Author Topic: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE  (Read 8898 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,496
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2016, 12:29:07 »
Abdullah -

There is a sense of possessiveness that comes across in your posts that is at odds with egalitarian sensibilities.  Jarnhamar demonstrated one instance. In your response you offered "We dont wish our women to be ...."

I am fairly certain that many non-muslim women would be disconcerted were "we" (non-muslim males) to describe them as "our" women.

I am sure that this just a distraction of tone.  But it does tend to undermine your own positions.

Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline AbdullahD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 14,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 279
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2016, 12:34:54 »
Abdullah -

There is a sense of possessiveness that comes across in your posts that is at odds with egalitarian sensibilities.  Jarnhamar demonstrated one instance. In your response you offered "We dont wish our women to be ...."

I am fairly certain that many non-muslim women would be disconcerted were "we" (non-muslim males) to describe them as "our" women.

I am sure that this just a distraction of tone.  But it does tend to undermine your own positions.

I used it to illustrate Muslim women, Muslims are taught that we are on big family with Jews and Christians as our cousins, religiously speaking.

I am not an orator, or a theologian, or politician.. or any such thing. I am just me, so I do make many mistakes and heck I have even been known to be wrong on occasion. The views I bring up here are just that my own, when talking about Islam I try to be unbiased.

Now I cant say I feel possessive of Muslim women, maybe protective... but thanks for bringing it up.

Ps I went back and re read the post. I can see where you are coming from completely, but since we are not debating every little thing... at least to my knowledge I think I will leave it as is, because it was my wife and I do the thinking and I feel it does not imply misogyny on my part.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2016, 12:41:54 by AbdullahD »
Recruting Center: Vancouver
Component: Reg Force
Trade Choice 1: MSEOP
Application Date: 09/22/2016
First Contact: 09/28/2016
Tests:
CFAT- 10/15/2016 Passed
Medical- TBA
Interview- TBA
Position Offered: TBA
Basic Training Begins: TBA
Trade *Correction trade is open, back to getting fit :)*

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,496
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2016, 12:40:32 »
As I said,  it is a matter of tone.  And easy to be misunderstood.

Sorry for the intrusion on this one.  I enjoy reading your posts.  They're very helpful in supplying insight into your faith.

Regards.  :)
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 924
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2016, 12:45:18 »

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 924
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #29 on: September 17, 2016, 12:47:58 »
Yes and No.  Cultures naturally evolve over time.  We have created a culture in Canada, that some fail to acknowledge, which we in doing so also want to protect it from such changes as this:

The culture that Canada has created is only temporary, as you admit in your post.  There has always been a fear that the 'other' would destroy this country.  It's never happened yet. 

Canada is a reflection of the ever changing dynamic of its people.

Quote
Unfortunately, in creating our "culture of understanding, tolerance and equality" we have naively fallen into a trap thinking that all the world's cultures would be just as accepting.  We have written a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with which some less than ethical and less than moral elements have been able to use as a "tool" to bring their less than desirable traits to some form of 'legality'/acceptance in our society.

Us upholding our own laws and principles doesn't make us naive.  It makes us principled.  That people in other places wouldn't do the same for us, is irrelevant.  No matter what changes may occur in our culture over time, these principles will guide us.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 206,496
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,563
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2016, 12:49:47 »
Quote from: AbdullahD

maybe I will do it in reverse? Lets say I am praying and a hot women starts praying in front of me it is hard not to check her out... so being segregated takes that temptation and desire out... hmm, that sounds wrong.. also makes me sound like a pig lol

A bit ya.
Sounds like your suggesting women need to dress a certain way and pray elsewhere in order to accommodate men.

Like Chris mentions, you're a really polite and articulate poster but a sense of possessiveness still comes across through your posts. (but you spoke to it, no worries)


Quote from: AbdullahD
Now I am not saying sometimes that they do, but the Majority do it because they wish to please god.

Quote from: AbdullahD
I really dont know how ladies think

How can you speak on behalf of the majority of Muslim women but admit to not know how they really think? 


While I'm sure some women chose to wear said garments I think you're overestimating the number that do it willingly sans fear of retribution and abuse. I kind of feel like it's a convenient justification for men to make on behalf of women. In Afghanistan for example  it wasn't the women who decided to start wearing Burkas en mass, it was decided for them by the Taliban.


Quote
Sorry I could not properly explain, probably be easier if I was a lady
You're in luck if you join, the CF will pay for that ;)
 
« Last Edit: September 17, 2016, 12:52:37 by Jarnhamar »

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 395,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,708
    • The job.
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2016, 13:03:33 »
I really dont know how ladies think.. at all.

When you figure that out, please let me know!
Get on the bus. Take a ride with us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lSGnPl-ww

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 416,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,026
  • Crewman
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #32 on: September 17, 2016, 13:05:22 »

Canada is a reflection of the ever changing dynamic of its people.

Those words, spoken by a certain individual, really revolt me.  Sorry.  That you 'quote' him, is disagreeable to me.

Us upholding our own laws and principles doesn't make us naive.  It makes us principled.  That people in other places wouldn't do the same for us, is irrelevant.  No matter what changes may occur in our culture over time, these principles will guide us.

