"But faith has always been the first seedbed of fanaticism. That’s why, when people commit acts of horrible cruelty for political purposes, we say that they’ve made a 'religion' out of their politics, or have succumbed to a mad ideological dogma. Fanaticism is the belief that a single faith or ideology contains all the truth of the world, and that others should at best be tolerated. Liberalism is the belief that toleration is not enough, that an active, affirmative pluralism is essential to social sanity. Pluralism is the essence of liberalism—including the possibility of self-reproach for things that liberalism has done badly. America is not responsible for My Lai only to the degree that America renounces the self-righteous 'exceptionalism' that put those murders in motion and then prevented those who caused them from being blamed. Excessive scruples—liberal guilt—are as sure a sign of sanity as excessive sanctimony is a sign of the opposite."
Writes Adam Gopnik, contemplating Obama's recent statement, at the National Prayer Breakfast, in the context of the recent ISIS atrocities: "During the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
82 comments:
English, motherfucker, do you speak it?
Heartwarming definitions of "liberalism" and "pluralism," but that's not what we get in the real world these days. To paraphrase the Nixon administration, what we get are modified, limited versions of those two concepts. Anything to the right of Harry Reid is far too beyond the pale to be considered.
Pluralism is consistent with classical liberalism but not compelled by it.
Ideologues are always dangerous.
My Lai is rightly infamous because it is exceptional. ISIS commits the equivalent to the My Lai massacre on a weekly basis, and no one bats an eye. The US is a largely secular, classically liberal country, so our armed forces are expected to give their enemies quarter, to protect civilians, and so on. ISIS is a Muslim theocracy, so they are expected to slaughter civilians, crucify people, and burn them in cages. It is the soft bigotry of low expectations as applied to religious extremism, and anyone who holds to it implicitly considers Muslims to be barbarous thugs by the expectation. They just don't come out and say it.
Fanaticism is the belief that a single faith or ideology contains all the truth of the world, and that others should at best be tolerated.
That sums up David Axelrod nicely.
I feel that if I were sitting next to Adam Gopnik and heard him say "Jesus-styled people" I would rise from my chair, seize the nearest object, and beat him senseless! And I am no Christian! The bitch-ass Progressive snarker needs to look in the mirror and recognize the seeds of his own fanaticism.
....that an active, affirmative pluralism is essential to social sanity.
And do you think that's absolutely true? When the enemies of affirmative pluralism take up arms against you & you fight back, your enemies end up just as dead as if some fascist killed them, don't they?
It's amazing how Gopnik thinks that liberal guilt is a sign of sanity. No, a guilty conscience means nothing; active repentance, including making recompense to harmed parties is justice, and how your conscience feels about it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to anyone but you, and maybe, God.
Adam sounds like a fanatical anti-American exceptionalist. Does that make him his own enemy?
"I feel that if I were sitting next to Adam Gopnik and heard him say "Jesus-styled people" I would rise from my chair, seize the nearest object, and beat him senseless!"
By that term, he meant people who style themselves as followers of Jesus but are not properly understood as followers of Jesus. Jesus himself railed against such people:
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
What happens when one's faith "that an active, affirmative pluralism is essential to social sanity" turns out to be the seedbed for fanaticism "that an active, affirmative pluralism is essential to social sanity?"
But that could never happen. It's always those other guys who end up being oppressive and doing bad things.
I'm with Pettifogger. American liberalism's "pluralism" is actually a series of moral hierarchies, with the liberals sitting at the top looking down on the other groups. Gropnik's article is a perfect example.
"Fanaticism is the belief that a single faith or ideology contains all the truth of the world, and that others should at best be tolerated. Liberalism is the belief that toleration is not enough, that an active, affirmative pluralism is essential to social sanity."
By that definition the right's proposition that colleges are bastions of liberal thought are wrong. In fact, they are hotbeds of fanaticism. Any search of what happens on campuses across the country shows that it's generally considered perfectly legitimate to ban - through threats or even acts of violence, if need be - speakers, speeches, investments and even ideas that do not conform to what is commonly but very inaccurately labelled "progressive".
