I had both of these editions back in the day. Both books blew my...
I had both of these editions back in the day. Both books blew my mind, though in very different ways.
via tumblr ift.tt/1Gyho7c
[gallery columns=“1” size=“full” ids=“18126,18125”]
I had both of these editions back in the day. Both books blew my mind, though in very different ways.
In relatively recent debates over toleration, there has developed a view that says toleration is simply not enough. In tolerating others, we implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) communicate that what they do or believe is, in our view, morally disreputable. That can have serious effects, of course, on the tolerated’s sense of self-worth and ability to live her life as she sees fit. Instead of toleration, the argument goes, we should instead offer one another mutual respect or positive regard or, and this is the key move, recognition. We need not morally endorse others’ lives full stop, but we should go beyond a grudging indifference to something like a decently warm encouragement. And the reason, broadly speaking, we must do so is because the goods we thought we could secure via toleration are not enough. They still leave those being tolerated the object of social opprobrium and thus at some real disadvantage—or worse.Hence, it is not enough for gays and lesbians to achieve a rough degree of legal and political equality. Nor is it enough for tender college students to hear criticisms that go to the heart of their own sense of identity. Unless their moral lives are, in some real way, recognized and affirmed not only by public (or university) authorities and unless their fellow citizens (or students or speakers) can be counted on to do the same, real, substantive equality will remain elusive.
But this makes for the obvious question: if recognition, not toleration, is the rule of the day, why can’t moral conservatives or others with unpopular views make similarly structured claims? Well, in my view, they should be able to and the fact that they can’t helps reveal an incoherence at the heart of the recognition claim. Given a certain range of moral and religious pluralism, it is principally and practically impossible to extend recognition to all or even most, especially once recognition extends into our everyday social lives. Recognition is, or at least can be, a zero-sum game. And so what is lurking behind the purported argument for recognition—and toleration, for that matter—is a set of moral judgments about what lives are in fact worth recognizing or tolerating, and here is where the misunderstandings of moral conservatives and free-speech liberals will continue to lead to loss after loss.
Benedictine counterpublics
Much conservative discussion of the Benedict Option forgets that the ultimate goal for MacIntyre is a community rooted in tradition driven by practices. That’s only possible with a lot of communal interactions and common living. It’s obviously possible (indeed, intended) in a Benedictine monastery. It’s also possible in a kibbutz and a collective household and all sorts of other leftist ways of living. But the problem for many conservative Americans is that they don’t see the necessity of this communal experience part.— No Benedict Without Benedictines - Ethika Politika. This is a strange post by Jeff Gushin. What he says is forgotten in discussion of the BenOp is the very thing that people interested in it talk about all the time. The whole question of the BenOp is how it might be possible in a liberal order to act with the same degree of communal intentionality that characterized early Benedictine life. This will require, as MacIntyre points out, not simply a continuation in late modernity of ancient Benedictine practice but the arising of “a new, and doubtless quite different, St. Benedict.” No one yet knows what that might look like; but to say as Gushin does that the conversation about the BenOp neglects these matters is like saying that the problem with Marxists is that they neglect political economy.
One factual correction: Gushin attributes to Michael Warner the concept of “counterpublic,” but that term was coined much earlier by Nancy Fraser in this article. In my view, Fraser’s exploration of how “subaltern counterpublics” organize themselves in relation to — often but not always in opposition to — the public sphere should be required reading for anyone interested in a Benedict Option.
"This unrestrained and insidious turn taken by the disoriented British-values campaign was exposed..."
“This unrestrained and insidious turn taken by the disoriented British-values campaign was exposed last month when it emerged that young Muslim children in one primary school were given a test to assess their predilection for radicalisation. The stated purpose of this intrusive Big Brother-style initiative was to ‘identify the initial seeds of radicalisation’. Judging by the questions posed, it appears that the marker for the precrime of radicalisation was the strength of infants’ feelings about the way of life of their families. To discover how pupils felt about their beliefs, the test asked them to indicate whether they agreed, disagreed or were unsure about the following statement: ‘I believe my religion is the only correct one.’ Any child agreeing with this statement was deemed to be in danger of becoming radicalised into anti-British values.
