"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, p. 292. Is it just me or is there some severe cognitive dissonance and irony being portrayed here?
Everyone knows that theoretical Christian theocracies are more dangerous than real life socialist tyrannies.
It would seem to my that both would fall under the "omnipotent moral busybodies" catagory. The Christian theocracy is justifying their oppression in the same way that the socialist tyranny is, in that its for your own good.
Would it be jumping to conclusions for me to assume that fchowd isn't terribly familiar with Lewis' body of work and is applying some sort of Christian stereotype to him to compare this quote to?
Please elaborate on the context of his quote. I am actually genuinely curious. And no I am not applying a Christian stereotypy to Lewis. I know that he has explicitly stated that he is against theocracy as a form of government. I am applying my understanding of the Biblical notion of God. It has nothing to do with Christian individuals but the concept of a Christian God.
Unfortunately, it's almost 7 and I'm still here at work -- I guess I shouldn't have spent so much time earlier posting. I'm passing familiar with CS Lewis in general, but for context I'd have to actually get out the book again, so I don't think I'll be doing that. You also still haven't explained what irony you think you see in the quote, so I really don't know what I'm speaking to and whether I'd be supporting or refuting it. The glib answer would be to ask you to read the book yourself (which is very accessible writing), but I'd be willing to try to meet you part way if I knew what exactly we were talking about.
It's rather blunt but he condemns the notion of "Omnipotent moral busybodies" yet wouldn't the Christian or any Abrahamic concept of God be considered an Omnipotent moral busybody? I consider it ironic, but I admit I am not heavily familiar with C.S. Lewis's work besides his Narnia books.
Omnipotent moral busy bodies is in reference to theocratic governing bodies or the biblical equivalent to Pharisees/Sadducees, not God himself. If he had implied this to mean God he wouldn't have used a plural form to describe "busybody".
