Re: grappling with Bush, Inc in faith

[gdeme...@msn.com]

Donald,

 

Thank you for your thoughtful question.

 

First, let me refer you to the web-based collection of messages I posted earlier.  http://www.ctconfucc.org/resources/theology/PoliticalTheologypdf

 

If you haven't done so I would encourage you to give this text a careful reading as much of my broader argument is embedded within them.

 

Secondly, the neocons, themselves make a sharp distinction between their perspective and that of the realistic school of US foreign policy, both of which differ from various schools of internationalism even as convergences amongst all the schools of political thought can be found.  Kennan, Morganthau, and Niebuhr were realists because they accepted the obdurate nature of power particularly in the international arena where there is no source of effective legitimacy this side of glory beyond the nation-state.  Moreover, they made a sharp distinction between the ideology of communism and the exercise of political power amongst Russians and Chinese in quest of their own perceived national interest even when this conflicted with their self proclaimed ideological pronouncement.  Between the late 40s and early 60s, these three stalwarts were highly nuanced cold war warriors promoting a policy of containment  rather than a retrenchment of Russian and Chinese power in the quest to maintain an effective balance of power against the ever-present specter of the nuclear holocaust.  What's particularly interesting is the evolution of their realism into the 1970s, when these three to a person opposed the Vietnam War not on ideology but on the grounds of political realism.  In short, these three all made a sharp distinction between the danger of Soviet and Sino power, which was a real concern and the spread of communism, which particularly in the "third world," was invariably fused with anti-colonial nationalism--ergo, Vietnam.  Consequently, the extension of ideological communism, which, while also troubling did not, in itself threaten the balance of power. Thus, on Morganthau's principles, in particular, a unified, but nationalistic Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, in principle, served as a stronger bulwark against potential Chinese expansionism than a weak and divided Vietnam in which the North would be looking to the Chinese against the specter of US "imperialism."  I'm not sure exactly what reasons Niebuhr and Kennan gave for their opposition to the War, but I assume they were somewhat similar in a common critique against US ideological blindness which was anything but "realistic" in which a cold war perception created an east/west division for a matter that had much more to do with both/south issues.  This ideological blindness resulted in the death of well over a million people.

 

The policies of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, etc. were anything but synonymous with the school of political realism as exhibited by Morganthau, Niebuhr and Kennan, which was more synonymous with the viewpoint of Brent Skowcroft in the first Bush administration .  Rather than restrained, the views of Cheney et. al were grandiose; rather than balance of power, these neocon stalwarts sought victory i what they depicted as The New American century.  Moreover, in their views, in no small measure reinforced by the messianic rhetoric of the president, there is an eerie combination of some type of ultra realpolitik, with the conservative moral zealotry of Woodrow Wilson, a faith-based rather than reality-driven policy by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.  By concentrating so much energy over the treat threat could have easily been contained (i.e., political reaism) through the impetus in no small measure in the UN sanctions,  it made it more rather than less difficult for the US to respond "realistically to the many challenges in the international arena before us, such as Israel-Palestine, Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Al Queda, which in part, Secretary Rice in her current masquerade as Colin Powell is beginning to accomplish when she's not brought in to defend the War.  Rice in fact, is a transitional figure whose academic work placed her within the realistic school, but whose policy orientation in the first administration linked her up with the advocates of the New American Century who had been pushing for the overthrow of Saddam well before 9-11.  Terrorism is an issue of no small proportions, but in creating a second cold war in the never ending War on Terrorism, the administration has fostered at least as many problems as it sought to resolve.

 

The marriage of neocon ultra realpolitik  in the grandiose notion of American empire in which preemptive war becomes a national birthright with Bush's moral zealotry in his messianic polarity f good and evil is anything but an exercise in political realism as manifested in the likes of Moranthau, Kennan, and Niebuhr, to say nothing of Nixon and Kissinger in their saner moments.

 

In terms of the contemporary scene it would be difficult to find a more realistic text than Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Choice:  Global Dominance or Global Leadership.  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/B0009K75RM/103-4235349-2585462.  What Brzezinski recommends is a far cry from the neocon vision at least as annunciated in the heydays after 9-11, until reality began to rear its inevitable head.

 

At this time in our nation's history one could do much worse than engage in a serious reflection of Reinhold Niebuhr's ever prescient The Irony of American History.  That our current president's eyes should be so opened

 

George Demetrion

 

 

[herb.davis]

George, What a thoughtful and clear response to the understanding of realistic and the difference with neocon and the grand American vision.  Very helpful.  Keep this on file.  Peace, Herb

 

---

 

[Donald Towle]

George,

 

You have no idea how happy I am to encounter an individual who has distanced himself to a large extent from the tired, overheated, demonizing rhetoric of the left (commonly resorted to by many religious liberals) and with whom it may be possible to have an intelligent discussion about the issues confronting us. 

