The general decline in standards today

[jamespowers]

Actually, a real symptom of the decline of standards today is that we don't have men like the original Mr. Lewis anymore.



-- "John L. Lewis: An Unauthorized Biography" by Saul Alinsky, Putnam 1949.

P.S.: Murphy called off the Guard.

Hmmm.... old Saul wrote something other than Rules for Radicals eh?

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Hmmm.... old Saul wrote something other than Rules for Radicals eh?

I remember some years ago I sold a book about the Russian Revolution on eBay. The buyer was the president of a steelworkers union in Pittsburgh and I remember at the time he was bidding on all kinds of books on Marx, Lenin, etc.

 

[jamespowers]

I remember some years ago I sold a book about the Russian Revolution on eBay. The buyer was the president of a steelworkers union in Pittsburgh and I remember at the time he was bidding on all kinds of books on Marx, Lenin, etc.

Figures.

 

[Edward]

Politics!

 

[LizzieMaine]

I remember some years ago I sold a book about the Russian Revolution on eBay. The buyer was the president of a steelworkers union in Pittsburgh and I remember at the time he was bidding on all kinds of books on Marx, Lenin, etc.

One of the shelves in my living room has works by Marx, Thorstein Veblen, Clifford Odetts, John Steinbeck, Malcolm X -- and J. Edgar Hoover. Edgar knows he's outnumbered, so he behaves himself.

 

[ChiTownScion]

One of the shelves in my living room has works by Marx, Thorstein Veblen, Clifford Odetts, John Steinbeck, Malcolm X -- and J. Edgar Hoover. Edgar knows he's outnumbered, so he behaves himself.

It has to be the source of no small amount of anxiety to a lot of the Bible pounding types in the US and elsewhere that (whether you agree with them or not) Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are the two most influential writers of the Nineteenth Century, while Cyrus Scofield, Charles Spurgeon, and D.L. Moody are little more than footnotes.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Marx's analysis of social class dynamics is still pretty cogent. I think a lot of what passes for "Marxism" today is pretty far removed from anything which Marx himself would actually recognize.

Scofield is actually still very influential -- it was his "Reference Bible" annotations which laid much of the groundwork for the way modern-day Evangelicals view the Bible.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Marx's analysis of social class dynamics is still pretty cogent. I think a lot of what passes for "Marxism" today is pretty far removed from anything which Marx himself would actually recognize.

Scofield is actually still very influential -- it was his "Reference Bible" annotations which laid much of the groundwork for the way modern-day Evangelicals view the Bible.

Marx is misunderstood by both his supporters and his critics. His view of religion as the opiate of the masses is a good example. Opiates were the miracle drug of the Nineteenth Century: they deadened excruciating pain and were essential during the surgical procedures of the time. Marx's comment has to be judged in that context, and less of that of an abused "recreational drug."

Regarding Scofield: the Dispensen-sensationalist..err...I mean Dispensationalist, view of eschatology (Rapture, Seven Year Tribulation, Multi-Horned Beasts, and other Things That Go Bump In the Night) really only became the majority view even among Evangelicals since the 1970's. Scofield himself was a convicted felon, forger, disbarred attorney, adulterer and alcoholic who (despite his "Dr. Scofield" pretensions) never earned a legitimate theological degree in his life. Scofield essentially embellished the eschatology views initially set forth by John Nelson Darby in the 1840's.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Indeed. Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye lifted pretty much their entire worldview from Scofield.

What's most significant, though, is the impact Scofieldism has had on the secular world, particularly over the last forty years or so. Certain common American views concerning the Middle East can only be properly understood by looking at them thru a Scofieldian lens.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Indeed. Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye lifted pretty much their entire worldview from Scofield.

What's most significant, though, is the impact Scofieldism has had on the secular world, particularly over the last forty years or so. Certain common American views concerning the Middle East can only be properly understood by looking at them thru a Scofieldian lens.

What's even more interesting/ ironic/ amusing to me is how those who embrace this line are the same ones who hold the (sometimes outright theocratic) view that the United States should "return to a Christian nation as intended by the Founders." Considering that so many of their presumptions of what constitutes Christianity never existed in 1789 (not only Dispensationalism, but Fundamentalism as well).

 

[HudsonHawk]

What's even more interesting/ ironic/ amusing to me is how those who embrace this line are the same ones who hold the (sometimes outright theocratic) view that the United States should "return to a Christian nation as intended by the Founders."

To tie this back to the discussion on political correctness...this "return to a Christian nation" is really just codespeak for "ridding ourselves of minorities and pant suit women" by disgruntled old white men and those who base their views of society on 12th century mysticism.

