| Line 332: |
Line 332: |
| | | | |
| | *Now if I acted like most here, I would say that because no further discussion, all is decided, make the changes, and be "done".--~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT) | | *Now if I acted like most here, I would say that because no further discussion, all is decided, make the changes, and be "done".--~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT) |
| | + | |
| | + | ===More Church/State stuff=== |
| | + | The so-called "leftist" elements were born out of the enlightened, atheistic, rationalistic trends that overran entrenced interests and entrenched thinking. What does it mean to be "enlightened"? It means essentially to wake up and realize there is no God, that the monarchy & church were set up to keep poor people & peasants (perhaps wage earners too) down on the farm. This enlightened view of "Leftism" is little changed in 200 years. |
| | + | |
| | + | Deist movement can also be regarded as, what we would call today, a "code word", for something that was utterly unholy & unspeakable in the 1790s. Few upstanding members of any community openly professed atheism, but their challenge to the existing order (political, scientific, literary, academic) in thier "rationalizations" and writings, even today we can read it as an intellectualized atheism. All true what you said about fascism & nazism, but in its final distilled form it certainly does not adhere to traditional orthodox (Protestant or Catholic) Christian doctrine. As to contemporary African-Americans, I have wracked my brain trying to recall anyone openly profess atheism, and have failed. Nonetheless, if the object is to try and develope as clear a line as possible from the French Revolution to today of a "Left" & "Right", I think it may be found (with some deviations) by examining the school of thought known as rationalism (which stereotypically extends to atheism & "enlightened thinking"), or by examining Church/State issues. |
| | + | |
| | + | There are broad socio-political movements, some stridently ideological, some born of the practical necessity of the moment, with only an ideological veneer. Individuals can be hard to assign a category. Robespierre may be an excellent example. He opposed leftist anarchy & rightist restoration, yet understood society needed a political foundation. All the moderate-centrists of today would be offended to have Robespierre in their midst, but that's what he may well be, a centrist-terrorist, if there is such a thing, born of the practical necessity of his time (without forgiving him), of recognizing the need for some kind of order, and not being burdened with ideological inconsistencies. |
| | | | |
| | ==Definition STILL needed== | | ==Definition STILL needed== |