 

I have not yet dipped into your writings, but I did read with interest the Mearsheimer article.  You and he delineate I think properly the two schools of thought that are represented in this great foreign policy debate: that of the realists and that of the neo-conservatives.  These are different but not antithetical schools of thought.  They have much in common:  They all know each other.  They have worked together in many contexts.  They are all formidable intellects.  They have respect for each other and respect for the others arguments.   Neither side questions the others motives or intelligence.  Both sides are humble before the reality of things. 

 

You are I think correct in characterizing the position of the neo-conservatives as in the tradition of the conservative internationalist idealism which was manifest in Woodrow Wilson.   But I think that neither Wilson nor Reagan were, nor  Bush and the neo-conservatives are guilty of what you term "moral zealotry" in believing in democracy and in seeking to promote democratic values and institutions elsewhere in the world.  Were Roosevelt and Truman moral zealots in occupying Germany and Japan and rehaping German and Japanese society according to democratic principles, and remaining there until democracy "took"? 

 

It could be argued that neo-conservatism as an approach developed as a response to the perceived and real failures of the philosophy of the "realists."  Was it not political realism which led Bush I to stop short of Baghdad?  And leave Saddam Hussein in power?  And abandon Iraqi Shias and Kurds?  Was it not  political realists who funded and armed the mujahadeen in Afghanistan?  And provided Saddam with intelligence in his war against Iran.  And winked at Saudi Wahhabism in return for Saudi oil?  Etc. Etc. Etc.  Has not realpolitik been tried again and again in dealing with the Middle East?  We have worked in the most cynical way with some of the worst representatives of humanity for decade after decade in the name of political realism.  

 

It could be argued that it was the philosophy of political realism governing American (and European) policy in the Middle East for sixty years is an important contributing factor in creating the giant snake pit which is the Middle East. 

 

Looking forward to continuing the conversation.  

 

Donald  

 

.    

 

 

 

 

 

.   

[herb.davis]

Dear Donald and George,  I think the WMD  issues is bogus.  There was at the time of the invasion reasonable doubt.  Most nations believed that Iraq had WMD and Saddam was not forthright in coming clean  because of his fear of his neighbors.  There was disagreement on how to deal with the possibilities of WMD but few denied any possibility of WMD.   I did not believe he had WMD because I felt the UN team could be trusted, but I was not responsible for the nation and when in doubt rulers try to protect their rear.  The reason I opposed the war was clearly stated by George.  I believe Bush is a romantic not a realist and the neocon who advised him are in that camp.  No one should take a nation where 48% don’t want any one killed and 52% wants their taxes cut into war.  The idea that an small army (very small) without any knowledge the culture, the language, the deep divides in religion, culture could change a culture is foolish.  Maybe a large army and a deep financial commitment and support from most of the UN might be able to make a change.   Yet both the Republican and Democratic supported such foolishness.  I think our problem maybe hubris in the west, or as the democrats are now saying, “We can do it better!>”  Oh for Calvin and

Augustine. Maybe that is the problem. Again George thanks for your wonderful note on realism which in a way saves Bush from telling lies. Peace, Herb

 

---

 

[herb.davis]

Dear Donald, Some excellent responses to George.  Good conservation.  Peace, Herb

 

---

 

[gdeme...@msn.com]

Thanks once again Donald for your carefully thought out remarks.  I've extracted some of your message and have inserted some comments. 

 

First, let me comment briefly on your critique of the "demonizing rhetoric of the left."   I don't disagree with this, though I do argue that however imbalanced the sharp left critique of both domestic and foreign policy is important for zeroing in on some fundamental contradictions between our professed and actual values even as they do not provide an effective praxis that a more "immanent" can offer.  Part of the problem is not so much the decibel of the radical left, but that its voice is simply not heard in the mainstream political culture or media. I discuss something of the nature of the relationship between critique and praxis in my own field in a recent book, Conflicting Paradigms in Adult Literacy Education:  In Quest of a US Democratic Politics of Literacy.  Even though the book is, obviously about the politics of adult literacy, the themes discussed throughout extend well beyond the immediacy of its topic matter.  Here are a couple links: https://wwwerlbaum.com/shop/tek9.asp?pg=products&specific=0-8058-4624-7 for ordering and here for a review http://www.readingmatrix.com/book_reviews/said/book_review.html

 

Best,

 

George

 

DT: You are I think correct in characterizing the position of the neo-conservatives as in the tradition of the conservative internationalist idealism which was manifest in Woodrow Wilson.   But I think that neither Wilson nor Reagan were, nor  Bush and the neo-conservatives are guilty of what you term "moral zealotry" in believing in democracy and in seeking to promote democratic values and institutions elsewhere in the world.  Were Roosevelt and Truman moral zealots in occupying Germany and Japan and reshaping German and Japanese society according to democratic principles, and remaining there until democracy "took"? 

