Why we are falling
October 18th, 2008 by Brian Withnell
I found this rather interesting. While I am not of the Russian Orthodox (or Eastern Orthodox in general) church, I felt the writings of Solzhenitsyn almost prophetic. The number of categories this falls under are profound … it is the basis for what is wrong with all of society: those in power, those wanting power, the “right to abortion”, the 2nd amendment (and the need for it), the campaign, the economy, history, immigration, the judiciary, politics, religion, explicitly socialism, and war.
This entry was posted on Saturday, October 18th, 2008 at 9:56 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 18th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
It figures you would like Solzhenitsyn:
“Solzhenitsyn also published a two-volume work on the history of Russian-Jewish relations (Two Hundred Years Together 2001, 2002). In it, Solzhenitsyn emphatically lays the blame for the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 on the Jews, but stops short of alleging this to be the work of a “Jewish conspiracy” [21]. He purports to document the predominance of Jews in the early Bolshevik leaderships, excepting Lenin, using unreliable and manipulated figures, while ignoring evidence unfavorable to his own point of view. He also accuses the Jews of wartime cowardice, and evasion of active duty. At the same time, he calls on both Russians and Jews to come to terms with the members of their peoples who acted in complicity with the Communist regime.
The reception of this work confirms Solzhenitsyn remained a polarizing figure both at home and abroad. According to his critics, the book confirmed Solzhenitsyn’s anti-Semitic views as well as his ideas of Russian supremacy over other nations. Professor Robert Service of Oxford University has defended Solzhenitsyn as “absolutely right”, noting that Trotsky himself claimed Jews were disproportionately represented in the early Soviet bureaucracy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn
October 19th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Yeah, jeez, Brian, any affiliation with such anti-semitic views is highly upsetting.
Er … WHOOPS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html
http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/10/16/obamas-farrakhan-problem
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/18/0958/69808
October 19th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Zim,
Ad hominem, are you familiar with the term? I have not read a lot of his writings, and while some might be inappropriate (I don’t know) I did find his writings in the linked article very interesting. Of course if you cannot separate the person from the reasoning, I would expect you to have a problem with that … but then again, if you cannot separate the person from the argument, then you would also have trouble criticizing anything from a liberal leader (the leader is good, so everything he/she says would have to be good as well).
It almost seems like rather than have an ideology to which you will measure the people, you have a set of approved people to which you will then find condemnation of anything they say, or approve whatever they say based on the group to which they belong.
I find that backward.
October 19th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I am very familiar with his writings and the piece you linked to is intimately connected with his anti-Semitism and, as a matter of fact, his intolerant views toward Catholicism and Protestantism as well. He fought against the admission of Catholic and Protestant priests and missionaries in Russia. He wanted establish a Russian Orthodox theocracy in Russia that would discriminate against other religions and impose its beliefs on people of other faiths or no faith.
This is exactly what people like you seek to do in the United States, except that you want to impose the beliefs of your own narrow brand of Christianity here. So I was not surprised that you found his intolerance inspiring, though I imagine you would be upset to learn that his intolerance also would extend to you. In the essay you linked to:
“In its past, Russia did know a time when the social ideal was not fame, or riches, or material success, but a pious way of life. Russia was then steeped in an Orthodox Christianity which remained true to the Church of the first centuries. The Orthodoxy of that time knew how to safeguard its people under the yoke of a foreign occupation that lasted more than two centuries, while at the same time fending off iniquitous blows from the swords of Western crusaders. During those centuries the Orthodox faith in our country became part of the very pattern of thought and the personality of our people, the forms of daily life, the work calendar, the priorities in every undertaking, the organization of the week and of the year. Faith was the shaping and unifying force of the nation.”
He is not talking about faith in God in general or even Christianity, he is talking specifically about Russian Orthodox faith fending off foreigners, foreigners like you, and like the Jews. So while I can see how establishing a theocracy as he envisioned it might appeal to you, except for the fact that, ironically, you would be discriminated against in his ideal society. I don’t want to live in his theocracy or your theocracy and neither do most Americans who value the freedom that the First Amendment gives us.
October 19th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Excuse me, but I saw absolutely nothing against Jews in the article. Perhaps you could quote the relevant section? I’d be very interested. While I see what you quoted is a tribute to Russian Orthodoxy, it does not say (at least there) that he was attempting to establish a theocracy of the Orthodox church.
Also, he states: “The only possible explanation for this war is a mental eclipse among the leaders of Europe due to their lost awareness of a Supreme Power above them. Only a godless embitterment could have moved ostensibly Christian states to employ poison gas, a weapon so obviously beyond the limits of humanity.”
If you are familiar with the Orthodox church (as I believe you must be) then you must know it was a church in which the local government was preeminent and the idea of separation of church and state would be totally foreign. He could not have been looking to the West as being part of the Russian Orthodox Church, as it would only be consistent within Russia.
The idea of the particular article does say that Russia lost her way when men forgot God, and the blame is partly at the feet of the ROC, through the work of Peter (as head of the state, he would have been head of the church). What I see completely absent in the article is any mention of “Jew”, “Jewish”, “Protestant” or “Roman Catholic”.
The ideas contained within it appear more related to a self-castigation than a call for establishment of a theocracy.
If you want to argue that his other writings poison what he says here, that is the definition of ad hominem … it is to the man, rather than the argument (that is, the discussion, the logic) that is presently before you.
