comparable scenario in today's political climate would be pointing the

finger at a *politically* wretched figure, and authorizing his murder. So,

first the freedom of the press, guaranteed by our first ten amendments

is violated because the corporate america which owns the press doesn't

dare let its journalists publish this. And, secondly, the 10 Commandments

which are supposedly upheld by the born-again Christian Right in power,

are violated. I do believe " Thou shalt not kill " is still part of the ten

commandments. But we know that brilliance is certainly not the forte

of this current regime.

>

> > What interests me, though, is that you actually *know* this, so why are

> you

> > arguing against it? Who are you trying to " save " from what?

>

> I don't really flatter myself that I can save anyone, but I am

> comfortable with the role of " voice crying in the wilderness " :-).

>

> >Are you saying

> > the Liberal Media is NOT owned by forces unnamed and faces unseen?

>

> I think this is an overwrought way of putting it. Most of the American

> news media are publicly owned - I can buy shares in Time-Warner if I

> want to. Naturally I am skeptical of most of what I read in the papers,

> but on the other hand, there are available various papers with various

> pov's. The American news media tend, I think, to be a little on the

> left-wing side, but on the other hand, many do a reasonable jobs of

> separating facts from editorial opinion. If I read the NY Times, for

> example, I am able to glean the facts about such-and-such an issue while

> ignoring any editorial bias.

>

At the moment, the journalists I know are fleeing journalism because

they cannot print the truth. Their editors won't allow it or they'll get

fired. It's hardly the case that the Liberals own the press.

Living here in D.C., there was a tremendous amount of protest

during the inauguration, first the police illegally held back the

protestors, who have the right to peaceful demonstrations, and

then the media didn't report it. Duh, wonder how that happened?

I guess only those who actually saw it could attest to it. That

would not include the rest of the U.S. of A., nor the rest of

the *free* world.

February 4, 2001

In a message dated 02/04/2001 10:34:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dwatkins5@... writes:

> A comparable scenario in today's political climate would be pointing the

> > finger at a *politically* wretched figure, and authorizing his murder.

>

> I guess I'm out of touch - what murder are we talking about?

>

I thought I posted it a couple of days back. I'll send it

directly to you. On 3 January Bush authorized political

assassinations removing those Executive Orders put

into place protecting leaders from such actions, including

those signed by his father, Reagan, and other leaders.

Let me know if you'd like the email and I'll track it down.

Warm Regards,

~ bo

February 4, 2001

In a message dated 02/04/2001 10:38:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dwatkins5@... writes:

> >

> Well, fair enough. In that case, it would require (for example) a fairly

> lengthy examination of the writings of the American founders to begin to

> sort this out, and I'm not sure that would be appropriate here.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dan Watkins

>

Mike posted this a couple of months ago. Most of the founding

fathers had little interest in " traditional Christianity. " Mike, do

you remember when you posted it?

February 4, 2001

I've watched Dan push buttons before. You're very good at it, son, and must

enjoy it.

Let us not get into a flaming tantrum here. If we are all agreeing, as Mike

pointed out earlier, what is this all about?

Don't think Dan's pov has much to do with stealing his car, or trying to...

or did I miss something?

lightly, lightly,

phoebe

February 4, 2001

<< Well, fair enough. In that case, it would require (for example) a fairly

lengthy examination of the writings of the American founders to begin to

sort this out, and I'm not sure that would be appropriate here. >>

nonsense.

phoebe

February 4, 2001

Dear Mike,

cloudhand@... wrote:

>

I'm sure we don't have to rehearse the entire New England witch-

> hunt here again... or the McCarthy witch-hunt (just to mention two in the US

> where we're actually talking about xenophobia within the fold of the same

> nominal belief-system).

These two are hardly comparable.

> What interests me, though, is that you actually *know* this, so why are you

> arguing against it? Who are you trying to " save " from what?

I don't really flatter myself that I can save anyone, but I am

comfortable with the role of " voice crying in the wilderness " :-).

