[lbo-talk] USA, dumb and dumber

Kenneth MacKendrick kenneth.mackendrick at utoronto.ca
Sun Apr 4 11:12:53 PDT 2004


-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Eubulides Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 11:54 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] USA, dumb and dumber

The dangers of theism as [a] political movement[s] are every bit as pernicious as secularism or any other ism, including liberation-ism. Political liberation is an oxymoron.

Post-theistically,

Ian

** Let me offer a practical example. I have an assignment to give to students regarding Christianity. This is what I get: one student hands in a good historical study of the ecclesiastical debate within certain strands of the Catholic tradition about whether or not drinking chocolate breaks a fast. This is accompanied by an economic analysis of missionary activity and colonial trade. In conclusion, the student notes that the pro-chocolate side wins because of the close relation between missionary work and trade. The other student hands in a similar paper but concludes that the Jesuit side wins because God is behind them, making their work more glorious than those opposed. Both papers are well written and well argued. If theism and secularism are on par with one another, then both papers get an "A." The implications of giving both papers an "A" are huge. Should public institutions and their representatives sanction religious expression as being an equally viable form of the study of religion? This abolishes the difference between studying religion and practicing religion. I say this: even if secularism is problematic, we still have to make, and continue to make, the *legitimate* distinction between theology and theory --> political enlightenment depends on the validity of this distinction. Science, morality, art... three basic categories that are mutually exclusive in terms of their respective domains. Theology abolishes this distinction, or at least holds that it is invalid. "It is so beautiful that it must be true, and therefore moral!" (ouch). Do we really want this kind of anti-intellectual regression to be paid for by public funds? Should one be able to call God as a witness in court?

ken



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list