Quo Vadis? said:

---

Man this is an old school R&P thread

You've got Sapper oblivious posting pretending not to understand anything

You've got Kurt dialing the reading comprehension down to 0 and the righteous indignation up to 11 to ensure he can be as offended as possible

Dad-o-lot reluctantly policing his own while

All we need is 747Ag to post a few metal YouTube vids

Booboo91 to chime in about "love love love"

And RetiredAg to post about how he and 3 other people turned an old shotgun into a garden rake

ETA: forgot about Beer Baron diving into ask why he has to be polite to people who want to throw him in a concentration camp for watching "Will & Grace" and then disappearing

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I'd suggest the underpinning of America assumes Christianity as the moral framework, and subsidiarity (power resting at the local level) is the cultural one. The early states were perfectly ok with other states having a different state religion. They were not ok with a very few and defined rights being infringed. The Anglicans in VA didn't expect the Catholics in Maryland to drop their Catholic practices or vice versa.

I don't think "culture" was really a big deal to them, as they recognized the wide variety of them. And it wasn't a big deal because the FedGov wasn't supposed to weigh in on the vast majority of issues. States ban together for strong defense and strong economy. Differences outside of those issues are of minor importance. If it were still that way today, then California could fly the rainbow flag, Texas could do the opposite, and we could agree that in matters of economy and defense, we come together.

---

This is unworkable, and is exactly why we got to where we are.

What you described isn't one nation, it is several. in your example, Texas and California are different nations. I mean for that matter, that isn't even a coherent single state.



Having California and Texas co-exist separately with completely different ideas of virtue and vice is not a state, much less a single people group or nation.

---

Quote:

---

It was always meant to be a union of states, which is why our union has the name it does.

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

It was always meant to be a union of states, which is why our union has the name it does.

---

that's a fair point, but also - admittedly with the benefit of hindsight - it was a futile effort, for all of the things we're discussing here.

it also seems like we're playing fast and loose with whether or not the united states itself was also a state. it seems hard for me to argue that it wasn't. we had a confederation, which I think Aristotle would have immediately understood. then we created a union, which I think he wouldn't have.

even further, it is impossible to have a single government formed of different nations (in the sense i am using) and different states with different conceptions of the good under the pretenses of representative democracy. after all, the democracy means rule by the demos, the people who are the citizenry of the state. if people arent from the same nations (in whatever sense) they can't come together as a coherent demos, because they don't have the shared concept of the good.

if that weren't obvious enough (multiple nations being incompatible as a single demos) even the Hellenes, one common ethnos, were divided into different states with different people ruling (the demos of each city-state).

i think we might say that the US began as a union between two nations - the people of the north, and the people of the south - with each nation comprised of separate states below, each with their unique citizenry.

that didn't work, and pretty much never worked from the beginning, and you wound up with one nation subjugating the other (regardless of the evil of slavery justifying that) and ultimately that nation dismantled the power of the underlying states - as you point out.

so i think here history tells the same story i am, and reinforces that in a representative democracy, you will always end up with only one nation in power.

which means it behooves us to find a way to

1) find a unifying nucleus to coalesce a nation around (which clearly isn't the constitution or state!)
2) make sure that nation is in power versus another nation

comes back to the question - if an American is a person loyal to the thing upon which our government's legitimacy is based, what is that thing? what ideals or philosophy gives it that authority?

really appreciate your post here this is helping me work out things in my mind. thanks.

---

Quote:

---

comes back to the question - if an American is a person loyal to the thing upon which our government's legitimacy is based, what is that thing? what ideals or philosophy gives it that authority?

---

Zobel said:

---

I dont think that is sufficient. It's begging the question. Where do we look to for justice? What is the concept of welfare?

I'm not try to be pedantic here - the idea is the state exists to achieve the good. Our preamble lists some things which could be summarized as "achieve the good" plus some thing Aristotle says are not part of the definition of a state (common defense, domestic tranquility etc).

I mean these are leading questions because I obviously have something in mind. But justice isn't a philosophy or an ideal in and of itself. Nor is welfare. Different societies have radically different definitions of those two things, nevermind radically different understandings of to whom they apply and who should benefit from them.

