Miscellaneous: conversations continued

Writers we should like, but we don’t

Bruce writes

It is a strange phenomenon, which may have little or no significance, but I often find that there are authors who I feel I ought to like, but who I just don’t get or else who ‘rub me up the wrong way’ and create irritation and hostility.

An example is John Henry (Cardinal) Newman.

I know just what he means!  I do like Cardinal Newman, but there are others writers who I’ve never been able to like, even though I feel like I should.  Here’s my big example:  Wendell Berry, today’s leading Southern agrarian.  I feel like I should like him–all the “right” people do–but every time I start reading one of his essays, I start to feel irritated.  That’s my example.  What’s yours?

Modern but not liberal?

David Yeago at First Things points to the Lutheran Church’s statement against racial discrimination as proof that one can accept the genuine moral insights of modernity without buying into the dubious anthropology of liberalism.  He points out that the the statement does not base itself on a notion of abstract rights or a religion-free “public reason”; rather it argues that “hatred and prejudice” destroy the unity Christ wills for His Church.  Ah, but extracting one’s soul from the clutches of liberalism is harder than Yeago realizes.  It binds us most strongly in those assumptions we don’t even notice ourselves making.  Is it obvious that all preference for our co-ethnics is equivalent to “hatred”?  Is it really impossible for such a preference–or, to bring matters from the level of feeling to that of conviction, such a loyalty–to coexist with a charitable desire that all peoples be baptized and saved?  If I don’t want race X in my family or business, does that necessarily mean I want them to be damned?  Premoderns would have found this claim odd.  I don’t find it odd (and there’s no particular race of people I would mind having as coworkers or relatives), but neither do I find it obvious as Yeago seems to.  It is in fact this very conflation of particular loyalties with “hatred of the Other” that is one of the most dangerous ideas in the liberal arsenal.

Wodehouse and the Germans

Has there ever been an alliance more obnoxiously self-righteous than the allies of World War II?  Even today, we’re still supposed to be outraged by the perfidy, not only of the Axis powers, but of countries that were neutral.  How dare they keep out of the great crusade!  Take England’s persecution of one of her greatest writers, a man who did absolutely nothing wrong.  Talking pleasantly to Germans is treason, don’t you know?  This article is still a lot of fun because it’s peppered with Wodehouse quotes.  I have trouble remembering the plot to any of the Jeeves books, but that’s not the point.  The man used the English language to brilliant comic effect.

I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.

[He] looked as if he had been poured into his clothes and had forgotten to say When!

The Woosters are chivalrous, but they can speak their minds. [She was a] droopy, soupy, sentimental exhibit, with melting eyes and a cooing voice and the most extraordinary views on such things as stars and rabbits. I remember her telling me once that rabbits were gnomes in attendance on the Fairy Queen and that the stars were God’s daisy chain. Perfect rot, of course. They’re nothing of the sort.

Hate Speech

Having read this summary of the book, I find myself surprisingly sympathetic to the arguments in favor of hate speech laws put forward in Jeremy Waldron’s new book.  Of course, I’m sure that I would be among the first hauled into jail if he had his way, but I’m always pleased when a liberal starts to realize that the common good must sometimes win out over abstract individual rights.  His argument for banning hate speech–probably the best argument that can be made for it given America’s legal traditions–is that such speech is libel against groups.  Well then, let’s follow the logic of that.  Suppose the Lefties brought us to court for our group libels.  Could they prove both that our claims about privileged minorities are untrue and that we ourselves don’t believe them to be true?

38 thoughts on “Miscellaneous: conversations continued

  1. It is a strange phenomenon, which may have little or no significance, but I often find that there are authors who I feel I ought to like, but who I just don’t get or else who ‘rub me up the wrong way’ and create irritation and hostility.

    I don’t think it’s that strange, and it’s probably pretty common. We’re all different.

    Mine: Chesterton. I can’t even read his writing. And there are certainly others that I can’t think of.

    • I can read Chesterton, have read a good part of what he wrote, and greatly admire certain passages. But, on the whole, Chesterton disappointed me. I think this may be the fault of extravagant expectations rather than Chesterton himself. One way to ruin a book (for others) is to praise it too highly.

    • I can’t read Chesterton either: his ‘silly’ cleverness is insufferable. He can hardly ever resist insinuating a droll aside or an egregious exaggeration, if one occurs to him, into an otherwise formal chain of reasoning. Putting too many facetious surprises in the development of an argument is a hallmark of his style. For instance: In a discussion of what are supposed to be yeoman virtues, he says a man who owns a triangular piece of land ought to love it because it is triangular. Someone who alters its shape by giving him more land, has stolen a triangle.