I always find it invigorating when a liberal smugly sneers down his pointy nose at the behaviors and attitudes of those in times past while superimposing some form of contemporary moral authority and received wisdom on those previous times as if the sneering leftie would have somehow held the same views had he been part of that history.
It's part of the hubris of lefties that they feel so morally superior to everyone else including historical figures. They always seem to ignore the fact that historical figures of western civilization manged somehow to right their own wrongs. America has been particularly adept at righting its wrongs, but we don't get any credit for that from the looselugnut libruls.
I have no trouble picturing the writer of that article...or even Obama...as having been among the worst of the southern plantation owners or Crusaders had they had the opportunity.
Scratch a leftie and you'll find a tyrant screaming to be released. Hateful little shits.
- Krumhorn
Ann Althouse said...
By that term, he meant people who style themselves as followers of Jesus but are not properly understood as followers of Jesus. Jesus himself railed against such people:
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
Don't tell me he used that term without snark in his dark little heart.
I don't know why Obama is picking on Christanity, the crusades were so 500 years ago. He can point out that atheism has brought us Hitler, Stalin, and Mao - that's very recent history where millions of innocent people died.
He says it about right. Being socially well adjusted in today's culture means accepting everyone's beliefs, everyone's gods and worship styles, everyone's sexuality, everyone's vaccination levels, everyone's migrants, everyone's nuclear weapons, etc..
Remaining memories of once upon a time social boundaries that said what was good and what was bad are confusing to people. They are Judeo-Christian relecs like me.
But a battle cry of " I surrender" is all we will habve when we find ourselves in a religious war with out a religion of our own.
Mere toleration is the essence of classical liberalism. I think what I think, you think what you think, he thinks what he thinks, and we all tolerate each other. Once I start saying, "No, you aren't allowed to think I'm wrong," I've ceased to be tolerant, and I've ceased to be liberal.
Gopnik misses the point. (Perhaps those who criticized him also missed the point.) Modern civilization does not do these things, and doesn't tolerate them. We don't have to make room for people who do. I don't know why the Crusades is relevant - because they were Christians and Americans are Christians? Why is that relevant?
We do occupy a moral high ground: we don't do these things. There is nothing wrong with us feeling that vicious barbarians are morally inferior. That includes ISIL, and Crusaders.
Fanaticism gets you a gay wedding cake, though.
"Pluralism is the essence of liberalism—including the possibility of self-reproach for things that liberalism has done badly. "
Really? I'm waiting for the mea culpa(s) for the monumental failures that were/are the Great Society, The War on Poverty, awful nutrition information, the Liberal support for murderous Socialist/Communist governments over the years, up to and including now (Cuba, Venezuela, etc.).
It appears to me that Liberals are at least as bad at owning up to their failings as conservatives, and probably an argument could be made for them being far worse at it.
Fanaticism gets you a gay wedding cake, though.
Faith must have been an oven rather than a seedbed in that particular case.
Pluralism is the essence of liberalism
What a bunch of nonsense. Liberals tend to be the most closed minded people I know.
Gopnik is on God's side, he tells us so.
Faith must have been an oven rather than a seedbed in that particular case.
Even Nazis had faith
God wins
This is such a stupid polemic that I'm sure I want to say something, just not sure what.
Bad acts may rise from any viewpoint, any level of commitment, or none. Faith may be the enemy, but it doesn't have to be. Not all fanaticism is the enemy. the enemy is not always fanatic.
I was slightly surprised that this post didn't have a "civility bullshit" tag or a similar one on it.
BTW, Krumhorn's comment @10:49: nailed it!
People committed terrible deeds before the Crusades, during the Crusades, and after the Crusades. Some of them did it for religious reason, some did it for other reasons. Some of it was done by fanatics, some of it was not. Sometimes faith is "the enemy," sometimes it is not.
It's worth noting that the Christian view is humans are incapable of "good," that they (we) cannot measure up to the standards of God (A.K.A. sin). Internally evil. A natural outcome is "people do bad things."
As a previous poster made clear, the chief historical characteristic of My Lai was how exceptional it was. And we didn't need a century to pass before our morally superior betters were around to pass judgment.
And even so, My Lai wasn't mindless brutality. It may have been inexcusable, but it was understandable given the circumstances of weak-assed command leadership, combat stress, fear, and fatigue.