 

GD:  In terms of your last sentence, there is all the world of a difference between the challenges and necessities that flowed out of World War Two (a declared war of major proportions) and a preemptive, and what many view as an unnecessary war in Iraq, in which, at this time more than 50% of the nation, to say nothing of the world, views as misbegotten.  In terms of WWII, there was not only the immediacy of necessity but a powerful consensus within the nation both to fight the war and to reconstruct Germany and Japan along democratic lines. Then, given the central role of Berlin in the early cold war, there was little choice but for the US to take it seriously. Moreover, with the Marshall Plan, the US provided substantial economic resources to help reconstruct a war torn Europe.  It was very much in the national interest, as well as the right thing to do.  It is not moral zealotry to believe that democratic values can be spread and promoted.  It is moral zealotry to create a great divide between good and evil and to state that those who are not with us are against us, and then to initiate a war against the wrong enemy, however evil that enemy happens to be. 

 

DT: It could be argued that neo-conservatism as an approach developed as a response to the perceived and real failures of the philosophy of the "realists."  Was it not political realism which led Bush I to stop short of Baghdad?  And leave Saddam Hussein in power?  And abandon Iraqi Shias and Kurds?  Was it not  political realists who funded and armed the mujahadeen in Afghanistan?  And provided Saddam with intelligence in his war against Iran.  And winked at Saudi Wahhabism in return for Saudi oil?  Etc. Etc. Etc.  Has not realpolitik been tried again and again in dealing with the Middle East?  We have worked in the most cynical way with some of the worst representatives of humanity for decade after decade in the name of political realism.  

 

GD:  Bush 1 had good reasons not to go to Baghdad. In the words of Colin Powell, "You break it, you own it."  That has become prophetic.  Political realism has strengths as well as limitations:

 

Strengths

 

A reasonable means by which to prioritize international policy decisions in a world context where easy or self-evident solutions are not readily apparent; e.g;

• Policy of containment in the Cold War, which made Reagan and Gorbachev possible
• Opening the relationship with China even while maintaining and standing up for the importance of human rights
• Tough diplomatic approach to North Korea and now Iran, including the threat of military power as well as the earlier negotiations with N. Korea in the Clinton administration
• Ongoing efforts among many administrations to make progress in the middle east even by "baby steps," notwithstanding the extreme difficulty and possible intractability of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and there has been progress, notwithstanding the continuing problems

 

Limitations

 

• Lack of concerted action against gross injustice or evil when "self-interest" is not apparent
• Difficult basis to arouse a high degree of public mobilization

 

In terms of neo-conservatism being a reasoned response to the perceived failures of realism, the president's "faith-based" war that can never be falsified since democracy may always be looming 25 years out as a result of the invasion. I think this policy has many more flaws than virtues. Moreover, I suspect that in his heart of hearts if Bush knew then what he knows now, there would have, at the least, been a much more reluctance to pull the trigger.  Of course, he could never admit that even to himself, for to do so would require a degree of moral culpability that I don't believe his sense of self could handle.  I, for one, hold Bush personally responsible for every single death in Iraq that is a consequence of the War, and I made that point in March 2003, just before he pulled the trigger.  In terms of using Iraq as a fulcrum for eventually resolving the middle-east crisis;

 

• if we wanted a laboratory for democracy we could have provided a much more concentrated focus in Afghanistan, where we had a relatively easy military victory and substantial nation and world-wide consensus
• The feasibility of using an end run tactic instead of concentrating more substantial resources on Israeli-Palestine issues, which is the central problem, is at the least problematic
• The feasibility of the objective itself is questionable
• The assumption that if a reasonably stable and independent democratic Iraq could be obtained there would be a domino effect throughout the region.  If that were true why not use Afghanistan as the model?

The sad reality is that this is an untested theory at best that we are expected to take on faith and to place all the consequences of the War into the perspective that this is a feasible outcome and therefore "worth the sacrifice."  I say, in all seriousness, as down payment Bush should encourage the twins to enlist and placed into combat; then, a the lest, there would be a sacrifice that would be hitting home which would provide the First Family with a reality-based assessment of weighing the prospects in light of actual consequences. My assumption is that the twins have other priorities.

DT: It could be argued that it was the philosophy of political realism governing American (and European) policy in the Middle East for sixty years is an important contributing factor in creating the giant snake pit which is the Middle East

 

GD:  One could also argue that part of the flaw was the failure to exercise a more fully consistent realism for a situation that in many respects has a high degree of intractability built into it based on an Anglo-European policy extending back to the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.  The chickens have come home to roost. The situation begs for resolution, but that des not mean that one is readily forthcoming.  Within this complex situation I'd rather rely on the tough realism of Niebuhr, Moganthau, and Kennan than that of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeldt and Pearle.  The sad reality may be that the Bush administration has become de facto realist (aka, the current Rice) even though it could never admit the mistake of Iraq and the arrogant hubris that undergirded the march to war.

 

 

 

[Donald Towle]

George,

 

Thank you for your detailed responses to my queries. 

