Our five great spiritual masses

By -
"The five great spiritual masses that determine the figure of the West are Judaism, Islam, Evangelical Protestantism (mainly American), the Catholic Church, and, finally, the ideology of human rights." -- Pierre Manent, Beyond Radical Secularism, p. 103

Manent's fifth "spiritual mass" indicates something I keep pointing out: enlightenment liberalism is a religion, it is in competition with traditional religions, and it is trying to win that competition. And it's most important weapon in seeking victory is its fanatical insistence that it is not a religion, but merely the conclusions of "reason," and that when it triumphs in the political sphere, it is most certainly not "imposing its values on others." No sir!

Comments

  1. Lord10:23 AM

    Closer to the truth, it is a metareligion, a common, close to minimal, set of ideals religions must adopt to peacefully coexist, with each other and dissenters, the scope of which must be decided in concert with all parties. It must be a part of all such religions, and religions without it are characterized by domination and intolerance, in the same way freedom of religion is freedom from religion and a restriction on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:24 PM

      Yes sir, you have precisely stated the credal point that enlightenment liberalism wields in seeking dominance over rival religions.

      Delete
    2. gcallah12:22 AM

      So Lord, yes, this was the cover story that enlightenment liberalism used to sandbag adherents of other religions while they weren't looking. Like the teenage boy who tells his girl, "No, I'm not going to try anything: I just want to show you my bedroom."
      What's puzzling about your comment is that there is no longer any point in his still using that line AFTER she has slept with him.

      Delete
  2. Karl W/ A K7:34 PM

    Gene -

    I think you would enjoy reading Herman Dooyeweerd's Roots of Western Culture: Pagan, Christian and Secular Options (Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1979; reprinted Edwin Mellen Press, 2003). Dooyeweerd is most famous for making that exact point, among others.

    As a religious reader of your blog, though, I wouldn't be surprised if you read two or three books at a time to review for journals!

    Blessings,
    Karl

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown4:06 PM

    Liberalism also has lots of guns. Big ones. Which they have used ahem "liberally" in the past.

    In comparison, traditionalists are practically defenseless.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more