Newt Gingrich: My fellow Republicans, a Democratic wave election is coming unless we act right now

[DiogenesLamp]

The "fruits" of this "mobocracy" are that we have built the most free, most prosperous, most civil and powerful nation the planet has ever seen. We've achieved that thanks to much blood and sacrifice in the name of freedom, and by adhering to Enlightenment principles AND our disparate beliefs in a loving god. If we screw it up going forward it will be at the hands of extremists.....of Socialistic morons on the left and Theocratic moral narcissists from the far Right.

You float in an ocean of Christianity and you presume today's social mores are just the default condition of mankind.   This concept of "equality"  is pretty much a Christian idea.  Muslim's don't share it,  and both Athens and Rome fully embraced slavery and class structures.   

This idea that "All Men are Created Equal"  didn't occur as a dominating principle until those philosophers of natural law fleshed it out from the principles they derived from Christianity.   


That's about all the effort I feel like putting into this.   I could go on for hours on this subject,  but I think neither you nor I would be interested in the result. 

[INVAR]

All it takes to qualify as a 'theocratic narcissist' these days is to acknowledge that there is such a thing as a timeless truth.

Yup.  You are a theocratic narcissist if you believe that marriage is an institution designed by God between one man and one woman or if you believe a man born a boy is not a girl, even if he pretends he is one in today's society.

You float in an ocean of Christianity and you presume today's social mores are just the default condition of mankind.   This concept of "equality"  is pretty much a Christian idea.  Muslim's don't share it,  and both Athens and Rome fully embraced slavery and class structures.   

This idea that "All Men are Created Equal"  didn't occur as a dominating principle until those philosophers of natural law fleshed it out from the principles they derived from Christianity. 

Magnificent rebuttal and true.  Except for those who choose not to accept it, because it clashes with their redefinition of how the Founders arrived at a governing system that they insist separates society from religion.

[sneakypete]

Given our own history and what I believe Providence blessed in order to establish the liberty that made us the greatest nation for individual freedom in all human history, I do not subscribe to the idea that God wanted us to establish a theocracy among the institutions of men.  At the same time I also do not believe that upholding moral principles that come from biblical religion, is establishing a theocracy either.  We were to be a self-governing people in terms of adherence to principles that make a society of ordered liberty possible.

Which is why I reject these calls to rally around a man or party as a savior.  It always results in one form of popery or another - whether secular or religious.  Making government god - which both Communism/Statism does just as effectively as a theocracy or Sharia does, even if the language does not call it such.

Ancient Israel was a theocracy only due the fact a covenant was made between a people and their God, which the people themselves ended up rejecting anyway.

Our covenant was to principles that lent themselves to laws that empowered individuals to be free to pursue their own destinies along a guideline of ordered liberty that limited government from interfering with the people in terms of belief and control.   We were no more to be controlled by a Central Pope than we were to be controlled by a central government.  We were to be free to pursue our faith and beliefs as long as they were in harmony with a society forged on principles that benefitted a self-governing moral code that everyone accepted as being of Supremacy over the whims of human nature.

In short, we were blessed by Providence to choose our own leaders - whom were supposed to be chosen based on character and their trustworthiness to uphold the Constitution.

But, like Ancient Israel - we are rejecting that covenant as assuredly as the ancients rejected the covenant they agreed to.  This people want a savior or king, and want government to become their provider and arbiter of 'fairness'.

When a people are willfully led into ignorance and apathy and choose a different moral path than the fragile one that established a hands-off government, then being subjugated by a central government, a central fuhrer or a central pope is what always happens.

@INVAR

Well,I don't share your belief in a God,but that sure was far and away the best and clearest example of explaining a personal philosophy that I think I have ever seen.

VERY well thought-out!

