<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12fish.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12fish.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th</a></p>
<p>Let’s put it another way. Who were those historical individuals who truly had a deep and abiding faith in an idea or ideas and were even willing to die for those ideas…certainly not kill others?</p>
<p>Let’s not mix up vandalism and mobs with a deep and abiding faith. One does not need a “group religion” to have that!</p>
<p>For starters, I question the assumption that liberalism and “strongly held faiths” are mutually exclusive. Ironically, this distinction seems faintly condescending in itself–and flatly disproved by many of the posters on this board, whose passionate liberalism is clearly grounded in a moral vision of the world.</p>
<p>Still, I know what Fish is driving at. From time to time I’ve heard liberal acquaintances condescend to those with “strongly held faiths.” Yes, it’s ugly, but I’ve always seen it as a distorted expression–and ironic validation–of a very reasonable concern: that “strongly held faith,” in its worst form, can lead to actions or policies (or habits of mind) that are intolerant and inflexible.</p>
<p>Interesting article. I’m a little confused by his characterization of the “liberal state”. I can’t quite figure out if he means it to be a derogatory comment on liberals in particular or if he is referring to “liberal state” as any country that embraces the ideals of freedom of religion and free speech. </p>
<p>Quote:
“This is, increasingly, what happens to strongly held faiths in the liberal state. Such beliefs are equally and indifferently authorized as ideas people are perfectly free to believe, but they are equally and indifferently disallowed as ideals that might serve as a basis for action or public policy.”</p>
<p>The second line is true and seems to be the foundation of why we believe in separation of church and state. We don’t want any one religion dictating our actions, whether it be fundamentalist Muslims or fundamentalist Christians. That belief does not stop individuals from being politically active and trying to make change based on their ideals,rather than the specific practices of their religion, such as prayer in schools.</p>
<p>I don’t think there is any question that as long as Muslims want to live in democratic countries that value freedom of religion, then they have to abide by the laws of that country. I think the deeper issue, and the reason a cartoon has become a flashpoint is that we have forced ourselves into the Muslim countries. We foist upon them our belief in Democracy and capitalism disguised as liberation. If we were not concerned with the oil in their countries we would leave them alone to fight out their differences among themselves.</p>
<p>An offensive word-cartoon image written about offensive cartoons - it’s a self-parody. Do you think the author appreciates the irony? No, I don’t either.</p>
<p>Here’s the outline:
- The author doesn’t consider himself to be a follower of “the religion we call liberalism.”
- He feels that it it is appropriate to characterize the beliefs of that “religion” in an inaccurate and offensive manner, making such comments as:
- thereby demonstrating that he doesn’t know jack about respectng other people’s beliefs and gets off on being condescending.
Anyone here think that that is an accurate description of the “liberal” response to the Muslim response to the Danish cartoons? It’s actually been the response of the “my religion is better than your religion” folks, as far as I’ve seen. There are some valid points interspersed with the sensationalist junk in the essay, but they’re neither new nor particualrly well expressed, making the job of wading through the muck to find anything worth thinking about less than cost-effective. FountainSiren: why are you wasting our time with this vapid exercise in straw man bashing?</p>
<p>If there is a “liberal” state, there must be a “conservative” state…do they have any depth…and with regards to MORALS…is he claiming that its the conservative stronghold? I think I have seen some pretty immoral conservatives…</p>
<p>“I think I have seen some pretty immoral conservatives…”</p>
<p>Amen and Amen!</p>
<p>Kluge #5, you’re on a roll today. And as to FS wasting time with this vapid bashing, she’s certainly off her top form today.</p>
<p>The Mutual Admiration Society must have had an early meeting today …</p>
<p>I think many people (with the exception of lizschup) have been misled, as I was, by the tag line “Why liberals condescend to those with strongly held beliefs,” a line that doesn’t appear as a heading to the full article, and, in fact, does a disservice to Fish, who is speaking not about liberals in the sense of liberals/conservatives, but about our collective liberalism as a nation that values the kinds of freedoms he mentions. That’s why the title of the piece begins with the phrase “Our faith”; he’s talking about America in general. Seen from this persepctive, the article becomes much more interesting–and seems to underscore the myopia of our current foreign policy.</p>
<p>“and seems to underscore the myopia of our current foreign policy.”</p>
<p>A myopic foreign policy represents a step in the right direction after eight years of total blindness under the previous administration. Actually blind, dumb, and deaf are more appropriate to define the ineptitude of Clinton/Warren Christopher/Ma’am AllbutBright.</p>
<p>Blindness to what?</p>
<p>Xiggi - who provided you with the information you’re basing your opinions on regarding the administration which left office when you were, what - 13? Do you feel you’ve undertaken a fair and balanced review of all the available information regarding the opinion you just expressed, or is it basically faith-based, i.e. people you trust have forcfully stated that opinion so you have adopted it without testing it against contrary data and opinions? Or perhaps you’ve self-selected material supporting beliefs you were already inclined towards?