You seem to have missed the point.  It is relevant and it is happening here now.  Whether you agree with Ezra Levant or not, he is but one example of what has happened in the past two decades, all through the manipulation of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to attack him.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline jmt18325

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 924
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #33 on: September 17, 2016, 13:16:09 »
You seem to have missed the point.  It is relevant and it is happening here now.  Whether you agree with Ezra Levant or not, he is but one example of what has happened in the past two decades, all through the manipulation of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to attack him.

I have no love in my heart for provincial human rights commissions.  Those issues should be handled in the courts.

As for Ezra Levant - there are always two sides to that story.

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 380,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20,657
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #34 on: September 17, 2016, 13:17:12 »
Interesting that he seems to equate our Mounties history in the West to the US Army's history in the West, in the building of our two nations.  Two vastly different histories and two vastly different methods of dealing with the natives.
That tells you HIS read of Canada's history, indeed.
“Most great military blunders stem from the good intentions of some high-ranking buffoon ...” – George MacDonald Fraser, "The Sheik and the Dustbin"

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 165,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,289
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #35 on: September 17, 2016, 14:21:42 »
You're in luck if you join, the CF will pay for that

Funny - that's the first thing that I thought.

Waiting until after joining likely simplifies the recruiting and BMQ/BMOQ processes as well.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,496
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #36 on: September 17, 2016, 14:45:22 »
Jmt:

You are correct when you say that culture is changing.  But culture changes for a variety of reasons.  Some are pulls.  Some are pushes.  Some are high speed.  Some are low speed.  Some develop "naturally".  Some are induced. 

The problem, in my mind is with the induced changes.  The problem that I have is that some of the people doing the inducing are doing it because they wish to destroy that which is in place.  In their mind there might be perfectly good reasons for destroying the status quo.  I might even be persuaded that their reasons are valid.  From that point of departure comes the question of whether or not I agree that the change needs to happen or do I just accept the change because it really isn't that much of an issue to me and my life.

But the problem that the people that promote the change need to understand is that they cannot be surprised when people disagree with them and actively oppose them.

In the current dialogue too many of the people promoting changes seem to fail to accept that people that do not share their views are not evil.  They are not even misguided or ignorant.  They just simply disagree.

And in a democracy there are dispute mechanisms in place to resolve those disagreements.

The next problem that comes is acceptance.

You can't keep telling people that they are wrong, misguided, ignorant, uneducated, vile and not expect a response.  Even the most civil of individuals must eventually be expected to push back eventually.

Civil.  Civility.  A concept that has gone out of favour.  It became unfashionable to be civil in the 1960s.  To be polite and mask your true feelings so as not to provoke a fight was seen as hupocrisy.

For the record, from the OED:

Quote
civility
NOUN

1[MASS NOUN] Formal politeness and courtesy in behaviour or speech.
‘I hope we can treat each other with civility and respect’


1.1Polite remarks used in formal conversation.
‘she was exchanging civilities with his mother’

Origin
Late Middle English: from Old French civilite, from Latin civilitas, from civilis relating to citizens (see civil). In early use the term denoted the state of being a citizen and hence good citizenship or orderly behaviour. The sense ‘politeness’ arose in the mid 16th century.

Pronunciation:
civility/sɪˈvɪlɪti/

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/civility

Civility used to be part of our culture.   I miss it.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline AbdullahD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 14,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 279
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #37 on: September 17, 2016, 14:45:44 »
Funny - that's the first thing that I thought.

Waiting until after joining likely simplifies the recruiting and BMQ/BMOQ processes as well.

So I am a transgender, Muslim, convert, who wishes to join the army so I can come out and get a sex change? And to top it off i am slightly misogynistic... oh dear... i need help lol

Do I have the right of it? I am confused lol
Recruting Center: Vancouver
Component: Reg Force
Trade Choice 1: MSEOP
Application Date: 09/22/2016
First Contact: 09/28/2016
Tests:
CFAT- 10/15/2016 Passed
Medical- TBA
Interview- TBA
Position Offered: TBA
Basic Training Begins: TBA
Trade *Correction trade is open, back to getting fit :)*

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,496
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #38 on: September 17, 2016, 14:50:27 »
So I am a transgender, Muslim, convert, who wishes to join the army so I can come out and get a sex change? And to top it off i am slightly misogynistic... oh dear... i need help lol

Do I have the right of it? I am confused lol

On the confusion front: Join the club.  :)
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 395,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,708
    • The job.
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2016, 15:11:14 »
Civility used to be part of our culture.   I miss it.

Are you hoping to find it on the internet?

( Present company excepted, of course.  :) )
Get on the bus. Take a ride with us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lSGnPl-ww

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,496
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #40 on: September 18, 2016, 13:29:23 »
Canada has at least two cultures.

And that is at the heart of its problems.

One is that of Britain, a culture dominated by the likes of Locke and Burke, individualism and liberalism.

The other is that of France, a culture with a well developed antipathy towards both individualism and liberalism.  A culture steeped in centralization and the group.  A culture heavily influenced by the Catholic Church which considered the greatest sins of the Masons to be their latitudinarianism, their toleration.

I came across this article in le Figaro yesterday.   It is an interview of a French political scientist by a left leaning French newspaper and the question is:  The French - have they a problem with liberalism?

