What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Suggesting American Gulags?, or the Road to Serfdom on the information superhighway

On the occasion of celebrating the life of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, let us not forget that at the core of his critique of both West and East is the prevalence of a fanatical "Godlessness" that its present-day proponents (aka, "the New Atheists") claim is "Reason." Thus, it should not surprise us that there are those among us--the Godless, if you will--who presently suggest, however modestly, a permanent sequestering of the religious citizen, from the realms of cultural influence and power, on the grounds that he or she is dangerous and/or unfit for the "rationality" that the public square requires.

We need not look further than Professor P. Z. Myers and Professor Daniel Dennett. The former believes that nothing is sacred, except his incorrigible right to say that nothing is sacred. (Narcissism, by the way, is not a political philosophy). The latter, author of Breaking the Spell, apparently has suggested that certain Baptists be placed in zoos, which, for Professor Peter Singer is just a Gulag for non-human animals.

Comments (5)

You might want to check out the authoritarian implications behind Sam Harris' Godless-utopianianism as well. I think we've played this "New Man" game before. Sad we have to go through it all again.

It's about time you higher ups have caught on to what's been happening down-market for a few years now. Your average grandmother can't post "God, what a cute baby" to a story in her local podunk newspaper without the screaming hordes jumping down her throat. Get ready for an ugly fight.

Ditto, Pat.

The "zoo" paragraph:

For example, many religious folk believe that the origin of species lies in God rather than in evolution by the natural selection of randomly varying traits. Some of these people, to be sure, are ignorant of the relevant science; but not nearly all of them are, and some have well-worked out (even if controversial) philosophical positions that allow them to take seriously both what they believe by faith and what they know by way of scientific inquiry. But Dennett has gone on record in his book “Darwin's Dangerous Idea” as thinking that this sort of religious view ought simply to be confined to a “cultural zoo”.

So Dennett thinks creationism is fair game for mockery. Why do you insist on using this to suggest that Dennett thinks that a "a permanent sequestering of the religious citizen, from the realms of cultural influence and power, on the grounds that he or she is dangerous and/or unfit for the 'rationality' that the public square requires" would be appropriate?

Oh, for a moment, I thought you were going to quote _Dennett's_ "zoo paragraph." My mistake. I guess that would be too "modernist" a scholarly practice for one about to criticize people for misrepresenting Dennett.

Oh, does Dennett mention anything other than creationism and practices you yourselves hate?

We could avoid having a conversation about this if the OP actually built some kind of case.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.