Aug 20
To the Imaginative Conservative blog for the reprinting of Russell Kirk's article on America's greatness. Kirk also stated that order with injustice is preferred to anarchy.
With its emphasis on tradition, I have come to expect the following attitude from conservatives. That attitude can be expressed as a mantra: 'we must be praised.' And that seems to be the basic tenor of the above article.
Now what was America's initial order when only Blacks could be property and land could be seized from Native Americans? What was America's initial order when from almost the first 80 years of its existence as a nation, only whites could qualify for citizenship. And severe oppression and persecution followed after the Civil War and Reconstruction.
"Nobody's perfect," you say. But at what level of injustice can one no longer hide behind that statement.
According to the article, what cannot be tolerated is anarchy. And as was mentioned early in the article, even the order that the Bolsheviks brought was better than anarchy. But, again, at what level of injustice is that statement true?
Have we considered that the more injustice there is, the more we live under the rule of force whether the owner of that force is centralized, such as the state, or localized, such as a gang. And the question then becomes, does one have a better chance fighting off a gang or the state? What would the victims of the purges by Lenin and Stalin say?
When I read Kirk's above article, I am reminded of a revolutionary who challenged the established order of his day. That radical wrote the following (see https://www.csuchico.edu/iege/_assets/documents/susi-letter-from-birmingham-jail.pdf):
'I MUST make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."'
The radical who wrote that was Martin Luther King Jr. And perhaps what Kirk's article is really about is that whether one prefers order depends on whether one is a recipient of the injustice practiced by the current order. BTW, we should note that one of the reasons King chose nonviolence was in order to challenge the current order while avoiding anarchy. We are fortunate that his voice was more powerful in the Civil Right Movement than the voices of those who called for violence. And despite the advances made by the Civil Rights Movement, we still have systemic racism. And its continued presence wears down the resistance of those who believe in peaceful means to change the order of things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 22
To Marc Barnes and the reposting of his article on how America is a hyperChristian nation and its religious direction has been compromised by liberalism. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Perhaps the motive for saying that we live in a hyperChristian nation is that the writer is trying give authority to someone or something by association. It is like being guilty by association only this association is more positive.
But if hyperChristianity is a compromise of Christianity by something like liberalism, that is at least part heresy, wouldn't it be more correct to say that we live in a hypoChristianity? And if the explanation for why America relied on slaves is that everyone else was doing it, then how does one defend society's Christian credentials. Again, that is a compromise--an overwhelmingly serious one.
And perhaps we should consider how America was based on white supremacy before making claims that Christianity was ubiquitous in America. Or if we look at the religious wars among Christians in Europe and realize that we are their descendants, would would not make the strong claims about America that are made in the above article.
And perhaps if we studied The Constitution or realized that the writer of the Declaration of Independence was not written by a Christian, Thomas Jefferson, we would stop trying to force the claim that we live in a Christian or HyperChristian nation. Perhaps we could look outside of Christendom to see how other societies were introducing humane treatment of people before claiming that Christianity
No comments:
Post a Comment