I found the article very interesting because it comes at some of the points we discuss here very directly but from an opposite, but reasoned view.

Somethings stood out for me:

First was the definition of liberalism - splitting it into social, economic and political liberalisms

Next was the fear of individualism - called radical individualism.

And the notion that while France didn't want to be seen as being illiberal, after all it's motto includes the word Liberty, it believes that good things come in small doses and must be carefully administered - so as to preserve Equality and maintain the Brotherhood.

Finally there is the point that whereas in Britain, from the late 1700s, protestants learned to accommodate Catholics and Jews - that toleration thing, the French response was more along the lines of "If not Catholic then nothing".

Apparently the French don't do Latitudinarianism - (There's one for Mary Poppins).

They, and a lot of other folks apparently, are much more comfortable with dogma - with settled truths.  Embracing chaos is problematic for them as a society.

And by the way, I don't have a problem defining a "French culture" for the purposes of this discussion any more than the article below clearly presents their view of an "Anglo-Saxon culture".

Canada, observed by both Lord Durham and Kipling and Hugh MacLennan, among many others, embodies both.

Quote
Les Français ont-ils un problème avec le libéralisme ?
Par Alexis Feertchak  Publié le 16/09/2016 à 18:50

FIGAROVOX/GRAND ENTRETIEN - Alors que de nouvelles manifestations ont eu lieu contre la loi Travail, l'historienne des idées Françoise Mélonio a accordé au FigaroVox un entretien fleuve pour éclairer le rapport ambigu des Français avec le libéralisme.

Docteur d'État et agrégée de Lettres, normalienne, Françoise Mélonio est professeur de Littérature à l'Université Paris-Sorbonne. Ancienne directrice adjointe (Lettres) de l'École normale supérieure (Ulm), elle a été doyenne du Collège universitaire puis directrice des Études et de la Scolarité de Sciences Po Paris. Spécialiste de Tocqueville, elle a notamment dirigé la collection d'Histoire culturelle de la France publiée aux éditions du Seuil.

FIGAROVOX. - Une étude du CEVIPOF de 2016, réalisée pendant les débats sur la loi Travail, montre qu'un tiers seulement des électeurs sont libéraux au sens économique. De Marine Le Pen à Jean-Luc Mélenchon comme à l'intérieur des partis dits de gouvernement, il est de bon ton de critiquer une «révolution néolibérale» responsable des maux économiques du pays. À l'inverse, très peu d'hommes politiques assumeront en France un programme libéral. La France a-t-elle un problème avec le libéralisme?

Françoise MELONIO. - Jean Tirole rappelle aussi (1) que les Américains sont deux fois plus nombreux que les Français à trouver des vertus aux marchés. La dénonciation du «grand méchant marché», pour reprendre le titre d'Augustin Landier et David Thesmar (2007), est un lieu commun politiquement d'autant plus séduisant qu'il permet de faire retomber la responsabilité de nos difficultés sur le monde extérieur «néolibéral»: l'Europe, la City, etc.

Nous sommes héritiers d'une tradition qui pense que la vie économique doit être encadrée par le politique.

Je ne dirai pas pour autant que la France a un problème avec le libéralisme, terme qui se pense mal au singulier. Il y a des traditions nationales différentes parmi les libéraux. Il est vrai que nous sommes héritiers d'une tradition qui pense que la vie économique doit être encadrée par le politique. Les Français, aujourd'hui comme hier, se méfient du marché, s'inquiètent des conséquences sociales de l'individualisme radical ; ils craignent une «société qui tombe en poussière», pour reprendre une métaphore postrévolutionnaire. Cette dénonciation française de l'individualisme lié au monde de l'argent vient des contre-révolutionnaires et des catholiques, et se trouve reprise par les premiers socialistes. La tradition anglo-américaine, protestante, est très différente: le mot «individualisme» en anglais est d'emblée positif, les Américains valorisent l'héroïsme entrepreneurial. En français le mot «individualisme» qui apparaît vers 1820 est resté très généralement négatif. Aussi bien coexistent en France à la fois une tradition illibérale, étatiste, et une tradition libérale qui dès le XVIIIème siècle défend l'individu moderne émancipé, valorise les initiatives individuelles tout en repoussant l'individualisme et en souhaitant un encadrement politique de l'économie.

L'attachement aux libertés politiques a suscité historiquement chez nous plus de combats que la liberté d'entreprendre

Lisez les admirables chapitres de Tocqueville en 1840 sur l'individualisme, ce «sentiment réfléchi et paisible qui dispose chaque citoyen à s'isoler de la masse de ses semblables, et à se retirer à l'écart avec sa famille et ses amis ; de telle sorte que, après s'être ainsi créé une petite société à son usage, il abandonne volontiers la grande société à elle-même». Tocqueville en vient à redouter l'émergence d'une nouvelle «aristocratie manufacturière», qui «après avoir appauvri et abruti les hommes dont elle se sert, les livre en temps de crise à la charité publique pour les nourrir». La description qu'il fait des usines de Manchester est tout aussi horrifique que celle que donnent le catholique Montalembert ou les socialistes - ce qui ne l'empêche nullement de dénoncer dans l'étatisme économique la «route de la servitude». Il est donc vrai qu'il y a dans notre tradition peu de partisans d'un marché sans régulation forte de l'État, peu de partisans d'un «État Croupion» ou du laissez faire - Frédéric Bastiat, malgré son talent, est peu écouté. L'attachement aux libertés politiques a suscité historiquement chez nous plus de combats que la liberté d'entreprendre, le politique prime sur l'économique - ce n'est pas nécessairement ilibéral...

