@Pinky, whatever one's opinion of the phrase, coining The Axis of Evil seems like a fairly significant event.

Incompetent and totally corrupt. At least on the lower/mid levels of power. But in comparison to whom exactly? Our Senate isn't exactly a model of intelligent beings in intelligent interaction.

@James Joyner, thanks for the response james. good call on the reader, we're working on it.

@Matthew Schmitz, thanks everyone.

@Will agreed.

actually this is an excellent question. Origen and Gregory of Nyssa (I think so, though there is argument on the latter one) both argue for an apocatastasis. The return of all to God and therefore the abolition of hell, of Satan, and all the rest.

In more modern theology, John Hick the religious pluralist argued the same thing from the premise that God as unconditional Love will eventually overcome (given an infinity of infinite time) all resistance. Not through overly determinate power but via the eventually irresistible force of Love.

And lastly Balthasar, the one whose meditations form the backdrop of this post. Balthasar (going back to Origen) not surprisingly meditated on the possibility of the end of Hell.

So there is a "subterranean" tradition of this thought in Christianity.

insofar as Harris is arguing for a science of values/morality it was.

For Habermas, the constraints are what he calls validity claims. For subjectivity it's truthfulness, for objectivity truth, for social existence functional fit, and for intersubjectivity, (our case): justness.

So we can evaluate between cultures as opposed to creating (as Harris does, here I agree with Freddie) science versus all the rest of the "primitive peoples" on earth.

Versus also saying all cultures are islands unto themselves, and each can't be judged and/or is equal (in whatever way that is meant) to all others.

So cultures/values shift and evolve, but for Habermas they do so in non-arbitrary manners, in ways that allow us to make relative distinctions.

As opposed to say a Deleuze, where they shift via the process of de-territorialization and re-territorialization in a rather chaotic fashion.

It's interesting I think that at the end of their respective lives, both Foucault and Derrida ended up in discourse with Habermas and basically aligning themselves socially and politically with his point of view. Or something very close to it anyway (and by extension Kant).

I agree with that one. Habermas sorta gets at that with his deploying of Piaget's cognitive developmental scheme.

jhg,

Yes there are resonances at some level between pre-Christian Greco-Roman and Near Eastern myths, but the divergences are more significant I would say.

The dying god never became fully human nor became born of a poor woman (certainly not a Jewish one at that), been the son of a carpenter. Nor suffered such a public, humiliating, shameful, and excruciating form of death.

The more pertinent backdrop is not pagan religions but Judaism, since Jesus (and all his followers) were Jewish. In 2nd Temple Judaism, the righteous martyrs (like the woman and her sons in Maccabees) will be justified by God. They will be justified in the resurrection (see Update I, point #2).

The difference with what became Christianity is they said that Jesus was raised and the new age/end times had already broken through whereas for (non Jesus following) Judaism, the resurrection hasn't happened at all yet.

Nor do the pagan myths of dying and rising gods talk about a new heaven and a new earth, redeemed flesh, and humans as the priests and servant rulers (as gardeners!!!) of the new liberated cosmos.

The Jewish-Christian story might indeed be wrong, but it's significantly different than things like cult of Demeter.

see update I. Acknowledged. A truly sorrowful and shameful point.

Nietzsche is always a welcome voice here at the League.

3) Does the rise of the surveillance state vindicate public choice theory?

I think it vindicates Marx. Technologies that proliferate with market value are inevitably going to be used in some fashion by governments. The question is how, if there are any checks, what's the reach, etc. I don't see any difference with the national surveillance state.

As Jack Balkin would say, "it's not coming, it's already here."

If governments don't take on elements of rising technology then they get labeled (by conservatives and liberals typically) not as "adaptive" or "efficient" as business.

Given that he was The Cincinnati Kid I have to approve.

jhg,

it's not about punishment. that's a medieval and later reformation misreading of the text I would say. They understood justice in the forensic sense of individuals being imputed righteousness.

The Biblical arc is about the character of God's faithfulness. And the trajectory of that story is forgiveness and spiritual transformation (via the Holy Spirit) not punishment or guilt.

In other words, righteousness isn't about our souls but participating in the Divine undertaking of redemption.

You're still thinking it is about us as individuals--the dominant mode of Western thought no doubt--but I would say that's only one slice of a much larger reality. e.g. The story of redemption in the Bible is heavily built around the formation of a holy people, what Martin Luther King, Jr. (quoting the Gospel of John) called a beloved community.

The community becomes the bearers of the God image. Individuals are members of the community yes but they are not completely isolated, separated atomistic beings. They find their true personhood in relationship (i.e. The Trinitarian imagery).

amended. thanks. damn typo.

it's not mental. it's about a way of life.

that you only think in terms of mental means you are still stuck in the Enlightenment paradigm where "belief="mental propositions" either to be believed (in your head) or not.

Enjoying your life is fine, with or without God. I'm all for it, on its own level.

The bumper sticker still assumes the notion of heaven critiqued in the above post. If there is God we're not supposed to be able to enjoy this life because the only real life that would matter is the one after death. Religion is just a tool to deny this life and a tragic con on the masses who would otherwise be so happy in this world.

Sorry but we've been there, done that.

The more pertinent question (imo) is: Is this life redeemed? Is there justice?

That's what the teaching of resurrection is ultimately about, not some superficial do you believe (in your head) in some wacky theory or not.

It shoots the gap between a secular individualistic only pursuit of the good life, or social justice types in this world who become burned out and nihilistic when the perfect world doesn't come, or the traditional religious view of pie in the sky happiness after death.

sheesh.

Walking, talking, rapping self-irony realized. WOLVERINES mutha F@#&'as!!

Speaking of which, should we all go see the Red Dawn remake when it comes out? They filmed part of it down the street from where I work. As you can guess, the film is going to be as bad, if not Ronald Reagan help us, worse than this rap.

If Benedict had (or still could) responded differently to these latest set of abuse revelations then there wouldn't be calls for his head. In that sense he is just the scapegoat for some (well deserved imo) desire for vengeance.

With the way he has responded to the Irish crisis and now the German one, it is clear that he is still thinking in a mode of response characteristic of the 1950-1980s. That's when Ratzinger was enculturated into this life, so I can understand how hard it would be to change your way of acting after decades and decades. But the reality is he's the spiritual and political leader of the Roman Catholic Church and he's not doing what needs to be done.

Calling for his resignation is I suppose fair in that sense, but I'm not sure it would really do much. All of the Cardinals and Bishops in the world are ones appointed by JPII (or Benedict) and they all essentially subscribe to their view of the world. One which I think is causing the RC (and Christianity more generally) a huge amount of unnecessary pain and loss of prestige (if it has any left).

It would take a major league conversion at all levels of doing business which the Vatican is not exactly known for throughout history, let's be honest.

Still, I think it is true (as ED is pointing out) there are people who are opposed to the RC hierarchy system and want to use this issue to somehow force the end of the hierarchy. Protestantizing the RC in a sense. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong in a juridical sense, but that won't solve the issue at hand I think. Better to focus on that one.

Speaking of Private Eyes (agree with Freddie) and the hipster comeback, it was used to great effect (twice) throughout the series. Most especially during his first stakeout.

+1 Joe.

well said.

I like where they are going to. Especially Reihan. Even if it is not where it goes I think it's where we ought to go.

excellent point.

point francis.