I’m not picking on you here - I’ve actually been thinking about starting a thread called “Xiggi as Neo” to initiate a dialogue about where a bright young college age person gets the information which becomes the basis for their opinions, because face it - there aren’t enough hours in the day to start with balanced viewpoints, let alone primary source data on every single economic/political/social issue in the world. So how do you form a working hypothesis about basic stuff - let alone form the kind of opinion which would lead to dogmatic statements such as you made above, in the relatively short period of time you’ve had to think about it?</p>
<p>“The first tenet of the liberal religion is that everything (at least in the realm of expression and ideas) is to be permitted, but nothing is to be taken seriously.”</p>
<p>I think it was an interesting article, but I think he is reaching. Had it not been Mohammed, consider the potential reaction if the New York Times ran these two cartoons:</p>
<ul>
<li>A bearded rabbi with long nose and insane-looking eyes, a Jewish star on his breast and clutching a Torah scroll, with a crazed smile drives a bulldozer over a depiction of a mangled Rachel Corrie;</li>
<li>A long-haired Jesus and John-Paul II sit together in the Sistine Chapel with pictures of naked children on the walls, organizing what is clearly a pedophile ring of priests.</li>
</ul>
<p>In both cases, I expect the Mayor and the City Council, if not leading protests, would be out explaining to community groups that the newspaper does not reflect the community’s values, and would ask for apologies from the newspaper. In the first case, Protestant religious leaders would be in front of protests decrying anti-Semitism; in the second case, religious leaders - rabbis and ministers, etc. - would hold a press conference with the Cardinal.</p>
<p>The fact is that “liberal religion” would take these expressions of “free speech” VERY, very seriously. And we all know it. Liberal religion had the same opportunity in the first month after the Danish cartoons were published, when Islamic leaders met with the newspaper, held no protests, and did not distribute the cartoons to the rest of the Islamic world. </p>
<p>They muffed it. Maybe they weren’t so “liberal” after all.</p>
<p>Kluge, I do not mind you picking on me. If I were afraid of it, I would not post my positions so often. </p>
<p>You are obviously correct about my tender age. However, do you feel that only adults were shocked to see two jets flying into the WTC, or were capable of asking the simple, “How and why did that happened?” or “What could we have done to avoid it?” </p>
<p>FWIW, rest assured that I do not get my soundbites from Ann Coulter, Bill o’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh -I do not listen or watch their shows. </p>
<p>On the other hand, information or news of five, six, seven years ago is still available to anyone with access to a computer. With the added time, is it really that hard to see that our foreign policy did not amount to a whole lot under Clinton whose focus was deeply anchored by domestic issues? Do you really believe that the selection of Mrs Albright was judicious at a time when addressing the Israeli conflict was crucial? Did her performance as UN ambassador not earn enough ridicule? Am I really wrong to believe that Clinton only turned his eyes and ears to foreign policy when he needed a diversion from his White House scandals? Di he not ignore all the early warnings about the development of Al-Qaeda. Oops, I forgot that Al-Qaeda is a figment of the western world imagination! </p>
<p>While I DO understand why people consider our current policies naive or simply foolish, the jury is still out how history will judge our actions. However, you’ll be hard=pressed to find much evidence that the foreign policy from the previous administration was effective.</p>
<p>This said, I would be happy to review my judgment based on evidence I did miss due to my youthful ignorance.</p>
