Civic morality; also word usages
Christianity has always resisted physics-based ethics
provinces of heathens and infidels, in whatsoever part of the world placed, which
before this time were unknown to all Christians.[ix]
Praising Bobby Jindal’s folly
His friend, James Madison delivered a controversial speech, “Memorial & Remonstrance,”[xv] in which he states, “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.” Again, Madison was speaking to people who believed in personal gods and their god’s role in civic governance. However, perhaps both Madison and Jefferson were using the belief in personal gods to establish governance like that described by Machiavelli in Chapter XI[xvi] of the Prince. Its date, 1513, is evidence of their awareness of the idea, which I paraphrase: Under theism, the politician-priest partnership picks the people's pockets and the people neither leave the country nor rebel. The people who believe in American exceptionalism would do well to comprehend Chapter XI Machiavellianism and form their opinion about the situation they are in.
Is LGBT pride in line for comeuppance?
Hillyer does, but America did not fall for Magna Carta
authority of the pope as head of the Roman Catholic Church but had negotiated
certain liberties that privileged the authority of the French monarch, giving it a
distinct national identity characterized by considerable autonomy. France’s
population . . . was almost entirely Catholic, with full membership of the state
denied to Protestant and Jewish minorities. Being French effectively meant being
evangelical candidates in the Republican field, in appearances at prayer rallies, in
speeches and in interviews on radio and TV
Lost without the Christian compass
. . . how do 62 million evangelical Christians and other theological conservatives — not a majority, but a significant minority — view themselves and their cultural role? [Suggestions include becoming a] joyful minority [and] ’doing truth’ leads back to the personalism at the heart of Christian faith. ’We must always consider the person,’ says Pope Francis.
I have no idea what Gerson means by “doing truth” and “personalism,” as civic practices. Why doesn’t Gerson look to Jews, Muslims, Amerindians, freethinkers, and others for suggestions? His conclusion seems civically lost:
broad decline of institutions leaves many people betrayed, lonely and broken — not only
unaffiliated with religion, but unaffiliated with family, with community and with all the
commitments that give meaning to freedom.
Governance of by and for a civic people
soul. Drawn by its severe harmony, ravished with its beauty, he lived in it, and had his being
there. Alone in all history, he estimated the greatness of man. One man was true to what is in
you and me. He saw that God incarnates himself in man, and evermore goes forth anew to take
possession of his world. He said, in this jubilee of sublime emotion, "I am divine. Through me,
God acts, through me, speaks. Would you see God, see me; or, see thee, when thou also
thinkest as I now think." But what a distortion did his doctrine and memory suffer in the same,
in the next, and the following ages! There is no doctrine of the Reason which will bear to be
taught by the Understanding. The understanding caught this high chant from the poet's lips,
and said, in the next age, "This was Jehovah come down out of heaven. I will kill you, if you
say he was a man." The idioms of his language, and the figures of his rhetoric, have usurped
the place of his truth; and churches are not built on his principles, but on his tropes.
Christianity became a Mythus, as the poetic teaching of Greece and of Egypt, before. He spoke
of miracles; for he felt that man's life was a miracle, and all that man doth, and he knew that
this daily miracle shines, as the man is diviner. But the very word Miracle, as pronounced by
Christian churches, gives a false impression, it is Monster. It is not one with the blowing
clover and the falling rain.
a free, self-governing commonwealth . . . than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of
the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and
one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all
beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end, no means are more
directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to
withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.
I emphasized two objectionable words in this quote. First, “holy,” and less critically, “reverent,” impose religion into civic affairs. The rest of the paragraph could be noble, if it premise was based on physics rather than religion.