>Are you saying

> the Liberal Media is NOT owned by forces unnamed and faces unseen?

I think this is an overwrought way of putting it. Most of the American

news media are publicly owned - I can buy shares in Time-Warner if I

want to. Naturally I am skeptical of most of what I read in the papers,

but on the other hand, there are available various papers with various

pov's. The American news media tend, I think, to be a little on the

left-wing side, but on the other hand, many do a reasonable jobs of

separating facts from editorial opinion. If I read the NY Times, for

example, I am able to glean the facts about such-and-such an issue while

ignoring any editorial bias.

>Are

> you protecting the Christian Right from 'liberals and socialists' (and - worse

> yet! - communists)? What is it that's got your dander up?

I wouldn't say my dander's up. I'm not sure that the Christian right

needs my protecting, but were it up to me, I would try to protect it

from secularism and sophistication - and surely there is plenty of both

on each end of the political spectrum.

> I think you will find that the ideas of 'God', the 'Rapture' and all the

others

> evoked in these articles, really *are* quite material for many of the people

> you protect.

Well, then, if so, God bless them - I have no objection. I have *no*

interest whatever in seeing a sort of Jungian understanding of these

things become popular or widespread - Jung himself did not, or so he

says.

>I think that if the French Extreme Right Wing ever got as

> powerful as the American Extreme Right just has, America would be among

> the first countries to take action against it (at least above the board).

As I understand your politics, the extreme right in France tends toward

outright fascism or neo-Nazism, isn't it so? This would not, I think,

describe the religious right in America. We have a few Nazi nut-cases,

but I think it fair to say that no one takes them seriously.

> American, British and European money kept the Apartheid government in

> South Africa quite stable for more than 40 years before they decided it

> needed a tumble (probably to hide their own involvement). Certainly kept the

> South Atlantic in 'Allied' hands during all of that period. I'm not saying

this is

> not common government practice, but I do wonder about its 'ethics'.

I will try to remember on Monday to post a quote by Jung about the

necessarily local character of morality or ethics. Nations exist

via-a-vis each other in a state of nature, or so it seems to me. They

put their own interests first, and, because that is how it must be, that

is how it should be. I think it fair to say that most Americans felt

that apartheid, while deplorable, was really nothing to do with us. It

would not have been in our interest to withhold our support from or cut

off ties with South Africa (esp. during the cold war) because we

disagreed with its internal policies. FDR is supposed to have said of

the original Somoza (sp?), " He's a son-of-a-bitch, but he's our

son-of-a-bitch. "

> Bearing in mind, too, that there are gods and gods beneath the veneer of

> 'mono-theism', do you honestly believe that *all* these gods - 'lords of

hosts'

> and other such 'jealous' gods as well as all the 'gentle Jesuses, meek and

> mild' - are equally... I won't say 'necessary', but... 'wholesome'?

No.

> I'm intrigued.

> Are you, perhaps, saving *us* from ourselves and our own 'woolly thinking'? I

> really don't understand.

As I say, I doubt that I can save anyone, but on the other hand, it is

at least interesting to challenge conventional opinion. The conventional

opinion on this list appears to be that organized religion is dangerous.

I think it is salutary - further, I think that Jung taught the same.

Why, then, shouldn't we hash it out if we are interested?

> Why, for example, have you found a reason to fight?

I once caught someone trying to steal my car.

Regards,

Dan

February 4, 2001

dateline: 2/4/01 12:51 PM Dan Watkins said:

>I really don't know what you're getting at here.

Dan,

What I'm getting at is very simple and it has precious little to do

with the understandings and beliefs of the members of this list.

I firmly believe that most of what the " religious right " is claiming

about the beliefs of the 'founding fathers' is a figment of the

contemporary nostalgic yearning for a time that never was. IOW, the claim

that they want only to go back to the " days of yore " is a cruel hoax,

albeit perhaps an unwitting one.

