Subscribe to this feed.
Punditry and 5GW
Be sure to check out Dreaming 5GW for more entries related to the fifth generation of warfare (5GW).
Many of these posts have been cross-posted there.
Many of these posts have been cross-posted there.
I will want to take a closer look at this topic. I once remarked that, “We certainly cannot discount the possibility of a messianic politician, celebrity, or religious figure for a 5GWarrior — nor, some powerful celebrity scoundrel, who offers the negative to reinforce our positive,” and in hindsight, I am recognizing the truly difficult task of separating the messianic figures from the celebrity scoundrels. How, indeed, could we possibly know that the overt message is the key message, rather than, in the case of scoundrels, the negative to reinforce our positive?
I ask, because Gus Van Horn, in his latest post on his eponymous blog, fisks a theocratic pundit who bemoans the lack of government sponsorship of Christianity —
Not only will the liberals aggressively work to prohibit the State from green lighting and recognizing Christianity as a legitimate and positive force in our land, they will also attempt to stifle Christians from influencing the path of government. [Emphasis added — ed.]Of course, this sounds just like a messianic message for Christian believers — to come to arms — but, really, if it were a conscious 5GW move, would we be better served to consider the possibility that it is a negative to reinforce our positive? 5GW tactics will be similarly confusing, purposely, and intended to make us think one thing while reinforcing another. I doubt this is such a move by Doug Giles, however; but it does raise questions for the future of 5GW in our media age.
[Doug Giles, on Townhall.com]
This ties in to my last post, obviously, on 5GW and Christianity. I’ll return to it when I have more time.
Comments
It is important to remember that Adam Smith, a very religious man, opposed Established Churches because they sap religious belief. His fellow Scotsman, David Hume, supported them for the same reason.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | April 21, 2006 7:26 AM
Dan, that's an interesting pairing.
One problem with the establishment of state religions, for religionists, is, well, the establishment of those state religions. For instance, Christianity comes in so many flavors; so I can see some Christians being worried that a particular sect or denomination of Christianity would be elevated (and, therefore, somewhat enforced) which doesn't match up with their brand of Christianity. Of course, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, and atheists (etc.) would also be perturbed.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 21, 2006 8:30 AM
BTW, Montaigne somewhere in his essays mentioned a Roman emperor (Constantine? I can't remember which) who thought that by allowing free expression of religions, particularly Christianity and Judaism (I think), he would benefit from their internal bickering. The theory was, if each religion had equal rights and freedom of expression, they'd pretty soon be at each others' throats, keep each other busy. But, Montaigne noted the irony in the actual result: They all got along much, much better than they had before.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.phaticcommunion.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 21, 2006 8:34 AM