I'm missing the part where the planned and intended terrorism of ISIS or Boko Haram has anything to do with My Lai.
On the evidence, one could be excused for concluding that lefties actually see ISIS as their comrades in the struggle.
- Krumhorn
Gopnik is on God's side, he tells us so.
Maybe or maybe not God's but certainly the angels'.
Liberalism is the belief that toleration is not enough, that an active, affirmative pluralism is essential to social sanity.
Does the original have an * or footnote indicator, with small print at the bottom explaining that affirmative pluralism doesn't apply to things Leftists find yucky? Opposition to SSM, belief in "traditional" gender roles, that kind of thing? Seems like it should. If one says there's no room in our society for certain beliefs, one surely can't be practicing an active affirmative pluralism (w/r/t those contrary beliefs), right?
It occurs to me a good example of Leftist bias re: respect for sanctity is the reaction to Pussy Riot vs to Charlie Hebdo. The mainstream news were effusive in their support for Pussy Riot's free speech, which of course included scandalous/vandalous acts in a church (on the altar, if I remember correctly). No one seemed too concerned with the violation of norms and beliefs Russian Christians hold sacred in that case, and the only breach of the affirmative pluralistic ideal the Media identified was Pussy Riot's incarceration for same. Desecrate a Christian altar? Well, Russia doesn't have adequate separation of church and state, so getting jail time for that=oppression and Pussy Riot were political prisoners. On Charlie Hebdo, though, the Left is damn quick to point out that it's not ok to make fun of Mohammed and/or Islam generally, since those are things sincere believers take seriously. Most of the Left doesn't say the Hebdo writers had it coming...but they certainly express understanding of the anger the fanatics expressed (murderously). So why the sympathy for hardcore Muslim believers but none for hardcore Christian believers? Shouldn't affirmative pluralism treat believers in both cases the same?
Almost makes you think the assertion that the Left/Media/NYTimes is liberal (under Gopnik's defintion) is BS.
I am glad I do not spend my days seeking out and reading dreck.
While I may quibble with some of Gopnik's word choices, I embrace the sentiment. Where Gopnik and I would likely part ways is over our assessment of how well he and his embody these ideals.
To my mind, they are "liberal-styled people."
Religion is just a way to choose sides. If it didn't exist we'd be fighting over the color of the hankerchiefs in our back pockets.
toleration is not enough
that's a fanatical thing to say!
Oh, shut up.
do liberals understand the concept of tolerance?
The media's religion discussion stimulated by Obama's "high horse" remarks is a silly one for silly people.
The issue ought not to be whether the Crusades and the Inquisition were better, worse, or even comparable, to the atrocities being perpetrated by ISIS/ISIL. Who cares? The issue ought to be whether it is appropriate for the President, once again, to be casting blame backwards having, once again, demonstrated his ineptitude in dealing with current problems.
The only value history offers to our President and the Obamamedia that covers his ass is as source of red herrings to distract from his corruption and incompetence.
"Progressives" are merely modern-day Gnostics convinced that they have, as Thomas Sowell put it, "The Vision of the Anointed" tasked with making their "Kingdom come" here on Earth rather than in Heaven. Or as the philosopher Eric Voegelin put it: "The end result of 'progressive' politics is totalitarianism."
(PS: Oso Negro @10:50am: Are you sure your not my long-lost blood brother? :) )
***"you're"
The people who were tolerant about slavery were highly annoying to the fanatics who thought slavery was an abomination, and hostile to the will of God. I have no problem defending fanatics. Sometimes they are right! But Adam Gopnik is such a dummy, now I have to defend tolerance?
John Brown wasn't pissed off about tolerance. Only a moron is pissed off about tolerance, as a concept. John Brown was pissed off about slavery!
Liberals who quiver at the idea of moral absolutes probably don't think too much about their own moral absolutes. I wish liberals would stop trying to wipe away conservatives as an insanity, or a plague, or a demon from hell. Yes, people who are tolerant about this-or-that evil are annoying. We want to wake them up! But your wipe-out-all-the-tolerance dream marks you as a fanatic, Adam Gopnik. And the worst kind! A fanatic who has no self-awareness!