For me the important point is not whether they believed in " a

material God and literal scripture " but what actions today are regarded

as justified based on the allegation and presumption that the good folks

back then somehow believed that. Perhaps that was their belief but it

certainly didn't support the tightly-knit agenda that we find today.

In short, I'm extremely suspicious of any " appeal to roots "

argument. Meanings of words change, contexts of definitions change,

overall circumstances change. Mouthing the same words, to my mind, really

means very little. It's the meanings and the consequences that matter

more than the literal words.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond,

Lehnert N. Riegel

February 4, 2001

Rainbolily@... wrote:

>

> A comparable scenario in today's political climate would be pointing the

> finger at a *politically* wretched figure, and authorizing his murder.

I guess I'm out of touch - what murder are we talking about?

>So,

> first the freedom of the press, guaranteed by our first ten amendments

> is violated because the corporate america which owns the press doesn't

> dare let its journalists publish this. And, secondly, the 10 Commandments

> which are supposedly upheld by the born-again Christian Right in power,

> are violated. I do believe " Thou shalt not kill " is still part of the ten

> commandments. But we know that brilliance is certainly not the forte

> of this current regime.

>

> >

>

> At the moment, the journalists I know are fleeing journalism because

> they cannot print the truth. Their editors won't allow it or they'll get

> fired. It's hardly the case that the Liberals own the press.

>

> Living here in D.C., there was a tremendous amount of protest

> during the inauguration, first the police illegally held back the

> protestors, who have the right to peaceful demonstrations, and

> then the media didn't report it. Duh, wonder how that happened?

> I guess only those who actually saw it could attest to it. That

> would not include the rest of the U.S. of A., nor the rest of

> the *free* world.

Well, out here in the hinterlands, we certainly knew of these protests.

I saw the story reported in the media.

Regards,

Dan

>

February 4, 2001

Dear Lehnert,

" Lehnert N. Riegel " wrote:

>

> dateline: 2/4/01 12:51 PM Dan Watkins said:

>

> >I really don't know what you're getting at here.

>

> Dan,

> What I'm getting at is very simple and it has precious little to do

> with the understandings and beliefs of the members of this list.

> I firmly believe that most of what the " religious right " is claiming

> about the beliefs of the 'founding fathers' is a figment of the

> contemporary nostalgic yearning for a time that never was. IOW, the claim

> that they want only to go back to the " days of yore " is a cruel hoax,

> albeit perhaps an unwitting one.

> For me the important point is not whether they believed in " a

> material God and literal scripture " but what actions today are regarded

> as justified based on the allegation and presumption that the good folks

> back then somehow believed that. Perhaps that was their belief but it

> certainly didn't support the tightly-knit agenda that we find today.

> In short, I'm extremely suspicious of any " appeal to roots "

> argument. Meanings of words change, contexts of definitions change,

> overall circumstances change. Mouthing the same words, to my mind, really

> means very little. It's the meanings and the consequences that matter

> more than the literal words.

>

Well, fair enough. In that case, it would require (for example) a fairly

lengthy examination of the writings of the American founders to begin to

sort this out, and I'm not sure that would be appropriate here.

Regards,

Dan Watkins

February 5, 2001

Dear Dan

> I'm sure we don't have to rehearse the entire New England witch-

> > hunt here again... or the McCarthy witch-hunt (just to mention two in the US

> > where we're actually talking about xenophobia within the fold of the same

> > nominal belief-system).

>

> These two are hardly comparable.

*Uh-huh? Or is it just that other peoples' pain never really hurts? Paranoia,

fear, denunciation, betrayal based on fear for oneself or hysteria or hope for

power... You don't see ANY similarities? A few fewer people were hanged,

burned, ducked in the duck-pond, perhaps in the latter (although I'm not too

sure of that, either)...

>

> > What interests me, though, is that you actually *know* this, so why are you

> > arguing against it? Who are you trying to " save " from what?

>

> I don't really flatter myself that I can save anyone, but I am

> comfortable with the role of " voice crying in the wilderness " :-).

*Yes, you are aren't you? You enjoy stirring things up.