[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Intolerance: its modern embodiment
I apologize for posting what I now perceive to be some confusing observations.
May I clarify?
Actually, the Pledge of Allegiance (and our money) mention God, not a Christian
God. I presume that the founders chose their words carefully and judiciously. In
addition most were Masons, and had a far more inclusive notion of God than your
remarks might suggest. I would suggest that your Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist
friends are quite safe from state-sponsored religious propaganda in the US.
The issue I raised was that of intolerance. Although I'm not religious personally
(haven't darkened the door for decades), I've gotten very tired of the bashing
that religious folks get today from every corner. The founders are probably
rolling over in their graves, since one of the reasons the US was founded was as a
haven from religious persecution. Intolerance for religion today is just as
reprehensible as the intolerance that the Inquisition once had for heretics,
although far less understandable, given our so-called "enlightened" society. I
was suggesting that the Atheists "put a sock in it".
The larger point is that there is a considerable body of evidence that cultural
values (for example intolerance) affect cultural and national success. It is not
fashionable (dare I say politically correct?) to even hint at this, but the
evidence is there for all to see.
Relationship with the Scots: I got interested in this topic when I realized that
the industrial revolution in Britain (which kick-started our modern era) was
fueled largely by technical and engineering contributions by the Scots, a small
and impoverished nation with a tiny population. When you look at their technical
contributions on a per capita basis, they stand head and shoulders above their
competitor nations. I have spent a number of years trying to work out why they
were so successful, and have concluded that it had to do with their cultural
Recently I discovered a marvelous (i.e. agrees with my hypothesis) book written by
David S. Landes, retired Professor of History and Economics at Harvard (of all
places), entitled "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations... why some are so rich and
some are so poor" (published by Norton in 1998). It is a well documented,
scholarly examination of the causes of national wealth and poverty. Landes
concludes that cultural values are the answer... some are "better" that others....
better in the sense of leading to improved national success and wealth. He
hammers his point home with example after example, and devastates the published
arguments of the (various) multiculturalist academia revisionists.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think Landes is spot-on in his thinking, although I
confess that he missed the Scots' contributions in his rather sweeping examination
of historic case studies.
I trust this clarifies my remarks.
"John S. Quarterman" wrote:
> I'm having a little trouble following this thread.
> So people who object to a government-enforced pledge
> of allegiance involving a mention of the Christian God
> are atheists and equivalent to the Spanish Inquisition?
> I must tell my Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist friends this news....
> Really, haven't we wandered far enough afield in this thread?
> Are there no Sinclair doings to discuss?
> John S. Quarterman <email@example.com>
> The key issue here is the cultural value of "tolerance" (for other's beliefs).
> Where tolerance is missing, balkanization occurs, and the nation so afflicted
> remains at war with itself and never achieves it's potential.
> However do not mistake the current anti-religious movement in the US with
> tolerance. It is in fact the epitome of intolerance. It's practitioners
> emulate the Inquisition's quest for religious purification, except in their
> case, the "religion" they seek to impose is Atheism.
> It is interesting to note that Spain, (the country that participated most
[ Excess quotations omitted. ]