While Condell's attack on multiculturalism is too broad and at times his rhetoric is cringe-inducingly counter-productive, I do share his essential worries that a significant and powerful portion of the liberal is dangerously accommodating of Islamism out of an inflated fear of chauvinism.
But I also suspect he overlooks the degree to which the left is playing a shrewder strategy of not antagonizing the religious moderates who are the most essential allies in any long term, effective strategy for defusing the power of extremism. I share Condell's fear that constant placating and accommodation of intolerant religion lets its influence spread. The recent outlawing of blasphemy in Ireland, the disgusting accommodation of the Muslims who protested Danish cartoons several years ago, and the outrageous UN resolution protecting religious people from perceived insults and blasphemy are dangerous signs that the attempt to suppress counter-religious rhetoric has only emboldened and legitimized aspects of the extremist, theocratic dimension of religion, rather than helped tug the moderates further to the left. It's backfired to legitimate the moderates' own right wing thinking, even as it may keep the moderates away from the farthest extremes.
So, while I think the left is less genuinely supportive of religion as a whole and is more strategic and pragmatic in its sometimes obsequious deference to religion which demonstrates a desparateness not to offend, nonetheless, the consequences of giving credence to the gripes of theocrats is often to legitimize them and backfire attempts to liberalize the moderates through appeasement.
In sum, while I don't agree with every jot and tittle of Condell's argument or how he makes it, he's an important counter-correcting voice worth airing (as I've also done on my own blog--- www.camelswithhammers.com
1 comment:
While Condell's attack on multiculturalism is too broad and at times his rhetoric is cringe-inducingly counter-productive, I do share his essential worries that a significant and powerful portion of the liberal is dangerously accommodating of Islamism out of an inflated fear of chauvinism.
But I also suspect he overlooks the degree to which the left is playing a shrewder strategy of not antagonizing the religious moderates who are the most essential allies in any long term, effective strategy for defusing the power of extremism. I share Condell's fear that constant placating and accommodation of intolerant religion lets its influence spread. The recent outlawing of blasphemy in Ireland, the disgusting accommodation of the Muslims who protested Danish cartoons several years ago, and the outrageous UN resolution protecting religious people from perceived insults and blasphemy are dangerous signs that the attempt to suppress counter-religious rhetoric has only emboldened and legitimized aspects of the extremist, theocratic dimension of religion, rather than helped tug the moderates further to the left. It's backfired to legitimate the moderates' own right wing thinking, even as it may keep the moderates away from the farthest extremes.
So, while I think the left is less genuinely supportive of religion as a whole and is more strategic and pragmatic in its sometimes obsequious deference to religion which demonstrates a desparateness not to offend, nonetheless, the consequences of giving credence to the gripes of theocrats is often to legitimize them and backfire attempts to liberalize the moderates through appeasement.
In sum, while I don't agree with every jot and tittle of Condell's argument or how he makes it, he's an important counter-correcting voice worth airing (as I've also done on my own blog--- www.camelswithhammers.com
Post a Comment