Human History According to Franz Rosenzweig

“What happens in history, [Rosenzweig] says, is not a struggle between man’s faith and man’s reason but a struggle between God and man. In world history the absolute powers themselves are dramatis personae [the characters of the play]. Revelation breaks into the world and transforms creation, which is the Alpha of history, into redemption, which is the Omega. Philosophy has a pagan quality. It is an expression of the Alpha, of creation, of pure nature to which God has given freedom — even against himself. But as revelation comes into the world, it gradually absorbs philosophy, deprives it of its pagan elements, and illuminates it with its own light. The Omega of history will be realized after the element of creation, the world’s freedom, has spent itself. Then God, who has allowed the world to be in the Alpha, will again be the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega.”

~Alexander Altmann, from Franz Rosenzweig and Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy: An Introduction to Their “Letters on Judaism & Christianity”, from Judaism Despite Christianity, University of Chicago Press, 1935, page 33.

Thomas Sowell Quotes #5

“Like so much else that is done by those who treat education as the continuation of politics by other means, the lasting damage that is done is not by insinuating a particular ideology, for people’s ideologies change over time, regardless of what they were taught. The lasting damage is done to the development of critical thinking.

“Learning to think, and how to know what you are talking about, is a full-time occupation. Nowhere is this more true than in the formative years. Even naturally bright people can turn out to be nothing more than clever mush heads if the discipline of logic and the analytical dissection of many-sided empirical evidence is slighted for the sake of emotional ‘experiences.'”

~from The Thomas Sowell Reader: Educational Issues, page 346-347

Big Fat Mama Canada

mama2
The debate about Bill C-16 with Dr. Jordan B. Peterson has got me thinking. Why would anyone living in a free society, freedom which men have fought and died for, want a big fat mama government to take care of them?

First, those who support Bill C-16 believe that they are on the side of love and compassion, and therefore have the moral high-ground. But, the not so obvious threat which they’re not seeing is that C-16 will give the government the authority to punish Canadian citizens for not talking a certain way. The gender issue is, more or less, just the issue which the threat has been attached to.

Second, why would anyone assume that those who oppose C-16 are automatically hateful towards the trans-gender community? Just because one might be against a particular solution to a problem does not mean that one doesn’t care about the problem. If someone says to me, “You should always give money to any homeless person who asks for it,” and I say that’s a bad idea; if the person then responds by saying, “You don’t care about homeless people,” then that person is ignorant, especially if I regularly volunteer at a homeless shelter and donate to the food bank — which are much better solutions to help homeless people. The same principle applies to C-16. If one is opposed to C-16, it doesn’t mean they are hateful toward the trans-community — it may just mean they care about free speech in Canada, and are unwilling to give that up.

And third, why do those who support C-16 believe that their only option is to run to big fat Mama Canada to solve their problems for them? Why don’t they get out there and do some awareness type work? Write up some literature to pass around. Make some Youtube videos. If they see someone mistreating a trans-gender, go and deal with the situation. But, it’s much easier to complain and let Mama Canada deal with it.

A free society requires adult citizens, not babies who always run to mommy.

12sim6

Click here to sign a petition opposing Bill C-16.

***

Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy Quotes #13

“A wounded heart does not recover in the spiritual world without a change in the visible world. Resurrection never does enthrone the spirit in the same place where it left one body, as though nothing had happened. Something has happened; death has intervened. When I experienced an infinitesimal fraction of resurrection, I learned to my amazement how severe the law was which made it impossible for me to continue among the same people in the same place.”

~from The Christian Future, page 145

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson ~ Bill C-16 Debate

Watching this, it wasn’t much of a debate. It was two against one (three against one if you count the moderator). Dr. Peterson’s main argument is that it is never good to give the government the authority to punish people for not saying things a certain way. This is not so much an issue of what you can’t say; it’s an issue of what you must say, and Peterson rightly points out how dangerous that is for a free society.

Peterson’s opponents, Brenda Cossman and Mary Bryson, appeal mainly to kindness and an unquestioning obedience to the law. I’m quite sure that if this had been a debate about abortion, Brenda Cossman’s only argument would have been: “Abortion is legal. What’s the point in debating it?” She criticized Peterson for not knowing the law well enough. Well, you don’t have to be a lawyer to recognize bad law, and Peterson, who has studied totalitarian societies for years, does know how bad laws corrupt free society.

Hopefully Dr. Peterson doesn’t lose his job or his license to practice psychiatric care in the future. But if he does, will Canada still continue down this current path? Or, will someone throw a Trump brand monkey wrench into Canada’s PC machine?