?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
28 September 2008 @ 09:50 am
Temples of Virtue, Goddesses of Enlightnement  
In response to my post about "throwing the moneylenders out of the temple", toob asked:

I suppose a comment on how perverse it is what we consider a "temple" nowadays would not be out of order?

Generally, I confess, I have little patience for rosy-hued visions of the "Good Old Days". However... I would argue, to the contrary, that it is perverse that we no longer consider the halls of government a temple.

The 18th and 19th centuries were really the heyday for perceiving such abstracts as Liberty and Justice as benevolent goddesses, and the halls of government as temples of civic virtue. However failed that may have been in practice, I find the ideal far preferable to the modern perception of those ladies as commodities to be bought and sold.

So, yes, throw them out of the temples indeed, and rescue Lady Columbia and her sisters from the streetcorner! Put paid to the quick-fisted procurer in his top hat and his fancy zoot suit, and the plutocrats and zealots to whom he panders!


 
 
I feel: contemplativepompous
 
 
 
leonard_arlotteleonard_arlotte on September 28th, 2008 05:15 pm (UTC)
You may wish to be careful with your wordings. I looked up zealot here, and assumed you meant the second definition:

(n) partisan, zealot, drumbeater (a fervent and even militant proponent of something)

So you propose throwing everyone out of government who fervenly proposes something. That would include all flavors of politician. It would include you too, since you care enough to beat a drum about it incessantly. It would throw out the founding fathers... who were not just fervent, they got militant about it too.

So if you would throw out those who care about it, who would you have run the government?
Your Obedient Serpent: His Master's Voiceathelind on September 28th, 2008 05:41 pm (UTC)
Well, I was going to use "Pharisee", but realized that didn't mean what I wanted it to, either. I was taking aim at the would-be theocrats and those who love to pray standing on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.
leonard_arlotteleonard_arlotte on September 28th, 2008 05:43 pm (UTC)
So you wish to toss out the zealots you don't like, and keep the ones you do like?

We do that already.

It's called an election.
Your Obedient Serpent: furries for obamaathelind on September 28th, 2008 05:45 pm (UTC)
Well, yes! EXACTLY!
Christopher Bradleycpxbrex on September 28th, 2008 05:55 pm (UTC)
Personally, I think it'd be really sweet if the people could run the place for once. I'd like to see that in my lifetime, I admit. ;)
Curious Coonhalfelf on September 28th, 2008 08:19 pm (UTC)
Ah, but the trick is... which people?
eggshellhammereggshellhammer on September 29th, 2008 12:42 am (UTC)
I would prefer some really relaxed, agreeable people, good at compromise with a serious ability to focus on long term goals.
Araquan Skytracer: Futilityaraquan on September 29th, 2008 09:24 am (UTC)
This is America. We just don't do that sort of thing here.
Christopher Bradleycpxbrex on September 29th, 2008 06:13 pm (UTC)
I'm a consensualist, so . . . everyone. ;)
Tubetoob on September 29th, 2008 05:06 am (UTC)
I believe you may have misinterpreted my comment. I was just being cheeky.
Your Obedient Serpent: cuteathelind on September 29th, 2008 06:07 pm (UTC)
Oh, I KNEW you were just being cheeky. I just thought it was a good springboard to pontificate -- my own form of cheek.

Besides, I'm still covered by the "I'm sick and my brain is seeing things sideways" excuse!

PANTS!

(Oh, and congratulations on your wedding; I just realized I hadn't mentioned it anywhere else.)