All in the name of disempowering the many and enthroning the privileged few.Three Big Myths Right-Wing Propagandists Are Spreading to Frame the 2012 Election
Jim Hightower
Jim Hightower debunks the myth of the "free market" spontaneously trending to equilibrium owing to natural forces as long as there is no outside intervention from government that restricts personal initiative and assumption of personal responsibility by coddling "laziness." (Comparable to the myth of "spare the rod and spoil the child.")
5 comments:
"the rod"
In that scripture, "the rod" was the symbol of authority, not a club to beat your children with....
rsp,
Meaning is based on interpretation. There are numerous sects in Christianity based on different interpretations positioned on a spectrum ranging from reactionary to radical, literal to symbolic. In political economy, neoliberalism is reactionary dogmatism designed to privilege an economic elite, similar to the way that the "divine right of kings" was used theologically to justify monarchy by evoking scripture.
"Meaning is based on interpretation."
There is only one correct meaning.
I think this is a problem here Tom... you have unqualified people doing the interpretation.
Paul to Timothy: "15 Endeavor to present yourself to God qualified, an unashamed worker, correctly cutting the word of truth."
They are not qualified ... rsp,
There is only one correct meaning.
That may be, but as in other fields of knowledge, what that correct interpretation may be is a matter of contention, so severe at times it has resulted in open conflict. From the logical point of view the debate is not so much over the correct interpretation as over the criterion of correct and what justifies that criterion.
And this argument so far has been an appeal to an arbitrary criterion, usually some authority (dogma), self-evidence ("We are right and you are wrong" aka "Is so," "No it isn't," "Yes it it is", ...), turtles all the way down (infinite regress), or dog chasing tail (vicious circle). The other criterion often appealed to is majority opinion of scholars, but since when is truth decided by majority opinion, especially when history shows how often majority opinion shifts.
Kierkegaard was "right" in pointing out in The Leap of Faith that at this point, it's a "leap of faith." (While that phrase is attributed to Kierkegaard, he didn't use that wording.) As he points out in a brilliant passage about Abraham's being commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac (according to the Qur'an it was Ishmael), how was Abraham to know for sure (criterion) that it was God talking to him and not either voices in the head (he was over 100 years old) or the devil? Moreover, the command completely contradicted morality, necessitating putting "God's will" above all.
See The Leap of Faith by Kenneth Shouler, Ph.D.
Post a Comment