 

First of all, let me say that talking about this matter in a reasonable and respectful manner is  very demanding.  The issue is polarizing and we are in the habit of making ad hominem asides.  Your commentary is relatively but not completely free from such moments.   I would encourage you to get rid of all of them so that we may focus solely on the argument.  

 

I stated that it could be argued that the fetid swamp, the snakepit of the Middle East is at least in part the creation of a philosophy of political realism based upon self-interest, narrowly defined.  For decades both Democratic and Republican administrations acted in a most cynical manner, dealing with the most despicable cast of characters, concerned with "stability," maintaining a "balance of power,"  insuring our access to the petroleum resources of the region.  The result was the predominance of corrupt authoritarian governments throughout the region, and the emergence of  popular and violent Islamic fundamentalist movements in virtually every country, none of which showed promise for changing things for the better.    

 

The bankruptcy of policies governed by "political realism" was made dramatically evident in the events of 9/11.  

 

I detect within your comments a recognition that the philosophy of political realism has its limitations, and that it may have particular limitations in this dark region.  After listing the "strengths" and clear successes of  political realism in dealing with the Soviet Union, and the opening to China, and the situations with North Korea and Iran, you refer the  "ongoing efforts among many administrations to make progress in the middle east even by 'baby steps,' notwithstanding the extreme difficulty and possible intractability of the Israel-Palestine conflict.."  Then you continue:  "there has been progress, notwithstanding the continuing problems."  

 

What progress could you possibly be referring to?  We made progress prior to 9/11?  In Iran?  In Iraq?  Syria?  Saudi Arabia?  Israel-Palestine?  Pakistan?  Libya?  Egypt?  Afghanistan?  Yemen?   

 

We had three courses of action in response to 9/11 and the clear evidence that Islamic fundamentalism was on the move throughout the Middle East and that it was coddled and supported and financed by client states throughout the region.

 

(1) We could have said, as does the Left in the US and throughout the world: 9/11 is case of the chickens coming home to roost.  Islamic fundamentalism is the wave of the future.  It is the rising up of those peoples victimized by Western imperialism and Amerika.  Time to recognize the inevitabilities of history, to cut our commitments to the area, and withdraw to Fortress America.

 

(2) A second alternative was to continue with the policy of "political realism" which had governed our policy there for sixty years, making more "baby steps,"  perhaps launching some more missiles the al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, seeking the "assistance" of our European "allies" for united action,  dealing "constructively" with Iran and Syria, the Taliban, the PLO, providing them with more "aid" perhaps for "development" projects, continuing to stand with Israel while increasing the pressure, trying to make "progress" on the intractable Israeli-Palestinian matter.

 

(3) The third alternative was to seek to step on the snakes, drain the swamp, and create a human alternative for the ordinary people of the Middle East. 

 

 I think in the view of our present leaders, option 1 was (while "realistic") was irresponsible, option 2 (that of "political realism" it was unrealistic to think that doing the same thing would give a different result)  That left option 3, which though high-stakes, costly,and risky, at least had a fighting chance of making a difference (in contrast to option 1 and option 2.   It was in that sense the most responsible and "realistic" option. 

 

Donald  

 

 

 

[gdeme...@msn.com]

I'm assuming at least for the time being that this is a legitimate discussion for this list even if we are not using "God language" to frame this discussion.  Theology is at least implicit based upon who both of us are and what we have said here in other messages.  Theology may be more explicit in the manner by which we conduct this discourse as well as in the search for truth, or at least the better argument given the elusiveness and illusory nature of the former.  My remarks are interspersed within yours.

 

George Demetrion

 

DT: First of all, let me say that talking about this matter in a reasonable and respectful manner is very demanding  The issue is polarizing and we are in the habit of making ad hominem asides.  Your commentary is relatively but not completely free from such moments.   I would encourage you to get rid of all of them so that we may focus solely on the argument.  

 

GD: Agreed on the demanding nature of holding such a discussion, compounded, at least on my part by the limitations of my own knowledge; one of the drawbacks of a generalist orientation.  Your points on the last two sentences are well taken, although there is a built in problem in what one person identifies as polarizing is viewed by the other as on target.  I read your generalized attacks on the "left" as a bit clichéd and lacking in nuance, but you may view what you are saying as simply factual.  So we can both work on this in the realization that perhaps we may not see eye to eye on what is rhetoric and what is reality.

 

DT: I stated that it could be argued that the fetid swamp, the snakepit of the Middle East is at least in part the creation of a philosophy of political realism based upon self-interest, narrowly defined.  For decades both Democratic and Republican administrations acted in a most cynical manner, dealing with the most despicable cast of characters, concerned with "stability," maintaining a "balance of power," insuring our access to the petroleum resources of the region.  The result was the predominance of corrupt authoritarian governments throughout the region, and the emergence of popular and violent Islamic fundamentalist movements in virtually every country, none of which showed promise for changing things for the better.    

