hello, interesting and interested people --

one of my favorite cultural critics is Kenneth Myers, author of "All
God's Children & Blue Suede Shoes."  There's a good interview with him
at <http://www.esa-online.org/prism/97marapr_Myers.html>. Check it
out.


here are some quotes:

      Ironically, I got from public education a good grounding
      in the Judeo-Christian influence of Western culture
      and meanwhile, at church I was getting a thin, vapid,
      maudlin,  tepid experience that did not do justice to the
      richness  that cultural life can be...Yet that was the accepted
      mechanism for Christian outreach, edification, and
      entertainment.


      I've been wondering the last few years whether we aren't
      also living at the end of the time of mass evangelism...I
      think that individual evangelism rather than mass
      evangelism may be what the church needs.


       J. Gresham Machen, founder Westminster Seminary argued
      that theological liberalism was a different religion--a
      religion of moralism and uplift, whereas Christianity was
      a religion about sin and grace. The irony today is that
      that's exactly what evangelicalism is--a religion of
      moralism and uplift. I once was fond of saying, "you get
      the impression that evangelicalism is here to make the
      world safe for Mormons." It comes across that something is
      Christian because it's... Pleasant.


       I think there's a certain sense in which American
      populism isn't just a positive populism, but it's a very
      acerbic anti-elitism so that anything the elites like, we
      must resist it.



I'd be interested to hear what you think of this interview -- I know that
frustration with the current state of evangelicalism has driven many
conversations with most of you ...and I'd also be interested to hear from
the non-evangelicals and non-christians as well. What think ye?

barry
  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/inpeople
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

The owner of the pond [provided the pond is justly acquired, ie through a free
exchange] should let the guy fish if it is mutually beneficial.  Otherwise,
the owner of the pond has no obligation to do so, indeed, he should not do so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/inpeople
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>But the key word here is choice; the people affected by the black codes
>had no choice, no other >alternative but what was forced on them by
>someone who was dominant and had all the power.
>

I'll make my inaugural run at this:  I'm with Rich on this point.  I heard
John Perkins (social justic eadvocate, on board of the CCDA) state that
"Teaching a man to fish does him good only as long as the guy who owns the
pond lets him fish."

There is something to the link among power, ownership, and choice.

Respectfully,
Chris



------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/inpeople
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

hey rich--

<<To me, this almost cheapens the impact of what the codes really were.
It's one thing to choose one kind of food when you can/should choose
another, or to depict women in one way in a video when you can/should
depict them in another. But the key word here is choice; the people
affected by the black codes had no choice, no other alternative but what
was forced on them by someone who was dominant>>

true enough -- in fact, wynton uses the term 'voluntary slavery' to
describe it, and we must say that voluntary is better than the old kind of
slavery. This reminds me of the Clarence Thomas summer (as opposed to
the summer of Bobbitt, Harding, OJ, Monica, Paula, Menendez...) -- at
his hearing he called the process a "high-tech lynching". One of those
great and memorable sound bites, but we again must say that a high-tech
lynching is far preferable to a low-tech one, where the person would end
up dead rather than a Supreme Court Justice.


barry

------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/inpeople
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Those are interesting thoughts from Wynton; made me think of similar ideas
expressed by Frankie Shaeffer. However, I'm not sure that I would go so far as
to link those ideas with the "black codes." To me, this almost cheapens the
impact of what the codes really were. It's one thing to choose one kind of food
when you can/should choose another, or to depict women in one way in a video
when you can/should depict them in another. But the key word here is choice; the
people affected by the black codes had no choice, no other alternative but what
was forced on them by someone who was dominant and had all the power.

Here's another interesting quote though:
    Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who
want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and
lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.
This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both
moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a
demand. It never did and it never will.
         - Frederick Douglas

This is important coming from someone who went through that struggle, and could
very well have been resentful and bitter, engaged in name calling, and decried
the dual system which stated that all are created equal and yet oppressed him.
Instead, he recognized and learned to use the positive aspects of such a system,
and was a great force for change. Some today who aspire to furthering his work
could learn a lesson from him.

Late - Rich

-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/inpeople/?start=25

------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-group home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/inpeople
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

hey gang --

sorry again about the cross-post.



I was just listening to one of Wynton Marsalis's
most pleasurable albums, 'black codes (from the underground),' and
again saw in the liner notes this great quote from wynton. It's been my
battle cry ever since I got the album in 1985, and it still stirs me --
perhaps because it's truer now than ever before.

The title refers to the 'black codes' of the 19th c, which (to use Stanley
Crouch's explanation) 'emphasized depriving chattels of anything other
than what was necessary to maintain their positions as talking work
animals.' In the modern world those black codes have gone underground,
making it so that 'too many have chosen to be no more than barometers
of trends, not individuals making their own way and expanding the
expression of human intricacy as they move.'
--

barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Black codes mean a lot of things. Anything that reduces
potential, that pushes your taste down to an obvious,
animal level. Anything that makes you think less
significance is *more* enjoyable. Anything that keeps you
on the surface. The way they depict women in rock videos
-- black codes. People gobbling up junk food when they can
afford something better -- black codes. The argument that
illiteracy is valid in a technological world -- black
codes. People who equate ignorance with soulfulness --
definitely black codes.

The overall quality of every true artist's work is a
rebellion against black codes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

This has all been very interesting, and I can only add this:  According to
John Finnis, who claims to only be re-hashing Aquinas, there are sis basic,
indemonstrable, irreducible human "goods", our participation in which leads us
to a life which is flourishing:  life itself, aesthetics, religion, knowledge,
play, friendship.  Actually, I think there might be seven, but embarrassingly,
I can't think of it, which means, I guess, that my life is probably not
exactly flourishing in that respect.

Worship, clearly a "composite" human good involves so many of the above, would
seem to be one of the highest human activities by any account.  From the
Christian worldview, it seems beyond dispute that this is the case.  Perhaps
for this reason, it raises our passions.  Just a thought or two.  Mark Cole --
Dr. Floyd, if you read these, what did I leave out?  Aren't you something of a
medievalist?  Is the virtue I left out jousting and swordfighting?  Please
advise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

<< Also reading a biography of one of the great
statesmen/bookworms in US history, John Quincy Adams, and to top it
off, de
Gaulle's war memoirs, all highly recommended.  Heroic virtues are very
much in
my mind these days, though certainly not in my actions...>>

btw, so good that you're a serious reader -- we're hard to find these days,
but it makes one a better person, I think.

and also btw, there's a bio of JQA in our church library, which I find
odd and very encouraging for a baptist church. The usual acquisitions, as
you may imagine, are the Mars/Venus franchise and its christian and
secular relatives, and Veggie Tales, and books on "coping" with grief,
etc.

--

barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

hey --

sorry about the cross-post, but it won't affect too many.

I found the worship article pretty interesting; indeed, worship seems to
be the main question in many churches (worship, in this context,
synonymous with "music", of course, in the same way that "multimedia"
means "slide show").


<< Imagine the terror of standing alongside the self-assured Puritan
iconoclast William Dowsing, whose destructive axe undid centuries'
worth of painstaking artistic craftsmanship in a fortnight. At least, White
reminds us, Dowsing appreciated the intrinsic power of artistic works to
shape the piety of a community, in contrast to many today who view
liturgical art as nothing more than innocuous decoration.>>

welll, that's a big "at least", there. Kind of like the "at least the
Communist governments, unlike decadent western democracies,
recognize the power and potential of art, validating it by their censure
and torture of artists."

To use another "at least:" At least the Brave New World of Precious
Moments allows Michelangelo to exist for those who will see him, in
contrast to the 1984 of Dowsing.


<<The achievements of the Liturgical movement are impressive:
mainline preachers concerned about Scripture, Catholics concerned about
preaching, Protestants concerned about sacraments, and evangelicals
concerned about the early church.>>

So true! We're living in a great age, indeed. Even our parents were
incapable of this kind of crossover interest. And may I say that it is our
much-maligned post-modernism that allows that very phenomenon.


<<So strong is this liturgical convergence in some congregations that the
only observable difference, White quips, is that "Catholics use real wine,
while Protestants use real bread.">>

Nevertheless, the theologically informed Catholic will tell you that the
doctrine of transubstantiation entails a double miracle (in which the
bread  a] actually becomes the body of Christ, and  b] retains the earthly
form of bread), whereas the theologically informed Baptist will tell you
that it entails a single miracle, in which the wine actually transforms into
grape juice.

:-')


<<Once the link between theology and worship is exposed, dozens of
unsettling questions arise. Why do churches with a high doctrine of
Scripture often feature so little Scripture reading in Sunday worship?
What about a church that confesses the power of the Word of God and
then demands that its preacher use either high-gloss rhetoric or emotional
manipulation to talk people into the kingdom? What about a church that
holds to a Chalcedonian Christology, but whose hymns praise only the
human Jesus? >>

maybe because there *is* perhaps the possibility of yanking on the finger
of worship without getting the hand of theology.  To worship in a way
that emphasizes unemphasized aspects of one's theological schema is
perhaps a way of recognizing the limitations of that schema, even if there
is inconsistency there.

After all, when a friend asked about the conflicts (in chronology, in
emphasis, in treatment of the significance of human gender) between the
two creation accounts, another friend replied, "Well, *somebody*
thought they went well together, and saw no problem at all with
including both of them."

Good answer.


<<The image of worship as a game is certainly not the last word. It may
suggest something altogether too casual, trivial, or shallow.>>

maybe -- I wonder how much Lang's book owes to the work of Johan
Huizinga, author of "Homo Ludens." A great, great read, whose thesis is
implicit in the (mercifully short and colon-free) title. We are, in fact,
beings who have an innate, universal drive to draw out lines in chalk, and
make rules, and observe boundaries, and manipulate balls, disks, and
sticks of various types; and do so with both enthusiasm and seriousness.

I'd think Huizinga would classify most worship as a kind of game (and in
fact I seem to recall a reference in the book that treats that subject), and
I'd be interested in exploring his idea that there are two kinds of people
to be despised by Homo Ludens: the cheater, and the bad sport.


barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

And now for something completely different...

Thought you might enjoy this article from the most recent copy of Books and
Culture. At one point or another, I've discussed this topic with several of
you. Mostly, it's an extended book review and commentary on 4 recent works that
deal with the topic of worship methodology/meaning from a broad
ecumenical and historical perspective.


At Play in the House of the Lord: Why worship matters
by John D. Witvliet

Christians exhibit a peculiar double-mindedness on the subject of worship.
Nothing is as likely to stir passions in local congregations as a proposal
to change the form of worship. Even modest modifications--the introduction
of a hymn in a church that sings all praise songs, for example--can lead to
bitter divisions. And yet at the same time, there is abundant evidence that
the church regards worship as a matter of secondary importance. The typical
survey of the history of Christianity can go on for several hundred pages
with only a passing reference to the worship practices of earlier
Christians. Many works in systematic theology probe the implications of a
given doctrine for personal and social ethics while entirely neglecting its
implications for worship. Many Christian artists, musicians, and architects
save their best work for contexts outside the worshiping assembly. And
worship courses often function as the plankton on the seminary curricular
food chain.

These new works by Bernhard Lang, Frank Senn, Geoffrey Wainwright, and
James White move in a decidedly different direction. As Lang notes, this is
a topic "too intriguing, too puzzling, and too beautiful to be passed over
in silence."

1. The first contribution of these four books is their impressive survey of
the dazzling variety of Christian worship practices. Many of Christianity's
most poignant and colorful moments have happened when believers have
gathered for worship.

Imagine being served daily doses of Origen's allegorizing exegesis in the
schoollike daily worship services in third-century Caesarea. Origen, Lang
teaches us, was a pioneer of exegetical preaching, working through the
entire Old Testament every three years. (Wouldn't Zwingli have been pleased?)

Imagine the terror of standing alongside the self-assured Puritan
iconoclast William Dowsing, whose destructive axe undid centuries' worth of
painstaking artistic craftsmanship in a fortnight. At least, White reminds
us, Dowsing appreciated the intrinsic power of artistic works to shape the
piety of a community, in contrast to many today who view liturgical art as
nothing more than innocuous decoration.

Imagine being overcome by the effervescent energy of Shaker prophetess Ann
Lee, whose "whirling" followers made liturgical dance a community event. As
Lang remarks, worship in North America can be as ecstatic as any the world
has seen.

Imagine the joy and fervor of Roman Catholic worshipers in Zaire who,
following the reforms of Vatican II, have developed a vernacular,
indigenous Missal for the Dioceses of Zaire that unites the solemn
recitation of the ancient Eucharistic prayer with exuberant congregational
dance and vivid African poetic images. The result, Wainwright observes, is
a "splendidly Nicene affirmation . . . in African terms."

No other religion in recorded history features such a dazzling variety of
ritual practices: everything from elaborate Byzantine vigils to exuberant
Methodist frontier camp meetings; from the Dionysian ecstasy of the Toronto
Laughter to the Apollonian reserve of a Presbyterian sermon. Everything
from the trancelike seizures of Maria Woodworth-Etter to the precise
rhetorical patterns of the Book of Common Prayer; from the brilliance of
Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel to the kitsch of burlap banners. Everything
from the serene beauty of a Palestrina motet to the rugged earthiness of an
Appalachian gospel quartet; from the sophisticated majesty of Chartres to
the folk art that adorns a thatched-roof sanctuary; from the enforced
silence of Quaker corporate mysticism to the sustained exuberance of an
African American ring shout sermon.