      Has anyone debunked Chesterton’s reputation as a ‘thinker’?

  2. “Take England’s persecution of one of her greatest writers, a man who did absolutely nothing wrong.”

    I agree with your general point about The Allies – especially we should not have allied ourselves WITH evil (USSR) in order to defeat evil – that was being Saruman, not Gandalf.

    On the other hand, there is no real neutrality – some neutral nations were neutral but anti-Nazi (Sweden), some (like Eire) were pro-Nazi. It makes a difference.

    But it was not ‘England’ but a small and powerful group in the media who vilified Wodehouse. Orwell wrote against vilifying Wodehouse at the time, and I think Churchill was against it. But the damage was done.


    Hate speech laws are vile – they are terror weapons; and violate the basic principle of our legal systems in that they require a person to prove their innocence of a hatred which is assumed by an assymetrical and group-based (and unjustified) default.

    Is it really plausible that Western society in the past 20 years is so morally advanced that we have discovered a genuine need for a new type of law absent from all previous societies?

    • I didn’t know that WWII was about defeating evil. I thought it was, for Western Europe, to defend Poland’s territorial integrity; for the U.S., to stop Japanese Imperialism in the Pacific and Nazi European hegemony; and for the USSR, to first expand its territories into Finland and Poland, and then to survive. While the Allies were uncomfortable with the German regime, it was not its evil that brought them to war. Had Hitler not invaded Poland, he could have still killed all the Jews, Gypsies and dissenters within Germany, and no country would have stopped him. All these crusade speeches became ex post facto; i.e., after the war was already under way.

      Also, what do we make of Switzerland? Completely surrounded by Axis powers, but vilified because of its neutrality.

      • The Germans were not exterminating Jews / Gypsies / dissenters in 1939; the Allies could hardly have declared war to defeat an evil that wasn’t occurring yet.

  3. I really enjoy Wendell Berry. I can’t imagine that anyone else wouldn’t.

    However, as samson’s jawbone said, we’re all human with different tastes, not to mention variances of what we value despite our common beliefs on the major issues of faith and culture.

    • I enjoy Wendell Berry very much also… although I’m curious whether you (and Bonald) prefer his fiction to his non-fiction, or if Bonald has tried his fiction.

      I’ve found his non-fiction to be somewhat grating; for some reason I don’t think his vision of the good life *can* come across well through an abstract account, or maybe that’s just my rationalization.

      But his fiction I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoy, as it seems to provide a clearer account than his non-fiction of what he imagines by the good life–which is not to say, by an ideal life, that only an abstracted human could live. Hannah Coulter is really good, in my somewhat humble opinion, although I haven’t read all his novels.

      • I have only read Berry’s nonfiction to date. He presented a way of looking at things that I’d never considered 10-15 years ago. I excused myself by chalking it up to my youth and the fact that I was knee deep in parenting multiple little kids. The truth is that I simply didn’t think about life and land and the degradation of culture as society moved away from the things that created a sense of community and family cohesiveness.

        I was thoroughly indoctrinated, and coming across one of Wendell Berry’s essays was the first step to my reconsidering everything I believed without having ever thought about why I believed it.

        I have his fiction on my list of books to read. The problem is that my list gets longer every day while the number of hours in a day don’t change.

  4. I’d say that hate speech laws are most similar to the old laws against blasphemy. In committing blasphemy, one defiled the sacred, and in committing hate speech, one defiles the untouchable proposition that all men are created equal. No healthy society tolerates flagrant dissent from its foundational propositions. The laws against blasphemy also served to preserve public order because, in the days when they were in effect, a gross blasphemer might have been subject to private justice at the hands of an enraged public. Whenever an individual chooses to offend public opinion, the state must choose, either to defend him or to prosecute him. If it is neutral, public order collapses.

    • This is a really great point. Back when I was a libertarian, I thought free speech was possible. But the free speech libertarians say the free speech they want existed in the US for, at most, a couple of decades. These decades, not coincidentally, were the decades during which our current hideous elite was taking the reigns of power from the preceding WASPy elite. Now that our new elite is firmly in charge, it turns out that free speech means the freedom enthusiastically to uphold the new elite’s ideology. Porn is now OK. Blasphemy is now OK. Criticizing the new elite’s sacred cows, not so much.

