tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post5702346474033911936..comments2024-03-20T19:23:09.857+02:00Comments on Notes from underground: Mere Ideology: The politicisation of C.S. LewisSteve Hayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11283123400540587033noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-19131673588865284522010-08-29T14:02:16.554+02:002010-08-29T14:02:16.554+02:00Richard,
There may well be different varieties o...Richard, <br /><br />There may well be different varieties of American Libertarianism, but I doubt that the ones I've seen on line feel much affinity with nick Clegg. <br /><br />I referred to "American" Libertarianism because in America some people, at least, have made Libertarianism into an ideology, where almost everything is measured against some standard of ideological political correctness. And as I don't think C.S. Lewis was much into ideology, I doubt that he would have been very enthusiastic about the American Libertarian one.Steve Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11283123400540587033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-38923593778316268152010-08-29T13:18:44.128+02:002010-08-29T13:18:44.128+02:00I should add that my most major disagreements with...I should add that my most major disagreements with others who claim to follow our Lord is over the allegiance or otherwise to a nation state. These are the issues that really become hot. Alongside those are allegiance to a 'church' (ie congregation) abover allegiance to the Lord.Richard Fairheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15443956246800155197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-15942586516978463992010-08-29T13:16:44.162+02:002010-08-29T13:16:44.162+02:00Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day and the Tea P...Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day and the Tea Party movement chose the place he delivered his 'I have a dream...' speech for a gathering of their own 'purely coincidental' they claim.<br /><br />I'm not sure there is a single brand of 'American Libertarianism'. When we lived in the USA a friend who taught political economics explained how the politics of the Libertarians matched fairly closely those of the Liberals in the UK (now there is a linguistic mix for you).<br /><br />When CS Lewis said he was a democrat I think he was making a statement that would not translate to modern Americanish. He believed in democracy. <br /><br />Is democracy always better?<br /><br />I travelled from the UK to Oman during the time of Maggie Tatcher. I was traveling from an imperialist democracy to a benign dictatorship. Compare Maggie Thatcher and Sultan Kaboos. One cared for their people the other care for her reputation.<br /><br />I think the key issue (which you mentioned in passing) is the the whole concept of the nation state and its control is not in any way the highest authority to which we show allegiance. Indeed 'we are sojourners in a strange land'. Interesting that Jim Wallis used the term Sojourners for his organisation.Richard Fairheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15443956246800155197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-6982254354457733862010-08-27T04:06:15.526+02:002010-08-27T04:06:15.526+02:00Because David Theroux's comment was too big to...Because David Theroux's comment was too big to post here in full, I've posted it on the <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eldil/" rel="nofollow">Neoinklings discussion forum</a>.Steve Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11283123400540587033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-19786598082550102972010-08-26T18:04:14.165+02:002010-08-26T18:04:14.165+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Magotty Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039164409659890130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-12405496306257097962010-08-26T18:03:46.354+02:002010-08-26T18:03:46.354+02:00Very interesting post, Steve. I've recently be...Very interesting post, Steve. I've recently been in some very, very intense debates/arguments with folks online that could be described as being from "the religious right" in the US. They loved to co-opt people into their ideologies, even when it makes no sense! One fellow tried to claim that John Paul II was a champion for laissez-faire capitalism - and that is just so off, anybody that has even a nodding acquintance with Catholic culture would know of the Catholic emphasis on Social Justice etc. Today again I had to arrive at the conclusion that many of these folks have what I call a Pelagian anthropology.<br /><br />The libertarians believe that man, left to himself, will do the right thing. Others, like rushdoony and co, which you mention, believe that the right set of Biblical Principles (some of which they get at by the most amazing logical contortions etc) will produce the ideal State.<br /><br />I myself went through that Calvinist-inspired "Reconstructionist" / "Theonomist" stage. And this is what I've come to appreciate so much of Lutheran theology, ever since we became Lutheran: It's simple views on man's sinfullness, and God's redemption. (I'm not going into the other things, like Eucharistic Theology etc. - that is a key part of this). Calvinism was a relentless driver, and some take that to the politcal arena. I've recently told my wife that ever since turning Lutheran, I'm at peace, theologically, but also with regard my views on these economic and socio-politcal matters. I realise that there are important matters, and principles, but that it is not for me to desgin and implement the correct system for "making it all happen". I'm to love my neighbour, and care for the poor, and all that - doing what my hand finds to do. <br /><br />It is just yesterday that I also came across a quotation, ironically by a Calvinist, which illustrates the folly of all this Christian worldview thinking (which is throroughly modernist in its inception):<br /><br />“Modernity has for many moderns been a singularly joyless place...And no wonder: If the burden of reducing the world to order fell on you; if you were tasked to construct a theory of everything and then write out the equation; if you had to be on constant patrol along the empty razor-wire borders between religion and politics, art and life, theology and philosophy, nature and society, us and them; if you had to ensure that the trinity of control, freedom, and progress remained in place for all ages—if you had all this to do, you might not exactly be bubbling buoyantly with childish glee.” Solomon Among the Postmoderns.