These four books feature a common desire to look at this landscape with a
wide-angle lens. After a whirlwind tour that crosses continents and
centuries, the thoughtful reader will come away with a deepened sense of
the variety and complexity of Christian worship.

This acknowledgment of diversity is a sign of the maturing of the academic
discipline of liturgical studies. These works demonstrate that the academic
study of Christian worship need not be limited to critical editions of
medieval missals. The discipline of liturgical studies is large enough to
encompass sociologists who compare patterns of liturgical leadership in
Africa and Southeast Asia, intellectual historians who study the
philosophical underpinnings of the rise of baroque architecture or music,
social historians working on the cultural and economic dimensions of
Methodist quarterly meetings or Pentecostal revivals, and theologians
working on the liturgical implications of the doctrine of the Trinity.

This broad view also provides a sturdy basis from which to examine the
complexities of the present period of liturgical change. With the possible
exception of the first centuries after Christ, never before has the church
been reforming its liturgy in so many directions at once. Some churches
have rediscovered historic patterns of worship; many others have
intentionally developed styles labeled "contemporary" or "alternative."
While some churches are busy buying brand-new hymnals, others are
discarding theirs, not to be replaced.

Whether a church is urban or rural, large or small, endowed with many
musical and financial resources or few, whether it is Baptist, Episcopal,
Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Roman Catholic, independent,
or just about anything else, it is probably dealing with the pressure of
change. Some of these changes are so significant that major national media,
including ABC News, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Atlantic
Monthly, Time, and Newsweek, have devoted significant energies to analyzing
them.1 Some churches are approaching such changes eagerly and expectantly;
others are embroiled in "worship wars."2

2. Negotiating these currents of change requires the kind of discernment
and perception that can only be sharpened by careful consideration of how
generations of past Christians have rendered faithful worship in countless
cultural settings. Fortunately, in the hands of these skilled interpreters,
liturgical history becomes not only instructive but also engaging. The
lessons they teach are crucial for understanding the meaning and
significance of Christian worship. Consider two of them.

First, they teach us that liturgy is a universal phenomenon. Despite the
protest of Puritan divine John Cotton ("ceremonies wee use none"), even the
most stubbornly iconoclastic, antiliturgical community soon falls into a
regular rhythm in times and modes of corporate prayer. Even the most
spontaneous service often follows a predictable, if not prescribed,
structure. Saint Peter's Basilica has its liturgy, but so does Willow Creek
Community Church--and so did Azusa Street. See any Christian assembly
through the eyes of a cultural anthropologist and you will notice deep
patterns of actions and community relationships that are routine, even if
not explicitly prescribed. An underlying assumption of all four of these
books might be stated this way: Every community develops deep patterns for
corporate worship. The question every community needs to ask is whether its
patterns of prayer make luminous the full gospel of Christ and enable a
broad range of people to respond with heart, soul, and voice.



Sacred Games: A History
of Christian Worship
by Bernhard Lang
Yale Univ. Press
527 pp.; $40



Second, they teach us that it is remarkably hard for Christian worshipers
to live without a language that is, in some sense, sacramental. Worshipers
in nearly every Christian tradition experience some of what happens in
worship as divine encounter. Differences in Christian worship arise not so
much from whether or not God is understood to be present, but rather in
what sense.

Those who mock supposedly simplistic theories of sacramental realism at the
Lord's Supper wind up preserving sacramental language for preaching or for
music. Speaking only somewhat simplistically: the Roman Catholics reserve
their sacramental language for the Eucharist, Presbyterians reserve theirs
for preaching, and the charismatics save theirs for music. In a recent
pastors' conference, one evangelical pastor solicited applications for a
music director/worship leader position by calling for someone who could
"make God present through music." No medieval sacramental theologian could
have said it more strongly. Dare we call this "musical transubstantiation"?

Only the Enlightenment stands as a counterexample to this thesis. All four
of these books disparage the Enlightenment, suggesting that it robbed the
church of the sense that God acts in and through the public assembly of
Christian people for worship. As White notes, Enlightenment Christians
viewed the sacraments as mere "infrequent pious memory exercises." For
Enlightenment Christians, a worship service was successful if you left it
with one good new thought.

In contrast, postmodern liturgical reform is assiduously focused on the
experience of God's presence. Might this be the unifying theme in such
seemingly heterogeneous forms of worship as the richly symbolic Orthodox
liturgies, the demonstrative physicality of Pentecostal worship, the shock
tactics of high-tech multimedia presentations, and the mantralike refrains
of Taizé?

3. Three of these works come from familiar sources. Geoffrey Wainwright is
a British Methodist by birth who has taught theology on four continents and
is currently professor of theology at Duke University Divinity School. He
writes as a seasoned theologian and ecumenist, self-described as an
"evangelical, orthodox, and catholic" Christian. Worship with One Accord is
a collection of essays that reflects Wainwright's explorations since the
publication of his magisterial systematic theology, Doxology: The Praise of
God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life. These essays investigate such diverse
topics as Irish penitential rites, liturgical reforms in Australia, the
work of French patristic and liturgical scholar Jean Daniélou, Trinitarian
liturgical theology, Wesleyan sacramental theology, liturgical
inculturation, and the relationship between worship and ethics.
Wainwright's overarching argument is that liturgical renewal is a necessary
ingredient in the quest for Christian unity. His goal is to promote what
Rome's Edward Cardinal Cassidy calls "the cause of reunion in historic
Christianity."

James F. White is a Methodist elder who teaches liturgy at the University
of Notre Dame. Christian Worship is a collection of essays chosen from
among his 120 or so published essays from the past 35 years. As with his
earlier volumes--Protestant Worship, Roman Catholic Worship, A Brief
History of Christian Worship, and Introduction to Christian Worship--White
is at his best when summarizing complex movements and figures into
memorable, popular accounts that are accurate as well as accessible. Add to
this White's gift, rarely evidenced in liturgical historiography, for
remaining hospitable when writing about movements and traditions other than
his own and it is no wonder that his works are ubiquitous on syllabi in
seminary worship courses.

White's work also reflects a lifelong interest and expertise in liturgical
art and architecture. After reading White, the observant reader becomes
something of an amateur architectural connoisseur, noting such delicious
historical ironies in Anytown, USA, as the presence of a Georgian Roman
Catholic church alongside a Baptist church in Gothic style.

Frank Senn is a Notre Dame graduate and Lutheran pastor from Evanston,
Illinois. His Christian Liturgy is a chronological liturgical history of
encyclopedic dimensions. With its introductory chapters on ritual theory,
its comprehensive view of liturgical history from Acts 2 to Vatican II,
Senn's work might be thought of as a one-volume summary of a Notre Dame
Ph.D. in liturgical studies.

Senn clearly sees the world through Lutheran spectacles (five of six
chapters on the Reformation period deal primarily with Lutheran churches),
and in contrast to White's neutrality, Senn inserts more critical
commentary and prescriptive directives in his narrative. He promotes robust
symbolic movement, gesture, and action, as well as the traditional
structure or ordo of Western liturgy. Correspondingly, he critiques North
American revivalism in all its forms from Whitefield to Finney to Willow
Creek. The result is always thought-provoking, though the book does feature
occasional oddities, such as placing an analysis of Gothic architecture in
a chapter with the loaded title "Medieval Liturgical Deteriorization."

Taken together, these three volumes represent what has come to be called
the Liturgical Movement among Protestants.3 Senn, White, and Wainwright are
all active participants in ongoing conversations about liturgical reform
among Protestants that have issued from these ecumenical conversations.

The volcanic energy that led up to the enormous changes in Roman Catholic
worship promulgated at Vatican II also sent aftershocks throughout the
Protestant world. As White observes, Vatican II not only led to
Protestantlike reforms in the Roman Catholic church but also provided a
catholic agenda for Protestant liturgical renewal. As Wainwright describes
it, this movement is "a common return to a shared tradition" (note again
his emphasis on ecumenicity).

Symbols of this movement abound: the historical and ecumenical influence on
the new worship books of the Presbyterian and Methodist churches, the
ecumenical acceptance of the Revised Common Lectionary (and the subsequent
boom in the publication of lectionary-based sermon helps and worship
resources), the genesis and growth of the North American Academy of
Liturgy, and the growth of academic programs in the study of worship at the
University of Notre Dame, Drew University, and Saint John's University in
Collegeville, Minnesota.4

The achievements of the Liturgical movement are impressive: mainline
preachers concerned about Scripture, Catholics concerned about preaching,
Protestants concerned about sacraments, and evangelicals concerned about
the early church. The movement has also generated some rich historical
ironies. Consider the growth of the number of Mennonites, Brethren, and
Nazarenes meeting in lectionary study groups, lighting Advent candles, or
holding Ash Wednesday services. And consider the recent spate of works by
Roman Catholic liturgists and theologians that argue for baptism by
immersion.5 So strong is this liturgical convergence in some congregations
that the only observable difference, White quips, is that "Catholics use
real wine, while Protestants use real bread."

In sum, these three works represent the maturing fruit of the Liturgical
Movement among Protestants.

4. These works are joined by a bold and vast work by the German scholar
Bernhard Lang. Not a household name in North American circles, Lang brings
to the conversation new interpretive categories and a wealth of rarely
discussed historical examples.

Sacred Games is a phenomenological study of the "ritual idiom of
Christianity." Lang organizes the book as a series of "six interpretive
essays" based on a "typology of ritual acts" that identifies six
paradigmatic, widely observable actions, six "sacred games": praise,
prayer, sermon, sacrifice, sacrament, and spiritual ecstasy. Unlike the
typical chronological approach to liturgical history, Lang's book is
topically organized, with a dizzying array of historical vignettes
illustrating each of his six categories. This structure frees Lang from the
need to write a comprehensive chronological history (like Senn's). Lang
complements this structure with a cool, dispassionate style that is neither
impressed nor depressed by the peaks and valleys of liturgical history.

The virtues of the analysis are many. For one, Lang laudably treats
biblical descriptions of liturgical events as part of Christian liturgical
history, refusing to drive a wedge between the work of biblical and
patristic scholars. For another, Lang works with an exemplary awareness of
the whole sweep of the history of Christianity. He surveys a history that
spans from ancient Greek and Hebrew culture down to our own day (where else
could you find well-documented analysis of both Augustine and the
Assemblies of God in the same volume?). Sacred Games is a synthetic work of
breathtaking scope. It succeeds in demonstrating how large and complex the
study of liturgy is.

These strengths are diluted by some uneven treatments of historical data.
Lang perpetuates the odd tendency of some Jesus Seminar scholars to
speculate about the ritual life of Jesus. (Why would a scholar who
approaches the history of Origen or Luther or Plato or Finney with a
conservative minimalist treatment of historical data become so speculative
when treating the history of Jesus?) Lang suggests, for example, that the
Lord's Prayer would make more sense if attributed to John the Baptist. He
softens such claims with caveats about their speculative nature, but hardly
answers why such speculation might be necessary in the first place.



Christian Worship in
North America:
A Retrospective, 1955-1995
by James F. White
Liturgical Press
336 pp.; $29.95, paper

Worship with One Accord:
Where Liturgy and
Ecumenism Embrace
by Geoffrey Wainwright
Oxford Univ. Press
276 pp.; $39.95

Christian Liturgy:
Catholic and Evangelical
by Frank C. Senn
Fortress Press
747 pp.; $39.95


Alongside Lang's historical, comparative analysis runs a deeply theological
concern. In the all-too-brief conclusion of the work, he surmises that "two
fundamental attitudes govern behavior in Christian worship." According to
one view, God appears as the distant, majestic Father who must be
approached with solemnity, ceremony, and awe. According to the other, God
appears as a benign, understanding, friendly spirit with whom people can
establish a close relationship.

Like many of Lang's typologies, this one is too simplistic. To say that
some prefer the sublime and solemn while others prefer the popular and
personal is not to advance the discussion very far. Neither a systematic
theologian nor a trained liturgist can be satisfied with this false
dichotomy. Nevertheless, the distinction is sufficient to make one basic
point clear: worship practices inevitably reflect implicit theological
commitments.

The most interesting sections of Lang's book are those that deal not with
musicians or artists or prayer texts but rather with Christianity's most
venerable theologians. Lang consistently demonstrates how most front-line
theologians throughout the history of the church have had a clear sense of
how their theology would affect liturgy.

Two of Lang's examples make this point memorably. For one, Lang includes a
photograph of the Reformed Christuskirche in Eiserfeld, Germany. This
space, marked by stark sobriety, managed the difficult feat of earning the
approval of Karl Barth. The space, in fact, provides an apt visual
representation of Barth's theology of proclamation.

For another, Lang uncovers the rarely described liturgical prescriptions
offered by Rudolf Otto. Otto's Idea of the Holy is well known, but it is
only rarely acknowledged that Otto's Mysterium tremendum is not merely a
theological construct but also a liturgical experience. The significance of
Otto's work cannot be missed in his recipe for liturgical reform: Remove
references to the human Jesus and culminate worship not with the Eucharist
but with mystical, silent contemplation of the majestic, high, and holy
deity.

