Following the thought from the last post,
The “golden rule” is conceived of in opposition to the “golden age”.
Hobbes rejected natural law on the premise that it was primitive and that primitive man was, like nature, crude and violent.
Yet the Garden of Eden narrative (aka, the golden age premise of history) implies otherwise.
The reason for the parallel to the biblical story is to contextualize the explicit “spiritual” aspect of the concept of “progress”.
That society (mankind) is progressing politically/socially is sacrosanct to the narrative of the current, residing, ruling class...obviously.
To suggest that mankind is not progressing is blasphemy. To suggest that the past was better is heresy and leads to calls for excommunication.
Thus we see the calls to ban flags, historical figures, names, place-names, statues, buildings, institutions, etc, etc, that in any way stand as a testament to the past…ANY PART OF THE PAST.
And the reason for that is because the past does indeed testify to its moral, social and political superiority to the present and presumed future.
But the past also shows us a steady decline from one century to the next. History robs progress of its claims.
And so history must no be simply rewritten, but attacked and, ultimately, denied.
The Confederate flag today, the American flag tomorrow. Jefferson Davis today, George Washington tomorrow. And on and on it will go.
It is not a particular part of the past that is a threat to the narrative of “progress”, but the entirety of the past.