the last few years i have taken to naming the politically correct movement for what it is...the religion of the left. it made sense that this idealogically driven movement embraced by ivy league professors, leftist politicians, npr and movie stars (to name a few :) was thus aptly named. it would appear, however, that i was being unfair to religion in my terminology. the case is laid out here.as a mormon, i appreciate joseph's injunction to seek truth wherever it can be found. gratefully, mormonism has a good track record of embracing scientific truths as they slowly disprove former misconceptions. it allows for a very pragmatic faith.
echoes of the ugliness of the crusades and the burning of intellectuals by the early catholic church has been seen by the religion of the left in the hateful attacks of the anti-prop 8 fanatics and the 'bigotted' remarks of tom hanks as he seeks to classify mormons as american heretics. these mormon/prop 8 based examples are just a few of the examples of idealogically, emotion based standards where those who don't agree are excommuncated from public acceptance in swift strokes...
this post is not to defend the mormon proposition 8 position (which has its problems), but to point out that religious positions are legitimate. they can be subject to public debate, but the debate should be humane, logical and respectful--not the hate speech, physical attacks and irrationality that has dominated the most recent spat between believers and 'believers'...
drop the double standard please.
19 comments:
paul. funny that you have been thinking about this too. my latest/upcoming column piece for the pacific citizen is vaguely along these same lines. (but written for a leftist audience, so my terms aren't as pointed as yours...)
"naming the politically correct movement for what it is...the religion of the left."
-Very funny and very true. Like we have seen with typical religion, it can be the cause of great positive change, but can also weigh down society and intellectual progress as a whole. The latter can be avoided if people can keep a structured, open, individualistic state of mind.
I think Tom Hanks has the right to voice his opinion, but his quote seems like a cheap attempt to stir the pot and gather attention. Throwing knives like that will never get anything done. Hopefully a more educated debate takes place, and we aren't taking all of our advice from thespians!
I liked McKivver's response to Hanks' claim that mormons are un-american:
"Personally, I find it un-American to tell people that they shouldn’t vote their conscience. Hanks said he doesn’t 'like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper.' Considering that just about every law discriminates in some form or another, makes this comment ridiculous. Hanks’ comment shows that he very much believes in discriminating against people with whom he disagrees. I may not agree with Mormon theology, but I certainly defend their right to express their opinion."
--I agree, Paul, that religious ideals should always be up for debate. Critically analyzing many points of view is not an act of disobedience, but an act of intelligent thought. If Joseph Smith or Martin Luther never analyzed their spiritual identities the world would be a different place altogether.
It all gets so sticky when there is so much emotion involved.
In the land of the liberty where free speech is king, we all think our "unobstructed" opinions are so right.
Could it really be so when we're just being fed so much of it through media, traditions, and... yes... perhaps even religion? How many people truly think things through without just swallowing rhetoric. I, myself, am guilty of this more often than not.
It reminds me of Stephen's thoughts in this post, more than two years ago, where he wonders "have I become the following?"
Some followings are good. Some stupid. Some downright dangerous.
The trick is to truly be a true thinker by searching it out for yourself. Research it, yes. Be intellectual, surely. And I think that conscience can still truly be a guide that influences political decisions.
It is a good thing for everyone to have a voice. But it all becomes distorted when certain voices are given the majority of public exposure while others are ridiculed and shut-out.
Perhaps we should start holding elections for newscasters, columnists, and newspaper editorial boards??
"It is a good thing for everyone to have a voice. But it all becomes distorted when certain voices are given the majority of public exposure while others are ridiculed and shut-out."
-Well said Amy. Fortunately for our generation, we have all the information of the internet at our disposal.
hello.
Like Stephen, I'm just wanting to say hi, but I had better also acknowledge the current discussion...
Yes, yes. The Internet. Yes.
looks like we aren't the only ones who are thinking about this issue right now.
i found this article in my newsweek this week.
and while i'm at it. i liked this article too this week, but it really belongs in the yes we can post... indulge me...
the aj: 'the cause of great positive change, but...also weigh[s] down society...as a whole'
agreed.
'and we aren't taking all of our advice from thespians!'
at first i thought you were saying we shouldn't take out advice from gays...but i see now that is not what you meant..:)
you're right, tommy boy can say what he will. it is frustrating though when the discussion is not issues based, but emotionally and irrationally based.