In exploring the relationship between theology and liturgy, Lang concludes
by presenting a thesis with which Senn, White, and Wainwright would most
certainly agree. Without citing it, Lang's whole project is an exploration
of the wisdom of the ancient maxim: lex orandi, lex credendi, the rule of
prayer is the rule of belief. Theology and liturgy, prayer and belief are
inextricably intertwined. Corporate worship is an occasion when a
community's most cherished beliefs and instinctive modes of response to God
are on display. As Dutch phenomenologist Gerardus van der Leeuw once
remarked, "One can't tap the finger of liturgy without immediately getting
the whole hand of theology."

5. Watching Lang read the theology implicit in worship practices leads the
thoughtful reader to wonder about worship in her own congregation. Once the
link between theology and worship is exposed, dozens of unsettling
questions arise. Why do churches with a high doctrine of Scripture often
feature so little Scripture reading in Sunday worship? What about a church
that confesses the power of the Word of God and then demands that its
preacher use either high-gloss rhetoric or emotional manipulation to talk
people into the kingdom? What about a church that holds to a Chalcedonian
Christology, but whose hymns praise only the human Jesus? What about the
church that proclaims a gospel of grace and then implies that true worship
demands that one conjure up certain emotions? What about the church that
confesses that God is both transcendent and personal but only sings songs
that emphasize one of these attributes? What about churches with a high
view of creation that nervously dismiss the contributions of visual
artists? It turns out that that there are liturgical correlates for
Pelagianism, Arianism, and, indeed, nearly the whole constellation of
classic Christian heresies. Yes, going to church may be harmful to your
spiritual health.

The "lived theology" of a church, tradition, or congregation--that is, the
working notion that most Christians have of God, creation, and their
relations--is shaped not only by clerical pronouncements, edicts, or
imprimaturs, or by documents published in a book, journal, or on the
Internet. The lived theology of a community is shaped, at least in
significant measure, by what happens in public worship. In Wainwright's
words, Christian worship is both "an expression and a school of faith"; it
both reflects and shapes Christian theology.

Analyzing a subject as profound and many sided as worship requires a
concept or image that is at once apt and startling. The image of worship as
a game is certainly not the last word. It may suggest something altogether
too casual, trivial, or shallow. At the same time, with a healthy sense of
its potential pitfalls, the image provides at least a provocative first word.

Like a game--or a good novel--worship enfolds us for a time into a way of
seeing the world. It is the one hour in the week when an entire community
acknowledges a world where God rules, where evil is named, where hope
abounds, where the Spirit is on the move.
Like a game, worship can only be learned by doing. A long afternoon of
reading the baseball rulebook will not help you execute a well-placed bunt.
So too, hours of catechetical instruction can not fully prepare you for the
joy and mystery of participation at the Lord's Table.
Finally, like a good game, worship is joyful business. As Romano Guardini
has observed, worship at its best features "a sublime mingling of profound
earnestness and divine joyfulness."
Here then are four books that depict worship as playful but not trifling.

John D. Witvliet directs the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship at
Calvin College.

1. See, for example, Gustav Niebuhr and Paul Goldberger, "Megachurches," a
four-part series in the New York Times, April 16, 18, 20, and 29, 1995;
Charles Truehart, "Welcome to the Next Church," Atlantic Monthly (August
1996), pp. 37-57; and Mary Rourke, "Redefining Religion in America," Los
Angeles Times, June 21, 1998.
2. This was the title of a theme issue of Dialog, Vol. 33 (Summer 1994).

3. For a description of this as a distinct movement, see John Fenwick and
Bryan Spinks, Worship in Transition: The Liturgical Movement in the
Twentieth Century (Continuum, 1995), and Kathleen Hughes, How Firm a
Foundation: Voices of the Early Liturgical Movement (Liturgy Training
Publications, 1990).

4. See Book of Common Worship (Westminster John Knox Press, 1993) and The
United Methodist Book of Worship (United Methodist Publishing House, 1992),
For more on the graduate program at Notre Dame, see James F. White, "Thirty
Years of the Doctoral Program in Liturgical Studies at the University of
Notre Dame, 1965-1995," in Nathan Mitchell and John F. Baldovin, eds., Rule
of Prayer, Rule of Faith: Essays in Honor of Aidan Kavanagh, O.S.B.
(Liturgical Press, 1996).

5. See, for example, Regina Kuehn, A Place for Baptism (Liturgy Training
Publications, 1992), and S. Anita Stauffer, Re-examining Baptismal Fonts:
Baptismal Space for the Contemporary Church (Liturgical Press, 1991).
-------------------------
Online address:
http://www.christianity.net/bc/current/
-------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

Regarding Helprin:

I was recommended "A Winter's Tale" about five years ago.  Took me 18
months just to find a copy.  I cannot claim the status of "Well Read,"
but that book was as engaging as anything I've read in the last 4 years.
Without reservation, I encourage you to purchase a copy.  I believe the
copy I found was a new edition by Doubleday (or HBJ?)

Patrick Lafferty

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

mark--

<<There is no such
thing as excessive capitalism (which is really just a way of saying there
can ever be too little government regulation), provided markets are kept
open and free. >>

but it is of course the definition of what it means to keep a market open
and free that is the matter of contention, right? viz:


<<monopolies in any meaningful sense don't exist apart from
government, that is, apart from the coercieve power of the state>>

interesting! did you check out the TidBITS articles on the microsoft
antitrust case? there's quite a bit of technical stuff in there that I just
skimmed over, but the monopoly/trust issues are compelling, especially
as he explores the relevance of a law made in the industrial era to a
situation in the info era, in which bundling a product doesn't add to the
cost at all -- once r&d is spent the product *itself* can be produced for
virtually nothing. i'd love to hear your thoughts on his conclusions....

http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-456.html
--

barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

Soldier of the Great War is about a sometimes professor of aesthetics who
serves in the Italian army, that is, when he's not a deserter or POW, during
WW1.  It essentially goes over the main character's whole life.  It is truly
brilliant.  Each paragraph is worthy of memorization, as it always contains
some amazing metaphor, poetic language, etc.

My wife and I both really enjoyed this book.  I also just picked up Winter's
Tale, by Helprin not Shakespeare, of course.  My wife gets the first run at
this tome, and then me.  Also reading a biography of one of the great
statesmen/bookworms in US history, John Quincy Adams, and to top it off, de
Gaulle's war memoirs, all highly recommended.  Heroic virtues are very much in
my mind these days, though certainly not in my actions.....If you can't be it,
at least you can read about it.  Very best regards to all, Mark Cole
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

<<It appears to me from what I've read that the real discussion is what is
wrong with Asia and what is needed to fix what is wrong.  Am I
right?>>

wellll, actually it all started with a comment about whether Keynes was
still, or ever, relevant. But the Asia topic is certainly a hot one, especially
for theory wonks like us!


<<By the way, Mark [Cole, that is -- b], you must be an economist.  Lay
people "generally" don't delve that deep into the theory of currency
boards.  For that matter, most economists don't.>>

ahhhh, but that is the nature of the polymath Mr Cole, a lawyer by trade!


<<problems really permeate all of society, government, culture and
geography.  To say that any one problem is the major concern is to
ignore the factors needed to solve the problem.>>

good point. that's what makes economics such a frustrating science: there
*is no* laboratory, where variables can be isolated.


<<Any type of structure that ties your system to that of another decreases
your options to deal with any potential problems when they arise. >>

but couldn't the opposite case be made as well? the more isolated you are,
the less chance you stand of getting help -- a cord of three strands is not
as easily broken....this was part of Keynes' thrust: we're in it together, so
there's less of a chance of any individual country having a complete
disaster alone, because the self-interest of the other countries dictates that
they mitigate the loss, if they can.

Ah, if they can...


<<The Geographic characteristics
lead many of the countries to be dependent on certain items vital to
success.  In Indonesia, it's rice, Japan it's oil, etc.  Trade is vital, and
thus
financial flu can spread quickly through open trade mechanisms.  This is
not capitalism run amuck, just a downside to trade.>>

interesting; I might not have thought to factor that in.


<<The accounting structure of many of these countries does not
recognize bankruptcy. >>

WHATT???  how on earth? this is new to me -- what happens?


barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

howdy, mark--

<<Who has read this guy?  I have only read his political stuff, mostly op
eds and speeches (he wrote the Dole convention speech -- too bad he
couldn't deliver it, also).  But I also read Soldier of the Great War,
which I would thoroughly recommend to everyone.>>

I've heard the name, but honestly couldn't tell you a dang thing about
him. What's Soldier of the Great War about? (besides the obvious!)
--

barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

Who has read this guy?  I have only read his political stuff, mostly op eds
and speeches (he wrote the Dole convention speech -- too bad he couldn't
deliver it, also).  But I also read Soldier of the Great War, which I would
thoroughly recommend to everyone.

This guy is a brilliant, brilliant young writer.  Please comment, anyone.
Mark Cole
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

Keynes knew Versalles would paralyze Germany and piss them off, in short.

For the record:  I am a Thatcherite, no doubt about that.  There is no such
thing as excessive capitalism (which is really just a way of saying there can
ever be too little government regulation), provided markets are kept open and
free. To the extent that government intervention is necessary, it is only
necessary to ensure competition, enforce contracts, etc.  Which brings us to
antitrist:  Too much to get into here, but let me say this:  monopolies in any
meaningful sense don't exist apart from government, that is, apart from the
coercieve power of the state, apart from guns.  How's that for making an
inflammatory, conclusory statement?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

>Well Barry here I am.  You wanted me to chime in on the Keynes discussion.  It
appears to me from what I've read that the real discussion is what is wrong with
Asia and what is needed to fix what is wrong.  Am I right?

By the way, Mike, you must be an economist.  Lay people "generally" don't delve
that deep into the theory of currency boards.  For that matter, most economists
don't.

If Asia is what we are/were talking about, I have a few observations.  Although
there are monetary problems galore, problems really permiate all of society,
government, culture and geography.  To say that any one problem is the major
concern is to ignore the factors needed to solve the problem.

A disertation could be written about this subject; in fact the IMF has written
thousands of pages on the topic.  Generally, though, there are several
categories of problems.  (1) The monetary problems exist inherently in the
pegged and fixed exchange rate structures in many different Asian countries. 
Any type of structure that ties your system to that of another decreases your
options to deal with any potential problems when they arise.  In one form or
another, you are tying your hands behind your back. (2)  The political structure
in many of the Asian countries is a mixture of capitalism and the previous
structure in place prior to WWII.  In many cases, a form of kingdom.  What
emerged is a form of controlled capitalism.  Democracy, but controlled by a core
family or group.  Nepotism and government controlled by small groups is common. 
Even with the ousting of Suharto, no one really believes he is out of control at
this point. (3)Cultural issues also lie at the core of the crisis.  There is a
phrase is Indonesian, which loosely translated, means don't disturb the father's
(boss) day.  In other words, we don't like bad news.  That is why, in 1996,
Suharto did not know that 1/6 of his country was burning to ashes for six weeks.
The US culture would push people and resources at the problem until it was
solved and then carry on.  This proactive attitude is one of the most beneficial
attributes of our economy. (4)  The accounting structure of many of these
countries does not recognize bankruptcy.  How can you regenerate both ideas and
employment without allowing a company to go out of business, or at least write
off bad debts?  The accounting structure in many of the countries also does not
accomodate credit checks.  There is no rating agency to get loans.  You have to
know someone or be tied somehow to the government.  This of course leads to
misdirected loans, ones that do not necessarily lead to economic value. (5)  The
Geogrphic characteristics lead many of the countries to be dependent on certain
items vital to success.  In Indonesia, it's rice, Japan it's oil, etc.  Trade is
vital, and thus financial flu can spread quickly through open trade mechanisms. 
This is not capitalism run amuck, just a downside to trade. (6)  Past history of
success also leads to a lax attitude with investors who don't do thier homework.
The tremendous amount of success leads to superfulous amounts of capital
entering the countries, which leads to further developement plans that do not
make economic sense (because they are government driven, not objectively.) 
Asset price inflation occurs because so much money is pouring into the region
that prices rise.  And the countries economies are too small to handle the
continuous stream of new capital.

That is a nut shell description of some of the problems Asia is facing.  And
understandably, this will take several years, if not decades, to completely work
itself out.

Have a happy Turkey day.  I'll check in after tomorrow.

Tim




-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/inpeople/?start=11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

hey jeff--

my response is, yeah yeah.....several folks fwded this to me, and I'm not
exactly sure *how* to respond, but here are some things I immediately
notice:


<<<We also believe, as affirmed in the Nuremberg
Trials, that servicemen are not bound to obey illegal orders. But what
about orders given by a known criminal?  Should we trust in the integrity
of directives given by a president who violates the same basic oath we
take?  Should we be asked to follow a morally defective leader with a
demonstrated disregard for his troops?  The answer is no>>>

This is the kind of talking that is "noble" in the most dangerous way.
Upon a moment's examination, we can see that the orders given by a
known criminal may very well be excellent ones. This is a prime example
of why ad hominem reasoning is considered by logicians to be a fallacy.
The man's orders should be considered on their own merit rather than on
our judgements of his character.

