AMERICAN FUTURE

Yes, an excellent article. Lilla isn’t really arguing for a particular choice vis a vis Hobbes and Rousseau, who are used to show two political poles. The Sun article referred to by Rich seems to miss not only that point but also the fact that we live in a secular state and a pluralistic society, even if there are very strong and passionate religious feelings expressed both in private and public life. Lilla is trying to make people aware of how theocratic states are fundamentally different from ours in ways that are hard for us to understand. One might well see Lilla’s position as an indictment of the neo-con/Wilsonian concept of exporting democracy to the other parts of the world. Importantly, he asserts that the secular-liberal-democratic “experiment” is exceptional in human history and arose under conditions that were unusual. While Lilla is skeptical of the neo-con view, his argument also implies a skepticism towards the prevailing view in Europe: that the politics of compromise and accomodation that worked so well for the last 50 years in Europe can be extended beyond Europe’s borders. He offers some hope that Islam will reform itself from within. Yet overall, one cannot help but feel pessimistic if one believes Lilla’s analysis (which I do). The goals of Iran with its messianic vision and supercessionary agenda are so fundamentally opposed to US interests and beliefs, war may be the mostly likely outcome—and such a war is likely to have a devastating effect on both countries.

The toxic, catabolic ideo/theologies of Marxism, communism, fascism, Nazism, jihadism and theofascism all follow the same formulation. It would be more helpful if Dr. Lilla’s learned analysis noted the combination of anthropological, sociological and psychological factors which are found in all of the mass-death belief systems in both the East and West, in both religious and secular belief systems, which then would have helped give us a better understanding of the enemy we face in Iranian theofascism, especially, and elsewhere.

Rousseau and Hobbes: Rousseau’s “dark side” is in the slaughters of the Reign of Terror; Hobbes’s deep pessimism about the nature of human nature is not just vitrioloic, it’s void of humanity. To make a case about political theology in Islam based upon Rousseau versus Hobbes entirely misses two points: The Middle East sees the “Great Separation” as between Popper and Heidegger, not Rousseau and Hobbes; and second, the same psychic drives in political theology also drive imperialism, messianism, and the devout fundamentalist’s desire for “renewal” and “revival.”

So long as we continue to mis-identify the five-hundred year old enemy mass-killing us, we will not prevail in our battle against the popular duocidal theofascism in Iran, or against the duocidal jihadism of Ibn Wahhab (Saudi Arabia), Abul Maududi (Pakistan), and Sayyid Qutb (Egypt, and OBL’s favorite philosopher).

I was stunned by this article. I don’t know anything about Lilla. But he seems to have hit the nail on the head in many, but not all, respects. I was particularly shocked by his detailing of all the liberal religious leaders who hastened and supported the First World War. It reminded me, almost verbatim, of how many Catholic neo-cons have tried to promote the Iraq war to Catholics as the work of God’s hand. As I reflect upon it, Lilla does seem to be a secular thinker, who himself abhors political theology. However, he is an honest one. And I appreciate his ability to be fair to the thought-process of those who sympathize with political theology. I myself identified with the disenchanted youth of the early 20th Century who were disgusted with the milk-toast version of faith presented to them by their religious leaders. I suppose I am part of the problem, in Lilla’s eyes. But, as he points out with Rousseau, if it is in man’s nature to be religious, then the problem isn’t me, it’s life itself. And like Buber said, I’d rather die believing in something and fighting for it than living a safe, dull and uninteresting life – and more importantly, a life without hope of having my deepest and unshakable longings fulfilled.

“F’s” is a fascinating reply. I’m speaking about her own blog post on this topic that she links to here. I don’t see how anyone could think it true to say that Hobbes was not an instigator of modernity. I imagine that, with a narrowly focused education, this kind of thinking is possible. That’s not an attack, it’s an observation. Now Lilla appears to be a liberal. In his defense, he, like any good tactician, is willing to reconsider his own tactics. He sees that they’re not working and is in search of new ones. “F” seems outraged that Lilla is being critical of liberal religion, and that’s all. I think that this illustrates what happens when well-educated minds bump into poorly-educated minds – even when they’re both liberals! They become enemies even to each other. Solution: keep seeking the truth. “F” doesn’t realize that she herself is help captive the the ideologizing that she claims to abhor.

Spengler writes about this article with his usual insight. He cuts Lilla to shreds and for good reason, for Lilla has conceded the game to radical Islam. The NY Times has become a thoroughly unreliable paper with a clear agenda that is not always transparent to its readers. His opening paragraph:
“Secular liberalism stands helpless before a new century of religious wars, Columbia University Professor Mark Lilla concedes in “The politics of God”, a despairing vision of the political future published in the August 19 New York Times Magazine. [1] It is one of those important statements, like the “end of history”, that will repeat on us indefinitely, like a bad curry. It comprises most of the Times weekend magazine, presented with all the pomposity the newspaper can summon.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IH21Aa02.html

Singapore 4D prediction…

Lottery Numbers can be predicted with the help of Child Spirits…