Excessive scruples—liberal guilt—are as sure a sign of sanity ....
Huh?
Excessive anything can lead to totalitarianism.
Seek salvation in the next world for certainly we've lost this one.
"They always seem to ignore the fact that historical figures of western civilization manged somehow to right their own wrongs. America has been particularly adept at righting its wrongs, but we don't get any credit for that from the looselugnut libruls."
Actually, they would explicitly deny that what you just said is true. Their viewpoint is that American was stolen from the Indians and built on the backs of slaves. They think that the people who unjustifiably benefited from that are the ancestors of the people who still unjustifiably benefit from it. They hold that Western Civilization in general and America in particular will not have righted those wrongs until compensation is made to every black, Hispanic and female in the U.S. - and that confiscation and redistribution of private property is entirely justifiable.
Ann Althouse, by the way, is super-tolerant. And about as absolutist as you can be on the free speech clause.
When liberals abandoned Hugo Black and abandoned the absolute protections of the First Amendment, that's when they abandoned their own principles. Now the left is filled with fanatics (who deny they are fanatics) who hate free speech and are totally cool with the idea of censorship.
Hugo Black, R.I.P.
"Liberalism is the belief that toleration is not enough, that an active, affirmative pluralism is essential to social sanity."
Depends on what you mean by active, affirmative, and sanity.
If "affirmative" pluralism requires reasonable people to "affirm" the wisdom of Islam or its marvelous contributions to civilization, then that liberalism is itself insane.
Pluralism is certainly not the essence of liberalism as practiced by self-professed liberals. The deep disconnect between their rhetoric and practice counts against their sanity.
I approve of the Crusades overall. The Crusading ideal was righteous. The Crusades were undertaken as counteroffensives to reclaim lands and peoples who had been brutally conquered and subjugated by barbaric tribal peoples--Muslim Arabs. Many the lands that were taken by fire and sword in the name of Islam were Christian realms. But not all of them. The Sassanian Persians were Zoroastrians and they fought mightily to defend and preserve their ancient faith and the high civilization that engendered it. In the northern regions of the Indian subcontinent and in the contiguous lands of south Central Asia Muslim invaders killed millions of Hindus and Buddhists and effectively eradicated Buddhism from that part of the world.
Apart from Iran the Middlle East--i.e., North Africa, Egypt, Anatolia, the Levant, and the whole of Mesopotamia--were Christian realms at the of the Muslim conquests; and they had been Christian for more than half a millennium. It is worth noting in this regard that the Christian Assyrians of Iraq are direct descendants of the Assyrians who established the first Christian Church not long after Christ’s lifetime. Now they are literally fighting for their lives against a new Muslim conquest that rivals but certainly does not surpass the first Muslim conquest for its cruelty and barbarism.
Allied with the Assyrians in what in what is truly a desperate struggle are equally beleaguered Chaldean Christians, Yazidis, Zoroastrians, Shabaks, and Turkmen. Do you know who these people are? You should. In our lifetime, maybe within the next few years, quite possibly with the next twelve months, Christianity and the other very ancient non-Islamic peoples and faiths of the Middle East will be wiped out of existence. The Copts of Egypt, who are genetically the direct descents of the Ancients, and who established one of the earliest Christian churches, are literally under siege by the Arab-Muslim Egyptians who constitute that nation’s majority population: soon, perhaps very soon, the Copts may also be killed or driven forth from their ancient homeland.
It was the goal of the Crusades and Crusaders to reverse the tide of Muslim conquests and to reclaim for Christianity lands that Muslim Arabs captured, and if the Crusaders did not always in their endeavors behave or conduct themselves in a manner agreeable to the more refined sensibilities of the modern world, then one would note that they were for both good and ill men of their times and should be judged accordingly and in the context of their times. For my part, I would like to reclaim Constantinople, that most glorious of ancient Christian cities, from domination by the dread Turk. But the dream of “next year in Constantinople” is just that, a dream, and the reality of today is that we should be fighting to preserve the precarious existence of those Christians and non-Muslim peoples who are battling daily to survive the new Islamic onslaught.
And, yes, I am involved in that struggle.