(And by and large, they are. The bombing of the terrorists a while back
was considered to be a diversionary tactic, not because we all jumped to
the conclusion that he was trying to distract us, but rather because it
seemed capricious and sudden considering Clinton's movements in the
past 6 years. So we *then* figured that it was diversionary. Rabin in fact
also considered this decision on its own merit:

       that this president --who ignores national security
       interests, who appeases Iraq and North Korea, and
       who fights like a leftover Soviet the idea of an American
       missile defense -- actually believed in the need for
       immediate military strikes, was simply implausible.

Nonetheless, Clinton was working with a number of military advisers --
people who, it is repeatedly pointed out, even by GI Joe here, don't
particularly care for the man or his policies -- and was following as well
as leading.)

And, in the meantime, if a Hitler arose, and we found ourselves in
another WWII (that is, an enormously popular war with distinct
black-and-white boundaries), wouldn't this guy fall in as Clinton led and
Congress declared war? The integrity of Clinton's directives may be
judged of themselves. And as for morally defective leaders, what needs to
be said? Military history is full of leaders who were defective in matters
far graver than diddling with a subordinate, and yet who somehow
managed to be effective. Effectiveness, in that sense, isn't related at all to
the person's moral character.

Every soldier knows that you follow the *order*, regardless of how
beloved or upright the sergeant is. (Or, almost every soldier.)


<<<certainly Bill Clinton has never been the military's favorite
president.....plenty of anecdotal evidence of this administration's
contempt for the armed forces.>>>

Well, again. Ours is a government of laws rather than of people, and that
is obvious in the military perhaps more than elsewhere. If your CO is a
lyin', cheatin' son-of-a-gun, you still follow his order, you still say Yes
Sir, and you still salute --- you're saluting the office, not the man. And
when you interact with the President, you speak with respect for the same
reason. You're dealing, actually, with the *Presidency*; it's the office
that demands respect. Certainly, Clinton is no worse *as a guy* than
other presidents (we keep hearing JFK mentioned) -- what makes this
situation different isn't even the fact that he covered it up (JFK did that
too): it's the particular tactical choices of involvement with a subordinate,
on White House property, that have rankled.

Speaking of which, let's also point out that the reference to Clinton as a
"criminal," a favorite phrase of his critics, does ring a little hollow.
After all, Starr and co. set out to investigate whitewater, travel-office
dishonesty, and dishonesty with FBI files, and came up with nothing but
what is commonly called a "perjury trap" (something that is, btw,
relatively recent in that the "exculpatory denial," a survival response, did
not count as perjury till about 20 years ago).


<<<It is no coincidence that the media have played up one
military scandal after another during the Clinton years.>>>

would this be the *liberal media*?  :-')


<<<This politically-driven shift of focus, from the military mission to
the therapeutic wants of fringe groups,>>>

enough!! So many female military personnel have been so atrociously
treated, even recently, that to use that term "therapeutic" derogatorily is,
to say the least, suspect. Especially in light of Major Rabil's deployment,
regarding Chief Boorda, of the Dead-Poet's-Society-suicide-blame-trick.


<<<As officers and gentlemen, we have therefore continued to march,
pretending to respect our hypocrite-in-chief. >>>

If this is true, Major Rabil is not just wrong but bad. If his respect for
the office of commander-in-chief was a pretense, then he is less of a
soldier than he wants to be. (Not to mention badly in need of an
American Civics lesson.)

A uniform is not a pretense of bravery but rather a mantle of bravery;
and when Oliver North salutes Ronald Reagan that isn't a pretense of
respect. It is an acknowledgment of the mantle that each has taken. When
the President gives an order that our young men and women go fight an
enemy, he does so with a force of office that no human could live up to.
But, as with Truman, the force belongs with the office.


<<<When Ronald Reagan's ill-fated Beirut mission led
to the careless loss of 241 Marines in a single bombing, few questioned
his love of country and his overriding concern for American interests.
But should Mr. Clinton lead us into military conflict, he would do so,
incredibly, without any such trust.>>>

Few, indeed, questioned the immoral war in Nicaragua. Perhaps that
American constituency of flag-waving emotionalism could use a civics
lesson as well:  if more of us really wanted a government of laws rather
than people, and insisted on good policy as well as lip-trembling
renditions of the Star-Spangled Banner, maybe the world would be a
better place.


<<<What might his motives be in some future conflict? Blackmail?
Cheap political payoffs? Or -- dare I say it -- simply the
lazy blundering of an instinctively anti-American man?>>>

But that's just it -- no matter *what* his motives are, the real question is,
Is this the right decision in this conflict? And we can be confident that the
president will in fact have to answer to the American people, and answer
in terms that satisfy *that* question, rather than the question of his
personal motive.

For instance, George Bush's motives in the Gulf War, in August of 90,
arguably had a *lot* to do with end-running the budget argument, and a
*lot* to do with oil. (This is apparent in his first speeches to Congress on
the subject.) But nonetheless, he had to make the war defensible on a
broader basis -- Hussein must be stopped --  and upon that basis the vast
majority of the American people were behind him all the way, disgusted
as we may have been at the convenient timing of it.

And speaking of what the vast majority of the American people think,
Rabin uses the term "instinctively anti-American" at an unfortunate point
in his argument. After all, *the* defining American ideal is democracy,
and in this democracy some 65 percent of the constituents think Clinton,
though a jerk in personal life, is doing just fine as president, and should
remain in office.  We're also, though,  a democracy that cherishes and
protects the minority opinion, luckily for Rabil.


<<<try keeping a straight face while watching mandated Navy sexual
harassment videos>>>

How about if I try to keep a straight face while talking about "The
enduring goodness of the American military character over the past two
centuries."



barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

<<<If he was for a currency board, then, as far as monetary
policy goes, he was OK (monetary policy not being the whole of
economics, but important).>>>

so true -- you've also got trade regulations, tax laws, sitcoms, ...virtually
everything has some economic impact. (at least while we're here in
Wotan's world!!)


<<<And, of course, Keynes was dead on about Versailles and had we
listened to him, we might not have had WWII.  No quesstion about
that.>>

what did he say about Versailles?


<<<my real beef was not with Keynes, as such, but, rather, with those
folks who say that Asia was caused by wild, uncontrolled capitalism ...[ as
opposed to]... a disastrous monetary policy>>>

hmmm--I know you've always spoken with great approval of Thatcher
and of anyone implementing thatcherite policies: do you think there *is*
such a thing as capitalism gone awry, or that it will if not controlled?

--

barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

>a number of economists
>are wanting to go back and put K's original proposals into practice -- >kind of
like they did with Orson Welles's "Touch of Evil." Which I still
>haven't seen.
> --
>
> barry


<<<by cleverly deleting Henry Mancini's score, Orson Welles aims to
explain in economic terms how banning the market failed in Russia. Oh
wait, that's Skidelsky.>>>

alllllright!!!!!   actually, has anyone seen the restored version? I think it's
still on here in SA for another few days.

barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

Comments?

Jeffrey J. Walker
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please, impeach my commander in chief
By Daniel J. Rabil

The American military is subject to civilian control, and we deeply
believe in that principle. We also believe, as affirmed in the Nuremberg
Trials, that servicemen are not bound to obey illegal orders. But what
about orders given by a known criminal?  Should we trust in the integrity
of directives given by a president who violates the same basic oath we
take?  Should we be asked to follow a morally defective leader with a
demonstrated disregard for his troops?  The answer is no, for implicit in
the voluntary oath that all servicemen take is the promise that they will
receive honorable civilian leadership. Bill Clinton has violated that
covenant. It is therefore Congress' duty to remove him from office. I do
not claim to speak for all service members, but certainly Bill Clinton
has never been the military's favorite president.  Long before the Starr
report, there was plenty of anecdotal evidence of this administration's
contempt for the armed forces. Yes, Mr. Clinton was a lying draft dodger,
yes his staffers have been anti-military, and yes, he breezily ruins the
careers of senior officers who speak up or say politically incorrect
things. Meanwhile, servicemen are now in jail for sex crimes less
egregious than those Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey say Mr. Clinton
committed.  Mr. Clinton and his supporters do not care in the least about
the health of our armed forces. Hateful of a traditional military culture
they never deigned to study, Mr. Clinton's disingenuous feminist,
homosexual and racial activist friends regard the services as mere
political props, useful only for showcasing petty identity group
grievances. It is no coincidence that the media have played up one
military scandal after another during the Clinton years. This
politically-driven shift of focus, from the military mission to the
therapeutic wants of fringe groups, has taken its toll: Partly because of
Mr. Clinton's impossibly Orwellian directives, Chief of Naval Operations
Jay Boorda committed suicide.  So Clinton has weakened the services and
fostered a corrosive anti-military culture. This may be loathsome, but it
is not impeachable, particularly if an attentive Congress can limit the
extent of Clinton-induced damage. As officers and gentlemen, we have
therefore continued to march, pretending to respect our
hypocrite-in-chief. Then came the Paula Jones perjury and the ensuing
Starr Report. I have always known that Clinton was integrity-impaired,
but I never thought even he could be so depraved, so contemptuous, as to
conduct military affairs as was described in the special prosecutor's
report to Congress.  In that report, we learn of a telephone conversation
between Mr. Clinton and a congressman in which the two men discussed our
Bosnian
deployment. During that telephone discussion, the Commander-in-Chief's
pants were unzipped, and Monica Lewinsky was busy saving him the cost of
a prostitute.  This is the president of the United States of America?
Should soldiers not feel belittled and worried by this?  We deserve
better. When Ronald Reagan's ill-fated Beirut mission led
to the careless loss of 241 Marines in a single bombing, few questioned
his love of country and his overriding concern for American interests.
But should Mr. Clinton lead us into military conflict, he would do so,
incredibly, without any such trust. After the recent American missile
attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan, my instant reaction was outrage, for I
instinctively presumed that Mr. Clinton was trying to knock Miss
Lewinsky's concurrent grand jury testimony out of the headlines. The
alternative, that this president --who ignores national security
interests, who appeases Iraq and North Korea, and who fights like a
leftover Soviet the idea of an American missile defense -- actually
believed in the need for immediate military strikes, was simply
implausible. And no amount of scripted finger wagging, lip biting, or
mention of The Children by this highly skilled perjurer can convince me
otherwise.  In other words, Mr. Clinton has demonstrated that he will
risk war, terrorist attacks, and our lives just to save his dysfunctional
administration. What might his motives be in some future conflict?
Blackmail? Cheap political payoffs? Or -- dare I say it -- simply the
lazy blundering of an instinctively anti-American man? It is immoral to
impose such untrustworthy leadership on a fighting force. It will no
doubt be considered extreme to raise the question of whether this
president is a national security risk, but I must. I do not believe
presidential candidates should be required to undergo background
investigations, as is normal for service members. I do know, however,
that Bill Clinton would not pass such a screening.  Recently, I received
a phone call from a military investigator, who asked me a variety of
character-related questions about a fellow Marine reservist. The Marine,
who is also a friend, needed to update his top-secret clearance.
Afterward, I called him. We marveled how lowly reservists like us must
pass complete background checks before
routine deployments, yet the guardian of our nation's nuclear button
would raise a huge red flag on any such security report. We joked that my
friend's security clearance would have been permanently canceled if I had
said to the investigator, "Well, Rick spent the Vietnam years smoking pot
and leading protests against his country in Britain. His
hobbies are lying and adultery. His brother's a cocaine dealer, and oh,
yeah -- he visited the Soviet Union for unknown reasons, while his
countrymen were getting killed in Vietnam."  Do I show disrespect for
this president? Perhaps it depends on the
meaning of the word "this."  If Clinton were merely a spoiled leftist
taking advantage of our free society, a la Jane Fonda, that would be one
thing. But you don't make an atheist pope, and you don't keep a corrupt
security risk as commander- in-chief. The enduring goodness of the
American military character over the past two centuries does not
automatically derive from our nation's nutritional habits or from a good
job benefits package. This character must be developed and supported, or
it will die. Already we are seeing declining enlistment and a 1970s-style
disdain for military service, squandering the real progress made during
the purposeful 1980s. Our military's heart and soul can survive lean
budgets, but they cannot long survive in an America that would tolerate
such a character as now occupies the Oval Office. We are entitled to a
leader who at least respects us -- not one who cannot be bothered to
remove his penis from a subordinate's mouth long enough to discuss our
deployment to a combat zone. To subject our services to such debased
leadership is nothing less than the collective spit of the entire nation
upon our faces.  Bill Clinton has always been a moral coward. He has
always had contempt for the American military. He has always had a
questionable
security background. Since taking office, he has ignored defense issues,
except as serves the destructive goals of his extremist supporters. His
behavior with Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey was bizarre and deranged --
try keeping a straight face while watching mandated Navy sexual
harassment videos, knowing that the president's
own conduct violates historic service rules to the point of absurdity.
For a while, it was almost possible to laugh off Mr. Clinton's
hedonistic, "college protester" values. But now that we have clear
evidence that he perjured himself and corrupted others to cover up his
lies, Bill Clinton is no longer funny. He is dangerous. William J.
Clinton, perhaps the most selfish man ever to disgrace our presidency,
will not resign.  I therefore risk my commission, as our generals will
not, to urge this of Congress: Remove this stain from our White House.
Banish him from further office. For God's sake, do your duty.

