"Contempt crackled forth: 'Don't fear, either, that you need become fashionable radicals. Leave oratory, demonstrations, riots, denunciatory essays in chic magazines, solidarity with every grubby Cause that wants to hitch a ride, sermons which don't mention God because he isn't relevant - leave such things to the monkeys. Better, disown them, reject them.'" (p. 244)
What a litany! Demonstrations and riots strung together! Monkeys! Why are causes grubby? Why should there not be solidarity between groups that have different specific grievances within the same Federation? If a clergyman does not mention God as often as someone else thinks that he should, then that is a matter between him and his bishop and his congregation. If the sermon has a political content, then let each of us make our own judgements about that.
An unwelcome outburst of contempt near the end of a novel.
37 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
No, I agree with the Judge's contempt for the things he listed. I have seen all too many of such demonstrations, denunciatory propaganda, riots, etc., in the name of causes I don't merely disagree with but despise as just plain evil.
Of course clergymen can have political opinions, but they should not get in the way of their strictly religious duties.
Ad astra! Sean
Total disagreement.
Kaor, Paul!
Many causes are totally undeserving of any support or sympathy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Many causes are.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And many, many are not. Such as the most trendy chic fashionable causes.
Ad astra! Sean
And many are.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree, I can think of several noble and praiseworthy causes. One being how pro-life activists have struggled for thankless decades to start bringing an end to the monstrous horror of "legalized" abortion. In the very teeth of a hostile zeitgeist dominated by the left.
Another, more recent praiseworthy cause is how many are more and more opposing the "transgender" insanity, including Britons as prominent as JK Rowling. In the teeth of opposition from woke leftists.
Another noble cause is how Elon Musk's herculean efforts is doing so much to get mankind off this rock. In the teeth of opposition, skepticism, and mockery.
I could go on and on!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't think the zeitgeist is left-dominated. The need to stop immigrants and the blaming of them for social ills is taken for granted. Bipartisan hostility to immigrants encourages the white supremacist far right and we are always having to mobilize against them on the streets. I would like to see a society where our ideas are more widely accepted.
"Transgender" insanity? Polarized antagonism! I think that this issue will settle down when people stop reacting for or against it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, the zeitgeist is dominated by secularist leftists who despise Christians, conservatives, libertarians, and anyone who dares to oppose weird leftist obsessions.
I am absolutely sick of the illegals who keep swarming into the US because that corrupt, senile, bungling hack, "Josip," puppet mastered by the leftists around him, refuses to do his job and defend and police the borders! That is infuriating millions and millions of people in the US.
Yes, the "transgender" lunacy is insane, and is hurting real women and girls. Leftists are wrong on this and many other issues.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The zeitgeist is dominated by global competitive profit-seeking which leads to wars for resources and control of markets.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, our problems are caused by bad ideas and foolish people. E.g., we would not need oil and coal so much if, half a century ago, so many leftists had not decided to fanatically oppose nuclear power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I disagree. It is not leftists who control the world. It is the accumulators of capital, the class that you support.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Wrong, I support free enterprise economics, not the hopeless, futile, blood soaked failure of socialism, which is what you still support.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Wrong. Free enterprise will be redundant when wealth is abundant. Socialism has not been tried often and failed. I do not support anything soaked in blood.
Paul.
I do not usually tell people that they are "Wrong" but I am replying in kind. I would prefer if the exchange were more of a discussion.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree, you can't have abundant wealth without the right kind of economics allowing it to be produced/created. Iow, free enterprise.
Socialism has been tried over and over, ever since the Plymouth colony in MA, and has always failed. Every single socialist/Marxist regime since 1917 has been exactly that: a blood soaked and tyrannical failure.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree. Superior tech will produce what is needed and will need to be controlled socially so that everyone gets what they need and can develop freely.
Socialism has not been tried over and over. Only twice has the self-organised working class taken political control. The Paris Commune was drowned in blood and the Russian Republic of 1917 was wrecked by civil war and wars of intervention but we have been through these arguments before. I don't want a long exchange about this but am obliged to reply to argumentative points repeated from before. (Of course I can expound at greater length about this but am hoping that a summary will suffice.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree, you cannot have superior tech without the right kind of economics giving people the signals and information needed for it to become practical: free enterprise.
Disagree, the Paris Commune was an arrogant attempt at seizing power by a faction insolently claiming the right to rule France. The Provisional Gov't was right to crush it.
Incorrect, what you said about Russia in 1917. I will limit myself to saying Lenin was no democrat, he seized power and made himself a tyrant. It was right so many opposed him.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagree, disagree and incorrect.
