The Salvation Army is the only charity, other than local groups, to whom I regularly contribute. So far as I know, there has never been a hint of scandal nor misappropriation of funds nor high living among the staff.

It's an exemplary organization doing their good works with a minimum of fanfare.

Posted by: erp at September 13, 2005 8:48 AM

Of course you are correct that religious consciousness makes statism unnecessary. Not only does it provide charity, thus reducing the need for granny, it provides inner guidance, thereby reducing the need for Big Brother, since Big Father knows our innermost hearts. Religion contributes to material prosperity by allowing us to limit the stifling hand of government to its legitimate purpose, the bearing of the sword.

Let me suggest, however, that most of those whom we call the Left hate religion not because it stands againt the state, but, on the contrary, worship the state because they hate God.

Let me simplify it for you. The anti-religious hate religion because it stifles their impulse to do anything they would like, i.e. "if it feels good do it!"

Further, socialism relieves their conscience by the assumption it will be doing good works; whether it works is not really a concern. Just throw more money at it, especially if it's someone elses.

Render statism unnecessary

At which point it will disappear, of course. Just like beer, cigarettes and Mary Jane all did. But then what would you do for fun? OJ, at the end of the day you are just another addict, hoping against hope that circumstances will deliver you from your favorite vice. They won't, you know. But admitting you have a problem is the first step.

Bask in the glow.

What are you talking about. I saw Mary Jane just yesterday, and she was looking really swell.

You can't handle the glow.

I'm a male WASP, none of it affects us much.

So you can quit anytime, right?

Quit? We never started. There's a story in our local rag today about how Hanover isn't even asking for the FEMA money we're entitled to in order to repair our flood damaged roads because we figure N.O. needs the money more.

No, oj. Warren Buffett doesn't line his own pockets either. WASPs don't get high from getting the money, they get high from making other people shell out the money. You're so far gone you don't even realize you're using.

Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance.

I wish he were being ironic here but it sounds like he is entirely serious. He betrays a sad misunderstanding of "divine ordinances" and their purpose. I'm reminded of the pundits, typically non-Catholics, who criticize the Pope for not endorsing condom use and abortion -- forgetting that the Church exists not to validate what is convenient, but to proclaim what is righteous.

I hate to find myself in the position of defending OJ; but joe, for the life of me, I can't figure out what you're talking about.

render statism unnecessary

I wish someone would tell that to GWB. Statism is one of those weasel words, its exact definition is left to interpretation, but generally connotes that level of government intervention that is a degree greater than what the definer considers just right. Why can't Christianity save us from spending hundreds of billions on Medicare drug benefits?

Lou, I don't normally defend leftists, but I'm afraid you are drawing a self-serving caricature. It isn't that they hate Religion, they hate your concept of religion. Much of the social justice statism of the Left is driven by a religious impulse no less sincere than your own. The "social" gospel has a long theological tradition. Statism and religion have long coexisted on friendly terms. Indeed, their separation is the radical idea that defines American politics and sets us apart from the rest of the world.

Robert:

Because the Depression occurred. Now the question is just what kind of safety net we're going to have, one that creates dependence on the state --which is the goal of the Left and the accidental end of libertarians -- or independence from the state -- which is what the Religious Right is driving us towards.

joe:

Superfly pushed, didn't use.

From the lyricsdepot website, the first two lines of Superfly

in those days i rode on the back of yoooou
stealin what i can

Sorry, Brandon. OJ's a stimulant addict. He's got the personality for it: intelligent, attention-deficient, easily bored. For reasons known but to God he's settled on government activity, of all things, as his stimulant of choice. This makes him a bit different from your garden-variety lefty, who as Lou Gots points out is for the state as a substitute religion. OJ just wants the government to go break stuff. Failing that, he wants it to piss off as many people as possible. Seems simple-minded, I know, but it explains his position on everything from nuclear weapons (use them, now, on the French) to Katrina ( good for the economy, like all natural disasters, but since nature is unreliable we should be out there busting windows on our own) to cars (tax people out of them.) He's a fun guy, I'm glad I know him, but as with all very bright people it is a capital mistake to take his bs at face value. People who are smart enough end up using most of their brainpower to rationalize their own misbehavior.