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Also, I think historically conservatives have been terrible at wielding power is because a super majority of conservative base is evangelical. And evangelicals despise power structures even if they are well ordered and good. The base state of evangelicalism is resisting authority and atomizing into smaller and smaller groups.

There is no religious or psuedo religious hierarchy to lean on as a power base. To connect one another. And also to get used to the idea of someone else having authority over you even if you don't see eye to eye. Working to live under authority is biblical.

So when they are in power there isn't a patronage network to pull from, no connection to other people who have the same worldview, and no experience not fracturing at the slightest disagreeance, things go wrong quickly.

We also live in a time where political views are born out of decadance. I can afford to not vote or participate politically because its not like the success of my tribe or clan depends on it. Its not like if we don't get this leader correct, we're going to run out of food, water, or go directly to war.

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

I think Quo hit it 90% on the head but I'll indulge you here.

What makes up 'serious dialogue' or 'reasonable discussion?'.

I truly believe we have demons running around in this world. And that demons whisper to humans to do their bidding in destroying one another. Like Quo said, there isn't anything wrong with calling liberals demonic psychopaths who butcher children if they are in fact demonic pyschopaths who butcher children. If we can show yes, they are demonically possessed, oppressed or in communion with demons and they do seek to butcher children because demons hate man. What is unserious or unreasonable about that? You're just objecting to the truth.

Does that mean democratic voters as a whole are demonic, No. Does this mean republicans don't have demonic influences in their power structures? No.But the left is where demons roost for these things because the conservative base in this country is christian, and while the base forgotten a lot about christianity, it can still easily spot those demons even if its not noticing the ones whispering in their ear.

At the end of the day, atheists flail and defend all sorts of evil, especially demonics. Because if demons are real, then that means God is real. And if God is real, atheists favorite vices are off the menu and they are in for a hell of a trip one day. And worse than hell, atheists would have to admit Christians had the correct ordering of life all along. A fate worse than death in the modern world.

So yeah between Sapper and the rest of the atheist contingent here there's a bit of Upton Sinclair, '"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary vices depends on his not understanding it" going on here.

---

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Also, I think historically conservatives have been terrible at wielding power is because a super majority of conservative base is evangelical. And evangelicals despise power structures even if they are well ordered and good. The base state of evangelicalism is resisting authority and atomizing into smaller and smaller groups.

There is no religious or psuedo religious hierarchy to lean on as a power base. To connect one another. And also to get used to the idea of someone else having authority over you even if you don't see eye to eye. Working to live under authority is biblical.

So when they are in power there isn't a patronage network to pull from, no connection to other people who have the same worldview, and no experience not fracturing at the slightest disagreeance, things go wrong quickly.

We also live in a time where political views are born out of decadance. I can afford to not vote or participate politically because its not like the success of my tribe or clan depends on it. Its not like if we don't get this leader correct, we're going to run out of food, water, or go directly to war.

---

Are the Orthodox not the champions of small, local power centers? Each bishop is their own authority in their geographically defined diocese, subject only to the authority of the total body of bishops united under their Metro, united with all the other Metros? And if they disagree with each other at one of those levels, they just break communion with each other, which basically means they weren't subject all along.

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Correction. Not everyone with a different value system is demonic. We said abortion and trans are demonic. You just want me to agree with your worldview that its not demonic.

But you're starting your catechesis well. Demons hate man and are the source of rebellion and sin against God.

---

Quote:

---

You're asking about a national level of 350 million people, so radically different definitions are the name of the game. Which is why I argue we shouldn't look at the USA as "the state" and instead look at it as "the states". Again, this worked up to the point that one group of states tried to enforce their opinion of justice, welfare, etc on their union members. A war happened because they wanted to enforce those views when the other side wanted to leave the union.

I'm not saying one side can't enforce their views on the other. I'm simply saying that it often requires violence to do so. And the first 80 years or so of our constitution proved we could live in relative harmony and secure our national borders while having radically opposed moral views on a particular topic.

---

Quote:

---

So we choose: local "states" with common national defense and economic policy, or one massive "state" that will inevitably lead to violence.