 

GD:  I would highlight more than you the "in part" aspect of your analysis. I don't think this "snake pit" can be attributed to any single political philosophy. Sometimes an undesirable situation is the best we have, with the consummate task of seeking to move forward even if the way out may seem unclear.  As a counterintuitive exercise I would appreciate a pre-9/11 imaginative scenario that would have had some prospect of being enacted that would have brought about a substantial resolution not only of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict but the instability engendered by Islamic fundamentalist militancy.

 

DT: The bankruptcy of policies governed by "political realism" was made dramatically evident in the events of 9/11. 

 

GD:  I wouldn't attribute that nation-defining event to a singular political philosophy.  Moreover, working backwards from a cold war mind set it's difficult to fathom how the US would not have supported Afghan insurgents against the tyranny of Russian imperialism.  All one can say I think, is actions have unintended consequences and sometimes the seemingly good establishes the undesirable.  Yet, historical actors have little choice but to act with the best knowledge available which is always uncertain.  I think Niebuhr's point is that coherence is only fully realizable beyond history and that much ambiguity will govern even our best intentions and most reasoned actions this side of paradise.

 

DT: I detect within your comments a recognition that the philosophy of political realism has its limitations, and that it may have particular limitations in this dark region.  After listing the "strengths" and clear successes of political realism in dealing with the Soviet Union, and the opening to China, and the situations with North Korea and Iran, you refer the  "ongoing efforts among many administrations to make progress in the middle east even by 'baby steps,' notwithstanding the extreme difficulty and possible intractability of the Israel-Palestine conflict.."  Then you continue:  "there has been progress, notwithstanding the continuing problems."  

 

GD:  I would recognize limitations with all political philosophies.  On political realism, I would ask you to reflect a bit more on the significance of its considerable strength.  Moreover, with you, I see convergences among the three main approaches to foreign policy; internationalism, realism, and neo-conservatism.  In her current role, Secretary Rice seems to be combining the first two without totally eliminating the third, which, nonetheless, is now on the back burner.

 

DT: What progress could you possibly be referring to?  We made progress prior to 9/11?  In Iran?  In Iraq?  Syria?  Saudi Arabia?  Israel-Palestine?  Pakistan?  Libya?  Egypt?  Afghanistan?  Yemen?   

 

GD: Emphasis on baby steps.  Sadat -Begin, Carter and continuing efforts to work toward a two state solution in all of the administrations.  Jordan.  Certainly Afghanistan, notwithstanding the limitations; the recent Israeli policy of giving back of the territories and the moderating tendency of their recent president (name eludes me).  There had also been moderating tendencies in post Arafat Palestine, though the recent lection of Hamas is dispiriting.  Still, there has been progress amidst many drawbacks on the Israeli Palestine front.  Efforts do need to intensify in the press toward workable solutions given the unsatisfactory nature of the alternative.

 

 DT: (1) We could have said, as does the Left in the US and throughout the world: 9/11 is case of the chickens coming home to roost.  Islamic fundamentalism is the wave of the future.  It is the rising up of those peoples victimized by Western imperialism and Amerika.  Time to recognize the inevitabilities of history, to cut our commitments to the area, and withdraw to Fortress America.

 

GD:  I would be careful as to not draw a too simplistic caricature of the "left," as there are many strands, including the internationalism as reflected in many of the articles one finds in the World Policy Journal."  Moreover, I don't know anyone in the Congress who advocates withdrawal to Fortress America.  The charge is to exercise power responsibly even as there is a difference of opinion as to what this means.

 

DT: (2) A second alternative was to continue with the policy of "political realism" which had governed our policy there for sixty years, making more "baby steps,"  perhaps launching some more missiles the al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, seeking the "assistance" of our European "allies" for united action,  dealing "constructively" with Iran and Syria, the Taliban, the PLO, providing them with more "aid" perhaps for "development" projects, continuing to stand with Israel while increasing the pressure, trying to make "progress" on the intractable Israeli-Palestinian matter.

 

GD: I do note a bit of caricature in your description of realism.  This, combined with internationalism does seem to be the policy that Secretary Rice, of late, has been promoting.  We hear much less these days of preemptive war.  Certainly in a difficult international arena where there is no sovereignty beyond the nation state in which the collective problems are well beyond the capacity of our national resources to resolve priorities need to be made on some basis.  A tempered rather than an ideological realism seems a reasonable way to go.  In terms of specific policy this would have included unrelenting war (both hot and cold) against Al Queda, containment of Iraq, which was not a threat.  These actions, in turn, would have freed up the resources plus the political capital for a more nuanced stance on Iran and North Korea.  As difficult as it would have been focusing major resources on helping to improve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, working constructively toward the two state solution would have contributed to a sound foreign policy.  This is not to deny the relatively intractable nature of some of these conflicts, but again, searching out "baby steps," may, at times be the best we can do without which the effort, not even these become possible.

