I think it is a rather stupid tactic of modern religious people to associate rejection of their values with rejection of values per se. They get a lot of mileage out of pretend anger at that demon ‘relativism’, even while usually having no idea how their religion isn’t completely subjective or relative itself. It’s usually used to pump up the importance of whatever nonsense they believe, and completely ignore other viewpoints. Or at least to not understand them well enough to make a decision. What better validation of yourself than that other people believe nothing, so you must be correct? This places almost no burden on your own mind, and becomes de facto monopoly nonetheless.
It couldn’t be that religious people are also decadent, consumerist, and the rest. I’ve met plenty of holy rollers who are worse than atheists. Saudi Arabia and a lot of those oil countries have shopping malls and fashion and wacky Michael Jackson-ish amusement parks in their backyard. They all have to have the Lamborghinis for each of their wives. And all of the Amirs and Kings have gold plated toilets and the rest. It is pure decadence. In fact, the idea of decadence and materialism like that itself came from Arabia and was what Europeans wanted during their contact with them and finally got. It’s one of the reasons they were tracking down gold in the new world. And then Arab world became a bit poorer. But it’s back. ignorance of this fact is also an example of orientalism.
I saw a guy in Tunisia who was burning the American flag, while wearing red, white, and blue American Eagle brand pants with an American flag on it.
And it’s even worse to say that absurb belief might distract you from something else. For instance, it might be better to believe something untrue, if it will prevent you from reading Marx and promoting communism. We have a common friend in Scientology apparently. Worst of all this is disrespectful to those who believe in religion. Since they believe it is true, not that God created it as a diversion from other beliefs. If you don’t respect religon on it’s own terms, you don’t respect it.
If you don’t believe infidels should be beheaded, it must mean that you don’t believe in anything is important or sacred. If you don’t believe in angels, you must not have any metaphysical system. If you don’t believe eating pork is sinful, then you must believe that killing old ladies is okay.
@John Ess: What do religious people have to do with Raimondo’s article?? I’m not even sure Raimondo is religious. There’s really nothing in this article to indicate that he is.
The implication is that religious people are peaceful victims in this world, while secular atheists are warlords and elites.
Atheists are materialists who can’t understand anything except shopping, while the religious people have a deep and meaningful life free of superficiality.
Atheists can’t understand other people’s viewpoints, but religious people understand the views of others and respect their needs for transcendence.
My only rebuttal is look at all of the bloodthirsty Evangelicals in this country. How does he explain that? You think these people are sad about “transcendence” of Muslims? No, they want more blood and wars and terror, in the name of Jesus.
The second is just rehashed orientalism. West is material and greedy, and East is spiritual and altruistic. It is old stupid myth by people who have never been outside of the West. In reality, all civilizations go through the same old crap over and over again. Islam is not different than the cycles of India, China, Persia, Rome, or the US. They have the rise and fall of empires, wealth, and then the various forms of religion. Islam basically died many centuries ago before Christianity did, around the time when Genghis Khan destroyed Baghdad. Christianity died around the time of Renaissance, and rise of protestantism. The modern Christianity and Muslim is just a decadent empty shell, reacting against that death. Each is what Spengler called ‘Second Religiousness’. Which is a type of religion after the death of it and whatever civilization it wraught for itself, that is too conscious of itself to be the same as the past. It is not non-modern, but thoroughly so.
no religions on this planet make any attempt to understand the others’ viewpoint. All of the others are heresies. The Jews hate the Arabs, and vice versa. The Christians hate the Muslims, and vice versa. Muslims hate the Hindus, and vice versa. It goes on and on. They invade each others’ lands and mess things up, and then they kill each other in retaliation. It has just been the same always. If isn’t one religion it is another. And when it isn’t a religion, it is not different than when it was.
No, his point is that the Washington elites are a bunch of secularists. You keep conflating secularism and atheism. Secularism is a stance regarding religion in the public square (namely, that it shouldn’t be). You can be theist and secularist at the same time.
This is a separate subject. The depravity of the warmongering Christian right in America is no excuse for the moral nihilism of the space-cadets in Washington, so disconnected from the lives of people outside of the ivory tower in DC that they can’t even comprehend people being insulted at mockery of their sacred prophets.
Oh really, it looks to me like Romney and Hillary Clinton made statements right away condemning the film. Saying that it was disgraceful and horrible, even if it is not an excuse to kill people. Point me to a quote from a politician or person in the media who said they didn’t care, or that they were happy about the film. Because Raimondo did not list any. People at Reason magazine are not politicians or elites. Also, Reason magazine is largely anti-war so it is moot.
Also, list some of the militant atheists in the media or Washington, besides Bill Maher or Penn Gillette (who are rather peripheral figures).
Raimondo seems to brush off the idea that anyone in Washington is genuinely religious without knowing if they are or not. He just states that they merely ‘pander’, so as to avoid the question of if they are or not. It’s just not convenient to his argument. And even if they only have the image of being religious, you can’t then say that Washington is a bunch of militant atheists. We have an election where the Republicans, the primary war party, is running on all kinds of Christian-based things: putting prayer back in the school, overturning Roe v. Wade, bringing creationism in as a scientific choice, defining marriage as man and woman, etc. Don’t tell me that is moral nihilism or militant atheism.
He is probably saying that they are ‘atheists’ because they do not respect the religious beliefs of other countries. If you cannot respect someone else’s religion, how much respect are you really going to have for your own. He points out their insincerity. The GOP uses religious rhetoric to get votes (pandering).
