C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

@whodey said
The Founding Fathers came from the Church of England which was essentially an extension of the state as they controlled the pulpit. This is something the Founding Fathers correctly were afraid of and avoided. But the Left has gone overboard, as they do with everything else, forbidding any religious expression whatsoever on government owned property and forbidding children t ...[text shortened]... well to help appease the National Socialists in order to save their own skins and Vatican treasure.

Separation of powers isn't a big thing in the UK. The Church of England is the established church and has seats in the House of Lords. Amazingly this is not a cause of oppression here. The things that have to be separate are the State and Civil Society. That he thought that that division should be removed is, in my current opinion, Marx's big mistake.

@lemonjello said
KJ, it seems the writings of Lewis function effectively in the area of exhortation, or in some capacity of reinforcing Christian narratives within the minds of believers. But, taken as any sort of evidential case his writings are embarrassing.

On the other hand, I do appreciate some of the refreshing concessions that he makes. Take, for example, the excerpt quoted bel ...[text shortened]... nge or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.[/quote]

Hi LJ. Nice to hear from you again.

@deepthought saidThe things that have to be separate are the State and Civil Society.

Please give an example...

@bigdoggproblem said
Please give an example...

Well, the Soviet Union. This isn't a fully worked out position yet and I might change my mind, but my reasoning is something along these lines: Hegel regarded the State as being the perfection of rationality, since he was talking about the Prussian State this is somewhat bizarre. He saw civil society as being something separate from that. So as an analogy the forums are civil society and the forum moderators are the state. The Young Hegelians partially broke with Hegel, keeping his methodology, but with considerable justification regarded the Prussian State as being oppressive and not the pinnacle of rationality that Hegel claimed it to be. They sought to undermine it by attacking religion, seeing that as the key ideological device keeping the State going. Max Stirner pointed out that they weren't really against the State, they just wanted to have a revolution to replace one State with another. Marx's position was that the Young Hegelians placed too great an emphasis on religion and he looked to a revolution of the workers to replace the bourgoise state with a worker's one. He also regarded the division that Hegel claimed between civil society and the state as being artificial, and something that shouldn't exist.

The State in Marx's conception is an armed body of men. The state has the monopoly on violence, it is the universal oppressor, in the sense that if anyone is going to be doing any oppressing it's the State. This is fine provided it is separate from civil society, but a bit of a problem if it isn't. Using the example here, the moderators only act if the automod detects banned words such as duck (d->f) or they get a complaint, which is pretty similar to how the police act in the real world. What they don't do is engage in the debates and tell us what to say. So we can speak pretty much freely without the conversation being overtly policed, this makes debate possible. In the same way, although the State is oppressive it's a presence that can be avoided. We can get on with our lives and speak freely without worrying about whether they're listening in. Without that division between civil society and the state they're always present and any individual could be a chekist or later KGB man listening in. Basically you want the protection the State provides, but it's everyday distance makes its existence bearable.

In defence of Marx he envisaged a Worker's State and not a Capitalist one, and the Civil War and failure of the revolution to spread meant that the class that was meant to sustain the revolution and ensure it remained democratic was effectively destroyed. I don't know whether this is sufficient to leave Marx's position viable or not.

@deepthought said
Are you responding to that actual quote? I'm not seeing anything wrong with it. A narcissistic dictator, oppressing for the sake of their idea of what is right, would be worse than a robber baron who's just in it for the money. You've far more chance of mercy from the robber baron.

The catch is what the context of this statement is. Does he then go on to criticize some perfectly reasonable cause?

Yes I’m going by the quote, it’s quite obvious that he’s elevating a robber baron over a politician or government that would implement some socialist measures which provided for the less fortunate in society.
What do you suppose he means?

@suzianne said
Would it have had any effect?
Look, as it was, too many people on this forum put a target on his back. I was comfortable agreeing to disagree with him. There is a difference between disagreeing and making his presence here a kind of hell.

I wasn’t pointing at you for making “his presence here a kind of hell” (goodness knows what that even means), I was calling you out for posthumously critiquing GB’s overuse of CS Lewis quotes in his countless crappy threads rather than addressing the issue head on to his face at the time.

I guess that’s one of the differences between you and I.

@kevcvs57 said
Yes I’m going by the quote, it’s quite obvious that he’s elevating a robber baron over a politician or government that would implement some socialist measures which provided for the less fortunate in society.
What do you suppose he means?

