Christopher Hitchens on Obama:
Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been—and were—applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement. (In the Washington Post, for Good Friday last, the liberal Catholic apologist E.J. Dionne lamely attempted to stretch this very comparison.) But is it “inflammatory” to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it “controversial.” It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood.
I think Geralidine Ferraro was right about Obama; racism is at play in this election. White suburbanites who fled the cities the past two generations expect a black man to be a reformer based solely on the color of his skin. It sure isn’t on his record-Â thin that it is.
Yet anyone who has lived and worked in a major city in the northeast can tell you corruption knows no racial bounds. Here in the Philly area we just sent one black mayor packing for another that appears to be a reformer; then again, the one who just left office was elected on the same platform and had been a reformist civic leader during the 1970s. That didn’t stop him from becoming corrupt. I lived in Chicago during the “Beirut on the Lake” days of the 1980s when its first African-American mayor battled it out with the City Council. The city wasn’t improved by Mayor Washington’s tenure.
I do my best to set aside my biases and look at Obama’s candidacy objectively, and when I do I see a candidate with little experience, an unimpressive record in public service, who holds racist views as evidenced by the close personal relationship he has had with the Rev. Wright. His popularity says less about who he is than it does those who support him. Obama has become the canvas upon which they project their ideals, their hopes and dreams. Obama knows this and is able to use this for his own personal gain.
But that’s not a political candidate: that’s a cult leader.
{ 52 comments }
Fragmented, poorly worded, incomplete post alert!
Obama is probably not a racist, or at least his racism is obscured, concealed and indirect enough to compare with the racism of the average presidential candidate.
What he seems to be, from what I can glean, is a black guy who has decided that his blackness is really, really, really important to him, and started hanging out with really, really self-consciously black people, because it was fun in some mysterious way that he could probably articulate in a way that would make women swoon.
Who decided one day that he wanted to be president of a predominately white country.
And who also happens to be Marxophilic leftist who views society as the victim of corporate predators.
Part of the problem with this is that a lot of people, particularly white people, are oblivious to the reality that “black” is not just a race, it’s an ethnic identity. One that, like a lot of groups, has its own way of speaking, its own dress codes, etc. Those who angrily fulminate that there is an “American” culture and they need to stop it and just be part of it need to rethink; the average Texan, or Cajun from Louisiana, or resident of the Bronx in New York have their own unique sub-cultures too.
For example, I’ve spent time exploring Obama’s church’s home page. Know what? It’s not a racist church. Yes, they are unapologetically a “black” church, but it’s pretty clear what they mean: it’s pride in ethnic identity, and a shared community that includes a history of oppression that’s still part of who they are now. There’s nothing racist about any of that–nothing. And until angry white people can get over it and just say, “ok, that’s part of your identity, nothing wrong about that” then the rest of the conversation can barely happen.
Having said all that, I and others have long noted that there is a sort of sickness in part of the black community that DOES become racist. Including a disturbingly high level of conspiracy theory thinking. It’s extremely common. There is a widespread belief in that community, for example, that there’s a hidden part of the Constitution which has black people losing all their civil rights at an upcoming date. There’s a belief that the CIA invented and distributed crack in the black community to hurt that community. There are many other such beliefs, and they are shockingly common. And, like most conspiracy theories, they’re virtually impossible to expunge from the minds of people who hold to them.
Are these beliefs by definition “racist?” Not quite. What they are is paranoid. A paranoia built in a culture that has seen itself as under seige for generations, and can’t be expected to just wipe that out in one or two generations.
Angrily fulminating about it won’t make it go away.
The sad part is that Obama was acknowledging all of this, and white resentment and guilt issues that are similar to it, in a rather masterful way in that speech. The truth is a black candidate CAN’T do well in his community if he just ignores or angrily tries to stomp down on this widespread conspiracy thinking. He has to address it in some way. And now it’s coming down on Obama’s head. A lot of us saw it coming.
I actually feel sorry for him at this juncture, because even though I can’t vote for him (he’s way too wrong on Iraq) it’s depressing to see this happening to the guy. It’s the wrong way for him to start losing an election, it really is.
Yes, they are unapologetically a “black†church, but it’s pretty clear what they mean: it’s pride in ethnic identity, and a shared community that includes a history of oppression that’s still part of who they are now.