The sentiments underpinning this infant-radicalisation test also inform the work of Ofsted school inspectors, assorted government programmes and the outlook of the political establishment. From this elite perspective, those who believe that their religion is the truth contradict the unstated official version of British values – namely, that all religions are correct. According to the jargon of the day, an inclusive, non-judgemental and respectful attitude towards other people’s beliefs is mandatory for school children. This demand for non-judgemental respect implicitly negates the freedom of conscience of millions of ardent believers for one simple reason: many religions assume that only they possess the truth. For Christians, Jews and Muslims, the idea that all religions are correct makes little sense. Indeed, if all religions are ‘correct’, then living in accordance solely with one particular faith is absurd.”
- The British state’s silent war on religion | Religion and atheism | spiked
via tumblr ift.tt/1F6bbb8
This unrestrained and insidious turn taken by the disoriented British-values campaign was exposed last month when it emerged that young Muslim children in one primary school were given a test to assess their predilection for radicalisation. The stated purpose of this intrusive Big Brother-style initiative was to ‘identify the initial seeds of radicalisation’. Judging by the questions posed, it appears that the marker for the precrime of radicalisation was the strength of infants’ feelings about the way of life of their families. To discover how pupils felt about their beliefs, the test asked them to indicate whether they agreed, disagreed or were unsure about the following statement: ‘I believe my religion is the only correct one.’ Any child agreeing with this statement was deemed to be in danger of becoming radicalised into anti-British values.The sentiments underpinning this infant-radicalisation test also inform the work of Ofsted school inspectors, assorted government programmes and the outlook of the political establishment. From this elite perspective, those who believe that their religion is the truth contradict the unstated official version of British values – namely, that *all* religions are correct. According to the jargon of the day, an inclusive, non-judgemental and respectful attitude towards other people’s beliefs is mandatory for school children. This demand for non-judgemental respect implicitly negates the freedom of conscience of millions of ardent believers for one simple reason: many religions assume that only they possess the truth. For Christians, Jews and Muslims, the idea that all religions are correct makes little sense. Indeed, if all religions are ‘correct’, then living in accordance solely with one particular faith is absurd.
"When talking about the need to reform the criminal justice system, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) often..."
“When talking about the need to reform the criminal justice system, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) often cites the case of Kalief Browder, a Bronx teenager who was arrested for allegedly stealing a backpack and held on Rikers Island for more than 1,000 days. Browder insisted he did not commit the crime. He was held in solitary confinement for much of the time and tied his bedsheets into a noose in an attempt to kill himself.
‘So when you see people and you see some of this anger at people in the streets and you’re like, “Why are they so unhappy?” Think about Kalief Browder and think about how his friends must feel about American justice, how his parents must feel and about how his community feels,’ Paul said Saturday in Concord, N.H. ‘If we become the party that cares about the Sixth Amendment as much as we do the Second Amendment, we’re going to dominate.’”
- Rand Paul offers condolences to family of Kalief Browder - The Washington Post
via tumblr ift.tt/1IqoMPh
When talking about the need to reform the criminal justice system, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) often cites the case of Kalief Browder, a Bronx teenager who was arrested for allegedly stealing a backpack and held on Rikers Island for more than 1,000 days. Browder insisted he did not commit the crime. He was held in solitary confinement for much of the time and tied his bedsheets into a noose in an attempt to kill himself. ‘So when you see people and you see some of this anger at people in the streets and you’re like, “Why are they so unhappy?” Think about Kalief Browder and think about how his friends must feel about American justice, how his parents must feel and about how his community feels,’ Paul said Saturday in Concord, N.H. 'If we become the party that cares about the Sixth Amendment as much as we do the Second Amendment, we’re going to dominate.’