That is paranoid, you're reading stuff into what he's written that isn't explicitly in the text and without knowing the context. I think it's a mistake to automatically assign whatever the worst motive you can think to an adversary's statements. Ragwort gave the context on the previous page - he opposes the humanitarian theory of punishment - putting people in jail for their own good. I tend to agree, punish people to deter, to protect the population or for revenge, try to reform them by all means, but don't think putting people in jail is for their own good. With the obvious exception of protective custody in case they're lynched. I'd still want to see the full context because he could be arguing for the death penalty.

@deepthought said
Well, the Soviet Union. This isn't a fully worked out position yet and I might change my mind, but my reasoning is something along these lines: Hegel regarded the State as being the perfection of rationality, since he was talking about the Prussian State this is somewhat bizarre. He saw civil society as being something separate from that. So as an analogy the forums ar ...[text shortened]... ectively destroyed. I don't know whether this is sufficient to leave Marx's position viable or not.

How does the quote make "the case for Christianity"?

@bigdoggproblem said
Please give an example...

In Indonesia, civil society is a relatively newfangled but blossoming counterbalance to the state. It's especially vital that this is the relationship between them when unknown numbers of people in the state apparatus no doubt quietly yearn for the simplicity of the authoritarian regime that was dislodged in 1998.

Prior to that, "civil society" involved activists and non-governmental leaders being permitted to politely speak truth to power [behind closed doors, to relatively lowly functionaries] before being coopted onto ad hoc goverment working parties that were studiously not permitted to achieve anything.

Coopting civil society's effective figures is still a problem, but these days they still have their voices and they can walk away if they can extricate themselves from the comforts their 'working for change from the inside' financed.

@fmf said
How does the quote make "the case for Christianity"?

I don't think it does, Lewis was a Christian apologist and that comprises most of his writing, but he wrote about other things as well. Whodey might think it did but I suspect he regards it as proof the Left is wrong or some such.

Apparently it's from God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics which was published posthumously.

@deepthought said
That is paranoid, you're reading stuff into what he's written that isn't explicitly in the text and without knowing the context. I think it's a mistake to automatically assign whatever the worst motive you can think to an adversary's statements. Ragwort gave the context on the previous page - he opposes the humanitarian theory of punishment - putting people in jail for ...[text shortened]... lynched. I'd still want to see the full context because he could be arguing for the death penalty.

Then you and he agree. perhaps your doing the thing you accuse me of but in the other direction.
I formed my opinion of C.S Lewis based on his writings, and his stance of punishment over rehabilitation sits perfectly with my opinion of him.

@whodey said
There is something wrong with it if you are really a fascist prick dictator at heart, so I can see why it offends some, mostly Leftists.

"Leftists" and fascism exist at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

@divegeester said
I wasn’t pointing at you for making “his presence here a kind of hell” (goodness knows what that even means), I was calling you out for posthumously critiquing GB’s overuse of CS Lewis quotes in his countless crappy threads rather than addressing the issue head on to his face at the time.

I guess that’s one of the differences between you and I.

And you can simply read my reply again, that you quoted, if you are unsure where I stand on that issue.

You can even add onto it a clarifying "... which is what you meant to do."

And yes, that IS one of the differences between you and I. Your interaction in these forums too often veers away into the punitive, for those people you don't like, for whatever made-up reason.

@suzianne said
And yes, that IS one of the differences between you and I. Your interaction in these forums too often veers away into the punitive, for those people you don't like, for whatever made-up reason.

Are you yourself - in your interactions- ever "punitive" towards those posters you don't like?

@suzianne said
And you can simply read my reply again, that you quoted, if you are unsure where I stand on that issue.
You can even add onto it a clarifying "... which is what you meant to do."
And yes, that IS one of the differences between you and I. Your interaction in these forums too often veers away into the punitive, for those people you don't like, for whatever made-up reason.

I am fully aware of where you stand, I’m not accusing you of being punitive and I’m not making anything up.

I am noting that your critique of another poster’s overuse of CS Lewis is posthumous rather than direct, head on, to their face with principle.

Yes, it is a difference between you and I. I have a history of being forthright and principled in my challenge of other posters. I don’t wait until they die and then pop out a negative comment.