Ok, now let’s re-write that:
Yes, they are unapologetically a “white†church, but it’s pretty clear what they mean: it’s pride in ethnic identity, and a shared community …
Racist.
Maybe he “couldn’t” confront it as a black man, Dean, but he was obligated to do so as a Christian when he realised Wright was misleading his flock. Matthew 18:17
I agree with about 98% of what you’re saying, Scott. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Obama holds racist views just because he associates with folks who do.
It’s been mentioned elsewhere (can’t remember where), that his associations with such folks could have a strong political motivation. Depending on which view you take (both probably racist) Obama is only half black, or half white.
With he and his wife coming from fairly privileged, geographically diverse backgrounds, and running for office in a largely black area, its very likely that he had to establish some street cred as a “real†black man. And attending such a church would probably help such a cause. If so, maybe his chickens are coming home to roost.
I do think it was politically naïve of him to not see how such an association, whether it is truly spiritual, or philosophical, or just plain political, would hurt him as he runs on a theme of racial reconciliation.
Dishman: Nice try, but no. For a couple of reasons, but the biggest of which is that there are multiple sub-cultures in the white community, and thus there is no single white identity. There are a multitude of them.
There are other reasons too, but that’s one of the bigger and more obvious ones.
You cannot always flip something around. The two situations are not co-equal. Angrily fulminating about it will not make them co-equal, either. “Black” is an ethnic identity that, in fact, most of the world’s racially black people don’t share in–African and Carribean blacks have a completely different experience than black Americans. “Black” is a very distinctly American ethnic identity. You have to be almost willfully blind to deny that if you’ve ever been in close proximity to it.
But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Obama holds racist views just because he associates with folks who do.
Yep. That’s a big part of what I’m saying.
Does anyone honestly think that any Republican candidate for President, or any Democratic candidate for President, has ever gotten the nomination without sucking up to some people with pretty offensive views to most Americans? If so they need to get a grip on reality. It happens every election cycle.
Associates? Nice euphemism. That’s what you call 20 years of regular church attendance (excluding the days when the Rev. Wright was exhorting God to damn America, or discussing how the white man was behind AIDS)? Naming the man as your “spiritual mentor” and having him officiate at your wedding? Even preparing to throw your mentor under the bus (as Hitchens writes, “coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it”) for the sake of your ambition?
Reverse the roles and have a white candidate refer to Richard Butler as his spiritual leader and see if the word “associate” still works. Have him attend an Aryan Nations church for 20 years, get married there and have his children baptized there and see if “associate” is an accurate description. And before you think that there’s a cultural difference between the two, consider that there is a whole subculture of white supremacy just as there’s black supremacy.
The difference is that David Duke and Tom Metzger didn’t get very far in their political careers. People weren’t bending over backwards to explain their “associations”.
urthshu,
You’re completely misreading that passage. Verse 15 is clear that the context is if a brother in the faith wrongs you personally. Verse 15 tells us you’re to go to that brother alone. If he doesn’t listen, verse 16 tells us to bring one or two others with us as witnesses, if the brother still refuses, verse 17 says to go to the congregation.
This passages states nothing about doctrinal issues with your shepherd, nor does it at all indicate that those issues should become known to the congregation first. To do that and not exhaust all other options is to bring division into the body – and woe to anyone that does that first!
God put Wright at the head of that flock. Obama would be sinning if he tried to touch that annointing and overthrow the man and caused division in that body.
His best course of action would be simply to leave. Let God deal with the errors of his pastor.
Yes, they are unapologetically a “white†church, but it’s pretty clear what they mean: it’s pride in ethnic identity, and a shared community …
… may sound racist, but I don’t think there’s any such thing as a “white” ethnic identity, and anyone who claims there is is pretty clearly a racist. Try:
Yes, they are unapologetically an “Italian†church, but it’s pretty clear what they mean: it’s pride in ethnic identity, and a shared community …
That sounds fine to me, as would German, Irish, etc.
Ehhhh, I tried. It isn’t my religion, just a curiosity to me. Thought I read it right, though.
Guess the question is still raised: Is there a proper Christian response? From the NT, I mean.
I’ve examined the materials on Obama’s home church. They are not even remotely comparable to Aryan Nation type churches. Not even close on the theology, or the political viewpiont. It’s a completely inappropriate comparison. They’re part of a mainstream liberal fundamentalist denomination, with a black ethnic identity for that particular congregation. Other congregations in the denomination have their own ethnic identification of things like Dutch or German. They’re recognizing “black” as a type of American ethnic identity, and nothing more.