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Also, I think historically conservatives have been terrible at wielding power is because a super majority of conservative base is evangelical. And evangelicals despise power structures even if they are well ordered and good. The base state of evangelicalism is resisting authority and atomizing into smaller and smaller groups.

There is no religious or psuedo religious hierarchy to lean on as a power base. To connect one another. And also to get used to the idea of someone else having authority over you even if you don't see eye to eye. Working to live under authority is biblical.

So when they are in power there isn't a patronage network to pull from, no connection to other people who have the same worldview, and no experience not fracturing at the slightest disagreeance, things go wrong quickly.

We also live in a time where political views are born out of decadance. I can afford to not vote or participate politically because its not like the success of my tribe or clan depends on it. Its not like if we don't get this leader correct, we're going to run out of food, water, or go directly to war.

---

Are the Orthodox not the champions of small, local power centers? Each bishop is their own authority in their geographically defined diocese, subject only to the authority of the total body of bishops united under their Metro, united with all the other Metros? And if they disagree with each other at one of those levels, they just break communion with each other, which basically means they weren't subject all along.

---

Orthodox churches are part of a confederacy. United in theological beliefs. Sharing a common history in liturgical practices.

Yes one autocephalous church head can't tell another what to do. And one bishop can't order another bishops priests to do anything. But you do have your bishop and your archdiocese and autocephalous head. No one has the authority to change the theology, but the administrative things yes. You do have to learn to live under authority even as the laity.

And I would have no problem implementing this in America. Where we are united in beliefs but not tightly bound in administration. Detractors sent to Canada.

---

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

You're asking about a national level of 350 million people, so radically different definitions are the name of the game. Which is why I argue we shouldn't look at the USA as "the state" and instead look at it as "the states". Again, this worked up to the point that one group of states tried to enforce their opinion of justice, welfare, etc on their union members. A war happened because they wanted to enforce those views when the other side wanted to leave the union.

I'm not saying one side can't enforce their views on the other. I'm simply saying that it often requires violence to do so. And the first 80 years or so of our constitution proved we could live in relative harmony and secure our national borders while having radically opposed moral views on a particular topic.

---

This is tantamount to admitting defeat. You can't really say "this worked up to a point" when that point was 73 years. In state-years thats a toddler. In other words, it didn't freakin work at all, it was only marginally more stable form of government than a tyranny. Or maybe not even that... North Korea has been a dictatorship for longer than the period between the signing of the constitution and the civil war.

Another way to describe the failure is the union structure didn't pass its first real test of civic unity.

Which, again, I think proves my point: if your body politic is not de facto a unified nation (ethnos) then a representative democracy won't work. It will become a subjugation of one faction to another, with violence as an added bonus.

Quote:

---

So we choose: local "states" with common national defense and economic policy, or one massive "state" that will inevitably lead to violence.

---

But we've established that the first - local states with common national defense and economic policy - isn't and was never real. It was a fiction, and the fiction immediately lead to violence. Not inevitably, but in less than a century.

This is no choice at all. The real choice is whether or not you can have a unified nation (ethnos) in the US as it currently exists. You're saying you can't. I actually think you can, because the slavery albatross was a huge failure mode that was baked into it from the start. It was always a point of tension and contention. And even if it were a choice that would work, that ship has sailed. We are no longer a union of states (if indeed that ever was a reality).

You just have to pick something that can unify, then essentially put it forward as a unifying thing, and people have to see that as being truly American. The reality is we probably do have common things we value as a foundation, but we probably disagree on the foundation they're set in. Which is why the question of "Christian nationalism" is so important, and why the inability for anyone to have a coherent discussion about it is so irritating.

The alternative is a national fracture. If you really believe that, you need to be actively working toward something like Texit or preparing yourself for real conflict. Because there's no real alternative.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Correction. Not everyone with a different value system is demonic. We said abortion and trans are demonic. You just want me to agree with your worldview that its not demonic.

But you're starting your catechesis well. Demons hate man and are the source of rebellion and sin against God.

---

Its not at all important to me that you agree with my worldview. Whats important to me is how we decide to treat people under 'demonic influence'. Because, maybe you think atheists are under demonic influence. And Hindus, and Jews. And maybe alcohol is the devil's juice. And premarital sex, homosexuality, curse words, baggy shorts, tattoos, rap music, long hair, and pineapple pizza . . . the work of demons.