Daniel J. Rabil is a major in the Marine Corps Reserve.
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

Barry--Your observations about Keynes are probably right, I've only read the
guy second hand.  If he was for a currency board, then, as far as monetary
policy goes, he was OK (monetary policy not being the whole of economics, but
important).  And, of course, Keynes was dead on about Versailles and had we
listened to him, we might not have had WWII.  No quesstion about that.

I guess my real beef was not with Keynes, as such, but, rather, with those
folks who say that Asia was caused by wild, uncontrolled capitalism.  Asia, as
Friedman argues was caused by a disastrous monetary policy -- an observation
which, if I understand correctly, Keynes himself would agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

Friedman aside, a number of economists
are wanting to go back and put K's original proposals into practice -- kind of
like they did with Orson Welles's "Touch of Evil." Which I still
haven't seen.
> --
>
> barry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

by cleverly deleting Henry Mancini's score, Orson Welles aims to explain in
economic terms how banning the market failed in Russia. Oh wait, that's
Skidelsky. Seriously: this exchange is fascinating... wanna learn more.

-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/inpeople/?start=6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

hey mark --

sorry about the double-post (and so much for the 90-second turnaround)!
Anyway, interesting thoughts, and I must confess that in the area of
economics I can barely keep my head above water.....


<<<The core of the Friedman argument was this:  a country cannot have
free capital movement, a fixed exchange system, and an independent
domestic monetary policy. >>>

Yes -- and Keynes wanted a and b but not c, right?  If I have it right, his
suggestion was to have a board *like* the IMF, except with real
regulatory power, the idea being that it's always better to put a fence at
the top of a cliff than a hospital at the bottom.  So your observation about
precipitating a crisis so they can bail it out shows how *un*-keynesian the
current situation is.


<<<Under influence of the IMF adopted a system of free capital
movement and, not a fixed exchange, but a pegged change .............under
a pegged system, it is never clear whether such a deficit is transitory or a
precursor to something much worse.  The inevitable result is always,
always, always massive devaluation.>>>

I'm afraid I don't understand this concept at all -- explain?? anyone?


<<< Risky loans are encouraged as the IMF will always act as an
insurer.>>>

yeah-- and there's a whole school of folks who say that we should just
abolish it entirely because it just makes those risky investors feel secure
-- sort of like the s&l thing.


<<<Asia needs more capitalism, not less.  More Friedman, less Keynes.
>>>

but arguably, what they might need is more real Keynes. America was
loathe to accept keynes's proposals as they were, and K was ready to
compromise in the name of getting *something* happening. But what
he'd recommend now is an active, though controlled, capitalism. (In fact,
there's a real possibility that, Friedman aside, a number of economists
are wanting to go back and put K's original proposals into practice --
kind of like they did with Orson Welles's "Touch of Evil." Which I still
haven't seen.
--

barry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

hey, did you see the article in the New Yorker recently about John
Maynard Keynes?? There was a great quote in there by him, about
telephones, that rings truer in the digital age than ever......

anyway, Mark Cole (a high-powered Houston lawyer) and I have had an
exchange or two about keynes.  Here's  a sally from him.

(btw, if you want to contribute your thoughts, I think we have it set up so
that all you have to do is hit reply to this message, and it'll go to all of us.
the <To:> box should say <inpeople@egroups.com>.
--

barry

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There was an article in the WSJ by Milton Friedman a few weeks ago
explaining how the Asian mess was essentially a monetary crisis
precipitated by policy preferences pushed by the IMF, continually
justifying its existence by precipitating crisis and then bailing out private
banks.  The core of the Friedman argument was this:  a country cannot
have free capital movement, a fixed exchange system, and an independent
domestic monetary policy.  South Korea and Thailand, however tried, as
did the UK in '67, Chile in early '80s, and Mexico in 1995.  All of which
ended in monetary crisis, as you know.

One solution is to adopt a fixed exchange  + free capital movement (i.e.,
no independent domestic monetary policy).  There are two ways to adopt
a fixed exchange.  First, adopt a unified currency, such as the states in the
US have done (i.e., we use dollars in CA and in TX, and this is what the
Euro participants will do).  Or, adopt a fixed exchange by adopting a
currency board (Hong Kong and Argentina).  Whether adopting a unified
currency or a currency board, the key is that there is one central bank.
In Europe this is Euro Central Bank, in US for all states it is the federal
reserve (and same for those countries who fix their currency to the
dollar).

However, Asian countries, rather than trying to avoid the trilemma, tried
to ignore it.  Under influence of the IMF adopted a system of free capital
movement and, not a fixed exchange, but a pegged change (which allows
more latitude, but not not a free floating exchange, which would also
work).  Under a fixed system, if, for example, Argentina, has a balance
of payments deficit - that is, if dollar receipts from abroad [exports] are
less than payments due abroad [imports]- the quantity of currency (high
powered or base money) automatically goes down.  That brings pressure
on the economy to reduce foreign payments [imports] and increase
foreign receipts [exports].  The economy cannot evade the discipline of
external transactions; it must adjust.

Under the pegged system favored by the IMF and urged onto Asian
countries, by contrast, when Thailand had a balance of payments deficit,
the Bank of Thailand did not have to reduce the quantity of high powered
money.  It could evade the discipline of external transactions, at least for
a time, by drawing on its dollar reserves or borrowing dollars from
abroad to finance the deficit.

Here's the punch line:  under a pegged system, it is never clear whether
such a deficit is transitory or a precursor to something much worse.  The
inevitable result is always, always, always massive devaluation.  Just as in
Mexico.  Just as in Thailand, and then Indonesia.

As long as a country sticks to a true fixed exchange system (or a floating
one, as in Malaysia or Australia where the Asian crisis didn't really
spread), there is no crisis, and no need for IMF.  Finally, the IMF bailout
of private banks in Mexico who could not be repaid (they had made
dollar loans to Mexico which couldn't be repaid, which led to internal
recession followed, higher prices, sharply reduced income) encouraged
the onset of the Asian crisis by moral hazard.  Risky loans are
encouraged as the IMF will always act as an insurer.

Bad policy driven by a quasi-governmental entity who intervenes to bail
out private bankruptcy (i.e., socialism?) thereby justifying its own
existence is not exactly capitalism run amok.  Asia needs more capitalism,
not less.

More Friedman, less Keynes.  Or so I see it, at any rate.

Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

There was an article in the WSJ by Milton Friedman a few weeks ago explaining
how the Asian mess was essentially a monetary crisis precipitated by policy
preferences pushed by the IMF, continually justifying its existence by
precipitating crisis and then bailing out private banks.  The core of the
Friedman argument was this:  a country cannot have free capital movement, a
fixed exchange system, and an independent domestic monetary policy.  South
Korea and Thailand, however tried, as did the UK in '67, Chile in early '80s,
and Mexico in 1995.  All of which ended in monetary crisis, as you know.

One solution is to adopt a fixed exchange  + free capital movement (i.e., no
independent domestic monetary policy).  There are two ways to adopt a fixed
exchange.  First, adopt a unified currency, such as the states in the US have
done (i.e., we use dollars in CA and in TX, and this is what the Euro
participants will do).  Or, adopt a fixed exchange by adopting a currency
board (Hong Kong and Argentina).  Whether adopting a unified currency or a
currency board, the key is that there is one central bank.  In Europe this is
Euro Central Bank, in US for all states it is the federal reserve (and same
for those countries who fix their currency to the dollar).

However, Asian countries, rather than trying to avoid the trilemma, tried to
ignore it.  Under influence of the IMF adopted a system of free capital
movement and, not a fixed exchange, but a pegged change (which allows more
latitude, but not not a free floating exchange, which would also work).  Under
a fixed system, if, for example, Argentina, has a balance of payments deficit
- that is, if dollar receipts from abroad [exports] are less than payments due
abroad [imports]- the quantity of currency (high powered or base money)
automatically goes down.  That brings pressure on the economy to reduce
foreign payments [imports] and increase foreign receipts [exports].  The
economy cannot evade the discipline of external transactions; it must adjust.

Under the pegged system favored by the IMF and urged onto Asian countries, by
contrast, when Thailand had a balance of payments deficit, the Bank of
Thailand did not have to reduce the quantity of high powered money.  It could
evade the discipline of external transactions, at least for a time, by drawing
on its dollar reserves or borrowing dollars from abroad to finance the
deficit.

Here's the punch line:  under a pegged system, it is never clear whether such
a deficit is transitory or a precursor to something much worse.  The
inevitable result is always, always, always massive devaluation.  Just as in
Mexico.  Just as in Thailand, and then Indonesia.

As long as a country sticks to a true fixed exchange system (or a floating
one, as in Malaysia or Australia where the Asian crisis didn't really spread),
there is no crisis, and no need for IMF.  Finally, the IMF bailout of private
banks in Mexico who could not be repaid (they had made dollar loans to Mexico
which couldn't be repaid, which led to internal recession followed, higher
prices, sharply reduced income) encouraged the onset of the Asian crisis by
moral hazard.  Risky loans are encouraged as the IMF will always act as an
insurer.

Bad policy driven by a quasi-governmental entity who intervenes to bail out
private bankruptcy (i.e., socialism?) thereby justifying its own existence is
not exactly capitalism run amok.  Asia needs more capitalism, not less.

More Friedman, less Keynes.  Or so I see it, at any rate.

Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

hello, folks---

in case you joined the list late, there's a great discussion on private
conscience and the public square, at
<http://www.eGroups.com/list/inpeople/>.

In the meantime, here's an article in the lates issue of TidBITS, a weekly
thingie for Mac users, about the Microsoft antitrust suit. I've never really
seen a clear discussion of the issues geared toward a general-interest
audience, so this is really neat. (It's only part one of two.)

<http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-455.html#lnk3>

Of course, it's by a mac user, written for mac users, but on the other
hand I'm not sure what that means.....we do tend to think of Bill Gates as
The Beast, but we're not nearly so mean about him as the poor folks who
have to use his product; I've always heard more vitriol from Windows
folks.  And of course Apple *is* a subsidiary of Microsoft, so our fate is
tied in with the machine of death whether we like it or not. (and btw isn't
office 98, along with ie, built into new macs as well? I know they were
talking about it....)

Anyway, it's a fascinating glimpse of exactly how MS got around the
'bundling' problem by making ie part of its structure, all in the name of
greater functionality in this net-crazy world.

(and I say "world" lightly....leaving the net aside, less than one percent of
us even owns a computer.)

barry
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

hey folks---

hope this finds you in good health and spirits.  This is something of an
experiment; so I hope you don't mind it. They said the few ads will be
"discreet."  We'll see.

I thought I'd kick us off with a discussion that I carried on
simultaneously with a bunch of folks, ignited by an article by David
Horowitz, which you can still read at
<http://www.salonmagazine.com/col/horo/1998/06/nc_29horo2.html>.

Conversations with Sean McMains (a church friend whom I hesitate to
introduce as a technophile, but only because it's more accurate to call him
a 'technopolis'), and with Shawn Floyd (a former roommate and
professional philosopher).
--

barry


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SEAN MCMAINS WRITES:

Barry,

Of course, Horowitz's suggestion to "back off...and find common
ground" are great as far as they can be taken, but there are political
issues that will have to be resolved, and which can't entirely be
addressed by this "common ground" approach.

Abortion seems to be one of these tinderbox issues. Sure, we can find
common ground: help pregnant mothers, make sure that babies are taken
care of. However, parts of the debate will inevitably be answered
differently based on one's world-view. If extramarital sex is wrong,
then distributing free condoms is using government funds to subsidize
sinful behavior. If it's morally ok, then it's a great means to reduce
the spread of disease.

The seeking of common ground is a laudable effort, and should be
pursued as much as possible. Pretending that it exists where it
doesn't, however, is a disservice.

Sean

-------------------

BARRY WRITES:

sean--

<<<parts of the debate will inevitably be answered differently based on
one's world-view. If extramarital sex is wrong, then distributing free
condoms is using government funds to subsidize sinful behavior. If it's
morally ok, then it's a great means to reduce the spread of disease.>>>

well, here again, we run into the question of public and private. Not
everything that's morally wrong should be outlawed: do we really want
to oppose a government action because it's subsidizing sinful behavior?
Lots of sinful behavior is, and should be, legal. What should be illegal is
the deprivation of anyone's life, liberty, or property without due process
of law. Two very different things.

barry

------------------------

SEAN WRITES:

...The root question is "What is the aim of Government/Law?" There are
several possible answers:

1. Maximize safety
2. Reflect the will of the masses
3. Reflect the will of God
4. Maximize liberty

Each of these is, to a greater or lesser degree, at odds with the
others, and working toward any one of them will result in more
distance from the alternatives.

The liberal approach seems to be closely tied in with Maximizing
Safety. People shouldn't have to live with unpleasant consequences of
their actions, even if the actions are stupid. The government is
considered to be wiser than the people. Results: Motorcycle helmet
laws, free condoms, needle exchange programs, indefinite and
unrestricted welfare programs.

Our current system seems to, more than anything else, Reflect the Will
of the People. Things are made legal or illegal according to the
popular whim. What else can justify alcohol being legal but marajuana
not? The two problems with this are that it ensures a constant tension
among the citizens, and it allows things that are absolutely immoral
to be made into law if the masses will it. Guillotining of the
aristos, gassing of the Jews, etc.