Now as to the issue of denouncing Wright for his more offensive views: it’s not clear to me how much of that he has to do. I’d have been more comfortable if he’d done so more clearly and sooner, but once again, to even discuss this we have to be on the same page. Comparing the man and his church to white supremacist churches and preachers makes it clear that we aren’t even on the same page.
I don’t think Obama is a racist. I do think he’s a coward. I’m pretty sure that Obama knows that Wright’s paranoid rants about AIDS and 911 are complete nonsense, but he won’t explicitly disavow those statements because he wants to play it both ways. Heck, even Bill Clinton can manage a righteous smackdown of 911 truthers.
As Hitchens notes, these sorts of beliefs are not just quaint cultural artifacts or harmless little eccentricities. They’re pathological, stupid, and false. If Obama can’t manage to repudiate second-rate conspiracy theories because his friends will frown at him then I don’t think he’d do very well as President.
bcostin’s last blog post..Age and the Presidency
No surprise I read the verses different from both Mark and Kevin, but, that whole section is addressed to the disciples, and as such would basically only apply to the disciples and their spiritual successors in the church (i.e. the consecrated bishops and those who they give lesser offices). It’s a warning for those who lead the church, not for all believers.
Thus the verses just wouldn’t apply to Obama unless he were ordained in some fashion as a deacon, priest, pastor, bishop, whatever. It would just be a personal matter of conscience otherwise.
I see nothing in that passage that indicates it wasn’t intended to apply to all believers.
I can’t see how it could at all read otherwise without reading doctrine into it onstead of taking docrine out of it.
Must a Gentile ask the Messiah a question only for it to apply to the body of believers? I should hope not bescause much of the lessons of Yeshua we told to His disciples.
And, does not 1 Peter 2:9 call us priests?
Again, I cannot see how you can think Matthew 18:15-17 can say what you think it says without reading doctrine into it first and not letting it speak for itself. I mean, if the Bible isn’t allowed to speak for itself, why even have it? What purpose does it serve?
I’m sure they believe that the HIV virus was developed by an ethnically diverse group of people drawn proportionally from all ethnic and and demographiphic groups who shared only the desire to infect black people with AIDs.
If “black” here just means some culture entirely disembodied from race, which, somehow strongly associates itself with groups that have very few white people in their numbers, then perhaps, “white” can be disassociated from race also, and refer to a culture.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s a culture that encourages the sorts of behaviors that have a decent chance of resulting in success when applied in a free-market meritocracy.
Also, I’m fine with flavoring Christianity with this, that, or the other ethnic tradition, but in this case, one flavor seems to be overpowering the recipe.
Frak it. Don’t answer that. If we want to talk about it Id rather do it in person. I detest talking about this stuff over the blog.
Kevin: I don’t know where your view of “doctrine” comes from, I really don’t. You seem to posit some sort of relation where “doctrine” hurts scripture or something. That’s silly. You yourself believe in a host of doctrines, whether you’re aware of it or not. You show it on a regular basis. Perhaps sometime you’ll clarify for us what the heck it is you think a “doctrine” is and why you think that somehow you don’t have any when it’s obvious that you fiercely cling to a boatload of them.
Anyway, Matthew 18:1 makes it clear that the entire thing is a conversation between Christ and the 12 disciples, and a very reasonable reading of this is that it’s what the leaders of the Church are supposed to do. Verse 18 makes it even clearer, to me anyway.
As for the priesthood of all believers, yes, that’s valid, but that’s not the same, any more than the idea that because all believers can be called saints that means there are no specific Saints, or because every Christian is a disciple this means every believer has all the authority and abilities of The Twelve. If you accept the doctrine that all believers are priests and therefore no one can be consecrated or ordained a priest, well fine, that’s common doctrine in *some* Protestant circles. But it’s a doctrine that the vast majority of Christians do not and have never believed. But I guess if you hold to doctrines that you think aren’t doctrines, it would be hard for you to see that.
Anyway, to my reading, without having to consult any particular church’s doctrine, Christ is telling the leaders of his Church how to behave, not giving universal instructions for all believers. That to me is the plain meaning of the text that anyone should be able to see without help or any external sources. You draw your own conclusions, you have every right to–just please don’t assume that your conclusions are universal or obviously correct, because that’s not the case.