 

DT: (3) The third alternative was to seek to step on the snakes, drain the swamp, and create a human alternative for the ordinary people of the Middle East. 

 

GD:  Practically speaking what does this mean?  I'm not sure what an end run in Iraq has to do with fundamentally resolving the dual problem of Israel-Palestine and Islamic fundamentalist militancy.  If the needle cannot be found in the haystack where it was dropped, the solution is not going to be found by looking into another haystack.  Going back to its Puritan roots this nation has a long history of embodying the self-image of "redeemer nation."  In theological terms this is nothing short of idolatrous.  I encourage rigorous repenting of any such notion.

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Anderson]

Dear Confessors,

I have just finished a novle by Charmaine Craig about
three generations of Cathar heretics in 14th century
France. For any who have an interest in the Cathars and
enjoy a good story with strong psychological insight into
human strivings and failings I highly recommend this book.

Chris of Heidelberg

[herb.davis]

Dear Chris, Are you selling books now? Any discount for Confessors,
clergy, would Andy qualify. Hope you get on the NYT list. Peace, Herb

[Chris Anderson]

> Dear Chris, Are you selling books now? Any discount
>for Confessors,
> clergy, would Andy qualify. Hope you get on the NYT
>list. Peace, Herb

Herb,

I am not selling the GOOD MEN book only recommending it to
odd people like myself who are interested in radical
Platonic heresy....I actually found it as a remainder so
it can be found cheaply at OLLIES or possibly BUILDING 19
for those in New England. But then again I hardly read a
book that is not remaindered except for Bloesch's
Systematic.

In my church I tell people I am cheap and they try to get
me to say frugal. But I am part of OLLIES'S ARMY, I like
"GOOD THINGS CHEAP."

Chris

[Chris Anderson]

Today is the anniversary of the beginning of Pastor Martin
Niemoller's trial in Nazi Germany.

Hitler said to him, "You confine yourself to the church.
I'll take care of the German people." To which Niemoller
replied, "You said that 'I will take care of the German
people.' But we too, as Christians and churchmen, have a
responsibility toward the German people. That
responsibility was entrusted to us by God, and neither you
nor anyone in this world has the power to take it from
us.'"

Chris of Heidelberg

[Doxtalker]

The book sounds interesting. Do you think it gives an accurate picture
of the Cathars? "Radical platonic heresy" is an interesting term. It
stirs up my thinking about Bonhoeffer. Simone Weil wrote that the
Cathars were the ideal Christians, or something along those lines. On
the Bonhoeffer Centenary site, there is mention of a book someone has
written about Bonhoeffer and Weil.
I've been reading Benjamin Reist's little book about Bonhoeffer called
"The Promise of Bonhoeffer." He tells an anecdote about Bonhoeffer
meeting a French pastor, when both of them were young. They discussed
their ambitions. The French pastor said he wanted to be a saint.
Bonhoeffer said he wanted to have faith.

Then Reist goes on to say that Bonhoeffer equated faith and obedience.
Do you think the Cathars strived to be saintly? Did they pursue a
works righteousness? Were they Pharisees, of sorts?

Larry

[Chris Anderson]

Larry,

As Sonny Boy Williamson II sang, "Don't start me talkin'
or I'll tell everything I know."

My interest in the Cathars began with my reading of Ronald
A. Knox's wonderful book, "ENTHUSIASM: A Chapter in the
History of Reigion." Most of his references to them come
in chapters V & VI. Those chapters would be of interest
for you to read.

Knox states this about the the Cathars: that "It (the
group) was influenced, atleast in part, by Manichean
doctrines which seemed to have been imported from the Near
East; by Dualist account of creation, and of man's nature,
by a Docetic theory of the Incarnation. It all derided
Catholic sacraments, and substituted for them a liturgy
and a discipline of its own." (p. 72 & 73)

Simply put this meant that matter was evil, spirit was
good, God did not create matter but the devil did, and
that in order to be a "Good Christian" one should be
vegetarian and be celebate and in reality hardly eat.
Christ was merely a spirit. It was blashpheme to think
that Jesus would have had a BM or had to go pee. They were
more organized that I had thought. Since the Roman clergy
were not greatly educated some of them did not really get
some of the basic problems but saw them as being "very
spiritual." Suffice it to say they need a systematic
theolgian to help them. ;-)

Chris

(PS Is this lawyer Larry of Craigville?"

[Chris Anderson]

Sorry to make another note but I noticed that I did not
answer your question as to whether or not the portrait was
accurate in the book.

I am not expert but I thought it was excellent. The
author(ess) is a Harvard grad who wrote this book
partially while in the MFA program at U of CA at Irvine.
She read the Latin texts of the Inquisition and stumbled
on a short testimony by a woman named Grazida Lizier. She
even visited France and toured where the events happened
accompanied by the mayor of the area. Therefore the
historical homework had been done.