To be fair, here is the entire song:

in those days i rode on the back of yoooou
stealin what i can
in no time i found out the answer was
doin what you can
and the crew you ran around with
really made the baaaaand
and the road you set me ooon
made me what i aaam

in those days i rode on the back of you
kissin all that a$$
in no time i found out that the answer was
"a$$,gas, or grass"
and the crew you ran around with
well it really made the band
and the road you set me on
made me what i am

Yes, but we're your pushermen:

i'm your mamma, i'm your daddy
i'm that nigga in the alley
i'm your doctor, when in need
want some coke, have some weed
you know me, i'm your friend
your main boy, thick and thin
i'm your pusherman
i'm your pusherman

haha

ain't i clean, bad machine
super cool, super mean
feelin' good, for the man
Superfly, here i stand
secret stash, heavy bread
baddest bitches, in the bed

i'm your pusherman
i'm your pusherman
i'm your pusherman

solid life, of crime
a man of odd circumstance
a victim of ghetto demands
feed me money for [style]
and i'll let you trip for a while
insecure from the past
how long can a good thing last?
woo-hoo, no
got to be mellow, y'all
gotta get mellow now
pusherman gettin' mellow y'all

heavy mind, have you signed?
makin' money all the time
my [LD] entrusts me
for all junkies to see
ghetto prince is my thing
makin' love's how i swing
i'm your pusherman
i'm your pusherman
huh

too bad, [Splee]
for a generous fee
make your world what you want it to be
got a woman i love desperately
wanna give her something better than me
been told i can't be nothin' else
just a hustler in spite of myself
i know i can rake it
this life just don't make it
lord, lord
got to get mellow now
gotta be mellow, y'all
got to get mellow now

i'm your mamma, i'm your daddy
i'm that nigga in the alley
i'm your doctor, when in need
want some coke, have some weed
you know me, i'm your friend
your man boy, thick and thin
i'm your pusherman
i'm your pusherman

joe:

I can hardly be the only person you know who hates the French, people who mope about the weather, and cars.

The prosecution rests.

joe shropshire:

I'm unclear as to what "misbehavior" OJ justifies by supporting certain government endeavors, however foolish they might be in some circumstances.

The misbehavior is that he has no idea why he believes what he believes. He's got an elaborate theory as to why he favors this or that intervention. I've got a simple one: poor impulse control. Believe it or not this is the same argument we have all the time on the Permanent Floating Darwin Bashing Thread, only over there he's got the right side of the argument.

joe:

Opposition to the automobile is hardly impulsive. Our great-grandfather, the blacksmith, opposed them a hundred years ago.

So it's a hereditary impulse then.

I've got it too, Joe, so it must have something to do with genetic drift.

No, the automobile is evil.

joe shropshire:

I don't know him as well as you do, but if he had poor impulse control he'd be a leftist, and contrary to David Cohen's assertions he isn't one.

Robert: Separation of Church and state is a original Christian position, a highly scriptural one. It went on to become the Roman Catholic position, in contradistinction to Orthodox caesaropapism.

Of course the lines were being blurred throughout history, as the church and the state each sought to aggrandize its position at the expense of the other.

I cannot agree that the left ". . .is driven by a religious impulse. . .," unless we include the demonic desire to dominate and destroy (sound like anybody we know?) as a form of religion. Any leftist who wishes to follow the social gospel can always fire off a check to the Salvation Army or the Franciscans. It does not seem that they are particularly eager to do so.

Joe:

Believe it or not this is the same argument we have all the time on the Permanent Floating Darwin Bashing Thread, only over there he's got the right side of the argument.