N'a-t-on pas aussi tendance à oublier que le libéralisme n'est pas d'abord une doctrine économique de «laisser-aller», mais qu'il est au départ une doctrine philosophique, politique et juridique relative au rapport entre les individus, la société et l'État?

En effet le libéralisme se pense d'abord comme l'émancipation de l'individu par rapport à la tutelle de l'Église et à celle du souverain absolu, plus tard aussi par rapport à la tyrannie de la majorité que dénonce Tocqueville aux États-Unis. Ce qu'il y a de commun entre tous les penseurs libéraux, c'est l'idée que la liberté n'est pas un moyen mais une fin, ce qui peut se décliner dans des secteurs très divers: religieux, culturel, politique, économique...

John Dewey estimait en 1935 que «le fait que le libéralisme accorde une réelle valeur à l'expérience a entraîné une réévaluation continuelle des idées d'individualité et de liberté» (2). L'adaptation est-elle la première force du libéralisme?

Les libéraux français, si divers, mettent leur pensée à l'épreuve des responsabilités.

Oui sans doute, parce que ce n'est pas une doctrine, peut être pas même une philosophie, mais un attachement à un principe qui est l'autonomie de l'individu. Les libéraux français, si divers, mettent leur pensée à l'épreuve des responsabilités: Malesherbes (l'arrière-grand-père de Tocqueville) réclamant de la monarchie plus de transparence fiscale et luttant pour la reconnaissance des droits des protestants ; Benjamin Constant grand orateur parlementaire sous la Restauration, Guizot, Tocqueville, députés et ministres, Laboulaye... Raymond Aron est un «spectateur engagé». Une génération est plus sensible à l'urgence d'obtenir des garanties pour les individus (sous l'Empire, Mme de Stael ou Constant, sous le second Empire Laboulaye et Jules Ferry), une autre sera plus soucieuse d'assurer l'ordre (Guizot sous la monarchie de juillet). Il y a des moments libéraux et des générations libérales plus qu'un libéralisme, du fait même de cette volonté d'adaptation aux circonstances.
N'existe-t-il pas aujourd'hui un libéralisme culturel ou sociétal, qui s'ajoute à la division traditionnelle entre libéralismes économique et politique? Quel est le lien entre libéralisme et progressisme?
On peut vouloir le progrès en opprimant les individus.

Le principe de liberté se déploie dans des secteurs très divers ; la reconnaissance de la singularité individuelle dans l'ordre culturel ou sociétal est aujourd'hui un enjeu considérable. Mais les libéraux du 19ème siècle (Constant, Tocqueville notamment) étaient déjà des défenseurs acharnés de la liberté des associations, de la presse, et des cultes... Le progressisme est une autre catégorie: on peut vouloir le progrès en opprimant les individus. Parmi les libéraux, il y a des «progressistes» qui réclament une extension des libertés - sous la Restauration par exemple contre l'emprise du clergé et d'une noblesse conservatrice ; plus tard les orléanistes comme Guizot ou les libéraux de la fin du siècle tendent à penser qu'ils ont atteint la fin de l'histoire et leur libéralisme tourne à l'immobilisme... cette tension se retrouve dans toute l'histoire des libéraux.

Se référant à Tocqueville, Lucien Jaume estime qu'historiquement, les Français sont davantage attachés à l'égalité qu'à la liberté. Cela peut-il expliquer un certain antilibéralisme de l'Hexagone?
C'est à ce peu de goût pour la liberté et au désir insatiable de l'égalité que Tocqueville attribue la récurrence des révolutions en France et la fascination pour des régimes autoritaires.
En effet Lucien Jaume met très vigoureusement ce point en lumière dans ses travaux sur l'histoire du libéralisme. Pour Tocqueville, la préférence pour l'égalité caractérise toutes les démocraties, mais elle est bien plus forte chez les Français car elle résulte de l'éducation politique que leur a donnée la monarchie. Les rois ont accaparé tous les pouvoirs et divisé pour mieux régner: en donnant une multitude de petits privilèges, ils ont attisé l'envie entre les Français, tout en les privant de toute expérience pratique de la liberté. Si bien que la Révolution - dont Tocqueville admire l'élan en 1789 vers la liberté - a vite renoué avec la tradition absolutiste ; c'est à ce peu de goût pour la liberté et au désir insatiable de l'égalité que Tocqueville attribue la récurrence des révolutions en France et la fascination pour des régimes autoritaires comme celui de Napoléon III.