Honestly, I don’t even know what you are on about.
Don’t cite words of a politician when you are talking about “what they actually believe” you cite the words of a politician when you are referring to what the politicians want people to think. Sincerity figures right into this kind of thing…
@John Ess: We’ll just have to disagree. There is a movement within the Power Elite to sanitize the global culture of all religiosity, in the long run. This movement is partly motivated by sheer profanity (e.g. the Bohemian Club types) and partly by closeted religious imperialism (e.g. the Jesuits and their constant machinations). All the CFR types are on board with this agenda, including Clinton and all the big names in media. Raimondo is decrying this. I don’t think he has any issues with gay people choosing how they want to live their lives, so long as they don’t interfere with their neighbors’ property rights, same as anybody else. And nowhere in this article has he advocated the State, let along a religious tyranny and “blasphemy laws”. You’re completely misreading him.
It seems that this crusade against Muslims is brought to you by Christians like Terry Jones. And another Christian guy who thinks that he will smoke Muslims out of their radical muslim hidey holes. The latter was the one who apparently made the film. The former apparently promoting it.
And not the government or elites in media. As much as that narrative would be great. I don’t think it is the case.
You don’t see militant atheists caring that much about Muslims. At least not in the US.
My guess is that Terry Jones and other Christians want a crusade to transform American culture back to Christianity. They need a common enemy in the ‘angry Muslims’. Similar to how that enemy was communism during the cold war. They have to rile up Muslims to attack, which will unite the country under Christianity.
Various Christian groups have a delusion about their relevancy to the culture. And they want political stunts in order to gain more cultural capital. I don’t mean Christianity is irrelevant. But there are Christian groups like the guys who predict the end of the world and these Quran burners who think anyone cares about their pronouncements.
I think his bit about Madonna was stolen from Bill Hicks.
That used to be his thing, and the thing of various other alternative comedians who copied his schtick. No one pays attention to globalism and the new world order, because they sit front of the tube watching madonna videos.
Madonna is so 90s. Lady Gaga is the new thing, dunbass!
‘Ummah’ is their word for the international nation of Islam. The idea that it was “power politics” doesn’t seem wrong if take religious outrage to be equivalent to political outrage.
Raimondo wants to insist on separating the political and the religious but that is not the motivation of the Muslims waving signs like this.
@Walden: So? Who wouldn’t be radicalized by the Western assault on the entire Middle East?
I’m not seeing where Raimondo insists on separating Islamic politics and religion. He’s not saying they have good religion and bad politics. He’s saying their religious beliefs are irrelevant to the political situation and their political stance vis-a-vis the West is perfectly rational. I agree!
I have to say I agree with most of Clayton’s analysis in this thread (except for the Jesuit part; to me they seem a substantially infiltrated organisation - but that’s what they want you to think!).
“He’s saying their religious beliefs are irrelevant to the political situation and their political stance vis-a-vis the West is perfectly rational.”
That doesn’t even make sense. His biggest argument seems to be that their religion is important, but that secular elites hate it and are being disrespectful. He brings up the issue because he thinks we lack perspective about what? Their religious beliefs and society. He is also saying that our culture is horrible because of the loss of our similar Christianity. That is the whole point of bringing up the video, and his saying that that video is important to the discussion. He barely even talks about the foreign policy, except in passing. Nor does he say the reaction is rational. He thinks it is okay to be irrational; and that rationalism leads to Madonna videos and whatever. The killing of the ambassador in his opinion was based on the video, and it is justified in his opinion because of the video. However, he believes that the video is part of a larger conspiracy to provoke a reaction or manufacture tension that doesn’t already exist. That may or may not be true, but that is not part of my criticism of him here. But the rest of what he says is.
I don’t know if he thinks, at least in the article in question, that it is radicalization of because of political stance. First of all, there is no radicalization mentioned, nor is there any proof that they’ve been radicalized at all. It seems to be the same as it as always was. And as I said, it includes many non-rational features which cannot be reduced to a rationalism. However, Raimondo does not think that is a problem. Since he believes Murray Rothbard loved religious people.
@John Ess: Underlying Raimondo’s analysis is the implication that the video was produced because it was in the interests of the USG that it be produced. If you think 9/11 was the work of 19 hijackers armed with boxcutters, you might be too credulous to see any connections between the USG and world events that are purportedly the work of its enemies, however fortuitous they may be for USG interests.
You’re completely missing the point of his analysis. It is not possible to read his article at an adult comprehension level and come away with advocacy of religious tyranny or blasphemy laws.
Well, the 9/11 truth thing is a separate issue. And I don’t really think there is anything but a tenuous relation between this video and the government. I would like to see evidence. It could be that many things are in their interest, or that they can use it easily to their advantage. But that does not prove their culpability. Credulosity is built on a lack of doubt. One can see the connection between many things, and it could be wrong. The article you mentioned might be right, but it doesn’t show any connection between government and the video.
Raimondo is clearly making a connection between our secular culture and war/aggression and the rest. This also being related to there being a video like the one released. And siding with religion because of this connection. And even saying that Murray rothbard endorsed religiosity. He thinks secular government equals war. And that secular people love war. So the only thing I can take from that, is that he prefers the return to a religious government and culture. Because that is how he imagines that we will empathize with others, and/or stop the wars. Obviously such a culture/government would have religious laws. On top of this, he bemoans the facts of abortion, gay marriage, divorce rates. Which he hangs on the door secularism, as well.