Hey -- you promised me a response to The Argument Clinic [watch ticking] ...

Jeff: I have several times, just never sent them to you. I'm glad I didn't, the tone was needlessly harsh and peevish, a hangover from too much Permanent Floating Darwin Bashing Threading. Short version of my views at present: your model of argumentation is very scrupulous and orderly and level. By that I mean you proceed in good order from facts to conclusions about facts to meta statements. I have the impression that this model is a fair representation of your own thinking style, and I believe people generally follow a style that plays to their own strengths. My own style is I don't have much of one; oj appears to have learned his from chimpanzees, or perhaps howler monkeys. As it pertains to the argument over Darwin, well, that's long since ceased to be an argument. It's a barfight now. And I like oj's way in a barfight: he spits, he bites, he gouges, he breaks bottles over heads. He does what ya gotta do. As to the question of whether this is worth a barfight, I think the answer is yes. Public acceptance of evolution by natural selection was at least in part the result of underlying political and religious currents of the last century, and got at least some help from well-staged political theatre, the Scopes trial in particular. I've no idea to what extent the public accepts natural selection based on genuine understanding and assent, as opposed to following the herd; insofar as it does, your side of the debate's in good shape, but the point is that this is a political proposition, not a scientific one. It can only be tested, and it is being tested, in the public arena, by taking on all comers. If this is a thing you've won with your fists then it's a thing you'll have to keep with your fists. Anyway, welcome back to the monkey cage, and don't let oj bait you too much, it just gets him excited.

Amused, not excited.

Joe:

Thanks -- I appreciate your thoughtful, and insightful, response. Also, surprising in that it is not what I expected.

I also agree with you pretty much top to bottom.

Which reaffirms (if I catch your drift correctly) what I wrote in The Argument Clinic. Correspondingly, OJ has turned this into a bar fight, and his tactics are similar to other Creationists. Although, it must be said that unlike other Creationists, with the occasional, and to my mind extremely unfortunate exception, he allows dissenters the opportunity to fully voice their views.

Other Creationists simply bar everyone except the sycophants.

The main question you raise about the bar fight, though, is to what end?

IMHO, the main driving force of the universe is irony. Just so here. The more Creationists get their way, the more they undermine their theological position.

Their ultimate end is reasserting the primacy of Biblical authority, which, in their view, is essential to establishing a decent society. In their view, the only way to do this is to repudiate rational inquiry.

So they become, ironically, like another group they would otherwise have no truck with: By Any Means Necessary. (The radically pro-affirmative action group utterly immune to any notion that their entering arguments might not be watertight).

So the point at stake is not whether naturalistic evolution is objectively true, but whether conclusions reached through rational inquiry may be suppressed where they conflict with Scripture.

Which means surveys about public opinion regarding belief in naturalistic evolution completely miss the point.

The real question they should be asking is: Do you believe scientific theories should be allowed in classrooms even if they contradict a religious text?

So you are right, this is not primarily a question of scientific merit, but rather whether rational inquiry can be allowed to proceed except under religious control.

Sadly (but, correctly speaking, not ironically) the Creationists are at sea when they point at naturalistic science as causing the collapse of ecclesiastical authority.

The game was up when Gutenberg published the Bible.

Joe, thanks again. I knew you would say something worthwhile, which is why I kept bugging you about it.

And apologies for the rambling post -- I have only gotten through the first cup of coffee.

(BTW -- I was gone because, in addition to working two jobs, I also completely replaced our deck. If I was awake, I was working, leaving scarcely enough time to read the posts here, never mind participating.)

Joe & Jeff,
Congrats for pulling off a very informative and civil dialogue. Jeff, glad you're back. I'll be ready to resume at the DD hopefully this weekend, and since you're only working two jobs now, hopefully you will too!;-) This sounds like an admirable topic for discussion.

Robert:

Yeah, but first I must vent my spleen on [enter your most time honored obscentities here] unions.