Tocqueville fait néanmoins à la fin de sa vie de cette culture révolutionnaire et despotique un trait du continent européen plus que spécifiquement français: l'aire germanique lui semble ressembler à la France d'ancien régime (il apprend l'allemand pour aller voir en 1854 de l'autre côté du Rhin l'ancien régime encore tout vivant) ; la Russie qu'il ne connaît que par les livres lui semble un exemple extrême d'égalité dans la servitude. Il y a une histoire longue du continent européen qui enracine nos politiques dans l'expérience des anciens régimes. Cela dit, ni Tocqueville ni aucun des penseurs libéraux ne tombent durablement dans l'illusion d'une malédiction des origines qui rendrait impossible la liberté sur le continent européen.

La France est l'un des plus anciens États centralisés au monde, tradition que la Révolution française n'a fait qu'amplifier. Cet attachement à l'État participe-t-il du même mouvement de méfiance à l'endroit du libéralisme?

L'idée est très prégnante qu'entre le fort et le faible, c'est l'État qui protège.

Il y a en effet un illibéralisme originel de la démocratie française qui tient à l'ancienneté de la centralisation, à la tradition catholique aussi, qui a longtemps soumis la conscience individuelle aux droits de la vérité et au magistère du clergé. La première comme la seconde république ont repris l'idéal d'unanimité du catholicisme et de la monarchie. La pluralité des opinions est perçue comme suspecte. Et l'idée est très prégnante qu'entre le fort et le faible, c'est l'État qui protège. Cela dit, en pratique la centralisation de l'ancien régime n'est pas si forte qu'on le dit parfois: Tocqueville reconnaît que la règle est dure mais la pratique molle... ce qui peut se dire des régimes suivants. Aujourdhui, l'attachement à l'État n'empêche pas une forte revendication d'autonomie.

Historiquement, la France est aussi un pays de petits propriétaires, très attachés à leur liberté par rapport à l'État, mais aussi par rapport aux différentes «puissances», qu'elles soient économiques, politiques ou financières. Comment expliquer la conjonction entre ce phénomène et l'attachement à un État fort?

La glorification de la petite propriété (rurale surtout) est un lieu commun libéral. Locke en fait le moyen pour chacun d'assurer sa conservation et son indépendance ; en France les petits propriétaires ayant bénéficié de la vente des biens nationaux et de l'abolition des droits féodaux, la petite propriété apparaît comme une conquête révolutionnaire. Jusque sous la troisième république, on trouve des éloges de la moralité des petits propriétaires, qui tient justement à leur indépendance. Mais c'est de l'État que le petit propriétaire attend la garantie dans ses transactions - et aussi le maintien de l'ordre qui assure le respect de la propriété. Guizot et Tocqueville sont protectionnistes et très attachés à l'ordre social... Je ne vois donc pas de contradiction entre le goût de l'indépendance et l'attachement aux garanties apportées par un État fort.

Ne retrouve-t-on pas aujourd'hui cette ambivalence au sein du Front national entre une vision étatiste et interventionniste dans les anciens territoires ouvriers et une vision davantage poujadiste parmi les artisans, les commerçants, les indépendants et les petits patrons, notamment dans le sud de la France?

« Il n'y a rien de moins indépendant qu'un citoyen libre »
Alexis de Tocqueville

Je ne m'aventurerai pas dans un commentaire sur les électeurs du Front national sur lesquels il y a d'excellentes études (Dominique Reynié, Pascal Perrineau).

Au-delà du cas spécifique de cet électorat, ce qui nous frappe tous aujourd'hui est la perte de confiance dans le personnel politique, la crise de la représentation et le doute sur la capacité de l'État à défendre un bien commun. L'enjeu aujourd'hui est de fonder précisément ce que Tocqueville cherchait à fonder: une communauté de citoyens, une revalorisation de la décision politique, une participation de tous à la vie publique. À ceci près que Tocqueville comme ses contemporains pensait une démocratie guidée par des notables, et qu'il nous faut penser à nouveaux frais la question des «élites» en évitant la confiscation du politique. J'aime à citer cette phrase de L'ancien régime et la Révolution: «ll n'y a rien de moins indépendant qu'un citoyen libre».

Part 2 to follow.....

I kept it in French knowing a number folks on this site have much better French than I do and I don't trust my French to do a just translation.

The original article is here:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/politique/2016/09/16/31001-20160916ARTFIG00307-les-francais-ont-ils-un-probleme-avec-le-liberalisme.php

Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,496
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #41 on: September 18, 2016, 13:29:55 »
The rest of the article.

Quote
Il y a quelques années, la loi française anti-Burka déclenchait un tollé dans les pays anglo-saxons, ce qui est arrivé derechef avec les arrêtés anti-burkini cet été. Le modèle républicain à la française vient-il se heurter au libéralisme politique?

La question est compliquée par la menace terroriste, et le disgracieux burkini n'est pas, je crois, l'objet le plus adéquat pour s'interroger sur la place du religieux dans nos démocraties libérales.
Le très long et conflictuel travail de la séparation explique la vigilance des Français à l'égard de toute affirmation publique d'une religion qui menacerait l'espace commun de coexistence.