October 19th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
What is also absent in the article is any mention of abortion, the 2nd amendment, immigration, etc. You see in his piece what you want to see, support for your particular vision of theocracy, which he would have disagreed to a great extent. That is my point. When you establish theocracy, whether it is a Russian orthodox theocracy, as he wanted for Russian, or a fundamentalist Christian theocracy as you want to impose here, it necessarily requires the suppression of other faiths and beliefs. The fact that he also expressed anti-Semitic ideas is perfectly consistent with the ideas expressed in the essay. It is not an ad hominem attack to point out the implications of what he is saying and to add further support for those inferences by looking at his other writings.
October 19th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
And just one more piece of evidence for what I am saying that bears directly on this address, and shows that you can’t read it in a vacuum, some of what he says was intended as a direct attack on the last winner of the Templeton Prize, the Rev. Billy Graham:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1983/05/30/1983_05_30_030_TNY_CARDS_000340243
October 19th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Solzhenitsyn is an anti-Semite. How does that detract from the veracity of the argument that he made in his speech?
“What is also absent in the article is any mention of abortion, the 2nd amendment, immigration, etc. You see in his piece what you want to see, support for your particular vision of theocracy, which he would have disagreed to a great extent.”
Nor were those topics brought up. Yet YOU brought up anti-Seminitism. Why? That is an ad hominem attack. If someone says the sky is blue, does his being an anti-Semite make the sky NOT blue?
October 19th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
If the topic were meteorology, yes, Solzhenitsyn’s anti-Semitism would not be germane but since the topic is theocracy, his anti-Semitism is very germane. Jews did not fare well when Russia was a theocracy and that is one reason why they are concerned about fundamentalist Christian attempts to impose a theocracy here. In fact, Sarah Palin’s palling around with Jews for Jesus could lose Florida for McCain.
Brian is the one who brought up abortion, the 2nd amendment, immigration, etc., apparently believing that God shares his position on these issues. Ask him where Solzhenitsyn mentions these issues in his essay.
October 19th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
And the Jews fared better under Communism?
October 19th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
OK, yes, Brian brought up abortion, 2nd Amendment, etc., as a logical extension of Solzhenitsyn’s argument, but NOT as part of it.
Solzhenitsyn’s anti-Semitism, real or not, is neither part of his argument in the post, nor is it a logical extension of that argument, nor does it bear in any way on what he said, any more than it bears on a meteorological discussion. Nor does Solzhenitsyn’s disagreement with Billy Graham bear on the subject of his anti-Semitism.
I agree that Solzhenitsyn would probably have disagreed with my idea of what you might call a theocracy — which is god-fearing men electing those who share their values. That is a far cry from what Solzhenitsyn wanted, and from what the Islamists wanted — the church leaders’ being in charge of the government.
October 19th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Zim,
I take great exception to saying that I would want to start a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. First, I am of reformed faith, not fundamentalist. Second, my view of church state relationship is such that I view theonomy as grave error. (Theonomy is the closest reformed faith comes to theocracy prior to the ending of this age, and refers to “God’s law” being instituted as the law of the land.)
The Westminster Confession of Faith, the confession I generally follow with minor exceptions states in Chapter 19, sections 3 and 4:
3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.
4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
If you read through these, you will see that the confession explicitly states that God gave to Israel as a political body (when they were a nation) a set of judicial laws “which expired … with the State of that people”. Those laws are no longer in force, and other than “general equity” are not to be re-instituted.
It seems you have prejudged me without knowledge.
As to the rest of #6, it seems that you are figuring that having a “right to abortion” has to be based on religious conviction and nothing else … yet that is patently false and there are atheists that do not support the view that the taking of an unborn child’s life is something that a woman has a right to, even if the child is dependent on the body of the woman for life. The 2nd amendment reference (the only other thing you specified) included the need for a 2nd amendment as well. It is because man has forgotten God.
As to ad hominem it is looking outside the argument (discussion) before you, and saying “This person beats his wife, so anything he says is within that context” and so dismissing what is otherwise a valid argument. That is exactly what you are doing only with “anti-Semitic” substituted for “beats his wife”. It is not valid argumentation.
The link you supplied in #7 still says nothing of an attack on Billy Graham, but states:
He spoke grimly, noting a “deplorable” statement by the last Templeton Prize winner, Dr. Billy Graham, saying there was no persecution in the USSR. “If we perish and lose this world, the fault will be ours.”
He did not attack the person of Dr. Graham, but did say that his statement there was no persecution in the USSR was deplorable. He separated the statement from the person of Billy Graham — his disagreement was with the issue, not the man … at least as far as the article you gave stated.
Even if he did attack Dr. Graham, it is separate from the argument in the article. The article stands or falls on its merit or lack thereof. Your continual attempts at bring something to the table outside the article about the author of the article is the definition of ad hominem. The man is bad, so we are justified in dismissing as false anything he says … it is classical ad hominem.
In message #9, you state the topic is theocracy. You are the only one who thinks the topic is theocracy, and you are the only one that brought it up. The topic is not theocracy, the topic is about the falling (decline) of society and the reason because we have forgotten God. I have stated (in 5) that I did not see a call for theocracy in the article, and if I had, I would not have posted it.
Perhaps you should listen to one of your own posts: “You see in his piece what you want to see” and it appears you have seen in my post what you want to see. There is nothing in what I posted about theocracy.
As to my position on abortion and the 2nd amendment, while I do attempt to align my view to what I see taught in the scripture, I do not think that God shares my views on anything … I might think I am following what he has taught, but God in no way takes council from me. He brought forth the universe out of nothing before there was an earth … he has forgotten nothing of it, and knows the end from the beginning. He does not share my ideas. I might hope to know something of his ideas (it is the duty of all mankind to know what they can of God from what he has revealed); while he knows all of my ideas, he is persuaded by none of them.
God is not “on my side” … I can only hope to be on his side.