Democratic workers' councils (soviets) were in a state of "dual power" (actual or potential civil war) with the Russian Provisional Government. The Bolsheviks said, "All power to the soviets." Bolshevik-led soviets seized power. Military conflict reduced Bolshevik-led workers' democracy first to an unwilling Bolshevik dictatorship industrializing in order to restore workers' democracy, then to a willing bureaucratic dictatorship industrializing in order to increase exploitation which required the destruction of workers' democracy and the killing of the old Bolsheviks.
When wealth is abundant, it will be unnecessary to compete for resources or wealth. Can we move this disagreement beyond repetition?
Paul.
Just to pick up on the one remaining point, I think that the spreading of the influence of the Commune would have involved the Communards encouraging other urban proletariats to challenge for power, not the Parisian Communards claiming that they themselves constituted a new national government. But I am not dogmatic on these issues. I still need to learn about them.
Also, I hope that I can comment on issues in Anderson's texts like that character's crackling contempt for what he calls grubby Causes and monkeys without raising the spectre of the Commune etc every time! But, if the argument comes up again, then we will have to go through it again.
Sean: "illegals who keep swarming into the US because that corrupt, senile, bungling hack, "Josip," "
As I heard it, there was a bill to thwart illegal immigration that would give Republicans what they were asking for, but Trump got Republican congressmen to vote against it, to avoid giving Biden a win.
Illegals.
People move around on the Earth to escape from poverty, droughts, wars and tyrannies and to seek a better life. That is what they are supposed to do. Capital is free to chase profits around the world. Labour should be free to chase good wages. As a Polish man in a local factory told me, "The money is better here." Lancaster has two mosques and one Polish language Catholic Church and benefits from this diversity. The world has become too small to remain divided into armed nation states keeping people out.
Jim,
You are factually correct about that but I think that it is demeaning to argue about how to keep people out instead of planning to welcome them in as well as acting internationally to address the urgent problems that make people want to migrate.
Paul.
BTW, do they "swarm" or is that an exaggeration? If they do swarm, then there really is a problem that will not be addressed merely by keeping people out.
From Sean M. Brooks:
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Pressed for time, I will first address the issue of illegal immigration.
Jim: No, what has been infuriating so many Americans is how senile, corrupt, bungling "Josip" and his puppet masters have abandoned all real attempts at controlling US borders. The dotard has abandoned Trump administration rules that would be "immigrants" either stay in Mexico or their countries and apply for visas the normal way. And "Josip" also abandoned effective physical policing of the borders. The only rule that horrible creature will let immigration officers "enforce" is that they give illegals worthless summons to appear in court to have their legal status ruled on years from now. And we both know how few will do that!
It's no surprise the union representing border and immigration officers announced they are not supporting the Bungler's re-election.
Paul: I absolutely disagree with you about illegal immigration! No foreigners have the right to shove their way into other peoples countries in violation of their laws and wishes. It is not the same as "capital," because that only touches on credit and money.
It's also a question of sovereignty--meaning all sovereign nations have the absolute right to set and enforce the terms and conditions by which foreigners can enter and live in any nation. Including setting the terms and conditions for becoming citizens. To abdicate on these basic principles means any nation doing that is abdicating its sovereignty and right to govern itself. That is why so many are infuriated with the horrible "Josip"!
Yes, "swarming"! Conservative estimates puts the number of illegals swarming in since "Josip" took office at 2-3 millions, and probable more since we have to include those who never got "processed."
Even Democrat governors and mayors are balking, because they now have to somehow cope with the chaos, disorder, and crimes these illegals are bringing with them. There have been two recent examples this past week of illegals raping and/or murdering two 12 and 13 years old girls.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Doing a bit more catching up. I still disagree with you about the Holy Trinity. Here I will quote how Dante strove to give some explication of the mystery of the Three Persons in the One Godhead, quoting PARADISE XXXIII, 123-41 (tr. Dorothy L. Sayers and Barbara Reynolds):
That light supreme, within its fathomless
Clear substance, showed to me three spheres, which bare
Three lines distinct, and occupied one space;
The first mirrored the next, as though it were
Rainbow from rainbow, and the third seemed flame
Breathed equally from each of the first pair.
How weak are words, and how unfit to frame
My concept--which lags after what was shown
So far, 'twould flatter it to call it lame!
Eternal light, that in Thyself alone
Dwelling, alone dost know Thyself, and smile
on Thy self-love, so knowing and so known!
The sphering thus begot, perceptible
In Thee like borrowed light, now to my view--
When I had looked on it a little while--
Seemed in itself, and in its own self-hue,
Limned with our image; for which cause mine eyes
Were altogether drawn and held therein.
As the geometer his mind applies
To square the circle, nor for all his wit
Finds the right formula, how'er he tries,
So strove I with that wonder--how to fix
The image to the sphere; so sought to see
How it maintained the point of rest in it.
