theology ii...

...and what we learn in that class...

The demented opinions from the man known as Jean-Jacques Rousseau...

[background: "The General Will is the analogue of the human mind, and as such must remain as unified and undiversified as the mind itself. . . . [t]he General Will is indivisible, inalienable, and illimitable. It demands the unqualified obedience of every individual in the community and implies the obligation of each citizen to render to the State all that the State sees fit to demand."]

"A socially independent Church, like any form of non-political loyalty, would constitute an interference with the functioning of the General Will. It would represent a flaw in the spiritual unity Rousseau prized so highly in his political order. Yet it would not do to repress the religious propensities of man, for 'as soon as men come to live in civil society they must have a religion to keep them there. No nation has ever endured or ever will endure without religion.' But, argues Rousseau, it is not enough that a nation should have a religion. The religion must be identified, in the minds of the people, with the values of national life, else it will create disunity and violate the General Will. It is not enough that a religion should make good men; it must make good citizens. Religion has a responsibility toward civic or political ends before any others. It must reflect, above all, the essential unity of the State and find its justification in the measures it takes to promote that unity."

Gotta love those last two sentences.

Then this wacky piece of art:

"The family should not be granted the all-important duty of education, for too great a responsibility hangs in the balance. The traditional educative function should be transferred from the family to the State, so that, as Rousseau states it, the 'prejudices' of the father may not interfere with the development of citizens. However, the disintegration of this age-old basis of the family should in no wise create alarm. 'Should the public authority, in assuming the place of father and charging itself with this important function, acquire his rights in the discharge of his duties, he should have little cause to protest; for he would only be altering his title, and would have in common, under the name citizen, the same authority over his children, that he was exercising separately under the name of father, and would be no less obeyed when speaking in the name of the law than when he spoke in that nature.' In this almost incredible statement is to be observed what is surely the ultimate in the totalitarian absorption of society. Family relationship is transmuted subtly into political relationship; the molecule of the family is broken into the atoms of its individuals, who are coalesced afresh into the single unity of the state."

Followed by his reasoning behind this opinion...simply priceless...

"'If the children are reared in common in the bosom of equality, if they are imbued with the laws of the state and the precepts of the General Will, if they are taught to respect these above all other things, if they are surrounded by examples and objects which perpetually remind them of the tender mother [the State] who nourishes them, of the love she bears them, of the inestimable benefits they receive from her, and of the return they owe her, we cannot doubt that they will learn to cherish one another mutually as brothers ...'"

And the horrifying part about it? People actually believe in it and attempt to implement those principles into society.