Cela dit, la différence avec les pays anglo-saxons tient à l'histoire particulière des relations entre l'État et les religions en France ; la France a longtemps vécu sous un système concordaire depuis le concordat de Bologne en 1516 dont on célèbre l'anniversaire cette année et le concordat de 1801, complété par les articles organiques incluant les protestants (auxquels on ajoute les juifs en 1808) et ce jusqu'à la séparation de 1905. Le concordat reconnaît aux religions «reconnues» une mission publique, les protège en contrepartie d'un contrôle très tatillon (l'État propose au pape les nominations d'évêques, finance les cultes reconnus, surveille les réunions, le clergé doit prêter serment de fidélité etc.). Pour les libéraux (et aussi pour les catholiques à partir de 1830) cette forme de religion politique est une contrainte insupportable, mais ils réclament rarement avant la fin du 19ème siècle une séparation complète et immédiate comme aux États Unis, pour des raisons d'ordre public et aussi parce qu'ils pensent, comme Tocqueville, le maintien des croyances indispensable à la moralité et la cohésion: «pour qu'un peuple soit libre il faut qu'il croie». La loi de 1905 adoptée à la suite d'un conflit séculaire a été dans la pratique une loi de liberté: elle a mis fin à la fonction sociale et politique des religions tout en reconnaissant l'exercice public des cultes. Ce très long travail, très conflictuel, de la séparation explique la vigilance particulière des Français à l'égard de toute affirmation publique d'une religion qui menacerait l'espace commun de coexistence.

La redistribution est plus poussée quand les populations se perçoivent comme homogènes.

Le deuxième aspect tient en effet à notre modèle social républicain qui se veut très intégrateur et redistributif: on sait que la redistribution est plus poussée quand les populations se perçoivent comme homogènes. L'acceptation de la redistribution et le consentement à l'impôt sont liés à ce que Tocqueville met au cœur de l'anthropologie démocratique: le sentiment de la similitude. Aux États-Unis, la faiblesse historique de l'État providence et de la redistribution va de pair avec la fragmentation sociale et l'acceptation des singularités ou du communautarisme ; en France le poids de la redistribution et l'ambition du projet intégrateur sont inséparables d'un fort sentiment de ce qui est commun, sentiment qui est blessé par tout ce qui est perçu - à tort ou à raison - comme une volonté de sécession. Toute la difficulté est aujourd'hui de combiner l'acceptation du pluralisme et de la distinction avec l'affirmation vigoureuse de la similitude sur l'essentiel et d'un projet commun.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Benjamin Constant, Germaine de Staël, Victor Cousin, Hippolyte Taine, etc. la France a compté parmi les premiers intellectuels libéraux. Comment expliquer l'antilibéralisme qui siège aujourd'hui depuis longtemps parmi les «intellectuels» français?

Il y a dans les années 1970/1980 un grand moment libéral qui permet de penser le communisme ou le passé d'une illusion pour parler comme François Furet.
Le refus du libéralisme par certains intellectuels n'est pas une nouveauté dans la tradition française - et la dénonciation de l'illibéralisme des penseurs français par les anglo-saxons est aussi une tradition. Friedrich Hayek s'en était pris très violemment à la tradition continentale européenne dans La route de la servitude en 1944 (titre emprunté à Tocqueville dans son grand discours contre le droit du travail en 1848): parmi les Européens infestés selon lui de rousseauisme il ne trouve à sauver que Kant, Constant et Tocqueville qu'il juge du reste peu français et pas exempt de toute contamination. Plus près de nous et dans un autre contexte idéologique, Tony Judt, s'en prend en 1992 dans Past imperfect french intellectuals 1944-1956 (trad. Fayard, 1992) à la fascination des penseurs français pour le marxisme.
Les libéraux français n'ont pas dans notre univers intellectuel la position dominante qu'ils ont en Angleterre ou aux États Unis pour les raisons historiques que j'ai données ; ils n'en ont pas moins un rôle essentiel quoique discontinu. Ils sont souvent meilleurs dans l'opposition...: sous le premier ou le second Empire, sous la Restauration. En France il y a dans les années 1970/1980 un grand moment libéral qui permet de penser le communisme ou le passé d'une illusion pour parler comme François Furet.

Donald Trump aux États-Unis, victoire du Brexit aux États-Unis, succès des partis populistes partout en Europe, éclosion de «démocratures» dans de nombreux pays émergents, le libéralisme ne connaît-il pas une crise profonde en tant que modèle politique? Dans Suis-je un libéral (1925), John Maynard Keynes écrivait: «Il nous faut inventer une nouvelle sagesse pour une époque nouvelle». N'est-ce pas aujourd'hui le défi du libéralisme pour se réinventer?

Tocqueville écrivait en 1835: «Il faut une science politique nouvelle à un monde tout nouveau»... La crise de la politique désormais n'est plus pensable comme une exception française. Mais l'intelligence de cette crise nouvelle gagne à la méditation des grands classiques. Marc Bloch rappelait que «l''ignorance du passé ne se borne pas à nuire à la connaissance du présent, elle compromet, dans le présent, l'action même».
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 380,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20,657
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #42 on: September 18, 2016, 17:31:56 »
A bit more zeroing in on Canadian values anyone can agree with ...
Quote
... The charter does, however, contain a few truly universal Canadian values; things that most citizens can and do agree upon, no matter where they dwell on the political spectrum.

One citizen, one vote, for example. Or the equality of men and women. Or equal benefit of the law, regardless of "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

I would probably add the protection of the most vulnerable among us, although there are many among us who like to pretend the vulnerable are not really very vulnerable.