  5. “Is it really impossible for such a preference–or, to bring matters from the level of feeling to that of conviction, such a loyalty–to coexist with a charitable desire that all peoples be baptized and saved?”

    I don’t think that Christian brotherhood consists in merely wishing others well, without ever talking to them or serving them. The story of the Good Samaritan suggests otherwise.

  6. If I don’t want race X in my family or business, does that necessarily mean I want them to be damned? Premoderns would have found this claim odd.

    Odd is too weak a word. It is stark, raving mad. Impossible and utopian. False in its empirical claims, dangerous in its goals, and disturbing in the rigidity, fanaticism, and thoroughgoing dishonesty it generates in its adherents. In practice, of course, anti-racism is not nearly so bad as it first seems. For example, Spike Lee doesn’t get to be racist for preferentially hiring his co-ethnics and bragging about it. More generally, only discrimination in favor of whites or failure to discriminate against whites counts as racist.

    Thus, anti-racism is simply hatred for whites. This is vile, obviously, but it is a familiar, sane, understandable kind of vileness. If anti-racists took their nonsense seriously,the fact that they have power would constitute an immediate, serious threat to pretty much everyone. As it is, they are just about the business of living out their hatred, wicked and worthy of resistance but Brezhnev-bad rather than Trotsky-bad.

  7. David Yeago at First Things points to the Lutheran Church’s statement against racial discrimination as proof that one can accept the genuine moral insights of modernity without buying into the dubious anthropology of liberalism.

    The neocon project, in domestic affairs according to its founding fathers, is to create a “right” which is fully sympatico with modernity. The two standard rhetorical techniques in their toolbox are, first, to argue, using modern assumptions and reasons, for a conclusion rightists hold for good reasons, and, second, to argue, using rightist assumptions and reasons, for conclusions leftists hold for bad reasons. In both cases, these are intermediate stages. Later, the neocon continues on to argue for modern conclusions based on modern reasons. In a really good post, Bonald called a very similar kind of rhetorical sequence the empirical two-step.

  8. I am the only person I know who thinks C.S. Lewis is vastly overrated. Even when I was young I could never finish his fantasy works. His apologetics never impressed me either and he was a protestant too which probably explains a lot. Aside from Lewis I get irritated reading any of the American founders. Also Ludwig Von Mises is another figure who makes my blood curdle.

    As for WW2 I think we can lay the blame on Anglo stupidity. Britain making guarantees that they could not keep. In fact we can probably blame Britain for the horror of WW1, which may have been a much quicker less bloody affair had they stayed out.

    • WWI on Britain? Had the Germans not included Belgium in their plan to attack France, Britain would not have entered the war. Had Austria-Hungary been decisive and invade Serbia immediately after the assassination, no one would have denied their right to retaliate; had the Russians not been deluded to think that a third rate Slavic power was of strategic importance, Russia would not have entered. It seems to me that the least responsible parties were Britain and France.

      And WWII: that was entirely Germany’s fault. Not only Britain, but France had guaranteed Poland’s territorial integrity. Had Britain and France done something meaningful during the “Drole de guerre”, or before the partition of Czechoslovakia, perhaps it also would had ended sooner…

      • While I agree that Germany was at fault for WWII in the sense that there would have been no such war absent German aggression, I think it is only fair to lay some of the blame on French (and to a lesser extent British) pusillanimity. When Germany invaded the Rhineland, France’s army was the largest and best equipped in the world. Field Marshal Jodl averred after the war that if France had responded instantly to that incursion by marching a few thousand poilus toward the frontier, the German general staff would have insisted that, being pitifully short of men, equipment, and ammunition, they had no alternative but to beat a hasty retreat, with no shots fired. Jodl opined that in that event, Hitler’s government would soon have fallen. A similarly delicate threshold was reached with the invasion of the Sudetenland: if at that point Britain had declared war, as she was legally obliged to do, the Wehrmacht would have had no alternative but to back down, and Hitler would have fallen.

  9. Nonsense. Britain jumps to the defense of Beligum — why? Because of a treaty dating back to the 1830s? A treaty so old it was meant to protect the Belgians against France? What is the other excuse? The channel ports? So what! The Royal navy would still dominate the seas. Britain’s entry ensured a bloody stalemate; had it not been for that, the Germanic powers would have been victorious, Russia would have been defeated quicker but probably would not have fallen (or been allowed to fall) to the Bolsheviks.