Sorry, already answered it.
The sociologist Charles Moskas refers to this identity as “Afro-American” to distinguish it from African American (somebody from Africa now living in America) , black (having dark-hued skin), or Negro (a race).
The irony of this is that until he came to Chicago Barack Obama was insulated from Afro-American identity and culture nearly all of his life. He couldn’t learn it from his father, mother, or grandparents who weren’t a part of it. In the 1960′s it was virtually non-existent in Hawaii and particularly at his high school, Punahou, an elite, mostly haole or Japanese-American institution (most of my college friends were Hawaiians—I still have high school team T-shirts from several Honolulu-area high schools–lots of friends who went to Punanou).
OK, I get it. Christianity is the Religion of Context.
“I didn’t mean you…”
But certainly, we can talk about it any time you want.
Mark: Are there any religions where context DOESN’T matter?
Just a joke, Dean…
Hey – you like those Caps? I can control my arm now. Yipeee for me.
Gotta go, though – appointment, seriously. TTYL
Scott,
Even if you use a word stronger than “associatesâ€, I still don’t think that necessarily makes Obama racist. IMO, this just isn’t enough evidence to earn him the title. If it is enough for you, that’s OK, I can understand that. It seems that nowadays, racism is mostly in the eye of the beholder anyway.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I would call Wright a racist, flat out, no problem. His words are clear to me. And I think Obama has paid, and will continue to pay a huge price for his association (or whatever you want to call it) with Wright. And I have no problem with that.
Obama lost a lot of credibility in my mind over the whole ordeal. But it’s not because I think he’s a racist.
I think it shows his lack of experience, and a lack of understanding of race issues from the other side.
I don’t think Obama understands how frustrating, offensive, and even hurtful this kind of “blame America, blame the white man, they’re all a bunch of racists out to screw us†blathering can be.
If he truly understood, he would have distanced himself from it long ago. Disavowing the statements after he was called on it is a positive thing.
But IMO, the fact that he didn’t see this one coming is a bad sign. Especially since he claims to be uniquely qualified to solve these problems because he understands both sides of the issues.
David Duke only half-heartedly tried to cloak his bigotry. Tom Metzger never tried.
What are Obama’s feelings on the matter? Well he says that he abhors what the Rev. believes, and he has stated it over and over and over ad nauseum the past two weeks.
But what has he done? It’s an old truism that actions speak louder than words, and Obama’s actions are clear on the matter. Over the past 20 years he has developed extremely close ties to a bigot and called him his spiritual mentor.
I think Obama’s getting a pass by many on the matter for some reason. Maybe it’s white guilt over slavery or the history of African-Americans in America. Maybe it’s because he at least has some sort of spirituality which many liberals seem to lack.
But if I’m wrong about the analogy, Dean, show me where because I cannot imagine a white politician attending a church that spews such racism for 20 years, calling this “man of God” his spiritual mentor and expecting not to be questioned over what he truly believes.
Dishman, I suppose you think the Pope is racist for the following comments in his Regensburg speech?
Scott,
I guess what’s missing to me in the condemnation of Obama is how often Wright expressed the beliefs we’re all talking about. If, out of 1000 sermons (roughly 20 years of sundays worth), he brought these things up 10 times, well maybe at that level if you’re obama you’re willing to let it slide. maybe you can even let him mentor your kids with the caveat that you tell them to tune out the good reverend if he starts going off the deep end.
I don’t know, though. I’m not sure anyone does, but I’d be interested in being corrected on that. Certainly, though, I think it matters whether it’s 1 out of 1000, 10 out of 1000, or 500 out of 1000.
zach -
My comment before never seemed to go out of moderation b/c of the links, but if you look here:
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/03/23/the-prophetic-stream-conspiracy-theory-and-paranoia-whats-wrong-with-african-american-preaching/
the author attempts to get at the underlying problems with Black Liberation Theology. I don’t now if it will answer your questions, exactly, but I think it contains food for thought.
urthshu,
it’s a good post but it doesn’t answer what I was trying to get at. I absolutely do not dispute that Rev. Wright is paranoiac who believes a lot of odious and hateful things. I do think it’s relevant, though, to compare the amount of hateful vitriol he spews to the amount of genuine spiritual guidance rooted in the bible.