'If Joseph Smith or Martin Luther never analyzed their spiritual identities the world would be a different place altogether.'
very nice.
amy: your link to stevie's post was refreshing and allowed us to take in stevie's thoughts (even if he's skipping on this specific discussion...)
hello brother.
hello brother in law.
peter: your first article from the evangelical was nice. it laid down a rational start to the plea for a rational replty.
alterman's piece was fairly populist, but interesting.
if we're swapping articles...here is a nice one about obama's stimulus and what republicans should/shouldn't do with it.
more interesting are the comments on said article...
Thanks Paul. Just so there is no confusion amongst the readers:
Thespian = actor/actress
Thespian X=X Homosexual
When your grandchildren browse the transcripts of this blog to see what life was like at the turn of the century, I don't want to be remembered as the poor homophobic great uncle who was just product of an ignorant society. I'd rather be remembered as "uncle stinky" -the trademark nickname given to me by Michael!
Paul.
I read that article and have to agree with the then top comment. it wasn't that insightful, "sort of reads like it's off the AP wire, not like something you'd expect from the economist."
I'm not necessarily for salary caps on bankers like mcaskill is calling for. I particularly just like alterman's writing. search the economist for the reverse natural selection article from last week's special edition on finance. I would, but I'm commenting from my phone and that would be too tedious. the is the best explanation I've heard for how/why we got into this banking mess.
a nice dense article from the economist courtesy of peter...
uncle stinky :)
'dense' as in meaty and good...
thanks for finding and linking that article...
what do you think? sensical?
if we take that article to be the ways things happen, even if/when we bounce out of this current conundrum, the same profit/dividend seeking share-holder driven philosophy will inevitably bring us round and round again.
i heard an idea on the DS this week about have dividends (and other payout products) to kick back on a 3 or 5 year cycle rather than quarterly or yearly as many/most are right now. this could force executives to change their strategies to sustain longer term growth for their respective companies...
Directly pertinent to my life, I have heard Obama talking recently about making the DOE (Department of Energy) an organization focused on alternative energy research instead of weapons research (primarily nuclear). As a part of this, he has looked into putting a couple of the nuclear weapons laboratories directly under the Department of Defense (Pentagon).
This is interesting, because the scientists of the manhattan project would never have agreed to conduct their research as a part of the military, which is why nuclear weapons research and development has always been conducted by civilians in the DOE. They felt that there were great moral reasons for keeping this research outside of the rigidity of the authority-based military structure.
It makes me wonder if this is a good move or not. I am not sure the same arguments pertain today, since the DoD has since adopted a similar civilian component to conduct research for them while still remaining outside of the true "military". Would the weapons laboratories fit well there? Interesting that a Harvard man would suggest this, but many of the old arguments do not pertain today. I might agree with him (Obama) on this one, though I want to hear more discussion of the issue.
Right now the situation is awful. In the early days, the model was to have the labs government owned, but independently operated by the worlds greatest scientific research models of the times (Bell Laboratories and the University of California). Managing the labs used to cost these organizations a great deal of money, but benefited the nation and their academics. Since then, managing the labs has become an exercise in squeezing a profit out of the meager budget provided to manage them. The result has been painful growth of bureaucracy and oversight.
Ultimately, I hope Obama plans on modifying our nuclear weapons complex instead of phasing it out. We are the only nuclear power in the world without the capability to produce a plutonium pit. Our stockpile is full of legacy cold war city-killing weapons with yields that are far more destructive than need be, and hence obsolete because we can't even threaten to hold anyone at risk with them. Everyone knows we can't use them. The rhetoric of a nuclear free world is simply a pipe dream for the near future of our global society and culture.
Tolerance for only one view point is intolerance dressed as politically correct.
NPR too? That sounds a bit too much like Rush, Glenn and Laura Whosits.
Too far to the left is about the same as too far to the right.
hailey: i listen to NPR everyday. however, there are certain topics (the middle east for one) where they cannot see the forest for the liberal trees. however, there are a lot of stories they do that are in-depth, insightful and fun...which is why i listen.
i've noticed though, that without balanced reading of intelligent sources...one's view can become less intelligent through a soley npr diet.
Post a Comment