[Mesaclone]

You float in an ocean of Christianity and you presume today's social mores are just the default condition of mankind.Actually, Christianity is simply an evolution of previous religious movements and philosophies...borrowing much from Judaism, Platonism, and even from early Egyptian concepts of monotheism (Sun god worship as an example)...it absolutely did not spring up in the desert in solitude, rather it was a borrowing and an extension of earlier religious beliefs. Its stories of floods and virgin births and visiting magi...and many other tales...are nearly identical to stories from nearby earlier religious tales...which thus served as the genesis of the many "social mores" you speak of...though Christianity gets full credit for extending and modifying many of these very ancient concepts. This concept of "equality"  is pretty much a Christian idea. This is an absurd assertion, if anything Christianity emphasizes hierarchy and structure....and in the West, it is the structural remnant of Roman power structure. The idea of equality...amongst citizens at least...is much more the product of Greek and Roman thought greatly pre-dating Christianity... Muslim's don't share it,  and both Athens and Rome fully embraced slavery and class structures. I'll agree that Muslims don't emphasize egalitarianism...but all of the Christian world embraced slavery and class structure from the earliest recognition of Christianity as the official Religion of the Roman empire right through to the Renaissance. So clearly, an acceptance of slavery by Pagan Rome/Greece was no different than later Christian embrace of that institution. 

This idea that "All Men are Created Equal"  didn't occur as a dominating principle until those philosophers of natural law fleshed it out from the principles they derived from Christianity. The modern idea of "All men are created equal" grew from Enlightenment thought which deliberately circumvented Church teachings and emphasized the philosophic thought of the Greeks. 


That's about all the effort I feel like putting into this.   I could go on for hours on this subject,  but I think neither you nor I would be interested in the result. You may be right on this one. My MA is in ancient history and I LOVE the study of ancient societies and religion...endlessly fascinating

Again, I've no intention of disparaging Christianity or any other religion. But proclaiming it as the genesis of human thought on equality and freedom...that's entirely contrary to the reality of human history. Greek thought is where such ideals were brought to the West...certainly the Church coopted a good portion of Platonic thought and it can be seen clearly, and quite deliberately, in the writings of early churchmen from Irenaeus to Eusebius...and many others.

I suggest you read the Emperor Julian's treatise Against the Galileans. Not as a put down of Christianity, but as an insight into the early philosophical debates of 4th century between advocates of Greek philosophy and the Roman Church.

[sneakypete]

Isn't it odd how the idea of government by the people arose from....the very pagan city-state of Athens. The idea of Republican government itself...from the very pagan city-state of Rome. And the ideals of Locke and others that informed our Founding Fathers...came primarily from enlightenment philosophy, the elevation of reason above that of superstition and religious dogma.

Your understanding of the evolution of governance is...well...wrong.

This is not to say free government is not compatible with many of the tenets of Christianity, nor to assert that ANY people hoping to succeed in a democratic form of government do not need a strong ethical foundation. Clearly they do. Where you go wrong is pasting the shoe of your particular brand of fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity on a foot that has already well worn the concept of government by the people.

You of course will take this post as an attack against Christianity, which any thinking man can see it is not. Rather, it is a condemnation of the kind of dogmatic fundamantalism that sought to crush the Renaissance AND the rise of the age of Enlightenment. The tenets of loving god and one's neighbors, along with the other strictures of the commandments fit well with the ethics of many religious and philosophical belief systems...including Enlightenment philosophy. What IS at odds, is the dark and angry view that your sect of your religion must dominate the many others who have contributed to the ideal of our FF's, to the concept of Republican governance, and to the health of a society centered on rule for, of and by the people.

The fault in our government and society, dear Horatio, lies not in our stars nor the lack of a slavish obedience to Christian fundamentalism...but in ourselves, and in the ETHICAL choices we make.

As for worshipping one man or a party...nobody on this board does either. That sort of mentality exists only between your ears.

@Mesaclone

DAYUM,but you guys are getting good at explaining yourselves!

C'mon! Somebody admit it. Somebody invented a new internet while I was taking a nap,right?

[dfwgator]

@Mesaclone

 
C'mon! Somebody admit it. Somebody invented a new internet while I was taking a nap,right?

Well they did repeal Net Neutrality.

[Smokin Joe]

Well they did repeal Net Neutrality.