From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Can the Prime Minster be Catholic?
Date: 16 Nov 92 15:42:16 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX


	   [Lengthy commentary by John Livesey deleted]

jon,

Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.  One quality that shines through
them is what I might venture to call a characteristic British sense for
reasonableness and fairness.  This sense allows one to carry on even when
extreme imbalances and ireconcilable differences in principle would appear
to threaten to destroy the republic (or kingdom).  Up until a few years
ago, we managed to keep a reasonable balance as well, and the inequities
did not appear threatening.  But our culture is a little rougher and 
ruder than yours -- with other compensating spiritual values as well --
largely due to the rather extreme degree with which we severed our 
cultural ties with the Old World, as opposed to Canada, for instance 
(at least Ontario and Quebeq) who maintained a much stronger connection
that is apparent in both their form of government and in the cullture
of their civilization.  Now, however, things seem to be coming unravelled,
and the idea of a more formal separation of the three spheres - political,
cultural, economic - or at least certain measures to partially unravel
the knot, may well be in order.

As for Maplethorpe, et al, while I can agree with your assessment of his
brilliance, I am nevertheless disturbed by it and not a little outraged
that my taxpayer dollars are promoting this kind of thing.  I am not
a member of the religious right (unless you define anyone with conservative
ideas who is also religious as religious right). I also think that a good
many others, religious and not, quite outside the realm of fundamentalism,
also are appalled by the public funding of Maplethorpe.  Likewise that
of what's-his-name whith the crucifix submerged in his own urine.  The
so-called religious right (a term coined by distinctly non-religious,
leftish media pundits) simply points to the fact that fundamentalists
are about the only ones on the other side well organized enough to 
organize anything like an effective opposition.

I have to bow out of this discussion for a while.  But I would close with
some comment on Rudolf Steiner's idea of the Threefold Social Order (Drei-
gliederung des sozialen Organismus).  The political/rights/equity sphere 
alone should be democratic (one person, one vote).  The spiritual/cultural
sphere (art, invention, education, religion) must be based on the principle of 
freedom.  The economic sphere must be based on cooperation and free association 
(e.g. consumers, producers, middlemen).  The French revolution failed in its 
noble impulse of "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" because it attempted to unite 
all three principles in a unitary state.  The U.S. Constitution was much closer
to this ideal, and for a while it succeeded, and still does to a great
degree. But ever since our War Between the States, and especially in this
century there has been a movement to mix the activities of these spheres 
together, with the tendency for the state to become more and more the
custodian of all.  The same trend has occurred in Britain to the dismay
of many, but I still think that your centuries long cultivation of a sense
of fair play and common sense -- and also your very non-Roman legal system--
have carried you more steadily through the turmoil.

The right, and the religious right, with which I have much disagreement, 
at least recognizes the need to pull the three spheres apart again, even if
more creative thought will be required to evolve the kinds of new insti-
tutions appropriate to each of the three spheres.  By the way, bridges 
and other public works present an even more interesting problem than art.  
There all three spheres need to be harmonized towards a common activity 
that reveals very well the nature of the threefold social order.

Much of our difficulties also have to do, according to Steiner, with the
fact that three things are part of the economic marketplace that don't belong
there: land, capital, and labor. Now that gets us into the unhealthy condition
of the economic sphere, and a passel of new conceptual difficulties to boot.

My final thought: I fear the barbarians of the right much less than those
of the left.  Helms is not representative, though he is well organized. Most
of the right do not want to impose their philistinism on the rest of us but
want (a) that the "left" cease from imposing theirs on the rest of us and (b)
let us alone to do our thing.  Given that the liberal-left powers that be
(and now that be in much bigger strength than before) are diggiing in their
heels to grow more powerful and rich in the public political sector, there
is little else to do than to exert pressure to restore some sensitivity for
reasonable public values to institutions like the NEA.  But the real
solution is to get the government out of the cultural and economic spheres
altogether. A far larger number on the right would prefer that.

Enjoyed talking with you.  Drop a line some time.

Best wishes,
Gerry  (73237.2006@cis)