Obviously she has her perspective but one can see it and
not let it get in the way. She sees the great fight about
spirit versus body as ridiculous and finds in this
Grazida, a feminist (sort of ) heroine.
Yet the book is great and in many ways the author(ess)
is right on the mark. The reason I liked it is that it
put flesh and blood on the Cathars.

I was most impressed with her protrayal of the psychology
of each of the main characters. A priest that longs to be
spritual but succumbs to sexual sin...a son of a doctor
who discovers that he is gay and marries only to fall in
love with a woman he never has sex with....Grazida, Echo,
a girl who grows in to a beautiful young woman who loves
both the priest and the one who becomes her husband in
order to hide that her child is a bastard of the
priest....The mother of Gazida who gets pregnant and
marries somoeone who becmes a Cathar and sees the man
literally whither away before her...etc

Any way I liked the book

Chris

[Doxtalker]

Thanks for your comments on Cathars, Chris. The book sounds a bit like
Peyton Place, platonic, oc course. (By the way, this isn't lawyer
Larry, it's newspaper reporter Larry).
Well, I admit to being a theological neophyte. So the parallels I
wonder about may not really mean much ... nevertheless, it's
interesting.
The line runs from Plato to Simone Weil to Iris Murdoch to Blind Boy
Fuller (just kidding), and they all talk about the pilgrimage from
illusion to reality.
Then there is Bonhoeffer, the theologian of reality, who writes about
learning to see reality.
In the Reist book I mentioned, Bonhoeffer's reality is described as a
kind of truth where love reigns, quite a bit like Murdoch and Weil and
maybe Plato.
But "metaphysics" is apparently a bad word for Bonhoeffer but a good
one for Murdoch (and maybe Weil and Plato).
Enough. Take care.

Larry

[Janet Keyes]

Friends-
Chria A. wrote of the Cathars-

"Simply put this meant that matter was evil, spirit was
good, God did not create matter but the devil did, and
that in order to be a "Good Christian" one should be
vegetarian and be celebate and in reality hardly eat.

Christ was merely a spirit...."

Is this substantially what the Gnostics of old believed?
Janet

> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.15/223 - Release Date: 1/6/2006
>
>

[Chris Anderson]

Janet,

Ronald Knox's book, ENTHUSIASM, traces what he calls
"ultrasupernaturalism" throughout all of church history
from gnosticism up to 19th revivalism. He shows that there
is a tradition that could be called gnosticism or
enthusiasm that has existed along side Orthodox
Christianity. So in many ways they are the wame thing.

Some of tendencies are: alternating rigorism or
antinomism, grace destroys nature, decries reason as
guide, perfectionism, platonic, direct access to God, by
passing historic christianity, suspicion of the church,
anti-sacramental, sectarian, histrionic, haing a monopoly
on God,lack of humility, elitism, spirit is good, matter
is bad...etc

Chris

[gdeme...@msn.com]

Donald,

 

Thank you, too, for your thoughtful discussion and probing. This exchange has allowed both of us to explore the issue in some depth, and I've come to a much better appreciation of your thinking.  Because the topic may be veering a bit beyond the focus of this list I'm reluctant to continue with it at this time. However, for another day, perhaps, a discussion of Niebuhr's Irony of American History in light, say, of the Nature and Destiny of Man could be highly illuminating.  For me, at least, that would be a topic for some other time.

 

Best,

 

George

 

 

[Willis/Loree Elliott]

Janet Keyes wrote:
> Friends-
> Chria A. wrote of the Cathars-
> "Simply put this meant that matter was evil, spirit was
> good, God did not create matter but the devil did, and
> that in order to be a "Good Christian" one should be
> vegetarian and be celebate and in reality hardly eat.
> Christ was merely a spirit...."
>
> Is this substantially what the Gnostics of old believed?

Yes, Janet, but....

 

1    The moralizing of visible (bad) & invisible (good) was not a gnostic invention.  The "soma (physical body) - sema" (tomb) tradition roots way back in India before it appears in the Near East.  In the Christian celibacy-monasticism traditions, it's softened from good/bad to better/good.  India: in later life, Gandhi lived soma/sema: despising the body included despising its powers, especially sex & violence.  The West's pacifism, nonviolence, is not entirely free of this Indic element--& merges Gandhi with Jesus (whose motivation did not include soma/sema).  (Irony: DB as pacifist didn't like Niebuhr's realism; but it was DB, not RN, who [in personal intention] went violent.)

 

2    Not all gnostics were onto-dualists (the good/bad split in deity--as in Zoroastrianism & Manicheism: the [gnostic] Demiurge = [the Persian] Ahriman).  But a despising of the flesh (as behind 1Jn.1) does seem to be a feature in all gnosticisms.

 

3    "Gnosticism" as an ancient category had a hazy border.  The debate continues as to whether Marcion (mid-2nd c. AD/CE) should be called gnostic.

