tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post2609286065316672681..comments2024-03-25T16:03:36.810-07:00Comments on The Existentialist Cowboy: Civilization: Amid Old Triumphs, New Threats from FascismAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-74949504846046098962007-04-01T20:59:00.000-07:002007-04-01T20:59:00.000-07:00Having seen the entire program on BBC, however, I ...Having seen the entire program on BBC, however, I can tell you that Bolton was NOT edited to look bad. In fact, as bad as he appears, you got his best shots on the clips.<BR/><BR/>Fact is, Bolton is not all that bright. He is merely arrogant.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-22012475366086463192007-04-01T20:55:00.000-07:002007-04-01T20:55:00.000-07:00Welcome back, benmercAll sweeping generalizations ...Welcome back, benmerc<BR/><BR/>All sweeping generalizations are dangerous and "secular" may be a matter of degree. Given the theocratic nature of earlier regimes, and, indeed, even Medieval European states, the Greeks appear increasingly secular. <BR/><BR/>I am tempted to say that, over its history, Greek society became secular as it became more "democratic".<BR/><BR/>anonymous, I have no idea why the clips ended thus. I can say this, Bolton discredits himself in other clips repeatedly and in several ways. The most sophomoric attempt is seen on one of the clips I posted. He tries to imply that Benn doesn't understand the US Constitution. On another clip, Bolton tried to imply that his questioner did not believe in "democracy". The interviewer simply replied to the effect that his questions were not premised either against or for "democracy" itself.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-87572684227452916852007-04-01T03:44:00.000-07:002007-04-01T03:44:00.000-07:00The clips I watched ended before Bolton had a chan...The clips I watched ended before Bolton had a chance to reply to his critics. Why was that? I was interested to hear how he would defend himself, and made me think the exercise was rather one sided.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-67944543750250577832007-03-27T04:54:00.000-07:002007-03-27T04:54:00.000-07:00I agree with you Len,They brought forward consensu...I agree with you Len,<BR/><BR/>They brought forward consensus, reason and logic. Each philosopher scientist that did so, not only knew these were the workings of man, but that these ideas were his responsibility... and the real big difference is that they shared it with everyone for the most part, and that had never happened up to that point in time. <BR/><BR/>I believe Russell certainly is correct in labeling the Greeks as the first secularists, that is with out a doubt what they were during several of their civilization morphs. And, it is also true there were many periods of time when regions/city states were incumbent to their gods.benmerchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05822419839573670413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-7138651102038290082007-03-27T03:39:00.000-07:002007-03-27T03:39:00.000-07:00Dante Lee, Voltaire never built a church in Switze...Dante Lee, Voltaire never built a church in Switzerland - he built a church in Ferney-Voltaire, in France, for the villagers of Ferney. On the lintel is this dedication: "Deo erexit VOLTAIRE". This was probably the only church in Europe dedicated directly to God.Vierotchkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05028919670102869922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-23511434695492219612007-03-27T00:04:00.000-07:002007-03-27T00:04:00.000-07:00Dante, your point is well-taken. However, a few te...Dante, your point is well-taken. However, a few temples do not a theocracy make. Russell draws the contrast with the earlier and more ancient civilizations of Egypt and Babylon. A Theocracy, moreover, is one in which political power and the "Priesthood" are one and the same. In such a society, the religious law is "the" law. Even in its early days, it is doubtful that Greece was ruled by priests or Shamans. Even, now in Europe, the influence of Greece is felt. For example, Europe is not ruled from the vatican, though it might have been. The Church, after all, is the only Roman institution to have survived the fall of Rome. <BR/><BR/>Here is Russell's take on religion; <BR/><BR/><I>'You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step towards the diminution of war, every step towards better treatment of the coloured races, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized Churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its Churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.' Elsewhere he wrote: 'My own view of religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others' ('Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?'). </I><BR/><BR/>Russell died at the age of 97. Approaching the end, he said: 'I do so hate to leave the world.' But he was fearless and, to the end, he fought the good fight: <BR/><BR/><I>Communists, Fascists, and Nazis have successfully challenged all that I thought good, and in defeating them much of what their opponents have sought to preserve is being lost. Freedom has come to be thought weakness, and tolerance has been compelled to wear the garb of treachery. </I><BR/><BR/><I>-Bertrand Russell</I><BR/><BR/>His words must be remembered today. Clearly, he understood that the greatest danger in waging war is that of becoming one's enemy. If the US has fought terrorism, only to become terrorists, torturers, aggressors, we lose. We lost.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-64116852117865426452007-03-26T12:54:00.000-07:002007-03-26T12:54:00.000-07:00I can't believe I'm reading this. Russell's belief...I can't believe I'm reading this. Russell's belief that “Greek civilization was primarily secular” is just plain ridiculous: The Greek republic have built giant religious temples with the richness plundered from the republic's enemies. The construction of the temple of Athena, which dominates still Athens's Parthenon, was all paid by heavy war “fees” upon the defeated neighbors.<BR/><BR/>Just like Pascal, centuries later, Plato's philosophy, which was, with no doubt, a superb nest for secular axioms and philosophical tenets, sprang mainly from the very tolerant paganism of these times. Later on, the Roman Republic, and even during the first centuries of the Roman Empire enjoyed the fruits of paganism as well in creating a system of laws that our modern societies have been strongly inspired, and which toleration for other “races”, ethnicities and colorful cultures within the Empire vast geography have yet to be match by our “modern” multiculturalism. <BR/><BR/>Sure, today's American Christians who lack the understanding of history often point out and accuse the Roman's Empire intolerance towards early Christians. But this intolerance was just a eye for an eye response to these early Christian's very own intolerant tenets of personal civic and civil secession. Furthermore, contrarily to the present beliefs, persecutions of Christians were very sporadic event.<BR/>Moreover, during the early days of the Empire, Christians were well established among the ruling class, among nobilities and in fluent people. But the Empire had to wait more than three centuries to witness the destruction of their “secular” society when one of their leader decided to elevate Christianism as the official religion. And even then, it was a decision that sprang from pure political purposes, not unlike the today' s Bush administration claim of working for his religious constituency. <BR/><BR/>A millennium and a half later, the earliest examples of pure secular philosophies can not even be found in Rousseau's philosophy, for even his idealistic secular society carries rituals that mimicked religious ones, such as his village's weekly Parties of the People. And Voltaire even built a church devoted to Deism in the backyard of his Swiss retreat.<BR/><BR/> Michael Burleigh, in his masterful “Earthly Powers”, tells how the French Revolution elevated Freedom (liberty, most exactly) as the national religion. This concept went further during the Terror, during when Robespierre reinvented a so called “secular” calendar, decreed new national days, and organized semi-religious parades, all with the staunchness and a fervor sprang from his Jesuit youth.<BR/><BR/>Russell confuses non-monotheistic civilizations and secularism. It's a pity and a disservice to the understanding of history and for our hopes of progressing from it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-53639430728185784862007-03-26T12:25:00.000-07:002007-03-26T12:25:00.000-07:00There have been some developments on the sleeping ...There have been some developments on the sleeping Iran issue. The Democrats changed the Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill before passing it. They no longer require Bush to get Congressional approval to attack Iran. This is a profound political failure that undoubtedly will be taken up by Bush. A few commentators have noted that this changed policy followed Nancy Pelosi's capitulation at AIPAC. As <A HREF="http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10724" REL="nofollow">Justin Raimondo </A> points out: "As long as domestic political support for an attack spans both parties and includes the key element of 'liberal' Democrats like Pelosi and Chairman Dean, all systems are 'go' for war with Iran".<BR/><BR/>Raimondo also makes a few good points about the capture of 15 UK sailors, citing <A HREF="http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=6f4e8311-22d2-43ba-8198-bcc3a9eeda83&k=83132" REL="nofollow">Brig. Gen. Hakim Jassim</A>, the Iraqi military commander of the country's territorial waters, who has cast doubt on claims that the Britons were in Iraqi territory: <EM> '"We were informed by Iraqi fishermen after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control. We don't know why they were there."</EM><BR/><BR/>We should also keep in mind that any attack upon Iran would not likely take place in winter. This spring or summer seems more likely. Add to this the fact that Blair will be out of office within two months and that a replacement UK Labor leader cannot be expected to support attacks upon Iran. Hence earlier rather than later. A lot earlier.<BR/><BR/>Which brings me to the what-do-we-make-of-<A HREF="http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1888.shtml" REL="nofollow">this</A> item:<BR/><BR/><EM><STRONG>The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6</STRONG>, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly "Argumenty Nedeli." Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.</EM>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com