tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362573476892803508.post3195131515665554741..comments2017-08-31T17:04:05.486-05:00Comments on A Thomistotelian Walks Into a Bar: What, Then, Does "Dialogue" Mean?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362573476892803508.post-10379333526495552192009-08-23T13:22:57.881-05:002009-08-23T13:22:57.881-05:00The ADL and similar groups view religion through o...The ADL and similar groups view religion through our modern liberal Enlightenment lens, whereby religion is like cigarettes, okay as long as we take it outside and promise to put out every last ember of carcinogenic belief before rejoining polite society.<br /><br />That is, religion is fine so long as we don't put our faith in Christ (and the need to evangelize) ahead of the (secular) need to be open-minded, tolerant, etc.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12fish.html" rel="nofollow">Stanley Fish</a> described this mindset well in an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times 3 years ago, right after the Danish cartoon fiasco. Here's a quote:<br /><br />"The first tenet of the liberal religion is that everything (at least in the realm of expression and ideas) is to be permitted, but nothing is to be taken seriously. This is managed by the familiar distinction — implied in the First Amendment's religion clause — between the public and private spheres. It is in the private sphere — the personal spaces of the heart, the home and the house of worship — that one's religious views are allowed full sway and dictate behavior. <br /><br />But in the public sphere, the argument goes, one's religious views must be put forward with diffidence and circumspection. You can still have them and express them — that's what separates us from theocracies and tyrannies — but they should be worn lightly. Not only must there be no effort to make them into the laws of the land, but they should not be urged on others in ways that make them uncomfortable. What religious beliefs are owed — and this is a word that appears again and again in the recent debate — is "respect"; nothing less, nothing more."Sean Pidgeonhttp://www.facebook.com/SeanPidgeonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362573476892803508.post-42644928731420125192009-08-23T13:17:05.650-05:002009-08-23T13:17:05.650-05:00Hey Travis,
Very good reflection. You're righ...Hey Travis,<br /><br />Very good reflection. You're right; the ADL and many (most?) Jewish groups see dialogue as a presentation of beliefs, wherein beliefs are like ice cream: I like chocolate, you like vanilla, if we find get a sherbet and maybe a mint chocolate chip, we can put them all together and celebrate diversity!<br /><br />And, honestly, (while disagreeing with this view) I'm not trying to mock this view. The Jewish people went through the Holocause only 2 generations ago, and it's still (for some) in living memory. This changes their conception of God. Many Jews still do religious rituals, but can no longer bring themselves to believe in a personal God after the Shoah. In a sense, their worship services are similar to unitarians, whereby religion is a social comfort, not a search for transcendent truths and eternal life.<br /><br />I'm not sure what the common ground for dialogue would be between Catholics (who believe in the need to evangelize) and Jewish groups like the ADL who see each person's religion as true for themselves.Sean Pidgeonhttp://www.facebook.com/SeanPidgeonnoreply@blogger.com