There was always a problem with the academic study of “classical antiquity,” which was built around the assumption that the West was descended from Greece and Rome—but not from Israel and the Bible. nationalreview.com/news/princeton…
This was an “Enlightenment” theory and it was a nasty one. It was anti-Semitic and anti-Christian too.
But the destruction of Classics department at Princeton, where I went to school is a shameful thing.
I have always thought Classics students should study Hebrew alongside Greek and Latin.
But no one benefits from dropping the Greek and Latin requirement.
No one will study Hebrew—or any other language—because Greek and Latin are no longer required.
Instead, Princeton students will get the message that it isn’t worth knowing ancient languages or texts or ideas, because the past just doesn’t have that much to teach us.
The project of cutting American and Western life off from its roots will just move all the faster.
Thus cultural revolution has been going on for 60 or 70 years now. Nothing from the past is being spared. Every decade is crazier.
Time to face the truth: Where no one has reason to require the study of Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, people will not continue to “identify” with earlier generations that did value these things.
Real soon they won’t “identify” with anything from the past—including America itself.
Which is the heart of what’s happening at Princeton: The college where James Madison studied Hebrew (he already knew Greek and Latin)—that very school has determined that no one needs these American roots any longer.
They believe the tree will be fine without roots.
But they’re wrong. America will not be fine this way.
And anyone who wants to save something of what America was had better start figuring out a different way to educate their children and grandchildren.
/end for now./
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Catholic friends have been urging me to read Waldstein on the common good. So I finally did.
I won’t comment on the theology. But as political theory this essay is naive and misguided. As a basis for political conservatism, it’s a non-starter. /1 thejosias.com/2015/02/03/the…
There are a several problems here. But let’s begin at the end:
Waldstein wants to found the political theory of the state on the thesis that the “primary intrinsic common good” of every legitimate state is “peace.”
(Thesis 34)
I’m sure peace is an aspect of the common good. /2
And it seems that Waldstein wants to define peace in a technical way that expands its meaning, which is fine.
But Waldstein is making the same mistake that is rightly condemned by conservatives when the come across it in liberal political theory:
/3
I don’t accept this new norm, which supposes that when a public figure dies, it’s a signal for everyone who disagreed with him in life to start dancing on his grave.
A decent public culture regards funerals as a time when each of us looks for the positive meaning that can be found in the life of the deceased.
And if we absolutely can’t bring ourselves to abide by this civilized and civilizing custom, then at the very least we can honor those who are grieving by keeping quiet and saving what we have to say for another time.
If you learn the Mosaic Ten Precepts in school, you at least have to discuss the topic of honoring your father and mother—and what you owe older people and ancestors more generally.
When Bible education was eliminated from the schools, all this became alien terrain.
When you come from a traditional society, the entire spectacle of young employees telling their bosses how to run a university or a newspaper looks obscene.
In English tradition, the farthest right represents subservience to the laws and ways of foreigners (Rome), while the messianic revolutionary left represents subservience to the laws and ways of foreigners (Geneva).
Moderate Whigs and Tories represent national independence.
Burke in his day stands for Britain as an independent country. He stands for the traditional British constitution, traditional English laws and freedoms, the monarchy and the English national church.
He also stands for alliance with the Tories to preserve all these things.
/2
Furthermore, he represents what he called the “Old Whigs” against the new: In favor of experience and tradition. Against the revolutionaries with their abstract deductive systems uprooting all things before them.
And so against Jefferson and Paine and Price and Turgot.
/3
I have to agree with this point. I can’t figure out what’s supposed to be wrong or frightening about being a “Christian nationalist” (although that graphic does bother me—we Jews don’t place guns, or anything else, on our Bibles). stream.org/why-im-a-chris…
There are bad apples in every bushel. But *on average,* Christian nationalists are going to be a whole lot better to have around, and to be around, than Christian imperialists.
And Christian nationalists are much more likely to know what’s what than atheist nationalists.
So I guess the only way there’s going to be something really bad about being a Christian nationalist is if you’re the kind of person who figures that being a Christian is really bad, and that being a nationalist is also bad—so it’s like a badness double feature of some kind.