    WWII was entirely Germany’s fault?! So the Anglo-French bear no responsiblity for the crippling provisions of the Treaty of Versailles? What about the Anglo blockade of Germany that was not stopped, and resulted in the deaths of German women and children? Or the French using African troops to violently put down striking workers in the Ruhr valley? Poland was a virtual military dictatorship, which was as greedy as it was stupid. In the Soviet-Polish war, the Poles invaded Russia and helped to destroy Ukrainian and White Russian forces that had opposed the Reds.

    • Britain had no option but to enter the war. The territorial integrity of the Low Countries had always been a British security interest. Perhaps if the Germans hadn’t built the High Seas Fleet, Britain wouldn’t have felt threatened and lived in another period of isolation; but the fact of the matter is that any continental power with a massive army building a massive fleet comparable to Britain’s was simply looking for trouble. Anyway, the German plan allowed for the British to enter the war, and believed, wrongly, that because they had a minuscule professional army, they wouldn’t play a role.

      I am not justifying the continuation of the blockade, which I consider a crime – and it might have become a bigger factor on the fall of the Empire than the reverses in France -. However, the circumstances you mentioned are not casus belli more than a decade after the fact.

      Anyway, if the Kaiser hadn’t been hell-bent of this pan-Germanic protection of Austria-Hungary, there wouldn’t have been any war either: Austria-Hungary would have never attacked Serbia without German guarantees against a Russian attack. This was something that Bismarck understood, but none of his successors did.

      • This is just British propaganda.
        No opition? Britian could have sat it out just like in 1870. The German High Seas fleet was no where near challenging the domination of the Royal Navy. The Germans sought greater ties with Britian. I believe the Kaiser even proposed a proto-EU like agreement whereby Britain and Germany would establish close economic ties to oppose the US. British stupidity and greed led it to oppose a rising Germany. While stupid in some ways the Kaiser was not the uber-tyrant of British propaganda. Also there is the glaring hypocrisy of “protecting a defenseless little country” while raping and pillaging in Ireland.

        So a blockade that killed thousands of German civilians is not casus belli but a treaty dating back to 1832 is? Or the French brutality in the Rhineland is not sufficent?

      • This argument, like WWI, I believe will be won by attrition. So, from my point of view, let’s hope this is the 100 day’s offensive and not Passchendaele.

        The inconclusive Battle of Jutland showed that the High Seas Fleet was a threat. While the Royal Navy, in its entirety, was more powerful than the High Seas Fleet, the Royal Navy had more missions than just the protection of the Isles: i.e. it had an worldwide empire to patrol. In 1870, that was a non-issue (aside from the fact that none of the Low Countries were involved). That changed with the Moroccan crisis. It became evident to the British that Germany was becoming an aggressive imperial power. You would agree that there was an Anglo-German naval arms race before the war, would you?

        I do not consider the Kaiser a tyrant, and it amuses me to be almost called an anglophile: I would have preferred Blenheim to have gone to the French (with all due respect to Prinz Eugen). Nor am I an anti-German: I would have liked the victors in Westphalia to be the Austrians. The Kaiser’s error was to believe that he could build a worldwide colonial empire, and a navy to protect it, without upsetting the English. This is in addition to having the largest and most powerful army in the world. A country that could gain control of the Channel and disembark an army was an existential threat to the British.

        Given that this is the miscellaneous thread, wanted to point out that I am somewhat hopeful because of these news . I expected that the self-described New York Catholics would have been more liberal than shown.

  10. How does the Christian navigate partiality? It’s all well and good to complain about sloppy terminology, but partiality in allowing some to go unrebuked in sin for the sake of ‘ethnic solidarity’ is in fact sinful.

    • Hi A Lady,

      That’s an important point. Some discrimination is in fact unjust, and some separatisms are incompatible with universal charity. The point is that identifying something as discriminatory doesn’t answer the question one way or the other. It comes at the start of a moral argument, not the end.

      I’m having trouble thinking of general guidelines for when partiality is and isn’t appropriate. A couple of points come to mind.

      1) Legitimate partiality only allows you to do good things for people unequally. It never gives you a licence to do bad things to people (e.g. to insult, rob, or attack them).

      2) Legitimate partiality is embedded in a universal law or allowance. For example, the idea that I should prefer my own countrymen is made more legitimate (i.e. more surely not based on hatred) by the fact that I would affirm that foreigners should also prefer their own countrymen even over me.