Reflecting the will of God is another potential basis for law, but is
nearly impossible to pull off in a society as pluralistic as our own.
Schaeffer makes a case that law is valid only as far as it reflects
divine law, but how do we manage this when there's no consensus on
divine law?

Finally, Maximizing Liberty results in libertarianism, and is the only
basis for a civil government that I've been able to think of as
consistent and rational, and which still protects the rights of the
individual. This case results in legalization of all kinds of morally
scandelous activities being legalized: prostitution, drug use, etc. It
can work based on the premise that individuals have certain liberties
that are not to be abridged. However, the founding fathers relied on
man's Creator as the origin of these liberties. When the exercise of
liberties runs so contrary to the will of the Creator, how is that
tension resolved? Perhaps in the non-Governmental sphere. Government
determines what we're permitted to do -- our personal relations help
determine what we choose to do.

>For all the pontificating, murder is against the law not because
>of the sanctity of life, but rather because any civil society that
>  allows murder will simply not survive as a civil society.

But how long will a civil society survive that acknowledges other
evils as ok? The public acceptance of homosexuality has preceded the
fall of several civilizations. (Not necessarily causal, of course, but
instructive correspondence, perhaps.) Why is prostitution illegal?

> So do we really want to oppose a government action because it's
> subsidizing sinful behavior? Lots of sinful behavior is, and should
be, legal. What should be illegal is the deprivation of anyone's life,
liberty, or property without due process of law. Two very different
things.

And two very different questions you've asked. Should condom
distribution be subsidized by government? Heck no. Should it be legal?
Heck yes. But a big difference between the two.

Sean

---------------------

BARRY WRITES:

<<<Our current system seems to, more than anything else, Reflect the
Will of the People.>>>

well, there's a constant tension and balance between that and Maximizing
Safety (or, to use a more comprehensive phrase, provide for the common
defense and promote the general welfare). And i'd say that that balance is
what makes America such a great--and perilous--place.

The founders thought that every government derives its power from the
consent of the governed. And, though I gulp to say it, I think it must be
true. Even in the darkest hours of Communism, most people were sort of
dimly undiscontented, or at the very least not discontented enough to
revolt. The ones who were *really* oppressed, who had it as bad as or
worse than their feudal ancestors, were the minorities like Christians,
gays, left-leaning intellectuals. Others had a sort of middlingly decent
existence---abhorrent by our standards (we who are the most privileged
generations on Earth, ever) but not by world historical ones. When it
became clear that other states than communism were a possibility, they
were enacted, just as when it became clear earlier that other states than
aristocracy were a possibility.

The idea that most Americans have, even if grudgingly, is that the
majority must rule but not tyrannize, and the minority must be heard but
not oppressed. And these dual goals often lead in opposite directions: for
instance, it will be interesting to see how long LA's ordinance against any
smoking in any building--even privately owned--that's open to the public
will last before it gets overturned. (It's sort of charming to imagine
anyone in LA trying to pretend that the air-quality problem is an indoor
issue.) And though we are horrified at swastikas in dormitories, we're
also horrified at that dark moment or two in the early 90s when the
phrase "a chink in the armor" got you in trouble on some campuses.

So I'd have to call your contention that things are made legal or illegal
according to the popular whim a bit reductive. Certainly more is going
on than whim. That "whim" has to be strong enough to drive through
Congress and then survive the courts, on a federal level, and go through
various processes of law on state and local levels, passing through
democratic and undemocratic representatives of the people and of the
constitution.


<<<Schaeffer makes a case that law is valid only as far as it reflects
divine law, but how do we manage this when there's no consensus on
divine law?>>>

and I'd add that Schaeffer's case is a weak one at best: what could be a
greater portrait of impotence than demonstrating in front of the Supreme
Court? The Supreme Court's raison d'etre is to be a bastion *against*
people like Schaeffer---the tomato-throwing crowd.


<<<But how long will a civil society survive that acknowledges other
evils as ok? The public acceptance of homosexuality has preceded the
fall of several civilizations. (Not necessarily causal, of course, but
instructive correspondence, perhaps.)>>>

well, that's really true. Camille Paglia, an enthusiastic paganist if there
ever was one, readily says that the only societies in which homosexuals
have openly thrived have always had certain conditions: peace,
prosperity, and a certain liberalism that's on the brink of decay. And
she's just about right.

barry

-------------------------

SEAN WRITES:

> well, there's a constant tension and balance between [reflecting the
people's will] and Maximizing Safety (or, to use a more
> comprehensive phrase, provide for the common defense and promote
> the general welfare). And i'd say that that balance is what makes
> America such a great--and perilous--place.

Perhaps you're right, that the greatness is in the form of a dynamic
equilibrium, where there are many forces pulling in many directions,
sometimes more to one side or another, but altogether maintaining a
pretty good balance. I don't like this idea, because it's just so
doggone messy. There's no one goal toward which we should be striving,
and rampant liberalism is a neccessary part of this equation (as is
rampant conservatism). Of course, people are doggone messy too, so
maybe it's a good fit.

> The founders thought that every government derives its power
> from the consent of the governed. And, though I gulp to say it, I
> think it must be true.

Has to be true, barring a rigidly enforced military state, and those
never seem to last particularly long. The only way to override the
will of the governed is by force, and force comes largely from
numbers. If you have enough to override others, the oppressors are
either better armed or the majority.

> The idea that most Americans have, even if grudgingly, is that the
majority
> must rule but not tyrannize, and the minority must be heard but not
> oppressed. And these dual goals often lead in opposite directions

And this is where it's interesting, and where I feel the need to try
to sort all of this out. When the majority of people say "Send the
Jews to camps," does the government stand up and say "No?" Should it?
Is that it's job? It's the will of the masses vs. what is right.

Then there are the interesting consequential questions for people of
faith. When the government does send people off to the camps, do we
have a duty to disobey the rule of law even if law is doing the job
it's supposed to? The abortion protestors in jail would say yes.

> And though we are horrified at swastikas in dormitories, we're also
> horrified at that dark moment or two in the early 90s when the
phrase "a chink in the armor" got you in trouble on some campuses.

It's a tough balance, and perhaps help point up where government's
responsibility should end. Both are rotten scenarios, but should
government really have anything to say about either?

> I'd have to call your contention that things are made legal or illegal
> according to the popular whim a bit reductive. Certainly more is
>going on than whim. That "whim" has to be strong enough to drive >through
Congress and then survive the courts, on a federal level, and go
>through various processes of law on state and local levels, passing >through
democratic and undemocratic representatives of the people and of the
constitution.

Sure, and I may have stated it lightly in an attempt to drive home the
point that though the process be cumbersome, the germ is still just
someone's opinion about what should be. There's no absolute standard
past which the government will say "no farther." If one can get enough
opinion swayed that way, one can get anything passed as a law, or if
needed, an amendment.

> what could be a greater portrait of impotence than demonstrating
>in front of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court's raison d'etre
> is to be a bastion *against* people like Schaeffer---the
>tomato-throwing crowd.

Tomato-throwing is certainly insufficient as a means to effect change.
I tend to think lowly of demonstrations at all, though I think that
stems more from my distrust of mass events where brains are disengaged
-- most of them, in my opinion.

> well, that's really true. Camille Paglia, an enthusiastic paganist
>if there ever was one, readily says that the only societies in which
>homosexuals have openly thrived have always had certain conditions: >peace,
prosperity, and a certain liberalism that's on the brink of decay. >And she's
just about right.

Frustrating. Can fallen man find a stable form of government that
doesn't eventually dissolve into oppression or decadance? I'm starting
to think not.

Sean

-------------------------

BARRY WRITES:

hello, my main----

...
<<<< When the majority of people say "Send the
Jews to camps," does the government stand up and say "No?" Should it?
Is that it's job? It's the will of the masses vs. what is right.>>>

Nope----it's the will of the masses vs. the will of the minority. The
problem with Nazi Germany wasn't necessarily that they were in the
wrong (they  were, but that's not the civil problem); rather it was that
they were too majoritarian.  This is why so many of our documents (eg
the bill of rights) are minoritarian documents. When the majority say
"send the Jews to camps", the minority says otherwise.----so, while the
majority must rule, the minority must be heard. And in America, our
Holocaust won't happen in that way, because that minoritarianism is so
strong with us, even as majoritarian as we are.


<<<Then there are the interesting consequential questions for people of
faith. When the government does send people off to the camps, do we
have a duty to disobey the rule of law even if law is doing the job it's
supposed to? The abortion protestors in jail would say yes.>>>>

and so would St Paul----the man who said we should follow the laws of
our land, and that our governments are governed by God also was one
who stood firmly against the freedom-of-speech policies of his
government, and violated them cheerfully.


<<<Can fallen man find a stable form of government that
doesn't eventually dissolve into oppression or decadance? I'm starting
to think not.>>>

And I'd agree. Which is why the idea that God cannot be contained in a
structure built by human hand is such an ingenious one.  The guys in my
fraternity look at the history of Sigma Chi (whose symbol is a shield with
a cross and the motto "In Hoc Signo Vinces"), and where they started and
where they are now, and worry that someday Phi Kappa Chi may have
sunk so low, and where will good fraternal Christian guys go; and my
answer is, it's almost certain that we'll decline, and there will have to be
another fraternity started that reflects what we now reflect. That's the
nature of things: churches, fraternities, governments.  God likes new
wine, and likes it in new wineskins.

That said, our society, so "decadent" now, is *how* much worse than a
hundred years ago???? When people thought they *owned* other people?
When women could not vote or own property? When you really could
get run out of town, literally, on a rail for having odd religious beliefs?
We live in the freest society in history, and in many ways the most
Christlike. Also the loudest. Payoff, right?

barry

----------------------------

SEAN WRITES:

> When the majority say "send the Jews to camps", the minority says
>otherwise.----so, while the majority must rule, the minority must be >heard.

But what does being heard mean in this context? If the majority who
says "gas 'em" still rules, being heard is pretty much useless. "I
hear that you are upset that most people believe that Jews should be
killed, and I believe you have some valid concerns. Now that we've
heard them, we're going to gas them anyway." Either the majority rules
(gas) or it doesn't (no gas). Minorities being heard doesn't affect
the outcome of majority rule unless the opinion of the majority is
somehow swayed by that hearing.

> And in America, our Holocaust won't happen in that way, because that
>  minoritarianism is so strong with us, even as majoritarian as we are.

Unless we decide that a certain group consists of non-persons, like
Blacks at certain points of american history, unborn children, or
Native Americans. They're not always killed outright, but they're
certainly not granted the hearing that you seem to think they won't be
denied.

>...the idea that God cannot be contained in a
> structure built by human hand is such an ingenious one. ...my
> answer is, it's almost certain that we'll decline, and there will
have to be
> another fraternity started that reflects what we now reflect. That's
the nature of things: churches, fraternities, governments.  God likes new
> wine, and likes it in new wineskins.

That's interesting. Not only are we fallen, then, but are in an
ongoing state of continuing the fall. I think I could buy that. And it
makes sense in light of the theme that all of this world is doomed to
pass away -- not only in an ultimate, eschatalogical sense, but also
in a more immediate, historical sense. Also parallels the second law
of thermodynamics.

> We live in the freest society in history, and in many ways the most
> Christlike. Also the loudest. Payoff, right?

Freest I'd buy. Most Christlike --- hmmm. We've come a long way in
some areas, and have regressed in other areas (public acceptance of
sexual immorality, acceptance of known public dishonesty in our
leadership, etc.). It's another of those dynamic equilibrium things, I
guess -- don't look too closely at the individual elements if you want
an overall picture of where we stand.

Sean

--------------------

BARRY WRITES:

"the majority must rule, the minority must be heard."

<<<But what does being heard mean in this context? If the majority who
says "gas 'em" still rules, being heard is pretty much useless....Either the
majority rules (gas) or it doesn't (no gas). Minorities being heard doesn't
affect the outcome of majority rule unless the opinion of the majority is
somehow swayed by that hearing.>>>

and that's what I mean by being heard----the number of people who felt
school prayer was just dandy back in the 40s was overwhelming, and
when a few people stood against it in the 60s they were pariahs; but our
system is set up such that they were heard nonetheless: instead of being
summarily dismissed, they were able to appeal to those who were not
beholden to voters, and, fast-forwarding to now, a pretty decent majority
of people are pretty much against public prayer in public schools, at least
as commonly defined.

in other words, what happened was that these few had a way of getting
themselselves heard by the majority so as to sway the majority opinion.
Now, I'm not saying that the issue is settled, even 30 years later, but
there you have it: american-style republicanism in action.


"that minoritarianism is so strong with us, even as majoritarian as we
are."

<<<<Unless we decide that a certain group consists of non-persons, like
Blacks at certain points of american history, unborn children, or
Native Americans. They're not always killed outright, but they're
certainly not granted the hearing that you seem to think they won't be
denied.>>>

well, even then I'm not sure. Jefferson himself included a tirade against
slavery in the original draft of the DoI, but it was edited out by the
others--seemingly outvoted. (he found a great way, btw, of blaming the
whole thing on King George!)  Nonetheless, there were processes already
in motion, even then, which would lead to emancipation and, much later,
the vote. Sure it took time, but what's time? Historians will write of the
wonder that in a little over 100 years, a race of slaves was brought into
the stream of its master society, given the right to vote, own property, go
to college, etc: unheard of!