 

4    A wider phenomenon with a gnostic element, is "contemptus mundi" (contempt for "the world") & "contemptus ecclesiae" (contempt for "the church").   The cathars added the purity sanction (Greek "katharos" means "pure").  The Reformation's left wing was tinged with this feel, & it appears (in U.S. theology) in Yoder to Hawerwas. 

 

Grace and peace--

Willis 

[herb.davis]

Dear Donald and George,  I just want to say I deeply enjoyed your discussion on Bush Administration.  I found myself agreeing with both Donald and George on different points.  I did not want to put my two sense worth in because you guys were doing a great job.  I think the divide is between the Western Romantic and the Augustinian.  I would suggest that American lean toward the romantic.  Thanks again.  Peace, Herb

 

---

 

[Fred Fullerton]

Donal and George comments and arguments are certainly food for thought,
and I admire their calm exchange.

Unfortunately neither helps me quell my frustration with the Bush
administration--and its domestic or foreign policies--which surpasses
the frustration I once felt with the Nixon administration. The positive
side effect of this frustration is I'm seeking God's ear more often and
learning to listen better.

That being said, if we are to discuss post-9/11 policy and the war on
terror in the Middle East and Afghanistan, I think we also need to
consider not only the history of the region in general, but especially
the history of the West's foreign policy in the region, beginning
perhaps with the Crimean War. What worked? What didn't? Why? Is the
Bush adminstration making the same mistakes that the British (and
French) did?

Chris brought up the just war argument. Unless someone can prove that
Iraq presented a direct threat to the U.S. or to an ally such as Israel
or Saudi Arabia, I don't think that the preemptive strikes whether
based on a UN resolution, the suspicion of WMD, or both fulfills the
just war criteria.

Most important, how DO confessors of Christ grapple with Bush, Inc. in
faith? Can we justify such a war as Christians or is it too late to
prayerfully consider alternative, constructive approaches to policy and
diplomacy? And how can we change the hearts and minds of Islamists who
strive to convince all Muslims that we are indeed "kuffir Crusaders"?

[john cedarleaf]

Fred Fullerton wrote:

Fred: I'm certainly no fan of George W. Bush. I voted against him twice,
although my youngest son was a Marine Lt. in Iraq(twice, decorated
etc.). I felt then and still feel that we got into this war under
dubious circumstances. This is not to make Saddam a hero. He certainly
wasn't and isn't and never will be. Policies of administrations past and
present have not helped in the Middle East etc. Yet, I think we need to
be careful that we don't paint the Islamists as the innocents here and
that somehow if we changed as they want all would be well. Is there
something within the mindset and understanding of Islamic fundementalism
that makes it next to impossible to "sit down with them." I am not
particularly optomistic about this prospect. Sorry if I'm all over the
place this morning, but these are my ruminations. John

[herb.davis]

Dear Fred, I think Donald made a strong case for the Just War position of
evil in Iraq. According to Augustine it was not evil to oneself to American
but evil to a neighbor, to the people in Iraq. Augustine did not support war
to protect ourselves. I think it should be an embarrassment to the
international community that America and others supported Saddam and Donald
blames that on Realism. ON the other hand Augustine also insisted that
there must be a good chance of success in war, just the evil treatment of a
neighbor is not enough. One must have reasonable chance of winning. Donald
believes that Bush felt he had a good chance of winning. I think this was
romantic. Given the soul of American, the political and economic
difficulties in USA, the lack of international support, the complex social
and political structures in Iraq, the wide gap in cultures and religion I
felt it was romantic or maybe idealistic to go to war in Iraq. This doesn't
make Bush a monster or un-American if he is right as Thomas Friedman hope he
helps chance the middle east, if he is wrong it makes him look foolish and
American look stupid and will not help to develop his vision. Peace, Herb

[Fred Fullerton]

Dear John and Herb,

Thank you for your comments.

I spent some time a few years back studying Arabic and the Qur'aan, and
I agree with John that the Islamist certainly aren't innocents and I'm
also not optimistic about being able to "sit down with them," but I'd
like to see more moderate Muslims get fed up with Islamist extremism
and do something about it on their end.

Yes, Donald made his case for just war, but like John I don't think
Iraq is "winnable" because too many strategic mistakes were made early
on. I'm a Vietnam era veteran who was against that war, too. Will
Donald Rumsfeld one day publish a mea culpa like Robert McNamara did
and confess that he and others realized that "the war was untenable"
after the first year?

For what it's worth, Pope John Paul II, who was well versed in
Augustine (if I'm not mistaken), didn't think our incursion into Iraq
fit the just war bill either.

At this point, I feel that I need to spend more time reading (and
rereading) Bonhoeffer.

pax vobiscum,
Fred

[john cedarleaf]

Fred Fullerton wrote:

Fred: Good words. Interesting isn't it how often the "extremists"
control the debate whether in church or state or internationally. Yes
indeed the "moderates" need help here. How does that happen is the
question that needs answering. An aggressive foreign policy doesn't
help. Will they ever get fed up with them on their own? I don't know. John