A Thought About "Doublethink"

We need more "thought criminals" in the States. Thought criminals in voting booths, particularly (that is, if we're allowed to vote next go round... presidential "war powers" might prohibit, you see...).

Those of us who question the current administration have to be "thought criminals." Oh gosh, those pesky weapons of mass destruction. You just had to bring that up. What WMD? Nobody ever said that there were definitely WMD. "Doublethink" all the way.

KR I agree. But should such an UnAmerican thing as you propose happen, and our rights to vote be denied us, then the words of one of our greatest founding fathers must apply.

"A single good government becomes... a blessing to the whole earth, its welcome to the oppressed restraining within certain limits the measure of their oppressions. But should even this be counteracted by violence on the right of expatriation, the other branch of our example then presents itself for imitation: to rise on their rulers and do as we have done." --Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817. ME 15:141

Oh dear....I'm afraid that the "thought police" would probably lock me up and throw away the key.

And then again, there's always the consequences of posting a "thought provoking article" here on Gather.....

Liberals are trying to "rewrite history" everytime they talk about separation of church and state; that the founders of America somehow wanted it that way. They only the thing they wanted was not to have it be a LAW. The Church of England was fresh in their minds. Liberals can't read, either. The first ammendment contains the keyword ESTABLISHMENT. Go ahead and read the first amendment of the constitution. England ESTABLISHED by law the Church of England. America did NOT and WILL NOT. I don't know what some people are worried about.
I haven't yet read George Orwells "1984." Nevertheless, since I think for myself I know I don't have to. But, I must read it and see what all the hullabaloo is about.

This double-think sounds like something part of my family could have invented to keep me on my toes in an argument! Fortunately I am as good at it as they are, and I only use it when I must. ;-)

Rosalie,
You are correct that the it reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - it is just that the constitutions was written to allow the courst the ability to determine what those words mean.

It is folly to just fix those words in the context of the past alone. A civilization needs to grow and meet the ongoing challenges - the genius of "Liberalism".

To be rooted solely in the past is a big mistake. The current 'strict constructionists' idea of interpretting the US Constitution is a foolish mistake - the folly of "conservatives".

By using the terms "conservative" and "liberal" in quotes I am acknowledging I am simplyfying the varing groups.

Gary, but "why" mess with something that isn't broken?

Thank you Clare,

Many things said, weren't really said, and some things not said, actually were said, or at least so I've been told that it was said. Or then again, it might be said that what might have been said, wasn't really said. Oh well, enough said.

Gisela,

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm still fairly new to Gather, just a little over a month. But I thought the objective was to be thought provoking.

Have I misunderstood?

"God" I am told does not appear in the US Constitution which is perhaps another reason to ignore it. There is freedom of religion but there is also freedom from religion. My problem is that religion is often the cloak of scoundrels. The examples are endless, but the current president is probably the best. Most of the right wing moral arguments I think are disingenuous, especially the so called regard for life. Blowing people up for real or imagined reasons does not indicate a respect for life. You are what you do, not what you profess.

Rosalie,

While I'm not sure what the "separation of church and state" has to do with a discussion on the topic of doublethink; I do have some thoughts on your comments.

Personally, I abhor labels; they're very restricting and unnatural. They don't really help us understand a person, rather they cause us to lump people together and say all these folks are exactly alike. You know, that's not a very realistic thing to do. So simple labels like liberal and conservative probably have very different meanings to me, than they do to someone who likes to bandy them about.

You see, it's really rare that a given individual is always liberal about everything, or always conservative about everything. I know, its not so black and white for me, for instance. I hold to dear conservative values on certain issues, while regarding other issues, my views are more liberal. Simultaneously, when it comes to yet other matters, I could be seen as a true mid-line moderate. So, there's no easy way to pigeon-hole me into such a convenient label.

Bearing that in mind, I'll speak from a label-less position, from a position outside of the restricting labels of being either liberal or conservative.

Now, lets look at:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…"
As you pointed out, England established by law the Church of England. America did not and will not. {note, I took out the All cap yelling. It really wasn't necessary. I can read the words just fine without it.} Anyway, America was making a moral stand, and rightly so, to not emulate England's behavior on this issue. The founding fathers decided to keep the government and the church as separate entities. Simply put, that means exactly, the separation of church and state. That is simply the natural consequence of keeping them separate from one another. I'm sorry, but I don't see any rewriting of anything when it comes to this clear and direct, straight forward interpretation of our founding fathers' words.

Leah,

I hadn't considered that, but I suppose doublethink could be used as a learning tool, to keep one on ones toes. Interesting thought, thank you for sharing. ;o)

Gary,

I compliment you on your strong thinking. I see that no doublethink can fool you. I'm with you, in that as civilizations progresses through time they must grow and adapt, else falter and die. If we really want to understand that, all we have to do is take a hard look at history, and see what factors lead to downfalls. It's not just because the barbarians came calling, that the Roman Empire fell. Find the key to how they lost their way, and you hold the secret.

Thank you Stanley, for your insights.

The boundries between fact and fiction can sometimes be rather blured. The truly great works of fiction have as much to teach us about reality, as anything else, when we listen.

Orwell's cautionary tale has much to teach.

It's funny, when I was reading 1984 and Orwell introduced Doublethink and "duck speak" I though "Hey cool!"

Really you just about have to practice doublethink if you want to understand any complicated subject. Quantum physics for example.

Politics too is extremely complicated. The problem with the seperation of church and state for instance. On one hand the idea is to keep the state out of church business, so that any one can worship how they want. But schools are state run, and many people believe God should be a part of education. So the problem is now keeping religion out of the state, which doesn't sit right with religious people. Furthermore to keep religion of school or any other state function, you would have to create strict laws about religion...and this would of course violate the seperation between church and state. Many of these situations arise and when they do they have to be solved in a courtroom or boardroom. The two sides have to come to an agreement. There can there fore only be seperation through unity.

I think doublethink, or Hegelian Dialectic, or an ability to handle a certain degree of cognitive dissonance is necessary for understanding complicated subjects. The danger of doublespeak is that there are many times when a propagandist will try to make something seem complicated, when it's actually simple.

I think it can go the other way too though. Sometimes things are complicated and a propagandist can cut down an opponent who tries to look at both sides of an issue by saying he or she's using doublethink and either doesn't know what he or she is saying, or is try to sell people a bill of goods.

So doublethinking is both good and bad.

I've done it again haven't I?:-)

Zorknot,

So, I guess what you're saying is that it all depends on how you use it. It can be good, or it can be bad. So it appears one could say that motivation is key.

William -

I was being facetious ;) Great comments by the way!

This is not unlike what we see in real life, today. Kind of like, "its about weapons of mass destruction"; oh wait, there are no weapons of mass destruction, well, in that case, "it about bringing democracy to the world"; yeah that's it.

Not the best analogy, Will. Iraq was only one third of "the Axis of Evil." The basic thought behind the whole global strategy against them was not only to disarm them as threats to the free world, but to free them from the tyranny that they exist under. There are many other such "tyrannical" states (Cuba, Sudan, etc...), but these three were at the top of the list, because of their past actions.

Bill,

Sure, you could say motivation is the key...

Then again the road to hell is paved with good intentions. By using doublethink one may be seduced into believing something that is false.

Motivations are important, but they're must also be a reality check involved.

I'm very tempted to make an example of religion here, but I won't...(except I kind of just did:-))

Right Thought
Right Speech
Right Action

Buddha