      3) Distributive equality is usually a requirement for an organization that has some charge of the common good for everybody and usually not for organizations that don’t. It would seem to me unjust for a government with care over multiple races to distribute welfare benefits by race, but if one employer out of many in a city wants to just hire his coethnics, I don’t see a problem with that. On the other hand, if there were separate governments for the races (a tribal arrangement), then it might be reasonable for each to care only for its own, and if a town had only one employer, that company would by implication have a charge for the common good (just by the fact that its actions would have such wide-ranging effect), and racial discrimination in hiring would arguably become immoral in such a case.

  11. Pingback: The Thinking Housewife › Conflating Loyalty and Hatred

  12. It is in fact this very conflation of particular loyalties with “hatred of the Other” that is one of the most dangerous ideas in the liberal arsenal.

    That’s the money quote, Bonald. But I’m not sure this rises even to the level of idea. It’s more of an anti-idea, a well-cultivated, i.e., not at all natural, visceral reaction. If people actually thought it through, they wouldn’t say stupid stuff like that (e.g., “You’re against gay marriage because you hate/are threatened by gays (or secretly are one yourself)”), but they don’t. Thinking it all through, what we once may have called critical thinking, might lead to the wrong policy option. And since the wrong policy option is the one we don’t happen to favor, we just couldn’t risk that. So the mind just shuts up, and we cast wildly implausible assertions instead. It’s really armchair Marxism and Freudianism, but that’s really an insult to Marx and Freud, because I don’t think they were that stupid.

  13. Pingback: The Harm in Hate-Speech Laws by David Gordon « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

  14. Take England’s persecution of one of her greatest writers, a man who did absolutely nothing wrong. Talking pleasantly to Germans is treason, don’t you know?

    Do you imagine you are a traditionalist or reactionary? Your attitude here is pure modern Leftist. He did more than just “talk pleasantly” to the Germans – he made broadcasts from Berlin during the war, and there was no good reason for any patriotic Briton to do so, period.

    You may not see anything “wrong” with making broadcasts from the enemy capital during wartime, but the British in the 1940s sure did, and that’s why Wodehouse was “persecuted”. That he recovered his good name is a tribute to the corrosion of traditional attitudes in Britain and the triumph of Leftism, which holds that “free speech” trumps loyalty to monarch and nation.

  15. Wow. Just amazing here at the Orthoshere the complete absence of references to history, the aping of Marxist doctrine, the total ignorance of the natural law and Christian advocacy of deracination.

    “Conservativism” anyone? “Conservative” in the Anglo-sphere is just another term for liberal so I guess the Orthosphere is in that guise but it is certainly not conservative in the Continental meaning of the term.

    First, when a liberal talks of “hate speech”, it is just so much hypocrisy!!!! During the Darkening, liberals were filled with Hate speech!! Hatred towards the Monarchy and towards the Catholic Church!!! When Monarchs and bishops imprisoned these hate mongers—what an uproar!! Yet, it is funny here at the Orthosphere, that no one points out that HISTORICAL Discrepancy!

    I’m reminded of that song, “We don’t know much about History…” That should be the theme song of the Orthosphere.

    Second, the term “Hate speech” is of Marxist in origin!!! And a twist to that, when in the Darkening hate speech was directed at the Old Order of Throne and Altar, now what is being banned is “hate speech” toward races—–which is what Marxists want because they are deracinators!

    You know that the Continental Meaning of conservativism is the Hatred of Democracy and all things of the French Revolution. Hence, it is logical to hate all the products of the French Revolution as well. One of the products of the French Revolution is Republican Socialism which morphed into C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-M! See, a Continental conservative hates Communism, attacks International Socialism; International Socialism which seeks the destruction of race and nation. Here at the Orthoshpere–we give air time, press time to Marxist ideology!!! and then not only do we approve of “hate speech” but we also use the Marxist meaning of it!!! We have become fellow travellers to Marxism! Just Brilliant!

    Wow. You guys always impress me with your erudition, wisdom, and knowledge. You guys are a basket case from A-Z.

    • Hello WW,

      I don’t actually approve of Leftist hate speech laws, obviously. What encouraged me about the linked article was its willingness to make arguments that are directly incompatible with liberal individualism. Of course, now that liberals are the ruling class, they must rule illiberally, because rule just is illiberal–it’s defending the community against the individual. Now a liberal is making arguments that personal freedom should be restricted to protect a communal spiritual good, no less. Of course, his understanding of what a healthy collective conscience should be is perverse, but by making this argument explicit–as opposed to just suppressing their ideological opponents under the silly excuse that we’re violating some other individuals’ “rights”, as Leftists usually do–he’s brought the internal contradiction of liberalism right to the surface. If liberalism can undertake to impose certain attitudes and beliefs on society at large, there’s no way it can pose as the neutral or open-minded alternative to ideological conformism.

