I'm about 1/2 way through it. Stalin and the Soviets were the father, mother, and midwife to the Chi-coms. The other thing that struck me was how revered, by everybody in China, Chang Ki Shek was. He was the George Washington of China.

Pete:

Interesting, then, that so many Lefties badmouth him (a history professor of mine once told me he was at least as bad as Mao -- which struck me as highly unlikely, to put it mildly).

My wife is reading it and she is enjoying it.

OJ, Why do you condemn Mao and Stalin? Weren't they just burning their witches? Shouldn't those who can't conform with the norms of their society be killed or persecuted into oblivion?

bplus:

Their norms were evil. Those of Judeo-Christianity are good.

Step one: remind the world how evil that whole thing was.

Step two: start the inquiry into what kind of treason and cowardice led so many people to deny the evil.

Step three: hang up portrait of John Birch.

I haven't read the book, but my impression is that Sun Yat-Sen was revered as the father of democracy in China and the hope for Chinese unity and modernization, and Chiang Kai-shek was his protege and political heir.

That's a faith statement OJ, one I share but thats beside the point.

So what you're saying is that only Christian cultures can burn witches and other non-conformists and its a good thing? Meanwhile, non-Christian societies cannot burn their non-conformists since that would be bad?

Sorry OJ, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Unless you want to induldge in your own version of moral relativism, then the killing of non conformers must be considered universally bad.

To claim otherwise is to deny the existence of a universal, objective morality.

bplus:

Of course other societies will burn their own heretics, that's why our Christian duty is to replace regimes that don't conform to our standards.

You still haven't explained why its bad when the KGB kills but OK when Protestants burned witches and Catholics burned heretics. Why are you such a moral relativist?

Yes, I have. The ends of the Soviet Union were evil. Ours are good. Good ends justify every means and bad ends can't justify any.

"The ends justify the means" is what a doctrinaire Marxist would say (IIRC the actual quote is from Machiavelli).

Like Nazis and Communists, religious theocrats and secular totaliatians are more alike than they are different.

Even the best ends are tainted and corrupted by bad means. That's why the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If Kim was a Christian, enforcing Christian orthodoxy with the same methods he now uses, would North Korea be your ideal society?

Daniel:

If Kim "claimed" to be a Christian, and ruled the way he does now, then your Christian duty would be to confront him, and if need be, to kill him. Are you buying your ticket today? If not, why not?

So Jim I guess the Inquisition only "claimed" to be Christians because of the way they ruled? Would it not have a Christian's duty to confront and kill Torquemada?

The question was a hypothetical one to illustate that fact that there isn't any difference between Kim's regime and the Inquisition, no difference between secret police and witch finder generals.

Daniel:

If you cannot discern any difference between the North Korea of today and the Spain of 500 years ago, then you need to start reading more.

Let's put it this way - is the Church in better shape today than it was in 1516? If not, why not?

In terms of internal corruption (the corrupting sale of indulgences, the Borgia popes, poisonings in the Vatican, bishops and popes with mistresses and their bastards considered commonplace, the clergy - like the archbishop of London - owning and operating brothels, etc.) then the Church was much worse off in 1516. Why do you think the Protestant Reformation occured?

Aside from the one being secular and the other religious, what exactly is the difference between a modern totalitarian regime and the Inquisition?

bplus:

Actually one of the reasons you hate God so much is because He uses "evil" means to achieve His good end.

If Kim were a Christian enforcing orthodoxy on Stalinists, instead of vice versa, he'd be an ally.

bplus:

Yes, but a Marxist is wrong about his end, not his means.

bplus;

You are not grasping OJ's fundamental point. He takes as an axiom a non-human based morality, against which all human actions and morals can be judged.

That axiom is the difference.

Based on that axiom, Judeo-Christian societies are morally superior to totalitarian ones. You may argue with him on whether that axiom corresponds to reality, but it is completely pointless to ask for any other basis for OJ's view on this matter.

And he's been most consistent on that point, for as long as I've been coming here at least. You don't have to agree with him, but it does little good to keep pretending not to understand him.

And the efforts of modernity amply demonstrate that not only does morality have to be axiomatic--by definition, no?--it can't be grounded in human reasoning, only something external to humans, otherwise it isn't axiomatic.

In fact, the divide between Faith and Reason ultimately just boils down to those who choose a moral Universe versus those who rebel against it.

Oh I agree with the the need for an absolute, objective moral universe. Which is why I reject the concept of an immoral God. If God is a hypocrite, he is not worthy to be God.

You don't get to quarrel with the Commandments He gave us. God needn't follow the rules He set for you, just as you needn't follow the rules you set your child. Hypocrisy isn't a sin.

Uh, I thought that argument was settled quite some time ago.

just as you needn't follow the rules you set your child.

I do if I want to be a good father, worthy of respect and love. Otherwise, I'd just be a tyrant.

Hypocrisy isn't a sin.

Jesus considered it the utlimate sin, sin piled on sin. Go back a reread some of his criticisms of the Pharisees.

You go to bed when your son does? Don't drive because he can't? Let him make his own rules since it would be unfair for you to? Of course not, it's preposterous.

Yet Christ was a hypocrite and all to the good--ask the moneychangers or the adulteress.

What is this confusion?

Bplus would deny the very possiblity of authority. It is no hypocrisy for the state to condemn a murderer, or, as oj writes, for a father to go to bed later than his children.

What is lawful for Jupiter is not lawful for a cow, the Romans said.

The Catholic Church examined and judged heretics, and relaxed the worst of them to the civil power for temporal judgement, because it had the authority and responsibility to do so.

God is just a big Pharisee, no different than those condemned by Jesus.