 

[LizzieMaine]

...and those who base their views of society on 12th century mysticism.

And here I thought Ignatius J. Reilly was just a fictional character.

 

[HudsonHawk]

And here I thought Ignatius J. Reilly was just a fictional character.

Come down South. You'll learn things you never knew you never knew.

 

[Stearmen]

It has to be the source of no small amount of anxiety to a lot of the Bible pounding types in the US and elsewhere that (whether you agree with them or not) Karl Marx and Charles Darwin are the two most influential writers of the Nineteenth Century, while Cyrus Scofield, Charles Spurgeon, and D.L. Moody are little more than footnotes.

Your right about Darwin, he was a very complicated man. He did not renounce his theory of Evolution on his deathbed, but he did have a Christian burial. He also allowed a local church to have services on his property, he enjoyed the hymns. He was not an Atheist, but more likely a Agnostic! And Marx, to my surprise, did not write much about religion! He did not like the way the old churches were taking advantage of the common man.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Another thing that baffles me is how the very same people now days who shout the loudest about Darwinian evolution being an affront to God Almighty are the same ones who gleefully embrace (overtly or covertly) their own brand of social Darwinism. The concept that the wealthy have not only a right, but even a heavenly mandate, to prey upon the less affluent. More often than not they'll not actually come out and admit this, but they are perfectly content to allow their clergy to be bought off by the highest donor and peddle an agenda- usually couched in terms of a "moral crusade"- that serves the end of protecting vested economic interests through word and deed.

To draw an illustration of this from history: the struggles of A. Philip Randolph and the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Some of his biggest opposition came from the pulpits of established African American churches in his home city of Chicago. You know darn well that the moral indignation from the pulpit against organized labor was fueled by donations from Pullman company management to the church or the clergyman in question.

This isn't to say that organized labor did not (and does not) have its allies among churches and their clergy. Those have existed as well. But I have noticed that the more literal a church or a pulpiteer interprets the more sensational aspects of the Bible (the talking snake of Genesis, Noah's Ark and the Deluge, Jonah and the giant fish, etc.) the less likely they are to support the rights of working men and women.... a position which would seem to be more in line with a literal interpretation of the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I appreciate the civil tones of these discussions, but this is beginning to cross the line of political speech. In fact, it's an all-out incursion.

I would appreciate it if you would all turn the conversation back toward its original premise so that the thread may remain open.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Here is the original post:

I have just returned from a small group tour around Sussex and Kent, in South East England, visiting the various preserved railways, one line we went on was the Kent & East Sussex, which was good but the staff were angry as the night before one of their stations had been vandalised by the local yobs/school kids who amongst other midless acts, had stolen or damaged some of the old fashioned lamps, which will cost the railway quite alot to get replaced. There is not much chance of catching the blokes that did this and even if they do, there won't be much of a penalty inflicted on them.

Talking about this later on a discussion came up about the general decline in standards and examples shown to children these days compared to 30-40 years ago. The opinion was that these days both parents have to work so leaving kids unsupervised and allowed generally to roam around on their own sometimes unchecked.

In schools too the teachers seem to have to spend far more time doing reports, performance figures, league tables etc and less time teaching the children, also when most of the group were at school the teachers were allowed to give unruly kids lines or dententions etc, (As I remember to my cost!). Now days there does not seem to be any way to keep order. Some of my group were saying that perhaps a return to some of the old ways would not be a bad thing.

We did sound like we should of been on the TV Programme, Grumpy Old Men, especially after the beers had been flowing for a while.

While I understand the desire not to allow this thread degenerate into a discussion of 21st Century political issues (And that was never my intention: I have tried to frame my comments within historical contexts and have never mentioned a contemporary political personage.), it would seem that the thin ice of politics was trod upon from the onset. To be quite honest, unless the discussion were restricted to the width of hat brims or lapels, I don't see how any lament of, "O tempora! O mores!" could not be construed as "political" when specifics are discussed- particularly when the course was initially set within the context of public or government funded schools.

But your point is well taken, Mr. Jones. The lines of demarcation may be a matter of disagreement, but it is in the best interest of all that this three-plus year old thread continue.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

California, stand up and take a bow! You've earned it! :doh:
East Cesar Chavez and Mission Road, Los Angeles
August 22, 2014

Someone at the Chamber of Commerce must have been smoking something.

 

[LizzieMaine]

They're number two. They try harder.

 

[ChiTownScion]

They're number two. They try harder.

I'm afraid to ask who rates #1. New York or Texas?