    • WW,

      As Bonald has said, you’ve presented some thoughtful comments, but you keep reverting to a manner that makes me question whether you are serious in what you are saying. If you’re not, I guess it doesn’t really matter what I’m saying to you here; but if you are really in earnest, then why do you hang around with a bunch of “basket cases”? You give the appearance of knowing all things, of being one never in need of correction – in summary, one quite lacking in humility. I could care less about what you know, or how much you have self-taught. Without humility, I see it all as foolishness.

      If you are hanging around in order to practice the spiritual work of correcting us basket cases, you’re working against your goal by telling us that it’s hopeless anyways.

  16. Socrates task was stinging awake the Athenians—and the Athenians did not enjoy Socrates. Socrates was hated.

    I started out reading National Review but upon the canning of people like Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan, something did not seem right. I’ve done a lot of research and that has led me to understand that the whole of the modern world is false. All of it.

    In order to be true, one must jettison all of it. Here, I see that many, or all have not done so. They still have one foot in the liberal world. You, they are not ready to go to the next level. 100 years ago, did you know that the Pope condemned certain aspects of Americanism? The Pope did not go far enough. All aspects of Americanism have to be condemned and rejected. If you look at all the old flags of Europe, they are all adorned with crosses, the symbol of Christianity. What is the American flag adorned with?


    Stars is the symbol of Masonry, of Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism. I ask you what was carved on the victims of the purge at Russian city of Kharkov during the Bolshevist revolution? Stars. What is on the caps of the Peoples Army of China? Stars. What was the symbol on the North Vietnamese army caps? Stars.

    All is not what it seems. You’re all still half asleep. You are like Lot’s wife who turned around. You have not made that step. You have not completely turned. In some ways, you have changed but then you are still mixed with error. You have not done a complete purge—because you still want aspects of that modern nihilism.

    In the Logical equation, in order to have a true conclusion, all premises must be true. All.

    It is written thus: T+T=T. and F+F=F. Now in a mixture, T+F=F. Now if you have many premises T+T+T+T+F+T+T= What does this equal? F. If you have twenty true premises and one false premise—the conclusion will always be false. One false premise converts the whole argument false. In order to arrive at a True Conclusion—-all premises must be true. Here at the Orthosphere, you are still mixing False premises with True premises. You have half the picture, not the full picture and you think you are moving. You are not. You are still the problem. You have not converted at all. You have returned to some truths—but not all truths. All of your premises are not true.

    Every aspect of America must be rejected tout court, the whole kit-n-kaboodle. You can’t turn around like Lot’s wife in wishful remembrance. You must cut the cord. America is a Masonic creation in toto. It must be rejected in toto and everyone here MUST RETURN to the Old Order. You can’t be half and half!

    You are trying to be Half-n-Half. You want some this and you want some of that. You can’t. You must reject all nihilism. Any nihilistic premise then subverts your whole conservative outlook. You can’t be a Continental Conservative and have any regard for America or hold liberal teachings or communist teachings.

    • I think most people in this forum would agree with you that their understanding of the truth is surely lacking in total purity, both in ways that they recognize, and in ways as yet unknown to them. Are you asking us to accept that you, on the other hand, have nothing but purely “T’s” in your life? From what I understand, even the wisest through all of time have said that one’s whole life is a continuous purging of the “F’s”, always with setbacks and other roadblocks to the process, and that it is unrealistic for sinful mortals to think they can ever have an entirely pure understanding of virtually anything in this life.

      You are certain that all of what you accept as true–what you accept as first principles, your other assumptions, your conclusions, your entire understanding–is pure in total and in part?

  17. So what if the founding fathers were masons? Jesus was crucified under Tiberius Caesar, and Paul decapitated under Nero. Still, the Empire’s authority was accepted by Christians. Constantine to eventually arrived and the Roman Empire became the defender of the faith. God can make all things anew.

    Your statement is so broad, that it has no meaning: “Every aspect of America must be rejected tout court, the whole kit-n-kaboodle.” It’s people? It’s food? What does this mean? Should we be annexed by Mexico? Canada?

    That is why I consider your statements as trolling, as they are just there to provoke an emotional response. There is no argumentation, just verbiage.

  18. Pingback: Put not your trust in agrarians « The Orthosphere


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s