Thither my own wings could not carry me,
But that a flash my understanding clove;
Whence its desire came to it suddenly.
The partially quoted note to lines 118-20 says: "The Son is begotten of the Father (as a second rainbow was thought to be "begotten" of the first)...); the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. The annotation for lines 130-31 says, in part: "The human features of Christ are perceptible to Dante within the "sphering" (l. 127)."
You don't agree, but all Trinitarian Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental, and many Protestants do.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Beyond a certain point of discussion, we just have to respect each other's beliefs and continue, for the time being at least, with our existing practices. Mine have changed over time but a lot of time.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I know, and I agree, in some but not all ways. But I like how Dante strove so mightily to explain the Christian belief about the Trinity in as non-technical language as possible.
And that mention of the geometer struggling to square the circle intrigued me. That was a question which fascinated many mathematicians for many centuries.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Remember that many people believe in the Trinity and associated doctrines because they have been told that they believe in them for longer than they can remember. And they have also been told that it is sinful to doubt such doctrines or to risk losing their faith. This goes against everything that I have come to believe about free enquiry.
Paul.
From Sean M. Brooks:
Kaor, Paul!
And that was not how I was raised or told. I was raised in the Faith and made a choice to believe in the Scriptures and the Nicene Creed.
No, I believe the decadent, despairing secularism of our times is because I believe many are afraid to believe in God and Christianity, because to do so would compel a complete revolution in their lives, ideas, beliefs. The atheist would have to give up atheism, the homosexual his homosexuality, the abortionist would have to stop butchering babies, etc.
Free enquiry includes the possibility that secularists could be wrong, as I believe them to be.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That was how I was raised and what I was told. We cannot choose to believe. Either we are convinced of the truth of a proposition by evidence and reason or we are not. I cannot choose to believe that the Earth is flat when the evidence is that it is round. I was wrongly taught that the existence of God and the truth of Christianity and Catholicism could be proved.
You are again impugning the motives of people you disagree with. We cannot debate on that basis. I can just as well reply that people who have been brought up to believe are afraid to disbelieve. They would have to give up their comforting reassurances about a hereafter.
Of course free enquiry includes the possibility that anyone is wrong! That goes without saying and cuts both ways. You rightly say that secularists could be wrong. Where does that get us? Could theists be wrong? I expect you to reply that you believe that they are not. But COULD they be wrong? The mere statement that it is possible that someone (anyone) is wrong does not advance the discussion about the various truth claims that are being made.
Theists could be wrong as I believe them to be. Saying that has not advanced the discussion.
Paul.
BTW, are secularists despairing? We have many grounds for pessimism particularly about the climate crisis but there is also optimism of the will. Until we are extinct, we can continue to act.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we disagree in many ways. One being my conviction belief is a choice.
Yes, I believe there are such things as societal despair, ultimately springing from bad ideas offering nothing real, hopeful, and solid. But it would take whole books to properly argue out such ideas. One example being Pope Benedict XVI's book CHRISTIANITY AND THE CRISIS OF CULTURE.
I agree about optimism of the will and the need to act, as does orthodox Christianity, which rejects fatalism and passivity.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Belief cannot be a choice! I believe that the Labour Party will win the current General Election because there is a lot of evidence to support this conclusion but I will be proved right or wrong by the weekend. I cannot choose to believe that they will win! Or, if I did, then I would be guilty of intellectual dishonesty and self-deception.
This is my problem with Evangelicals but I thought that it was confined to their branch of Christianity. They cannot speak except on the assumption that their belief is true so they are incapable of entering into dialogue with anyone who believes anything else. They tell us to accept their belief not on the basis of evidence or reason but by an act of will which is either impossible or insane. The belief that they ask us to accept is grotesque. God condemns everyone for being the way they are and thinks that they deserve endless torment. But he loves them so much that he gets his blameless son tortured to death instead of them. But they will still suffer endless torment if they do not choose to believe that God has done this. Does any of that make any sense? But people continually tell us this when we walk into town.
There are many conflicts and causes of alienation in the world and that has to be why this belief is so deeply rooted and widely disseminated.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we seem to understand "belief" in different ways.
Aren't you being too hard on Evangelical Protestants? While I am sure you've met some very unpleasant persons of that type, I also recall how gently Anderson treated that kind of Christians in stories like "The Bitter Bread" and articles such as "Science and Creation."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
How can you choose to believe?
If I say that I do not accept a belief because I see no reason to accept it or because I accept arguments against it, you say that I choose not to believe it? So you claim to know my inner processes better than I do? We cannot continue a discussion on that basis.
Paul.
Post a Comment