And certainly we'd say that there are folks screaming at the top of their
lungs in the name of the unborn, and they're being heard---the recent
Senate vote is confirmation of that; and of course the thing isn't over yet.


"God cannot be contained in a structure built by human hand"

<<<That's interesting. Not only are we fallen, then, but are in an
ongoing state of continuing the fall....And it makes sense in light of the
theme that all of this world is doomed to pass away -- not only in an
ultimate, eschatalogical sense, but also in a more immediate, historical
sense.>>>

well put! to parallel the baptist faith & message, "we've been doomed, we
are doomed, we're being doomed."

Of course we've got to say that the whole pursuit of some sort of
"perfect" government is in a way Satanic---Manfredic, to be exact, or at
least Satanic in the Miltonic sense: this ain't heaven, and we're not
redeemed yet, and to try to build anything like the city of God here
below will result in (what Milton might call) Pan-daemonium.

barry

-------------------------

SEAN WRITES:

So you would say that Jews should have been heard in Nazi Germany.
And
even if it took a few years for them to sway the opinion of the
masses, it would still be ok for them to be gassed (from a "government
doing what it's supposed to" point of view) as long as the majority of
folks agreed that should be going on?

It seems to me that there's more to this than just "majority rules,
minorities are heard." For example, that bit about "...endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights...among these are life,
liberty..." This right to life is based on an endowment from a
Creator, according to the text, not the concensus of the majority.
Therefore, if these rights are inalienable, they should not be
violated, even if the majority deems that they should.

> emancipation and, much later, the vote. Sure it took time,
> but what's time?

Well, I'm sure it meant a lot to those who were enslaved for that
century!

I'm not interested in a perfect government, just one that doesn't
drive me nuts either from a theoretical or practical perspective, as I
think about it and live with it. An ill-fated quest this side of
heaven, perhaps.

Sean

-----------------------
BARRY WRITES:

<<So you would say that Jews should have been heard in Nazi Germany.
And even if it took a few years for them to sway the opinion of the
masses, it would still be ok for them to be gassed...as long as the majority
of folks agreed that should be going on? >>>

Absolutely not! On several counts.

a) of course the Jews should have been heard in Nazi Germany. But the
point is that they *couldn't* have been.  A small group of people took a
large-scale opinion (jews aren't good) and made it into an
all-encompassing policy of hatred. Jews and those who spoke for them
simply didn't have the voice there and then that they would here and now
in America.

b) during the years that it took for the school-prayer thing to catch on in
the public mind, school prayer was *disallowed.*  (and it must be noted
that allowing school prayer would not have resulted in the elimination of
those who were against it from public and private life.)

c) even if the majority of Americans were for public prayer in public
schools (and the minority is a large one, indeed), it would still be against
the law.  I think that the old formula "the majority must rule; the
minority must be heard" isn't entering your ear the way it was meant
---the part about being heard isn't just that they have their say before we
trample them; it's a matter of being heard by those who are not beholden
to the screaming mob. There are plenty of aspects of American life that
are protected by the minoritarian Bill of Rights, that the majority hate.

barry

-----------------

SEAN WRITES:

> c) even if the majority of Americans were for public prayer in public
> schools (and the minority is a large one, indeed), it would still be
against the law.

Right, but that sort of begs the question -- whatis the law based on?
If the majority rules, then law comes from the people. My interest
here is where the majority rule conflicts with our "inalienable
rights". If the majority is for public prayer in public schools, then
the law should eventually be changed, if indeed the majority rules,
right?

> I think that the old formula "the majority must rule; the
> minority must be heard" isn't entering your ear the way it was meant

I think I understand fairly well what it's driving at, but it just
seems to push the question back a level. Instead of "Should the Jews
be gassed if the majority wants it?" (No, because it's against the
law) the question becomes "Should the laws be changed so that Jews can
be gassed if the majority wants it?" What is the origin of and basis
for Law?

Sean
----------------

BARRY WRITES:

<<what is the law based on?
If the majority rules, then law comes from the people. My interest
here is where the majority rule conflicts with our "inalienable
rights". If the majority is for public prayer in public schools, then
the law should eventually be changed, if indeed the majority rules,
right?>>

But that's exactly the sort of gotta-be-this-or-that reasoning that the
founders wanted to get away from. That's why we're not, technically
speaking, a democracy. In order to achieve their will, the people have to
go through a gauntlet of channels that are not democratic at all, that are
in fact (ideally) immune to demagoguery.

So, right now the majority of people would be against public prayer in
public schools--even though that idea is consistently overrided in schools
whose band, drill team, and football team have chaplains. But the
minority (in favor) is a *very* large one. So you can't just have the
majority's will and leave out the minority. And that would really show
itself in the scenario you mentioned: if the majority were for public
prayer in public schools, the law *still* wouldn't be changed because the
minority would be so large and vocal, and because the courts could
reason that such a law would violate civil rights even if everyone wanted
it.

Therefore, although the majority rules in America, it doesn't rule all the
time, and its rule is made less oppressive in the actual application (those
football players *do* get the comforting ritual of a prayer before the
game) whenever the majority is large and persuasive enough. So I'd call
it, rather than a soft democracy, a messy republic, and argue that a messy
republic is just the thing. After all, if there were some kid who really did
feel burdened by the football team's prayer, then there is certainly, at
least in this day and age, a procedure he could follow to make the
practice less burdensome; and the majority's will is upheld, and
meanwhile the prayer-supportin' minority is strained but not broken.

Or, consider the issue of abortion: the overall will of our messy republic
is being carried out, right? It's not across-the-board-illegal, because most
Americans would feel uncomfortable with that. But it's also not all that
easy to get, especially in non-urban places. And that works out pretty
well, because those non-urban places are precisely where the opposition
to abortion would be most forceful. In the big cities, it's easier, but there
is nonetheless so much opposition and anguish over the issue that it's
difficult to do lightly. So, there you have it: our messy republic comes up
with a solution that's equally dissatisfying to everyone, which is just
about as good as can be expected.


"the majority must rule; the minority must be heard":

<<<it just seems to push the question back a level.... What is the origin of
and basis for Law?>>>

well, that's just it: we christians are always wanting to push things back to
a level beyond absolute necessity. We love to say, "why not do this? aha -
because of the Law! but what is the Law's authority? aha - the people!
but what is the people's authority? aha, aha, aha, --until we get to the
Summum Bonum.

But most systems of government are perfectly willing to do without the
summum bonum. Ours, for instance, resists pushing things back to any
other levels by simply pushing things *around* at the same level. The
will of the people, the decisions of their representatives, the judgments of
the courts, the conscience of a single outspoken individual-----it's all
there, and authority is simply shuffled around. Germany was vulnerable
in the 1920s and 30s because of their attitudes toward authority, and
because the authoritative voice of the church had eroded, and because
their attitudes toward Jews were already such that they just might stand
by and let someone else do the unspeakable as long as it remained
unspoken.

All of which conspires to make it so that that kind of extermination is
well nigh impossible in America today, where the church is a dynamic
force in the public square (despite much whining to the contrary), and
where *nothing* is unspeakable or unspoken. This is precisely why
Americans put up with so much nastiness: if that comedian on HBO can
get away with bestiality jokes about mother teresa, then Ivan Denisovitch
is safe.

barry
------------------
CONTINUED....

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com

continuing......

--------
SEAN WRITES:

> Therefore, although the majority rules in America, it doesn't rule
all the
> time, and its rule is made less oppressive in the actual application
(those
> football players *do* get the comforting ritual of a prayer before
the
> game) whenever the majority is large and persuasive enough. So I'd
call
> it, rather than a soft democracy, a messy republic, and argue that a
messy
> republic is just the thing.

And perhaps this is why I have such a hard time with this whole
concept: I want systems to be consistent and orderly like physics. I
want government to work consistently according to certain principles,
and for there to be a "right answer" to particular problems it faces.
Because of this bias on my part, it's difficult for me to recognize
that this very inconsistency is what makes it possible for people, who
are by nature inconsistent, to coexist with a government.

I think I'm slowly coming to grips with the fact that this works, even
though it's a big mess.

> Or, consider the issue of abortion: the overall will of our messy
republic
> is being carried out, right? ... So, there you have it: our messy
republic comes up
> with a solution that's equally dissatisfying to everyone, which is
just
> about as good as can be expected.

I'd have a hard time agreeing that the level of dissatisfaction is
equal. Those who support abortion are dissatisfied because there is a
certain level of invonvenience, stigma, and angst associated with
getting an abortion. Those who are against it are dissatisfied because
they percieve babies as being killed. (This whole argument pivots on
the "When does a fetus become a person" question, of course, so it's
impossible to discuss where the legal line on abortions should be
without a legal line on where personhood begins.)

> But most systems of government are perfectly willing to do without
the
> summum bonum.

Sure, but just because things aren't examined doesn't mean they
shouldn't be examined.

> if that comedian on HBO can
> get away with bestiality jokes about mother teresa, then Ivan
Denisovitch
> is safe.

Well said!

Sean

---------

BARRY WRITES:

<<<And perhaps this is why I have such a hard time with this whole
concept: I want systems to be consistent and orderly like physics.>>>

aaahhh, but you can bet that whenever there's a democrat saying or doing
anything (measurable or not), somewhere across the universe, a
republican is complementarily spinning.


<<<I'd have a hard time agreeing that the level of dissatisfaction is
equal. Those who support abortion are dissatisfied because there is a
certain level of invonvenience, stigma, and angst associated with
getting an abortion. Those who are against it are dissatisfied because
they percieve babies as being killed. >>>

true, but again there's a huge number of people out there (unrepresented
by passionate spokespeople) who just don't know--the issue is unresolved
even within them---I know of individuals who've said, Well, it's horrible
and not right, but I just don't know whether it would be right to ban it
across the board...  And those people's view is being represented by the
political reality, perhaps better than either of the two extremes.

But I'm beginning to think that Anonymous was wrong: A society's
greatest madness is *not* invisible to itself. At least not always: like
slavery, the modern-day holocaust is going on simultaneously with a
rancorous argument.


<<<This whole argument pivots on
the "When does a fetus become a person" question, of course, so it's
impossible to discuss where the legal line on abortions should be
without a legal line on where personhood begins.>>>

and after about 1984 (election time perhaps) we haven't heard *nearly*
the argumentation about that very important aspect of the issue that we
heard before.....weird. Maybe the 'pro-life' people abandoned that in
their move to go more for the emotion.


> But most systems of government are perfectly willing to do without
> the summum bonum.

<<<Sure, but just because things aren't examined doesn't mean they
shouldn't be examined.>>>

but what if they *can't* be examined? the ideology of getting on with it is
in fact an ideology as well.


barry

----------------

SEAN WRITES:

> aaahhh, but you can bet that whenever there's a democrat saying or
doing
> anything (measurable or not), somewhere across the universe, a
> republican is complementarily spinning.

Though I was thinking more about Newtonian physics, it does seem that
Quantum Physics is perhaps a more realistic model for politics! It
would also explain the use of terms like "non-truth-telling"
("anti-particle"), rather than "lying". It does seem as though Clinton
is transitioning from being a charmed particle to being a strange one.

> But I'm beginning to think that Anonymous was wrong: A society's
> greatest madness is *not* invisible to itself. At least not always:
like
> slavery, the modern-day holocaust is going on simultaneously with a
> rancorous argument.

That's one advantage of the diversity of peoples and cultures that are
a part of America. It's much easier to have blind spots in a
homogenous culture than in our melange. The possible downside is that
there's always someone who opposes every aspect of our society, even
the most virtuous. It's a trade worth making, though -- we're a
society that at least examines itself regularly.

> and after about 1984 (election time perhaps) we haven't heard
*nearly*
> the argumentation about that very important aspect of the issue that
we
> heard before.....weird. Maybe the 'pro-life' people abandoned that in
> their move to go more for the emotion.

And if your goal is simply to get your legislation passed, going for
the emotion is a good tactic. Though you and I are more likely to be
swayed by good, defensible apologetic for a view, I think the majority
of people respond more readily to the feelings that particular people,
parties, or causes bring out in them. All the same, it gives me the
willies, since I trust my heart less than my brain to give me good
answers about most things.

> but what if they *can't* be examined? the ideology of getting on
with it is
> in fact an ideology as well.

Good question. Are we back to Quantum Physics again? We know that
fair
treatment for people is a goal of government, even if we can't pin
down why or even exactly what constitutes fairness. We can strive for
that goal, even without having figured out all of the underpinning
upon which it rests.

Sean

--------------------------
--------------------------

MEANWHILE, DR SHAWN FLOYD WRITES:

I confess I found Horowitz's article dissappointing.
He certainly doesn't introduce any new insights into the issue
of religion and public discourse.  The idea that one cannot
employ one's religious beliefs in the political sphere is
commonly held.  Most people would agree with him (I don't).
Furthermore, the anecdote of Lott and Armey is not
representative of what happens when religious convictions
enter the fray of political debate.  And the reaction of the gay
community has more to do with Lott's lack of
politcal savvy than with his religious beliefs.

Furthermore,  Horowitz seems to think that religious language
is inherently combative.  Throughout the article he juxtaposes
religiously neutral policymaking with the "language of religious
  warfare."  A bit simplistic for a "thoughtful conservative."  Religious
convictions play a constitutive role not only in our public life,
but in our political ethos.  Even liberals employ religious language
when it suits them (ever watch sessions of Congress?).  So what if
it's for rhetorical purposes?  It's persuasive, and it appeals to many of
their constituents.