<br /><br />The author is Peter Leithart.Magotty Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039164409659890130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-49703703057759660082010-08-26T06:39:45.301+02:002010-08-26T06:39:45.301+02:00Second part of Davind Throux's comment:
2. Yo...Second part of Davind Throux's comment:<br /><br />2. Your attempt to characterize the classic natural law critique of statism as something concocted by Ayn Rand is profoundly mistaken. Rand’s contrived “ethical egoism” (narcissism) based on utilitarian (consequentialist), reciprocal-rights theory to establish a coherent basis for natural rights is deeply flawed and has nothing to do with natural law. Despite her claims to the contrary, Rand’s view is utterly subjectivist and denies any objective standard for truth, goodness or beauty above each individual’s own self-interest, exactly contrary to the natural law view that all individuals are entirely subject to an overarching reality of natural moral law. In effect, Rand’s view boils down to saying that “the end justifies the means” for each individual, which Lewis completely disagreed with. Incidentally, Rand’s view also fails more fundamentally because of its naturalistic foundations and Lewis also correctly critiqued naturalism as being self-refuting. Please see the following: <br /><br />Economic Science and the Poverty of Naturalism: C. S. Lewis’s “Argument from Reason”, by David Theroux <br /><br />In contrast and as I show in my article, “Lewis drew on the natural-law insights of such thinkers as the apostle Paul, Augustine, Magnus, Aquinas, Cicero, Grotius, Blackstone, Acton, and Locke, and he considered modernist dismissals of such work to be fundamentally erroneous.” Lewis admired Acton, Tocqueville, Madison, and other proponents of natural law who sought to radically constrain government power because, as you (and I) quote, “no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others.” <br /><br />You also properly quote Lewis that the very police power of the State itself is something to be leery of because if unchecked by a natural law standard, tyranny will result: “The worst of all public dangers is the committee of public safety. The character in 'That hideous strength' whom the Professor never mentions is Miss Hardcastle, the chief of the secret police. She is the common factor in all revolutions; and, as she says, you won't get anyone to do her job well unless they get some kick out of it.” <br /><br />But this in fact means that Lewis, like Aquinas and others, was non-ideological because he had a coherent political philosophy based on natural law.Steve Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11283123400540587033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19384577.post-50261666527921478172010-08-26T06:38:28.480+02:002010-08-26T06:38:28.480+02:00David Theroux, the author of one of the articles r...David Theroux, the author of one of the articles referred to above, responded (unfortunately Blogger would not accept the HTML in the original, so the links etc do not come through) also, the comment was too long for Blogger's limit of 4096 characters, so it has been truncated:<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful comment on my new article, "C. S. Lewis on Mere Liberty and the Evils of Statism". <br /><br />1. However, nowhere in my article do I mention "libertarianism" or "classical liberalism," as it is you are describing the views I have shared by Lewis as "ideological." Lewis would certainly agree with Eric Voegelin that ideologies are modern inventions, secular religious substitutes to fill the vacuum created by the incoherence and emptiness of atheism. Ideologies are utilitarian because they are based on consequentialist arguments that “the end justifies the means.” Indeed, a major point of my article, as I clearly discuss, is that Lewis was not just apolitical, he was anti-political and averse to all forms of campaign and partisan politics. However, this anti-political sentiment was based on his own political philosophy that was rooted in Divine, objective morality and deeply opposed any and all forms of government power (by mortal men and women) that defied such moral standards. <br /><br />My point is a very simple one. Lewis was a firm champion of the classic natural law principles of individual liberty under a universal rule of law, and he understood that Christianity was the pure embodiment of natural law. Indeed, it is in our understanding of the existence of the natural law that we come to see ourselves as sinners in falling short of this standard. God gave us free will in order to come to know Him, but the choice is ours to make, and in choosing to transgress the natural law, we face the penalty of separation from God. Only Grace provides the door to overcome such fallen-ness, and Jesus taught that in seeking the Good, we are always to submit to and employ the natural law in everything we do in our dealings with others. Justice is not relative or situational: it is based on the natural law.Steve Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11283123400540587033noreply@blogger.com