CE Volume 3

[strat-0]

I guess I'll have to fight to reclaim the Stars and Bars now.

Very interesting discussion here! Unfortunately, I'm short on time again...

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Mary said:

I have no desire to see America literally crumble and fall. However, whatever jllm says now, I read his original post more as a rebuke to America's official mythology of national innocence and rugged individualism -- and on that matter, I would love to see the mythology disintegrate. So many tropes of American mythology, in my opinion, prevent us from seeing structural inequities for what they really are - the myth of the self-made man, the melting pot, the land of boundless opportunity, the rags to riches American dream, the city on the hill (from Winthrop to Reagan!), the taming of nature and westward expansion, etc etc. Exposing the ideological subterfuge behind these myths isn't about destroying America or knocking it off its pedestal, it's about making it a more just and open place.

Yeah, this is exactly what I was getting at. But, just out of curiosity, what's this "city on the hill"? Forgive my foreign ignorance, but this is an aspect of American mythology I'm not familiar with.

[Dr. Drum]

Matthew 5:14 – 5:16

¹⁴Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. ¹⁵ Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. ¹⁶ Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

[riley]

If that was a little less religious, it could almost pass as lyrics from 2112

[Dr. Drum]

Larfing out loud, Riley! ;D

[Proud]

my dream network would have the o'reilly factor, hannity and frankenstein colmes, and scarborough country one after another. a live action version of rush limbaugh would be great, too.

not that i think highly of chris matthews, either. they should rename his show "hard balls".

[Mary]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

Yeah, this is exactly what I was getting at. But, just out of curiosity, what's this "city on the hill"? Forgive my foreign ignorance, but this is an aspect of American mythology I'm not familiar with.

Well, its place in American lore dates all the way back to the Massachusetts Puritans under John Winthrop, who gave a famous sermon in 1630 (called A Model of Christian Charity), upon arrival in America, to his fellow Puritan settlers encouraging them to form a tight-knit Christian community whose virtuous, religious mores would be a shining beacon to the rest of the world to amend their corrupt ways (read: to decadent Europe, which the Puritans believed was on the path to damnation). The most famous metaphor Winthrop used to evoke this sense of mission and calling was to say that the new Puritan settlement would be "as a city upon a Hill":

"the Lord make it like that of New England: for we must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us."

So America was to become a model of Christian goodness for the rest of the world. However, the burden of being an example to the rest of the world carried a dark side as well - should America fail in its committment to godliness, then it would be the eternal scorn of the rest of the world, a lonely city on a hill isolated from the rest of man:

So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.

Of course, in the intervening centuries, America lost this sense of transcendent Christian purpose, but the City on a Hill metaphor persisted, largely through the myth of American exceptionalism - that America was an utterly unique nation in the world, unlike any other nation, which the rest of the world looked to as a model and example. This rhetoric was used as an explanation for Westward expansion (the more cynical would say as a justification for the mass-slaughter of Native Americans) and later as a justification for expansionist adventures abroad in the Spanish-American War.

In 1974, announcing his presidential intentions for the first time, Ronald Reagan revived the city upon a hill language once again, with all its original implications, both in terms of America's religious destiny and its unique place as a model to the rest of mankind:

"We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, “The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.”

We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth."

Reagan repeated this shining city on a hill language throughout his own presidency, constantly calling on the American people to realize John Winthrop's vision and thus to regenerate themselves. In his farewell speech, departing from office, he said:

And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.

...now, don't get me wrong. I think a lot of this rhetoric is quite beautiful and stirring. I just think it's a mythology that we'd be better off without. Nations who believe they have transcendent purposes can be frightening in their self-assuredness - it leads to a lack of ambivalence, a lack of any sense of historical contingency, of moral complication. I don't really think we can be a mature nation until we reckon with our darker side, rather than constantly search for renewed purity and innocence through some kind of transcendent regeneration.

Cheers,
M

[chrisfan]

Call me a crazy right-wing zealot, but I could swear that i just saw Mary acknowledge some of that Christian based foundation of this country that Melon was shot down for referring to just a few days ago ... which was apparently proven wrong with a few quotes by Shin. Well I'll be ...

[Mary]

Chrisfan said:

Call me a crazy right-wing zealot, but I could swear that i just saw Mary acknowledge some of that Christian based foundation of this country that Melon was shot down for referring to just a few days ago ... which was apparently proven wrong with a few quotes by Shin. Well I'll be ...

