Sic et Non, this time Non.

[_asbestosman]

If you can't be troubled to read my post, why waste your good time responding to it? You just look like an idiot, and I know you are not an idiot.

I was attempting to respond from what his point of view may be. Surely this isn't the first time you've seen me try playing devil's advocate. Ronald Reagan actually came to my mind as well, but mostly when I read your OP. After reading Daniel Peterson's response, it seemed to me he might think praising Reagan was okay because he's dead.

I don't know how he might address your point about how praising dead politicians can benefit the living politicians. If I were to guess, he might say it's less dangerous than conferring god-like status directly on living politicians. As long as we can criticize living politicians, we are relatively free. In fact he might argue that if a living politician tries to claim he's the "Second Coming of" a dead politician who has been so deified, that the living politician deserves to be mocked and scrutinized for such a claim. Thus it is not the apotheosis of Reagan which is the problem.

You will probably counter that such claims ignore your point about how Reagen is currently being used by living politicians. Daniel Peterson might (I don't know) then simply respond that such a point is tangential to his point: living politicians should be scrutinized and not deified regardless of whether or not they try to prop themselves up with dead politicians or with the state of the economy.

[Guest]

-

[_sock puppet]

With JSJr, the panegyrics are about a person who shilled 'truth'. In that context, exaggerations of this sort are antithetical, ironic, and hypocritical.

With Obama, the panegyrics are about a person whose arena is politics, no appeal or claim to the 'truth', just as to what is the more worthy goal for flexing societal muscle (and how far it should be flexed).

Apart from the dead/mythical figure versus a living person differences, the propaganda inherent in politics makes these panegyrics re Obama about a politician. That's one thing. It is quite another when someone who claimed, and for whom it has been claimed, restored "truth" is the subject of such hyperbolic, bellicose accolades. I think the context (politics v religious truth) neutralizes any tilting that would otherwise allow for praise to the man who is dead but not one who is living.

The hypocrisy of Dan is pretty apparent. Dan is not only okay with, but perpetrates the false, mythical image of JSJr, the restorer of 'truth', and yet lambasts a political animal like Michelle Obama for heaping extra servings of praise on her political ally, Barack Obama. Has Dan ever tuned into one of the political conventions, two of which are held every four years in this country?

[_Kishkumen]

I was attempting to respond from what his point of view may be. Surely this isn't the first time you've seen me try playing devil's advocate. Ronald Reagan actually came to my mind as well, but mostly when I read your OP. After reading Daniel Peterson's response, it seemed to me he might think praising Reagan was okay because he's dead.

I don't know how he might address your point about how praising dead politicians can benefit the living politicians. If I were to guess, he might say it's less dangerous than conferring god-like status directly on living politicians. As long as we can criticize living politicians, we are relatively free. In fact he might argue that if a living politician tries to claim he's the "Second Coming of" a dead politician who has been so deified, that the living politician deserves to be mocked and scrutinized for such a claim. Thus it is not the apotheosis of Reagan which is the problem.

You will probably counter that such claims ignore your point about how Reagen is currently being used by living politicians. Daniel Peterson might (I don't know) then simply respond that such a point is tangential to his point: living politicians should be scrutinized and not deified regardless of whether or not they try to prop themselves up with dead politicians or with the state of the economy.

Abman, I don't know what to say to you, since my second post already anticipates and responds to all of these points. This is why I get the sense that you are not reading me very carefully. Daniel has constructed a straw man by cherry picking evidence from different contexts and performing sloppy eisigesis at that. He essentially buys into the risible Fox take on Obama, which is little more than a ridiculous caricature of Obama's actual image that fails to take into account, or perhaps deliberately ignores, the register of African American religious rhetoric in liberal black politics. All around this is disappointing. I am disappointed in both him and you. It's ridiculous.

[_Kishkumen]

Interesting thoughts Kish, there were a few things that stood out to me and I hope I don't derail this thread with any of them. While I've always felt a certain discomfort with biblical references in political speeches I understand what they are attempting to achieve through using that language. It reminds me of Mormons claiming the constitution is hanging by a thread and that Romney will save it.

I agree.

I know this is a little off topic, but I thought it was interesting that you added an apostrophe to Gods (above)....

I didn't. The person who transcribed it for the wiki page I cut and pasted it from did. My apologies for missing the error.

[_asbestosman]

Abman, I don't know what to say to you, since my second post already anticipates and responds to all of these points. This is why I get the sense that you are not reading me very carefully.

Anyone care to try explaining to a simpleton like me? Just because I'm intelligent sometimes or in the past doesn't mean I am all the time. However, I can usually get the gist of anyone's point of view. At least I try. I seriously don't get what Kish thinks I'm missing unless it's the liberal black politics thing. If so, it's not because I missed it but rather I don't think Daniel Peterson would agree about how relevant it was to his point.

fails to take into account, or perhaps deliberately ignores, the register of African American religious rhetoric in liberal black politics. All around this is disappointing. I am disappointed in both him and you. It's ridiculous.

Perhaps so. Here's what I know. Daniel Peterson is very intelligent. I believe that for the most part he is sincere and that his beliefs are reasonably consistent. I think the same of you. That being the case, I believe that Daniel Peterson probably has what he considers very good reasons for the statements he made.

Now, it so happens that I disagree with some of his points. For example, I do not think you can blame the state of the economy (either way) on a sitting President. To bring it up is to me irrelevant even though I realize it will be the #1 issue on most voters' minds this November. I also don't see much harm in greatly praising current politicians so long as we are still open to criticizing them--and we most certainly are. I think Daniel Peterson would disagree with my disagreements, but it's just my opinion.

Since I apparently failed at guessing what Daniel Peterson's reply might be and since you know him to be far more capable at reading and understanding you than I am, I'd like to know what you think his response might be and what his actual thoughts might be. Do you think he'd suddenly see the light and agree with you? Would he simply storm off embarrassed that he was defeated? Or is it more likely that he, like most of us mere mortals, would find reasons to continue disagreeing? I think it's possible he may even concede a point or two and still disagree.

Regardless of my own foolishness, don't put my disappointing performance on his head if my failure has made his views seem worse,

[_harmony]

So it's okay to worship living presidents of the church, but it's not okay to worship living presidents of the country?

Did I miss something?

[_moksha]

... but surely Dr. Peterson sees that this distinction does not save the veneration of living leaders in his own culture from criticism.

Political dynamiting does not require any internal consistency. It is a creature of the moment. Obama is an obstacle that must be overcome to make way for Mitt. Following that, the height of Mitt's pedestal will never be questioned.

Absbestosman's comprehension is just fine.

[_Kishkumen]

Absbestosman's comprehension is just fine.

Of what?

[_Kishkumen]

If so, it's not because I missed it but rather I don't think Daniel Peterson would agree about how relevant it was to his point.

Why should I care whether he agrees or not? If he understood the point, he wouldn't have written such a poor post in the first place. And I say that in order to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Do you think he'd suddenly see the light and agree with you? Would he simply storm off embarrassed that he was defeated? Or is it more likely that he, like most of us mere mortals, would find reasons to continue disagreeing?

I don't know whom you think you are addressing or whom you think you are talking about any more.