To: misharu; nopardons
Ditto. But, there are a few omissions, critical omissions in this tour de force.
It totally captures the entire truth he's politically allowed to address; it's comprehensive in that.
The root desire of leftists, he says,
To turn the law of the jungle into the rule of law -- of treaties and contracts and U.N. resolutions. In short, to remake the international system in the image of domestic civil society.
This sentence alone captures a core essential truth of the leftist's desire. But, there is a document, a well known document, that morally under girds, and fuels, this religious desire of religious leftists - and they are ALL religious, theirs cries of protest notwithstanding.
Dearest Charles, wisely, omitted it's mention. But it is that document that is driving this outlook nonetheless. FWIW, that document's essential meaning has been distorted and hijacked (I'm not sure of this last statement, yet - for I'm still trying to understand the document myself - but I'm sure it is indeed this particular document.).
What Charles omitted, wisely as well, is that there is another document which morally under girds the idea of reason, of truth, and indeed fuels democratic globalism. And that document I will identify - the New Testament, with it's necessary background document, the Old Testament. The idea of truth, absolute truth, is underneath democracy - and before Christ, no one believed in absolute truth.
And that idea of absolute truth is religious. Sorry Charlie, but truth is a religious idea. Your entire article, every word which I agree with 100 percent, nonetheless disguises what you are actually cheer leading here: in absolute terms, a crusade.
I agree with your argument about how Amercian power should be used; but even more, western power is a function of the work of Christian missionaries.
I hope you don't mind my clearing up a bit what you had no choice about omitting. Loved your article!
posted on 02/13/2004 8:01:16 AM PST
Thanks for the ping. Interesting reply, BTW; thoughtful too. :-)
Thanks for the ping.
The author is careful not to mention religion, no doubt for very good justifiable reasons. All the same, I agree with you. It seems that argumentation for the sake of good against evil apart from religion is a sham. The authors I have read that more or less counter the immanentist view are Plato, Aristotle, Eric Voegelin, F. A. Hayek, H. Dooyeweerd, Whittaker Chambers, Willmoore Kendall, Vaclav Havel, (even Leo Strauss), and others.
posted on 02/13/2004 5:38:33 PM PST
"And that idea of absolute truth is religious. Sorry Charlie, but truth is a religious idea. Your entire article, every word which I agree with 100 percent, nonetheless disguises what you are actually cheer leading here: in absolute terms, a crusade."
But of course. We in the U.S. are the Great Satan, doncha know..
Perhaps Bush should have just left the mantra to "Infinite Justice" instead of that pc "Enduring Freedom" crap.
posted on 02/15/2004 11:38:58 AM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson