Journal pudge's Journal: Obama to Immanentize the Eschaton 26
As quoted on CNN, Barack Obama said, "I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
Over a year ago I did an Ask Pudge episode where I said that many liberals want to "immanentize the eschaton," or create heaven here on earth. Some people chose to lambast me for making that accurate claim.
Not that I needed more examples, but Obama is a good one to add to the mix.
Also not needing more examples of, but adding this to the list of: reasons to vote against Obama.
Stewards don't set the house on fire (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:1)
Why is his wanting to create heaven on earth a reason to vote against him? (If this is already explained in your recording and you don't feel like repeating, just tell me to STFU.)
Re: (Score:2)
...adding this to the list of: reasons to vote against Obama.
Why is his wanting to create heaven on earth a reason to vote against him?
Primarily, because it is not possible, and I don't want to waste time and energy and resources trying. Such talk almost inevitably leads to greater taxation and more strict control over everything in society (such as his believe in universal health care coverage) in order to make sure there's no crime, no poverty, no sickness, and no problems of any kind ... except for a loss of liberty and happiness.
It betrays a belief that there exists a special enlightenment (what the Gnostics called gnosis) such that
Re: (Score:1)
But the big question is, why should people in America, or in the world for that matter, go without health coverage, for example, so that you can have some freedoms? Isn't social justice more important?
Re: (Score:1)
I do not not follow the exact logic of "Obama wants heaven on earth, therefore I will not vote for him." I do subscribe to not voting for Obama because his method for attaining heaven on earth is greatly flawed. I do subscribe to trying to attain heaven on earth. A number of times Paul tells us to live as citizens of heaven while on earth and to work to bring the kingdom about. It is the means that put me at odds with Obama.
What social justice is there if you must tak
Re: (Score:1)
I definitely do not, I think it completely misses the point of why we're here, and is a dangerously distractive idea/one that can be taken too seriously with dire (spiritual) consequences.
A number of times Paul tells us to live as citizens of heaven while on earth and to work to bring the kingdom about.
You may be ascribing more meaning to "work to bring the kingdom about" than is intended. We should spread the Gospel far and wide, to usher in the day or at
Re: (Score:2)
What social justice is there if you must take liberty away from others?
Well, prohibiting abortion is an example of where liberty must be taken away, in deference to social justice, is it not?
I don't think so. To me, "social justice" is different from "justice." Justice is defending our rights to be secure in our persons and property. Social justice goes beyond that: making sure people are not poor, or homeless, or sick. Abortion is about justice.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, that was a bad example. But as a Christian, how do you square "love thy neighbor" with "I must be free to do as I wish"? What does "love your neighbor as yourself" mean? Isn't that a balance?
I am free to choose to, and how to, love my neighbor.
As Paul said, all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. I am free to spend all my money on DVDs, and I am free to help those in need. I make the choice, according to my beliefs, not what government tells me to do.
As a Christian, I can't see how I could ever look someone in the eye and tell them I will take their property from them against their will, and give it to someone else, and that if they don't play along, they will go to jail.
Re: (Score:1)
I cherish my liberties, but it isn't my religion. Individual liberty is not my ultimate goal, morality is. Individual liberty being a (very significant) component of it. I'm a Christian first, then a Conservative, and then a Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
When is government a legitimate means? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The command to render Ceasar's unto him hasn't changed, do you think? Is it that now in a democracy we get to decide what Caesar does with it, we aren't supposed to be charitable?
I never in any way implied we should not "render unto Caesar." You either misunderstand what I wrote, or misunderstand the Bible. I am not sure which, since you didn't elaborate. I'll guess though. Perhaps you were referring to:
As Paul said, all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. I am free to spend all my money on DVDs, and I am free to help those in need. I make the choice, according to my beliefs, not what government tells me to do.
I was not saying we should refuse to obey if government tells us to contribute. I am saying government SHOULD NOT tell us to contribute.
Re: (Score:2)
My answer? No. "Live free or die" isn't a demand for cheaper healthcare! (Not to mention that 'go without health coverage' is a bit of a stretch: I think Medicaid and a guarantee of emergency care should be sufficient to cover the truly impoverished, the rest can pay for themselves.)
Re: (Score:1)
There is no necessity to believe in a "special enlightenment" to desire to work toward a utopian goal, nor is it likely (much less necessary) to believe that such a goal can be obtained by "just being good people." Being good people is something religion has
Re: (Score:2)
This is a "slippery slope" argument.
No, it's not.
Wanting to create "heaven on earth," which is not possible, does not necessarily mean stricter control over everything in society, nor does it necessarily require higher taxation (though I admit taxation is probable).
Sure. Did you read what I wrote? I am sure Obama would disagree with this characterization. But I've seen his social programs. I've heard him say my liberty should be taken away for the sake of others. And now I hear him say he wants to create heaven on earth, the cry of the socialists who have come before him. So I would not be convinced by his disagreement.
Clearly, I am piecing the whole thing together. He has already SAID he wants stricter control over society, and has talked about prog
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly, I am piecing the whole thing together. He has already SAID he wants stricter control over society, and has talked about programs that will REQUIRE raising taxes to do it. So he is already talking about decreasing my liberty to create his "Kingdom on Earth." And now on top of that, he is echoing their cry.
Your 'piecing together' is what I call conspiracy theorism. Also, since I do not agree that raising taxes decreases liberty I do not consider advocating raised taxes to be bad. And again, I think Obama is a nut and do not necessarily endorse what he says.
Again, I said that today's enlightenment is presumed more to come through study rather than natural endowment. That to them it is more science than gift. But that doesn't make it any better.
I see what you mean. I do not think that one can arrive at a single enlightened state which causes one to be able to make decisions about what is best for everyone. I do believe, however, that there are many individual cases in which it is possible that a
Re: (Score:2)
Your 'piecing together' is what I call conspiracy theorism.
It is not. He IS doing what I said. No theory necessary. He DOES want stricter controls on society, he IS trying to take away our liberty, he SAID he wants heaven on earth.
What more do you want?
Also, since I do not agree that raising taxes decreases liberty
It does, by definition. My money is my property. Anyone taking it by force is reducing my right to property. I don't understand how it is possible to disagree with that clear fact.
I do believe, however, that there are many individual cases in which it is possible that a study of those cases can allow a person in each case to see what is the best choice for each case. I think you will disagree here and call it liberty-destroying control of society. I would say that is not entirely untrue, but I would still have to advocate it.
It is liberty-destroying control of society when it is not necessary. And it is not necessary unless it is done for the sake of
Re: (Score:2)
You can try to get the best without pretending you can get it.
Maybe I am merely ignorant but until today I was unaware that socialists pretend they can get perfection.
I just quoted Obama saying so.
Again, Obama is not a socialist. He is a social conservative, which is necessarily in opposition to socialism, and a totalitarian, which is necessarily in opposition to socialism since socialism involves no coercion.
Loss of liberty always occurs when people are not allowed to leave a society freely. Socialism has nothing to do with that.
False. It is not possible to leave the United States, or almost any country, "freely." There is a significant cost attached to it for nearly everyone. And even if you leave physically, most Western countries still tax your income, make you subject to the draft, and so on.
I agree, but my statement is still true. The society in the United States is by no means free.
In fact, socialism does prevent people from harming the rights of others, it merely takes a different view of what constitutes harm.
No. It has a more "encompassing" view of harm. And a quite obviously incorrect one, to boot. To say that I cause anyone harm by not giving money to a charity (thus requiring forced taxation to pay for charities) is absolute lunacy. That is not causing harm in any meaningful sense of the word.
I do not consider the more encompassing view incorrect. Not giving to a charity is not harmful, but having more wealth than your neighbor is. I know you will not agree.
Your view NEGATES liberty. It pretends liberty does not even exist. It says that whatever I do, or don't do, that you don't like is not my right, that it is causing harm. In a FREE society that respects liberty, no one would ever make such a judgment. They may think I am foolish, but they would never say I have no right to act that way, or that I am harming other people.
Well let me put it this way..
Re: (Score:2)
Please do not confuse American Democrats with socialists...
Oh come on. I showed how Hillary's plan follows the tenets of socialists predating her by 150 years. Maybe her views are not yours, but don't tell me they aren't socialist.
Views that are not mine aren't socialist. I thought that would be obvious by now!
Ha. :-) Of course, I don't accept that. I am a social conservative, but I am not opposed to domestic partnerships/civil unions. It's easier just to say "I disagree with that view" than "that view is not social conservatism." :-)
So moving on from here, I am going to define socialism in terms of what most socialists have said over the years, and in how those socialist societies have been implemented.
Again, Obama is not a socialist.
I dis
Re: (Score:2)
I am a social conservative, but I am not opposed to domestic partnerships/civil unions.
I am curious to know what you consider the principles of social conservatism if they are not, as I have observed, the oppression of people's ability to do what they like.
It's easier just to say "I disagree with that view" than "that view is not social conservatism." :-)
Easier yes, but less useful. I have inherited this way of expressing myself and am used to its down sides.
You said my views descend into totalitarianism: that makes no sense to me, because my views preclude any such government acts.
I mean that without the (yes, I admit) *coercive* force of a relatively benign government man's nature, tending towards the perverse, will cause to rise an acutely harmful, coercive, totalitarian government. Into the vacuum of power
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious to know what you consider the principles of social conservatism if they are not, as I have observed, the oppression of people's ability to do what they like.
By that standard, everyone by an anarchist is a social conservative, no?
It's easier just to say "I disagree with that view" than "that view is not social conservatism." :-)
Easier yes, but less useful.
Considering we spent several posts miscommunicating due to this, I will disagree with your assessment that it is useful.
You said my views descend into totalitarianism: that makes no sense to me, because my views preclude any such government acts.
I mean that without the (yes, I admit) *coercive* force of a relatively benign government man's nature, tending towards the perverse, will cause to rise an acutely harmful, coercive, totalitarian government.
Unless you have mechanisms in place to prevent that, such as those in our Constitution, which have been routinely ignored. We need to get back to rule of law, not man.
But your views BEG to be turned into totalitarianism: you already have the government doing all those functions, and it seems a small step from there to force contributions.
If you want to look at it that way then I will say that I prefer teetering on the brink of oppression to an inevitable slide toward it.
It is not remotely inevitable.
I would really like you to give a single example of a socialist ideal that is grounded in protecting the rights of individuals, because I've never seen one.
Welfare is a good example. All you have to do is consider food and shelter to be human rights, which I do.
This is not what liberty is. Liberty is FREEDOM FROM external obligation. That is what it MEANS. And you are saying that someone has a right to take from me, to oblige me, to force me, for their own sake.
Who said you were obliged to provide someone else food and shelter?
Every socialist government, including the United States, in policies that YOU support.
Again, I understand that in you
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious to know what you consider the principles of social conservatism if they are not, as I have observed, the oppression of people's ability to do what they like.
By that standard, everyone by an anarchist is a social conservative, no?
Yes, but it was a poor definition stated in haste. I'll try again: I have observed people claiming to be social conservatives and all they seem to want is to ban activities they think are immoral. Is that what it is to be a social conservative and if not that then what is it about?
Easier yes, but less useful.
Considering we spent several posts miscommunicating due to this, I will disagree with your assessment that it is useful.
I find it
Re: (Score:2)
I have observed people claiming to be social conservatives and all they seem to want is to ban activities they think are immoral. Is that what it is to be a social conservative and if not that then what is it about?
Shrug. I am a social conservative and I don't want to ban any behavior anyone has, unless it directly infringes on the rights of another. "Social conservative" to me does not imply wanting to use the force of government to enforce those views.
That said, I am, of course, in favor of laws against abortion, but that is because I believe that directly infringes on the rights of the child in the womb, in a much greater way than disallowing it infringes on the rights of the mother.
To me, "social conservative"
Re: (Score:1)
"Social conservative" to me does not imply wanting to use the force of government to enforce those views.
I am glad you see it that way, but you must surely be aware that most public figures who call them selves conservatives do not.
I can't understand the view that you think abortion is the taking of an innocent life, and yet that it should be legal
Everything should be legal. No exceptions.
I support some of the ideas but rarely any of the policies.
So you are against Social Security, Medicare, SCHIP, No Child Left Behind? All of these are coerced.
In all cases I am behind the ideas but against the implementations, except for no child left behind which is a stupid idea in the first place. Medicare and SCHIP are really bad realizations of good intentions and Social Security is an inept way to accomplish its supposed goal.
It depends on where you define a "right." On a fundamental level you only have the right to what you can do, not to anything in particular.
Yes. And you are defining it beyond that, I believe.
I am indeed. I believe doing so is entirely correct, and so (i
Re: (Score:2)
Spare me from Philosopher Kings "who only have my best interests in mind".