Obviously we would all like to be paragons of virtue who would take up arms at the slightest sight of vice in our midst, especially from our spiritual leader! However, in practice I think we often give the devil a pass to a certain point, particularly regarding those close to us. The question is how much was Obama letting it slide, and how much he let slide is related to the degree to which we should condemn him.
OK, so tell me, is this racist:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2185/2361640904_f78427e96d.jpg
I guess obama missed the bulletin, that day, too.
Dean, when I changed it to “white”, I had a particular caricature in mind, namely a monologue in “Blues Brothers”. The rhetoric around “Prussian Blue” also came to mind.
DanielH, there’s some question as to whether or not the Romulus and Remus were of Greek ancestry. Comparing cultures is different than comparing heritage. Unfortunately, the words for the ancestries and philosophies are the same. In this context, though, it’s pretty clear that the Pope was speaking of philosophy.
Broadly, I don’t believe that Melanin is relevant beyond the biological effects of sunlight. I find no value in considering it. There are certain genetic traits I prefer in people I associate with, but those appear to be distributed independent of ancestry.
Culture is another matter. Culture is something one can choose to change by will. I understand and accept that it is difficult to change. However, it is a choice to change, retain or even reinforce.
I believe Jeremiah Wright has chosen to actively reinforce hatred based on race. I believe his choice is harmful, and even poisonous. I choose to oppose the consequences of his choice. I would have the members of that culture either choose a different one, or change the culture.
Scott: I grew up in a very racist time and place. I think it would be very safe to say that the vast majority of people in my life until I was in my 20s were quite racist. Furthermore, having worked and lived in various black communities, I can tell you it came as quite a shock to me to realize that if anything, racism was more common and less apologetic in that community.
Obama said it pretty well, but most people seemingly can’t see it, or won’t, or something. I don’t know.
How can you reconcile with racist thoughts and attitudes and behaviors if all you do is angrily condemn them and view as forever-tainted anyone who ever uttered a racist thought?
Dean
I grew up in a similar environment. I didn’t meet my first non-white until my brother adopted an Asian, and I didn’t go to school with blacks until high school.
There’s a difference between my mother who grew up in a different age and Tom Metzger, just as there is a difference between one of my African-American friends and the Rev. Wright. Don’t tar everyone with the same brush; it does a disservice to those who happen to be black but stand for justice as well as against racism. Unfortunately Obama doesn’t seem to be such a man.
Dean and other Obama apologists can rationalize and “explain” this away all they want to. The bottom line is whether the American voting public is going to buy what they are selling.
Perhaps they will. But the evidence of Obama’s anti-American bias may be circumstantial, but it has been piling up regardless. And there are a whole lot of Americans who don’t pay attention to politics, but they see and hear the sound bites and when they go to the polls to vote, they are going to remember Barack not saluting the flag, or saying the pledge of allegience, or Michelle saying that she was ashamed of this country her whole life until it finally saw fit to lift up her husband, or that they were married and their children were baptized by a certified racist hate-monger.
Barack Obama had built a bridge to the non-black voter very carefully, and last week he saw the foundation of that bridge start to get swept away by a flood of Youtube videos.
Perhaps he can reset that foundation.
Perhaps not.
We will see.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Obama’s negatives take huge jump
How can you reconcile with racist thoughts and attitudes and behaviors if all you do is angrily condemn them and view as forever-tainted anyone who ever uttered a racist thought?
If all we’re talking about is you and me, maybe some yahoos at work, well, OK I’m all ears.
This is a Presidential candidate [likely anyway]. I don’t want the whiff of that in a candidate.
Not a deal breaker for you? OK. Tell me what is. Issues? Everybody has issues they follow, so don’t give me that dodge – I’m talking character.
So, Dean? What would make you say no?
How can you reconcile with racist thoughts and attitudes and behaviors if all you do is angrily condemn them and view as forever-tainted anyone who ever uttered a racist thought?
Barack Obama is not forever tained. He’s freshly tainted. He was sending his children to Jeremiah Wright for moral guidance right up until he got caught at it.
I am technically “white”, I think. There’s some ambiguity far back in my family tree. That said, my ancestors were all Union or still in Europe. Some of them carried arms for the Union. Some of them were even high profile Abolitionist. The only thing I have in common with slavers is the color of my skin. For anyone to say that I have some ancestral responsibility for Slavery is flat out racist.