"Excessive scruples—liberal guilt—are as sure a sign of sanity as excessive sanctimony is a sign of the opposite."
This is a sure sign of impending mental illness. Somebody get that guy some Zoloft !
Oh. He has some ? Oh, OK.
During the twentieth century and the Soviet Empire, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Marx.
Faith is a nearly universal trait. Most, but not all, people will acknowledge their faith, or affirmative statements about beliefs outside the scientific and philosophical domains. The root of all evil is neither faith nor religion (i.e. moral philosophy), buy rather the secular profits of wealth, leisure, and pleasure. Today, the State sponsors the premeditated abortion of over one million wholly innocent human lives for those profits, and its own compelling interests to secure taxable assets and reduce the problem set.
As for liberalism, without affirmative declarations, it is a simplistic philosophy founded on pro-choice or selective principles, that progresses to libertinism, anarchy, which justifies establishment of a totalitarian regime.
That said, liberalism has engendered State-sponsored selective exclusion, rather than principled tolerance, again.
It's interesting to note the people who have "escaped" their conditions only to desire reestablishment of those conditions under their rule. And the native interests who will set them up as leaders, where before they were merely subjects and repressed.
The moral axioms are individual dignity and intrinsic value. Go forth and reconcile. Generational liberalism has reached a conclusion that denigrates the former and debases the latter. It is inconsistent with the fitness function it purports to maximize.
Gopnik is a sloppy thinker and writer. For instance, here:
Fanaticism is the belief that a single faith or ideology contains all the truth of the world, and that others should at best be tolerated.
Sounds good, but is it really true that fanatics embrace even limited toleration of other faiths or ideologies? A fanatic, by definition, is filled with unreasoning zeal, which I would think completely rules out any tolerance at all.
Someone needs to tell the guy that couching fuzzy, muddled thinking in highfalutin prose really does not make it correct. Wasn't the New Yorker once renowned for its scrupulous attention to language?
Not being a Roman Catholic, I am totally cool with the idea that Christianity needed a Reformation. I like the Reformation. Although I will acknowledge that Martin Luther was a little wacky.
Can I say that 21st century Islam is sorely and desperately in need of a Reformation? Yes. I do say it. I say it loud, I say it proud.
There are three types of liberals:
The first type believes in freedom and liberty.
The second type believes they are smarter than everyone else, condescends incessantly, and almost invariably gets paid by the government after the government steals it from someone else. This second type has lived in academia all their lives and has no idea what the real word is.
The third type isn't really a liberal they just pretend to be. They are wealthy people who use government regulation to keep their wealth and squash competition.
I like the Sufis. And I like the Kurds. And I like the Muslims who were in my film school. One very spiritual guy from Afghanistan, who was amazing. (All his family was dead, and you never saw a more peaceful or happy person). I like most of the Muslims in the U.S.
The big problem, it seems to me, are all the states that are making Islam the official religion. And, yes, the fanaticism and the lack of tolerance. I might be wrong, but I think the most common victim of Muslims are other Muslims. They're the ones who are really suffering. Yes, Christians and Jews are being killed, too. But aren't Muslims the ones who are suffering the most (and at the hands of other Muslims)?
I think Iran is a huge problem, ISIS, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Saudi oil money has radicalized Islam around the world.
I also think the President of Egypt should win the Nobel Peace Prize. I know Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, which made a joke out of the award.
It's insane how so many people refuse to look at Islamic wrong-doing, and how they feel obligated to say Christianity is just as bad. Quit attacking religion, Obama, and start attacking politicians! Name names! In this century, dummy! Pick out some good guys and name them, too!
I swear I think Obama is going to let Iran have nukes. I do not have words for how stupid that is.
Saint Croix:
I'm Roman Catholic, and I do approve of the Reformation as the necessary corrective that Luther meant it to be. It should be noted that Luther never intended or expected that his efforts at reform would produce a new branch of Christianity separate and distinct from that of the Church of Rome but in the event I believe that Protestantism was, is, and remains a good and necessary thing--although I do hope that in the end, i.e. the End of Time if not sooner, "they will all be one" again.
It should be remembered that the Catholic Church did also reform itself; thus, the "Counter-Reformation." And it reformed itself yet again in Vatican II, although many take an understandably dim view of what the Council yielded.