  At any rate, the most egregious blunders appear in the following
passage:

"We are a pluralistic society. We
  do not have an established state religion.
  We are in fact composed of ethnic and
  religious communities so diverse that in
  other parts of the world, war is the normal
  condition of their relations. Serbs and
  Croats, Arabs and Jews, Christians and
  Muslims co-exist in America, but elsewhere
  are at each other's throats."

I should use this passage to demonstrate to my students
what a non sequitur is.  Pluralism is a fact about
our *public* lives. I thought the issue was the role of religious
conviction in *political* debate?  These are two very different issues.
Besides, it isn't obvious that social
pluralism behooves us to relegate religious convictions
to private conscience, as Horowitz seems to think.
Religious beliefs are constitutive of traditions and
communities.  And those traditions and communities, in turn,
form our public *and* political identities.  To describe them as
features of private lives is to trivialize them.  To proscribe them
from public debates is authoritarian.  It also unmasks any
presumption of neutrality.  Here Horowitz is simply naive.

I think he unreflectively buys into Liberalism's most
deleterious presumption:  that we can find a
morally, ethnically, and religiously neutral framework
within which we as a culture can make political decisions.

Yet the result of this effort is anything but neutral.
Even nonreligious critics of liberalism recognize this.
What tends to happen is that Liberalism comes to embody
an ethos of its own;   substantive ethical and religious views
(i.ie., nonliberal views) are
systematically precluded from the political conversations.
The only sort of pluralism Liberalism can stomach is a
plurality of liberals, that is, those who try to find
political agreement apart from any ethical/religious tradition.
What's so neutral about that?  Any person whose poiltical and
social views have been shaped by a religious community
simply cannot be a full participant in public debates about
what our politcal culture ought to look like.  In this way
Liberalism is just as exclusive and contentious as Trent Lott's religious
beliefs.

The fact that contemportary politics can't accommodate those beliefs *is*
as H. says, the result of politic's limited sphere, but those limits
are due to the demise of rich and serious political dialogue--a
demise brought on by liberal theories of politics.

--------------

BARRY WRITES:

Shawn--

<<<The idea that one cannot employ one's religious beliefs in the
political sphere is commonly held.>>>

But he said that it's clear neither Lott nor Armey themselves meant their
observations as  political statements or policy agendas, but rather as
professions of personal belief. So what he's saying is not that you
shouldn't employ your beliefs, but rather that those who legislate public
policy should be careful as they make public statements about private
beliefs, and furthermore that those on the other side (in this case
homosexuals) should be more perspicacious about exactly what it is
they're attacking.

If Lott thinks that homosexuality (as well as Buddhism and adultery) is a
sinful lifestyle that's one thing, but if he tries to pass laws in Congress
based on the moral issue rather than the social one, he's in the wrong.
Lying is sinful, but not illegal. Certain *forms* of lying (perjury, libel)
are against the law, but for reasons distinctly other than their morality.
For all the pontificating, murder is against the law not because of the
sanctity of life, but rather because any civil society that allows murder
will simply not survive as a civil society.

And on the other hand if gay activists oppose Lott's policies, it should be
because those policies result in the deprivation of life, liberty, or
property without the due process of law, rather than because they find his
religious beliefs odious. There really *is* a line to be drawn between
those beliefs and public policy.


  <<<Furthermore,  Horowitz seems to think that religious language is
inherently combative.>>>

I'm not sure he thinks that---what he was saying that the only way to
*resolve* religious differences is with physical warfare; and the only
disagreement I have with that is that even warfare doesn't resolve them.
But there really *is* no way to resolve religious differences. All that
dialogue does---the finest, most civil, thoughtful dialogue at that---is get
everyone's opinion out there in its most persuasive form, for anyone to
choose or reject. But when it comes to religious differences, the only
choice is to say that we'll all live with them and that that's ok with me if
it is with you.

That's exactly what the Protagonists did, for instance: a Baptist, a
Catholic,
and a Muslim---we often had major two-way disagreements (who was
Abraham? who was Muhammad?) and three-way disagreements (what is
the Bible? what does religious authority consist of?), but, importantly,
our
conversations were over coffee and pie at Earl Abel's, and stayed there.
That's 2 things going on: first, that we didn't let our religious differences
onto the bandstand, and, second, that we were able to commune to some
extent. Often people's concept of 'open-mindedness' involves being
'non-judgmental' and promiscuously affirming. But I'd offer instead the
image of 3 musicians, a Baptist, a Catholic, and a Muslim, arguing about
and retaining their mutually exclusive beliefs, but still able to have coffee
and pie together at Earl Abel's, and enjoy doing so---not to mention
making music together.


  <<<Pluralism is a fact about our *public* lives.>>>

Tell that to Roger Williams.


  <<<I thought the issue was the role of religious conviction in *political*
debate?>>>

A talk show in which he's asked whether he thinks homosexuality is a
sin?
As Horowitz emphasizes, this wasn't a political statement but rather the
expression of his opinion. Naturally, Lott's opinion of the morality of
homosexuality (as distinct from social issues such as the effect of rampant
promiscuity among the source population for AIDS) may well come in to
play as he legislates, but if so that's because of his failings as a
policy-maker rather than his status as a conservative Christian.

Where I--and probably you--differ from Horowitz is that I don't think it
was inappropriate for Lott to have said what he did. If I were in his
place, I'd have said it more carefully, and included in an indestructible
sound bite that that's my moral opinion that I'm entitled to, rather than a
vow that I will pass oppressive laws.


<<<The only sort of pluralism Liberalism can stomach is a plurality of
liberals, that is, those who try to find political agreement apart from any
ethical/religious tradition. What's so neutral about that? >>>

Well put, and absolutely so. I think of those freshman philosophy students
who say "your belief is truth for *you*, but everyone else should have
their own truth." What if my truth is that you are totally wrong? What if
my truth is that all homosexuals should be exterminated? That freshman
finds some moral absolutes pretty fast.


<<<Any person whose poiltical and social views have been shaped by a
religious community simply cannot be a full participant in public debates
about what our politcal culure ought to look like.>>>

I'll believe that when an atheist gets elected president. As you mentioned
yourself, even liberals employ religious language---and, I might add,
some believe it.

barry
------------------

DR FLOYD WRITES:

>what he's saying is not that you shouldn't
>employ your beliefs, but rather that those who legislate public policy
>should be careful as they make public statements about private beliefs.

and it's liberal theories of political discourse that employ just that
distinction. Even Armey and Lott concede the distinction, and are to that
extent liberals (I don't mean to use the term pejoratively).

>Lying is sinful, but not illegal. Certain *forms* of lying (perjury, libel)
>are against the law, but for reasons distinctly other than their morality.
>For all the pontificating, murder is against the law not because of the
>sanctity of life, but rather because any civil society that allows murder will
simply not survive as a civil society.

The first statement is straightforward enough, but your gloss on it
shows that matters are not so simple here.  The sentiment behind the
death penalty (which I no longer support) is hardly an inclination
to protect the larger social order.  No, there are strong moral
intuitions involved here, as is much of our political life.  Moreover,
I think the distinction between what's legal and moral (as if what's moral
is *just* a matter of private conscience) belies the fact that our political
convictions are informed by moral traditions which are constitutive
of our moral and political identities.  The idea that matters of
private conscience should not interfere with public policy has
its roots in just such a tradition.

>what he was saying that the only way to
>*resolve* religious differences is with physical warfare . . .
>But there really *is* no way to resolve religious differences

I agree.  why think that religious difference are things which *should*
be resolved?  But the tone of H.'s remarks does suggest that religious
language is inherently combative.

shawn

---------------------

BARRY WRITES:

shawn---

<<<The sentiment behind the death penalty (which I no longer support)
is
hardly an inclination to protect the larger social order.  No, there are
strong moral intiutions involved here, as is much of our poltical life. >>>

well, that's why I'd use as my example the fact that murder is unlawful,
rather than the existence of the death penalty. Quite a few people believe
that the punitive religious language invoked to support the death penalty
is
misplaced, and (rightly, I think) ask for rationales for it that can be
arrived at by reasoning about state and society rather than religious
traditions that ultimately are based in revelation.


<<<Moreover, I think the distinction between what's legal and moral
(as if what's moral is *just* a matter of private conscience) belies the fact
that our political convictions are informed by moral traditions which are
constitutive of our moral and poltical identities.  The idea that matters of
private conscience should not interfere with public policy has its roots in
just such a tradition.>>>

And of course we'd both agree that matters of private conscience *do*
have a place in our public political discussions, but I'd say that that is so
only insofar as they can also be supported in ways that others who
*don't*
share my beliefs can agree with. For instance, an instructive (if amusing)
example is the often-cited spectacle of right-wing religious conservatives
teaming up with radical feminists on the issue of pornography---the claim
that it victimizes women is arrived at in very different ways, but they
don't
have to share the underlying view about what humans are and what we're
here for; they only have to share the idea that pornography victimizes
women, and produce rhetoric that is persuasive to voters and lawmakers.

So, religious conservatives can claim that abortion is wrong, something
they've arrived at because their religious convictions lead them to reason
that it's an abomination. However, their public discourse doesn't often
(anymore) revolve around the religious idea of abomination, but rather
humanistic reasoning about the value of human life---arrived at in their
case by dint of their feelings about us as God's children, though presented
publicly in terms that will be persuasive (hopefully) even to those who
*don't* share those feelings.

So there's a situation where one's religious values definitely shape one's
political thinking, where the moral and religious convictions of people
most certainly inform their political stances, but certainly don't
*interfere*
with public policy.

On the other hand, we see people who, because of their religious
convictions, advocate public prayers in schools, but are unable to
convince others that those prayers are valuable, because belief that they
are valuable rests on belief in their efficacy and appropriateness in a
place where not all the affected citizens share the same ideas about
religion and prayer.

I really *do* think that there are aspects of my faith that are matters of
private conscience, and though these things may affect what thinking I'll
have, they shouldn't govern my lawmaking. Rather, my lawmaking
should be consistent with my private convictions while being defensible
on grounds of the common social good.

barry

-------------------

DR FLOYD WRITES:

>public discourse doesn't often
>(anymore) revolve around the religious idea of abomination, but rather
>humanistic reasoning about the value of human life.

. . . and for that reason every bit as contentious as any religious
view that might be employed in defending some legal
or political decision.  If political liberals are consistent,
then they should find such talk just as objectionable.

I appreciate your remarks concerning the consistency between
religious convictions and social policy.  John Rawls argues in
his fairly recent book Political Liberalism that a public
conception of justice ought to be one that can find support--
and *justification*--within a variety of ethical/religious communities.
So the reasons one has for accepting the normative principles that
shape the social order will differ from someone elses.  Rawls then
thinks he's found a way to accept the diverse philosophical, ethical, and
religious views as being publically acceptable.  Notice however that
those views will be publically acceptable *so long as* they underwrite
an already existing political conception of justice.
Those views have no political legtimacy *in their own right*  Their
value (from Rawls perspective) lies in their ability to bolster a
liberal theory of justice.  Seen this way, it still looks as if acceptable
religious expression (in the public square anyway) is circumscribed
by another doctrine.  That's the worry anyway.  I wouldn;t want to
say that my religious views have social value so long as they are
"defensible on grounds of the common social good."  They may
not be.  Christianity is pretty radical once it's taken seriously.

-------------------

BARRY WRITES:

<<< Notice however that those views will be publically acceptable *so
long as* they underwrite an already existing political conception of
justice. Those views have no political legtimacy *in their own right*
Their value (from Rawls perspective) lies in their ability to bolster a
liberal theory of justice.  Seen this way, it still looks as if acceptable
religious expression (in the public square anyway) is circumscribed
by another doctrine. >>>

maybe--but that already existing political conception of justice is going to
have certain features that are aligned with the major religions: a concern
for the protection of its citizens, barriers against deprivation of property
and so on. Naturally, the degree to which these features exist and the
peculiar shape they take is going to differ not only from society to
society but from age to age.

So it's perhaps a bit unfair to say that religiously informed views that
can be persuasive outside the circle of one's fellow believers are
valuable only in their ability to "bolster a liberal theory of justice,"
when actually---if those beliefs conform to reality in the sense that our
old friend Lewis explores as the "Tao" in the "Abolition of Man"---it is
our theories of justice that often conform to ancient and lasting ideas
present in the major religious systems. Again, sometimes they don't line
up, and sometimes they'll disagree outright, but nonetheless: a political
stance that is shaped by a religious sensibility and is also persuasive to
reasonable participants in public discourse who are outside that religious
tradition is one that, rather than being circumscribed by the doctrine of
modern liberalism, is at least arguably involved in the subsequent shape
of modern liberalism's incarnation in public life.

barry
==================

hoo hoo!  Just when it was getting good, Shawn had to go get married. So
that's where we stand.

There were also conversations with Patrick Lafferty and Mark Cole and
Tim Weaver on these same issues. But I'm now completely tired of
cutting and pasting, so you will now have to guess, by dint of their
brilliance, how persuasive and engaging those argumentations were.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Web-based e-mail groups -- http://www.eGroups.com