If you don't believe in those things — and most countries don't — well, there are other places to live.

Asking new immigrants if they believe in the few truly universal values Canada stands for should be unremarkable. It's at least as sensible as making them swear allegiance to a foreign queen and "all her heirs and successors."

But the longer the values list gets, the shakier and more jingoistic it gets, and sooner or later you start regarding yourself as "exceptional," and start demanding that your politicians declare it true. The way our neighbours do.

Best to keep core values core: a short, simple, self-evident list. And politicians have a devil of a time doing that.
“Most great military blunders stem from the good intentions of some high-ranking buffoon ...” – George MacDonald Fraser, "The Sheik and the Dustbin"

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,496
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #43 on: September 18, 2016, 18:38:51 »
Sorry milnews - but it never seems to take very long before I am at odds with Neil MacDonald - especially when he is mangling words and concepts like democracy.

He is at one with the illiberal social liberals described in the french article I posted.  For him, democracy must be managed and he knows exactly who the managers should be.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Online milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 380,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20,657
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #44 on: September 18, 2016, 18:50:24 »
He is at one with the illiberal social liberals described in the french article I posted.  For him, democracy must be managed and he knows exactly who the managers should be.
That's clear in the earlier part of his piece, for sure.  I thought it would add grist to the mill including what he thinks are Charter rights/values anyone can buy into.

Still, if even Oldgateboatdriver can buy into much of Rex Murphy's list, even if it points out something positive about Trudeau Sr., I figured anything was possible  ;D
“Most great military blunders stem from the good intentions of some high-ranking buffoon ...” – George MacDonald Fraser, "The Sheik and the Dustbin"

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,496
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #45 on: September 18, 2016, 20:37:24 »
One of Mr. MacDonald's points of debate is his disdain for "democracy", as I would describe government of, for and by the people.  He derides this as "majoritarianism".  Other folks these days denigrate it as populism.

What Mr. MacDonald refers to as "democracy", or rule by the Supreme Court, I would describe as oligarchy or nonarchy (look it up).

This issue is at the heart of the Brexit debate and the difference between Continental Democracy and British Democracy.

The continental system fears majoritarianism.  The British system is built on majoritarianism.

Thus in Canada the Supreme Court and the 1982 Constitution are supreme over parliament, following continental notions of managed democracy.

In Britain the Supreme Court, and all other institutions are subordinate to parliament and its individual members.

Quote
Because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.[3] However, it can overturn secondary legislation if, for example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires to the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made. Further, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Supreme Court, like some other courts in the United Kingdom, may make a declaration of incompatibility, indicating that it believes that the legislation subject to the declaration is incompatible with one of the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights.[4] Such a declaration can apply to primary or secondary legislation. The legislation is not overturned by the declaration, and neither Parliament nor the government is required to agree with any such declaration. However, if they do accept a declaration, ministers can exercise powers under section 10 of the act to amend the legislation by statutory instrument to remove the incompatibility, or ask Parliament to amend the legislation.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

This too, is a matter of customs, culture and values.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,397
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #46 on: September 18, 2016, 23:13:10 »
Canada may have a majority culture (EN) and strong minority culture (FR) rather than a single majority culture, but it does have "cultures".  If no such cultures existed, so many people would not be so busy so much of the time trying to grind those cultures down.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"But injustice is a rule of the service, as you know very well; and since you have to have a good deal of undeserved abuse, you might just as well have it from your friends."  - The Ionian Mission, by Patrick O'Brian.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 95,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,452
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #47 on: September 19, 2016, 17:43:23 »
From my reading the dour and conservative Scots, much through the HBC still plays heavily on the English Canadian mindset. I am not sure the French Canadians ever got over the shock of being abandoned by their King and then being cutoff and watching France convulse on it's revolution.     

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,496
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #48 on: September 19, 2016, 19:07:46 »
Colin - the commonalities for the French, and the Irish and the Cape Breton Scots - were the Ultramontanist Catholic church.  The Figaro article points explicitly to the role that the Church has had in France in establishing a mindset that treasures equality and security over freedom and opportunity.

I suggest that if you want to see the battle between cultures played out then you could check on the Church's attitudes towards the Masons and their influence on education.  Freedom of Conscience and expression were not prized by the Church.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 176,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,496
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Myth that Canada has NO CULTURE
« Reply #49 on: September 20, 2016, 12:52:26 »
Values seems to a popular discussion point these days.

This from an article in the New Statesman via a reference in the Spectator.

The New Statesman leans left.

Quote
Tom Holland: Why I was wrong about Christianity

It took me a long time to realise my morals are not Greek or Roman, but thoroughly, and proudly, Christian.
BY
TOM HOLLAND

When I was a boy, my upbringing as a Christian was forever being weathered by the gale force of my enthusiasms. First, there were dinosaurs. I vividly remember my shock when, at Sunday school one day, I opened a children’s Bible and found an illustration on its first page of Adam and Eve with a brachiosaur. Six years old I may have been, but of one thing – to my regret – I was rock-solid certain: no human being had ever seen a sauropod. That the teacher seemed not to care about this error only compounded my sense of outrage and bewilderment. A faint shadow of doubt, for the first time, had been brought to darken my Christian faith.

