Ranstaffel (261)
“That is why the New Testament is so nicey nice vis a vis the Old One, cause the New was all about one guy who had no political power outside his little troupe of idealist while the Old was about Kings and rulers who founded or ran a whole country.”
Luther is very interesting, both bold and burned out from stress most of the time, confident and constantly fearful. Where he may have failed is dwarfed by where he succeeded IMHO. Your take on Protestant control here is very true. We’d have been another South America at best.
But then, Christian dogma asserts that the NT describes someone who will return to rule the whole planet, at which time he won’t be so nicey nice. I can certainly understand your characterization of it; however, it makes perfect sense to see it as a difference in power relationships. In fact, yours is one of the few times I’ve seen power relationship analysis used both correctly and well. I can’t argue with your first premise, either, we would have been another South America, at a minimum.
No, I don’t think Christianity can run the country on true Christian principals, and it seems to me trying to do so is difficult to support. Living ones own life by those principals should suffice except in rare circumstances. Unlike some, I don’t try to create a list superior to the Bill of Rights. Even the Commandments are defined differently among Christians themselves. The most vocal never seem to propose “love they neighbor as thyself”. I’d think that would be most representative, but I’d be well armed, own a bullet proof vest, have no family, and have nothing I couldn’t ignore being stolen, before I announced I intended base all of our laws on that alone. Since I have family and possessions I like, the original documents by deists (not Christians) are just fine thank you.
I don’t see why one faith should expect to dictate how this society is run, either. Until the elites decided that equality under the law was unreasonable for the groups they found useful rather than just themselves, what we have was working just fine. Yes, it worked slowly, but it worked well. Since then all sides have mostly fought self-defeating battles, various groups taking turns playing the role of either the Sioux or the Cavalry, depending on who “wins” at the Little Bighorn our courts have become. In addition, ever since the clueless children of the spoiled Boomers (not all Boomers, just the spoiled 2/3) first encountered reality, we’ve lost the right to argue these things out to a compromise. Many people now feel they are entitled to never be offended. Breaking the historically calm, passive, meditative, character of American society by saying, “bullshit, you’re wrong”, has become just as bad as saying, “stick em up” while pointing a loaded gun at someone. Now, arguments can’t proceed without first having the vacuous debate over acceptable terms, which means argumentation ceases to exist leaving only anger and frustration.
People complain about others not respecting their rights, but for the most part, they don’t seem to the understand the concept of rights. The “negative rights” the current incumbent feels need companion “positive rights” are written without them due to the fact that the founders had SEEN “positive rights” in action as titles of nobility. I am amazed at the idea of the Constitution being elastic beyond what the framers enumerated. “Discovered” rights? What it doesn’t mention, it didn’t hide for those with a Little Orphan Annie decoder ring to discover. Most of what we now see as judicial issues should be settled by the Congress in a representative democracy. (It doesn’t help that both sides in this country seem to elect more than a few sniveling cowards). Christian or not, some people can’t accept that or await their turn to ride the pendulum. Look at the stupid issues in the courts. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, for example. Crap, teach both along with three or four other creation theories that have held sway over time, ending up with a richer course showing that people have been asking the same question for all of recorded history. But no, a few dig in their heels against all compromise. Christians have been told so many times they’re under attack, that they’re breathing into paper bags held over trivia. Once they’ve finished hyperventilating, they react with approaches guaranteed to send everyone who isn’t Christian rushing for their own paper bag. All the while the important stuff gets ground to dust behind everyone’s backs. It makes no sense to me. I’d say it’s out of hand from any point of view, and it remains to be seen whether or not the pendulum starts the other way or if we’ve finally broken the clock started in 1776.
Christians should wise up, IMHO. For example, how’s that Christian values victory over record lyrics in music sold by Wal-Mart working out? Help Al and Tipper to regulate foul language out of the music if you like, but don’t be shocked when you have Christ removed from taxpayer funded decorations at Christmas time. (The “goose and gander gambit” is tough to resist, numbskulls). Al and Tipper don’t look quite like the Southern Baptists they did back then, do they? Christians make sitting duck of themselves by demanding society at large change rather just going fishing. It happens so often you’d think someone planned it that way. Personally, I think Christians need to stick to the big issues like abortion, and even then Christian Love and Charity are the best weapons. They attract fewer people who may be prone to violence as well as probably being more successful. Christians should also continue to proclaim that murder is murder and crime is crime whether your God or your Dog told you to do it every time they have the opportunity.
Regards