I'm not suggesting you are advocating theocracy, but I mean. . . if you've going against literal demons, what can't be justified? Right? And what objection can anyone raise? Saying something is demonic and the work of invisible magical demons whispering in our ears is a conversion / discussion / debate non-starter. There is simply no where to go from that point. I can no more argue against literal demons whispering in people's ears than you can argue against the existence of garden gnomes.

I guess what I'm saying is that I want to be left alone with my demons. They're not so bad. I've given them names and we're good friends. From my perspective, you have plenty of demons in your ear. And so, I'll leave you to yours.

---

Quote:

---

I think things like NATO and the UN also give us some semblance of an idea for how it works today, even if they aren't perfect either. Each country has it's own unique way of handling "local" affairs but agree on common defense, etc. This isn't a "state" in terms of geography but it is an attempt at a "state" in terms of protecting humanity at large. I'm rushing this response, so it's not a perfect explanation. I'd ask for some grace on not fully fleshing out the details.

---

Quote:

---

I've said on other threads that once Christianity is removed, we are grounded in agnosticism by default. We aren't in imaginary neutral land. So if I have to pick a side, I'm picking the Christian side.

---

Quote:

---

I just wish we could have stuck to the way this country was drawn up in the first place.

---

Quote:

---

If you want to say because that ship has sailed we need to find common ground, I'm open to that.

---

Quote:

---

Well, at a short enough time span anything "works"

---

Quote:

---

No, NATO and UN are not states. They're a defensive alliance and a diplomatic league, respectively. They represent various states.

---

Quote:

---

If the founders had a blind spot, it was probably that they took the moral framework for granted. Which isn't really fair, because a lot of them did acknowledge it - but they didn't codify it into the structure. Natural rights as "self-evident" just means that "we all agree this is obvious" but you can't go from pagan to secular and have anyone think it is "obvious" that humans have natural rights that come from God. So at least on some level they took a Christian or medieval moral framework for granted, because without it you don't get the enlightenment

---

Quote:

---

I guess what I'm saying is, there really can't be any such thing as spontaneous agnosticism

---

Quote:

---

Anyway - yes. That ship sailed a long, long time ago if it ever existed. So the question is - as we seem to be wedded to the idea of a representative democracy (le sigh), and that means one nation (ethnos) will rule, what is the best way to draw a line of demarcation around the nation we want to call Americans? It's not modern ethnicity and can't be, never has been. So what could it be that everyone would be basically ok with?

I'd be reasonably satisfied if we could call it a Christian based morality with enlightenment ideals (i.e., natural rights). That actually would be Christian nationalism.

---

Quote:

---

We've already transformed the country into something that the constitution didn't spell out. Ironically, our constiution has gone through protestant slide at the same rate protestantism has as well.

I would be happy to see a recommitment to the constitution, but even if we have a constitutional assembly to tighten up issues with the constitution - it doesn't matter as long as people who do not have the same presuppositions of power in america are executing them.

---

Zobel said:

---

I don't agree. Just like there's no magic dirt, there's no magic blood.

What makes you an American isn't who your parents are, not in essence. What makes you an American is how you order your life, what you do with your personal and political agency, how you treat others, based on what you hold as truths. It is a worldview.

That's why the modern notion of ethnicity is so wrong. It is just as true to say "Not all who are of America are Americans" as it was for St Paul to say "Not all who are of Israel are Israel". It is the same wrongheaded bloodline approach. What makes you part of the nation is your way of life.


((sorry - you said Christian ethnic country - OK - I can be ok with that as long as we're not using "Christian" as a stand-in for "historically Christian" in such a way that your two options - Christian and European - are one and the same.))

---

Quote:

---

Homosexuality and premarital sex don't destroy society. Greed, hatred, judgement, and obsession over power destroys societies. Sexual transgressions are one of the many boogey man ideas that people use to control others in their greedy thirst for power and control over others. Societies are destroyed when people are obsessed with power, and wealth, and control, and in demonizing others as a scapegoat for real problems.

---