With time, it darkened further still. My obsession with dinosaurs – glamorous, ­ferocious, extinct – evolved seamlessly into an obsession with ancient empires. When I read the Bible, the focus of my fascination was less the children of Israel or Jesus and his disciples than their adversaries: the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Romans. In a similar manner, although I vaguely continued to believe in God, I found Him infinitely less charismatic than my favourite Olympians: Apollo, Athena, Dionysus. Rather than lay down laws and condemn other deities as demons, they preferred to enjoy themselves. And if they were vain, selfish and cruel, that only served to endow them with the allure of rock stars.

By the time I came to read Edward Gibbon and the other great writers of the Enlightenment, I was more than ready to accept their interpretation of history: that the triumph of Christianity had ushered in an “age of superstition and credulity”, and that modernity was founded on the dusting down of long-forgotten classical values. My childhood instinct to think of the biblical God as the po-faced enemy of liberty and fun was rationalised. The defeat of paganism had ushered in the reign of Nobodaddy, and of all the crusaders, inquisitors and black-hatted puritans who had served as his acolytes. Colour and excitement had been drained from the world. “Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean,” Swinburne wrote, echoing the apocryphal lament of Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome. “The world has grown grey from thy breath.” Instinctively, I agreed.

So, perhaps it was no surprise that I should have continued to cherish classical antiquity as the period that most stirred and inspired me. When I came to write my first work of history, Rubicon, I chose a subject that had been particularly close to the hearts of the philosophes: the age of Cicero. The theme of my second, Persian Fire, was one that even in the 21st century was serving Hollywood, as it had served Montaigne and Byron, as an archetype of the triumph of liberty over despotism: the Persian invasions of Greece.

The years I spent writing these studies of the classical world – living intimately in the company of Leonidas and of Julius Caesar, of the hoplites who had died at Thermopylae and of the legionaries who had triumphed at Alesia – only confirmed me in my fascination: for Sparta and Rome, even when subjected to the minutest historical inquiry, did not cease to seem possessed of the qualities of an apex predator. They continued to stalk my imaginings as they had always done – like a tyrannosaur.

Yet giant carnivores, however wondrous, are by their nature terrifying. The longer I spent immersed in the study of classical antiquity, the more alien and unsettling I came to find it. The values of Leonidas, whose people had practised a peculiarly murderous form of eugenics, and trained their young to kill uppity Untermenschen by night, were nothing that I recognised as my own; nor were those of Caesar, who was reported to have killed a million Gauls and enslaved a million more. It was not just the extremes of callousness that I came to find shocking, but the lack of a sense that the poor or the weak might have any intrinsic value. As such, the founding conviction of the Enlightenment – that it owed nothing to the faith into which most of its greatest figures had been born – increasingly came to seem to me unsustainable.

“Every sensible man,” Voltaire wrote, “every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.” Rather than acknowledge that his ethical principles might owe anything to Christianity, he preferred to derive them from a range of other sources – not just classical literature, but Chinese philosophy and his own powers of reason. Yet Voltaire, in his concern for the weak and ­oppressed, was marked more enduringly by the stamp of biblical ethics than he cared to admit. His defiance of the Christian God, in a paradox that was certainly not unique to him, drew on motivations that were, in part at least, recognisably Christian.


“We preach Christ crucified,” St Paul declared, “unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” He was right. Nothing could have run more counter to the most profoundly held assumptions of Paul’s contemporaries – Jews, or Greeks, or Romans. The notion that a god might have suffered torture and death on a cross was so shocking as to appear repulsive. Familiarity with the biblical narrative of the Crucifixion has dulled our sense of just how completely novel a deity Christ was. In the ancient world, it was the role of gods who laid claim to ruling the universe to uphold its order by inflicting punishment – not to suffer it themselves.

Today, even as belief in God fades across the West, the countries that were once collectively known as Christendom continue to bear the stamp of the two-millennia-old revolution that Christianity represents. It is the principal reason why, by and large, most of us who live in post-Christian societies still take for granted that it is nobler to suffer than to inflict suffering. It is why we generally assume that every human life is of equal value. In my morals and ethics, I have learned to accept that I am not Greek or Roman at all, but thoroughly and proudly Christian.

Tom Holland’s most recent book, “Dynasty: the Rise and Fall of the House of Caesar”, is published by Abacus

Quote
“Every sensible man,” Voltaire wrote, “every honourable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.”

This line in particular resonated with me - especially in view of the comments in le Figaro.  In France Christianity was synonymous with the Church (Gallican or Ultramontanist).  This would have been Voltaire's frame - and the frame for all the continent.

It would not have been the frame for the founders of the New Statesmen, the victorian Christian Socialists of Manchester, the Masons of Britain or people like Lord Shaftesbury and Francis Hutchinson.

I think that is where much has been lost.

Amongst the many voices of the continent the system of kings supported by the church was the enemy and socialism was the answer.

In Britain Rome and its supporters were seen as the enemy and a local, dare I say, national socialism, and monarchs that worked with their subjects were the order of the day.

God, nor the church, were vilified.  They were central to the society.  Even the socialists - and perhaps especially the British socialists.

Pace Tommy C. Douglas - father of Canadian health care - Scottish Baptist Preacher and Social Democrat.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]