The subculture identified as “Ethnic Black” is flat out racist. I believe the correct way to deal with that is simply this:
Call racism what it is.
Jeremiah Wright is a racist.
Michelle Obama may be a racist.
Barack Obama sends his children to a racist for moral guidance. As far as I’m concerned, he needs to grow up.
Dishman,
millions of people across the country send their kids to racists for moral guidance. they’re called grandparents ;p.
i’m being flip, of course, i’m not here to insult anyone’s grandparents. but the generation who came of age in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s to some extent, had a very different (and culturally accepted!) social compass on racial issues.
Zach
Rev. Wright was young enough to serve in Vietnam – not exactly the generation known for its inherent racism. Besides, it’s PC to hold past generations to the standards of the current generation. By this – and any other decent standard if you ask me – Rev. Wright fails and by association, so do the Obamas.
DanielH -
It might be churlish for me to say, but I find it gratifying that you find the Regensburg speech so grating. I admit it to be indefinable as to why, precisely; maybe because your discomfiture reveals it as an effective starting criticism of religious Islam [which, admittedly, I view with disdain].
Zach, I can’t really relate to that personally, but… ok, whatever.
I think the time has come to start calling out racists like Wright. Denying his racism only perpetuates the problem.
Urthshu,
I think you may have misunderstood me. Dishman implied that there was something essentially racist about an organization “unapologetically” identifying with a particular culture. I am not sure about that. In fact, I don’t really have a problem with that aspect of Trinity UCC. Rather, what I have a problem with is the offensive, inflammatory, and idiotic statements of Pastor Wright. So I was just testing his commitment to that view by pointing out a rather symmetric (though from different perspective) example of what he found offensive. I did find the Pope’s comments on Islam in the speech to be naive, but overall I did not find the Pope’s message “grating”. In fact, I agree that understanding of and commitment to one’s culture (whether of birth, choice, accident, etc.) is an important component of social life.
On a different topic, I am confused your use of the words “religious Islam.” Isn’t “religious” a bit redundant if used as a modifier for the word Islam?
Dishman,
I’m not suggesting we do otherwise. My point is more that entrusting some aspect of your children’s religious upbringing to someone who holds one or more noxious views is not grounds for dismissal.
Scott,
tell it to the young and vocal opponents to desegregation in the south in the 50s, when Wright was 13. My point is not that we should excuse Wright or excuse racism. My point is that it may be understandable that Obama excused it when it came in the from of Rev. Wright.
DanielH…
I see nothing racist about promoting a particular culture unless that culture it itself racist. Race is not Culture.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Dishman, while there are indeed individual racist African-Americans (and Europeans), I don’t think African-American (or European) culture in general is racist, so I don’t really have a problem with a church identifying “unapologetically” with African-American (or European) culture.
DanielH -
Just trying to keep with the thread’s topic by splintering off religious from cultural or political Islam.
Unless you’re implying that its more of a monolithic thing…
I’m curious as to what you find to disdain in “religious” Islam once you’ve filtered out political and cultural cultural additions. Is it just the same variety of Rosenzweigianism you have brought up before (though have yet to respond to critiques of same)?
I certainly don’t view Islam as a monolith, but at the same time I must admit that I find the desire to purify it completely of any cultural and political accretions to be a bit too “Salafi” for my taste.
First, I’m not an acolyte of Rosenzweig. I found the article interesting, I linked it. So what? Am I responsible for everything the man wrote? Why not just back off?
Second, I find the same thing objectionable in religious Islam that I find in any other religion, which I’ve written before: It limits what is logically beyond limitation. The fact that Islam codifies that limitation to the point of absurdity fills me doubly with disdain.
So?
I merely thought, since you went as far as agreeing with some of the arguments in the linked article, you might have been interested in discussing whether those arguments were logically sound.
I admit I’ve never seen, or at least cannot remember, your writings against religion in general, though I’d be interested to read them. While any belief system limits freedom of thought to a certain respect, I have not noticed that Islam in general does so to any greater extent than others. For instance, al-Ghazali wrote that if the literal meaning of a statement in the Qur’an is contradicted by reason, then the literal meaning of that statement cannot be true, and an exegete must search for another possible interpretation, such as figurative.
No. “That which cannot logically be limited” is God. I argue that religions put God in a pigeonhole and are thus a kind of evil in themselves.
Not ‘freedom of thought’ which, frankly, we may not have.
Comments on this entry are closed.