Christianity is in fact predisposed to reform, not incidentally as a result in part of Christ's fondness for preaching and speaking in parables. One could say that reform is part of Christianity's theological DNA. Not so Islam. Mohammed did not preach or speak in parables. Hence the possibility of an Islamic reformation is highly doubtful.
It's really bad to be a fanatical Muslim. If you're a fanatical Christian, you're probably Amish or something. You're crazy about pacifism. You're always turning the other cheek and loving your enemies. If you're following Christ all the way, you're a fanatic for Christ. But following Christ all the way is awesome.
This is not to say that people cannot commit atrocities in the name of Christ (of course they can) nor is it to say that Muslims or Jews or Hindus are morally inferior. Maybe Gandhi is a better follower of Christ than you are. God will decide that!
Blogger Jon Burack said...
Either I do not know what Gopnik means by liberalism or I do not know what planet he is on when he says,
"Liberalism is the belief that toleration is not enough, that an active, affirmative pluralism is essential to social sanity."
If by liberalism, he means what goes by that name now, he is deluded. "Affirmative pluralism" would mean a deep concern on the part of liberals that nine out of ten professors at our top colleges are liberal or further left. Mere "toleration" alone would just mean insisting the few conservatives you do find in the academy be given a respectful hearing. Liberals in academia are far even from mere toleration in that sense, and they are light years from affirmative pluralism. In fact, they are adamantly against affirmative pluralism.
I note that many non-christians that quote Matthew 7:20-22 are awfully eager to usurp the role of Jesus in applying that passage to christians.
hey Roughcoat,
Good words! You know in the Episcopal church, we're always praying to be united with the Roman Catholic Church. Weird to me, but that's what we do.
What I like about Protestants, is the idea of brotherhood in Christ, and the hostility to hierarchies. It's more democratic. I was on a church retreat where I was giving bread and wine to people and blessing them. That was amazing!
Anyway, I like the Pope, I'm glad we have a Pope. My father mentioned to me the other day how it was tough to be a Catholic in the South back in the day. People used to get mad about that.
I'm happy in my church, but I have a lot of respect for the Roman Catholic Church (particularly on the abortion issue).
Good points vis-a-vis a possible reformation in Islam. There is a history of Muslims who saw the spirituality in the religion and did not believe the texts should be read literally. I'm thinking of Sufis like Rumi. I agree that the Koran is a problem if literally followed. But there are lots of ways to be religious! We need to think of ways to reform Islam as opposed to trying to attack it, kill it or abolish it. And this is something that Muslims themselves will have to lead. But surely we can encourage it!
Our terms and our understanding of them are not helpful. I think many confuse and conflate liberal and progressives.
Liberals, who aren't just Democrats, are pretty accepting of others' strange ideas. Progressives, who are clustered with Coastal Democrats, are not very tolerant of dissenting views. Fanaticism can be found anywhere.
Regards — Cliff
Good discussion of Sufis here.
"Liberalism is the belief that toleration is not enough, that an active, affirmative pluralism is essential to social sanity. "
Does it mean liberals would allow people to opt out of unions, social security, medicare, and multiple government rules and regulations, including Obamacare?
Anyway, nothing says "affirmative pluralism" more than Obama's takeover of internet.
Yap, welfare socialism from cradle to grave is "pluralism".
"Fanaticism is the belief that a single faith or ideology contains all the truth of the world, and that others should at best be tolerated. "
Do liberals believe this statement is 100% accurate? This makes it a self-contradictory statement.
I admire the brave attempts of many of the Althouse commentariat to respond to Mr. Gopnick's, uh, assertions. Me, I think they are so stupid as to be impervious to any response but, Next!
What does "affirmative pluralism" as opposed to "tolerance" mean? That I have to actively encourage viewpoints that are inconsistent with my own?
Definition of fanatic:
a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.
If affirmative tolerance is an obligation of the power structure (but not the government--the First Amendment forbids more than tolerance) rather than individuals like me, the idea is ridiculous. It makes moral and intellectual discrimination impossible. Should the physics department hire a Professor of Creation Science?
