bllklly@uwmacc.UUCP (Bill Kelly) (10/23/84)
If you didn't like Washington on politics, consider this quotation from
a rather different general-turned-political-leader I just ran across.
"How can you have order in a state without religion?
Society cannot exist without the inequality of fortunes,
which cannot endure apart from religion. When one man
is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he
cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is
an authority which declares 'God wills it thus: there must be
rich and poor in the world: but hereafter and during all
eternity, the division of things will take place differently.'"
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
I wonder what relevance this has to the issue of religion in the
presidential campaign. I'm tempted to draw parallels between
Napoleon's view and Reagan's leanings towards government support
of Christianity. However, I think Reagan is sincere, not Machiavellian,
about most of his beliefs (religious and otherwise). That's what
scares me about him.
(Bring back Richard Nixon, a man I can hate, without any silly worries
over his sincerity!)
--
Bill Kelly
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!bllklly
1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706
"Life's like a jigsaw...you get the straight bits, but there's plenty
missing in the middle." -- Xtcsimard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/04/84)
In article <410@uwmacc.UUCP> bllklly@uwmacc.UUCP (Bill Kelly) writes: > > "How can you have order in a state without religion? Society cannot >exist without the inequality of fortunes, which cannot endure apart from >religion. When one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of sur- >feit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an author- >ity which declares 'God wills it thus: there must be rich and poor in the >world: but hereafter and during all eternity, the division of things will >take place differently.'" -- Napoleon Bonaparte > > I'm tempted to draw parallels between Napoleon's view and Reagan's >leanings towards government support of Christianity. However, I think >Reagan is sincere, not Machiavellian, about most of his beliefs (religious >and otherwise). It is more than a little misleading and unfair to drag a quote from a bygone era, in a different location and culture, and use it in this way to promote a position. One must recall that, in the time and place in which Napoleon said this, the caste system was formally recognized and enforced, and believed good (as the quote suggests). Religion, in this case, was looked upon as a salve for the oppressed, a source of comfort and relief. Today, nobody, including Reagan, suggests a return to the caste system and a dominant aristocracy, with different sets of legal rights for them and the "common people". The suggestion otherwise is part of the continuing illusion that Reagan is less caring and compassionate to the poor than his more liberal colleagues. I have elaborated on that elsewhere; I refer you to my other postings, which are recent enough to still be available. A little note: In my first sentence above, I was not at all suggest- ing that quotations from the past are not useful and relevant - just the association suggested in the original article between Napoleon's attitude and Reagan's policies. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (11/06/84)
-- >> Today, nobody, including Reagan, suggests a return to the caste >> system and a dominant aristocracy, with different sets of legal >> rights for them and the "common people". The suggestion otherwise >> is part of the continuing illusion that Reagan is less caring and >> compassionate to the poor than his more liberal colleagues... >> Ray Simard Well, not in so many words. But Reagan's "New Federalism", you know, what we used to call "State's Rights", will make equal protection under the law a lot harder to come by. What an ingenious way to gut the Civil Rights Act--tell the states that violate it to enforce it. Of course, if you're rich enough, you can up and move to a "nice" state. I'm sure that Reagan is no less caring and compassionate to the poor than his liberal colleagues (you know, the ones who like Blacks but send their kids to all-white private schools), but his policies really are killing them. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 05 Nov 84 [15 Brumaire An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (11/16/84)
From Ray Simard: > In article <410@uwmacc.UUCP> bllklly@uwmacc.UUCP (Bill Kelly) writes: >> >> "How can you have order in a state without religion? Society cannot >>exist without the inequality of fortunes, which cannot endure apart from >>religion. When one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of sur- >>feit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an author- >>ity which declares 'God wills it thus: there must be rich and poor in the >>world: but hereafter and during all eternity, the division of things will >>take place differently.'" -- Napoleon Bonaparte >> >> I'm tempted to draw parallels between Napoleon's view and Reagan's >>leanings towards government support of Christianity. However, I think >>Reagan is sincere, not Machiavellian, about most of his beliefs (religious >>and otherwise). > > It is more than a little misleading and unfair to drag a quote from a > bygone era, in a different location and culture, and use it in this way to > promote a position. One must recall that, in the time and place in which > Napoleon said this, the caste system was formally recognized and enforced, > and believed good (as the quote suggests). Religion, in this case, was > looked upon as a salve for the oppressed, a source of comfort and relief. Guess again, Ray. Napoleon comes *after* the French Revolution, remember? "Liberte, egalite, fraternite". No official caste system. A lot of social inequality, to be sure, but that's true in the US today, also. So what's unfair? - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (11/19/84)
In article <638@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >From Ray Simard: >>>(Original quote from Napoleon Bonaparte:) "...Society cannot >>>exist without the inequality of fortunes, which cannot endure apart from >>>religion. >> It is more than a little misleading and unfair to drag a quote from a >> bygone era, in a different location and culture, and use it in this way to >> promote a position. One must recall that, in the time and place in which >> Napoleon said this, the caste system was formally recognized and enforced, >> and believed good (as the quote suggests). Religion, in this case, was >> looked upon as a salve for the oppressed, a source of comfort and relief. > > Guess again, Ray. Napoleon comes *after* the French Revolution, >remember? "Liberte, egalite, fraternite". No official caste system. A >lot of social inequality, to be sure, but that's true in the US today, >also. So what's unfair? ===================================== The condonation of inequality to which I referred is exactly that expressed in the quote of Napoleon's which began this discussion. I have editied it down to show that particular part. Even if not contained in law, class distinction shows clearly in these words. The point that was suggested in the original article was that possibly Ronald Reagan finds support for deliberately maintaining "inequality of for- tune" in Christian belief, and that his efforts to reduce the welfare state are based on such belief. I suggest that Napoleon's societal context and Reagan's are so different that the association suggested in that original quote is quite without validity. Neither Christian faith nor Reagan promote an externally enforced limitation on anyone's prosperity. Whether or not one agrees with Reagan and other conservatives on the appropriate handling of the welfare state (and other matters), it is a use- less muddying of waters to strive to impute attitudes and motivations to him/them that are not there, just to make him/them look bad. If one's objective refutations of such positions are not persuasive enough to stand on their own merit, perhaps they, and the political position from which they spring, are not worth keeping. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard ...Though we may sometimes disagree, You are still a friend to me!