<p>Well, Xiggi, everything is relative, isn’t it? No administration bats 1.000, and none should be expected to. How you “grade” a recent (to me, anyway) administration is likely to be severely dependent on the degree of political kinship felt between the source of your information and that admninistration. And what you get on your computer about the past is also severely dependent on which internet sources you choose to refer to. You don’t have to go to Limbaugh or Coulter to get spin. In fact, spin is pretty much unavoidable. Detecting the nature of the spin is the key. Buffoons like Rush and Anne are easy. Subtle, sly, witty, condescending sources are much more slippery. </p>
<p>And of course, by “scandals” I assume you mean being relentlessly hounded by an unprincipled prosecutor funded with tens of milions of dollars in an ultimately futile attempt to smear a flawed but hardly evil man with anything more substantive than lying about his sex life. Or do you think Hillary really did kill Vincent Foster? If the Democrats were in control of Congress, and did a Kenneth Starr on Bush, what do you think would happen? Have you ever thought about these things?</p>
<p>Kluge, you are always at your best when decrying the supposedly naive maundering of college-age people; bright young people who see the obvious limitations of socio-political theories and dogma that have eluded you, lo these many years. Is it possible that reaching middle age does not necessarily confer wisdom? Yes, it is. Is it possible that thoughtful young people can be wise? Yes. </p>
<p>To paraphrase your question, Kluge, and put it back to you: How do you form such non-working hypotheses about basic stuff–let alone form the kind of opinion which would lead to dogmatic statements such as you made above, in the more-than-ample period of time you’ve had to think about it?</p>
<p>Why don’t you engage these bright young people on the merits of ideas alone, instead of playing the “age card” with such regularity? It makes you seem like a playground bully.</p>
<p>Spoonyj,</p>
<p>After our last tete a tete, I came to believe you had a better handle on things than most of your fellow travelers. Your comments bear this out. </p>
<p>Alas, only one leeward person got it (mini doesn’t count). </p>
<p>I myself am an adherent of liberalism with a small L. This thread was not intended to critique Liberals/Democrats. Id hoped to tap the age of my betters and plumb the depths of liberalism, as in a modern liberal democracy. Is it possible within the constraints of a liberal democracy, an open society, to think deeply? To consider the implications of actual ideology, as it is lived; belief, as it is lived; good and bad as acted and played out in the lives of complex people, religions and cultures?</p>
<p>[ I expected no less from Kluge and CGM (you never let me down…the world spins and I sleep better for it) than what they delivered (a nail, a toe and a toe-nail all amount to the same thing to a dedicated hammer), but Im a bit surprised by the critical reading skills of Thedad: shame, shame, pops]</p>
<p>This point cuts across the political spectrum put your knives away boys and girls…you’re gona hurt yourselfs. Onel gains no ground by getting their ideological load on hereDemocrats, Republicans, Vegan and Hammers. </p>
<p>The question is, in a liberal democracy can we take peoples ideas, beliefs and agendas seriously or will we all simply agree to disagree (yikes!). Respect our differences (Arghhh!). Love the other (shoot me now, for gods sake!). </p>
<p>Think it through all you puffed and plucky laptop gladiators press reset and wait for the page to refresh. </p>
<p>This isnt the dozens. Its simply something to think about.</p>
<p>Ahh, but FountainSiren - what makes you think I was posting about left vs. right? Critical reading skills? Go back and read my post again. TheDad got it - you didn’t. No shame on Pops. “Respecting” differing beliefs is, in fact, central to “liberal” philosophy. (Small “l”? Large “L”? I’m not sure which should be which.) The classic liberal philosophy regarding allowing conflicting beliefs to co-exist peacefully isn’t the cartoonish sound-bite set of beliefs Fish posited, and it doesn’t deserve the superficial “analysis” that this essay gave it. Because “My God is better than your God” is the inevitable alternative, which has been unfailingly destructive throughout history. I have defended the “other” liberalism; I’ll defend the traditional type as well. Which side of this debate are you on, if I may be so bold?</p>
<p>
hmmm…</p>
<p>
That about sums it up!</p>
<p>One is tempted to refer to this phenomenon as Klugian reductionism.</p>