Saint Croix at 2:55:
I'm a Catholic, and what I like about Protestants are the same things you like about them. Especially Protestant hymns. They have a kind of optimism that Catholic hymns, for all their solemnity, seem to lack.
Buster,
About Catholic hymns lacking that Protestant "optimism" -- you may enjoy this, from Catholics Don’t Sing Like Lutherans: Blame the Irish:
..a confused convert asking [a priest] painful questions:
Q: Let’s get right to the point. Why are Catholics such poor hymn singers?
A: It’s because we don’t have enough Lutheran converts.
Q: The hymn singing I hear hardly amounts to a “joyful noise.” Sounds more like plaintive squeaks from depressed marmosets.
A: Bless you, my son, for your candor.
Q: Why?
A: We’re programmed Irish. Lutherans are programmed German.
Q: Come again.
A: Simple history. German Lutherans came to America with two hundred years of hymns in their history and they kept writing new ones. Irish Catholics came with bawdy songs that can’t be sung in mixed company; it was the only music the English let them sing.
Q: What?
A: Sure. The Irish invented the low spoken mass. Catholics singing hymns in public would otherwise have attracted the attention of their English Protestant oppressors. Besides, if they can’t bang a bodhran in church they wouldn’t sing anyway, just on principle.
Gopnik's acclaimed "From Paris to the Moon" is the worst book I have ever tried to read.
I loved Paris. He almost ruined the experience for me.
"Liberalism is the belief that toleration is not enough, that an active, affirmative pluralism is essential to social sanity"
The old "It is an absolute truth that there are no absolute truths" gambit.
@ Lydia:
LOL
Sad to say, a Catholic could never have written "The Battle Hymn of the Republic". Or even "Amazing Grace".
"fanaticism is always the enemy."
Only a liberal could write this without irony
Let me rephrase it.
"Death to all fanatics!"
Religious tolerance is a particular response to a particular historical problem. It proved to be a fairly practical response. But that does not mean it will always be practical. Western religious tolerance grew out of exhaustion and stalemate, not enlightened relativism. To tolerate views other than your own is accept that those views do not touch upon matters of fundamental importance. A religion that is not of fundamental importance is a step away from extinction.
It may well be that if our civilization cannot unlearn religious tolerance, or at least find a practical way to deny tolerance to intolerant religions, it will be destroyed by an ideology that has never learned tolerance and refuses to practice it. Stalemate will not occur if only one side is fighting. Does it matter if, 100 years from now, Europe and America look like the Middle East looks now, and our grandchildren wrap their women in bags and stone them for adultery? Would that be of any fundamental importance?
It is absurd to say "We are better than them, we don't do such things".
Ours is the civilization that invented the atomic bomb, and used it on populated cities. Who are we to get upset because one man is burned to death in a cage? If we are going to fight for our way of life, it won't be because we can prove, in some absolute sense, that it is superior. It will be because it is ours, and we are us. They are Them. Fuck Them. And the camel they rode in on.
Masochists and Sadists, unite! And thus was created sadomasochism. Pass the opiates.
The Jewish faith from Moses and the Islamic faith from Mohammed have much in common creating a civil order based on Law from God. One version is a covenant between God and Jews, while the other extends to all who submit to it.
What both of those faiths fight against is what the secular tolerance teachers also fight against which is the claims of Jesus of Nazareth to be resurrected and be the only ruling King, the only High Priest and sacrifice, and the only SON of God. ONLY!
They all want that message stopped. Even Catholics want to replace Jesus with a clerical tradition that reserves salvation to sacrament buyers.
I used to think that Islam needed a reformation, but I have changed my mind. Islam has already had its reformation. ISIS, Wahhabism, and the Muslim Brotherhood are different denominations of their protestants. They are each trying to follow the fundamentals of their faith as originally taught and practiced by Muhammad. We are now observing their 30 Years War, except it is lasting longer than 30 years. There is no Rightly Guided Caliph to bind them all.
It takes a teacher-style jerk to defend an asshole inventing a phrase like "Jesus-style people" to slime Christianity with racism.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Want an example of teacher-type people doing bad things? How about the female teachers that rape their students - today - or Ted Kaczynski? How does it feel to be part of a profession that commits rapes and murder?
Post a Comment