Awww...and we were having so much fun at our lefty circle-jerk...

First of all, neither shin nor I ever denied that Christianity exerted an influence on the founding of this country - only that Christian morals were the foundation of this country. Indeed, your'e conveniently ignoring shin's post in which he highlighted the portion of his original post that directly, explicitly acknowledged the influence of Christianity on several of the founders.

Second, John Winthrop isn't one of the founding fathers. He came to America in 1630 - i.e. nearly a century and a half before the Declaration of Independence. Shin's whole argument was about the generation of founders who were influenced by the Enlightenment - obviously, you can't be influenced by something that hasn't happened yet. The Enlightenment was an 18th century phenomena, which occurred well after Winthrop's own death. Winthrop's Puritanism is completely irrelevant to whether shin is right about the founding fathers.

I'm not saying that the Puritan legacy was utterly vanquished in the 18th century, only that it was weakened to such an extent that calling America a Christian nation is flagrantly wrong.

It's amazing how you want to keep harping on this - I posted several substantive posts about a number of issues, and all you could do was take me to task for an offhand adjective, in a subordinate clause that had virtually nothing whatsoever to do with the overall point of my post, describing shin's post as "excellent". If that's what you consider "fighting the good fight" then no wonder you want to take a break from this board.

M

[stratman19]

It would appear as though I've missed out on a whole hell of a lot. I've only gone back a couple of pages or so, as I'm now hopelessly behind on any number of boards I frequent. But I feel I need to set the record straight for all of you out there.

I am not one of the conservatives that has been PM'ing Chrisfan with the sentiment to "fight the good fight", nor am I one that has been lurking and not posting.

Number 1: I've got more balls than that.
Number 2: I wouldn't leave Chris twisting in the wind here.

The truth of the matter is that I haven't been around much, nor will I be today, but I'm here now, so if any of you have any questions, if you'll re-state them, I'll try to answer them. Plus you'd save me a shitload of back reading. Now where the fuck are we?

I'm Strat19, and I approved this message.

[chrisfan]

Mary said:

It's amazing how you want to keep harping on this - I posted several substantive posts about a number of issues, and all you could do was take me to task for an offhand adjective, in a subordinate clause that had virtually nothing whatsoever to do with the overall point of my post, describing shin's post as "excellent". If that's what you consider "fighting the good fight" then no wonder you want to take a break from this board.

M

No Mary, apparently constructive criticism flies over you head amid all the ass kissing ... I believe that Melon's assertion was an extreme interpretation. I also believe that Shin's assertion was an extreme interpretation in the other direction. I think that the RIGHT answer is in the middle of the two. When you declared Shin's post to be "excellent" I stated my surprise, because it's been my experience that you're usually pretty damn well balanced in being able to recognize the horseshit of the left just as well as you can identify the horseshit AND what you disagree with from the right. But as I said ... in the lefty circle jerk that this board has become, apparently pointing out such is not allowed among the ass kissing.

[strat-0]

Well, I noticed in this thread that some of the mis-communicating seems to be derived from different perceptions of what people are meaning when they say "founded" ("founding fathers" / "founded on"), or "built" on or whatever. From colonization through nationhood and further settlement is a long time with many different facets, causes and effects. Everything didn't happen in 1620 or 1776 or 1787.

As for the Founding Fathers, it's clear to me that they were some pretty smart dudes who put a lot of thought into constructing a free country and did such a damn admirable job that the framework still works pretty well. "The more things change, the more they stay the same..."

[stratman19]

As for the Founding Fathers, it's clear to me that they were some pretty smart dudes who put a lot of thought into constructing a free country and did such a damn admirable job that the framework still works pretty well. "The more things change, the more they stay the same..."

It's exactly this point of view that makes me a constitutional constructionist. I don't believe the Constitution is an "old, outdated" document, nor do I take the view of the Left that it's a "living breathing" document.

I believe the Founders knew exactly what they were doing in the construction of this document, and I believe that they were designing a document that would stand the test of time, no matter the changes the future might bring. Where the Constitution is vague, I believe it was made intentionally so, as to allow for some degree of interpretation as things did change, but "living, breathing" document?! My ass.

[Meursault]

Question: Correct me if i'm wrong, but in the constitution isn't something written to the effect that monopolies or big businesses were to be prevented?

[stratman19]

No Shane, that's not correct.