Religious and Multiculti Truth
Michael Ledeen makes an incredibly important point about the discussion and coverage of religion worldwide, noting:
The stuff about Islam was predictably discussed in the usual context of political correctness, according to which it is always wrong to criticize another person’s beliefs, and very wrong to criticize the beliefs of a foreign “culture.” They seemed unable to comprehend that, in ultimate issues, this sort of total tolerance doesn’t work. And the pretense that violently conflicting views of the world can be smoothed over in pleasant conversation only has the effect of intensifying the conflicts. We have arrived at the present unhappy situation not so much because we challenged those with different worldview, but because we ceased to assert our own values and advance our world view.
It's worth asking: Why, exactly, is it that we "ceased to assert our own values and advance our world view"? What precipitated this crisis of confidence?
In my view, it's been the advent of multiculturalism. Not for the leftists who originally propounded it, of course -- their hostility to America and all it stands for couldn't be clearer. But over time, the "lazy libertarianism" that mindless multiculturalism breeds has become virtually the only style of moral reasoning that many in our culture can practice . . . a sort of "who am I to judge?"-style abdication of the responsibility for making reasoned judgments when it matters.
The problem with multiculturalism, of course, is that for it to make any sense, one must buy into moral relativism. There isn't any "right" or "wrong"; it's what's right for me and/or wrong for you. When one is nothing more than the product of a culture, there are no natural rights and no ultimate truths.
And when that view has been drilled into a society's mind with sufficient frequency and force, it diminishes the cultural and moral confidence that's required for asserting our own values and advancing our world view.
The stuff about Islam was predictably discussed in the usual context of political correctness, according to which it is always wrong to criticize another person’s beliefs, and very wrong to criticize the beliefs of a foreign “culture.” They seemed unable to comprehend that, in ultimate issues, this sort of total tolerance doesn’t work. And the pretense that violently conflicting views of the world can be smoothed over in pleasant conversation only has the effect of intensifying the conflicts. We have arrived at the present unhappy situation not so much because we challenged those with different worldview, but because we ceased to assert our own values and advance our world view.
It's worth asking: Why, exactly, is it that we "ceased to assert our own values and advance our world view"? What precipitated this crisis of confidence?
In my view, it's been the advent of multiculturalism. Not for the leftists who originally propounded it, of course -- their hostility to America and all it stands for couldn't be clearer. But over time, the "lazy libertarianism" that mindless multiculturalism breeds has become virtually the only style of moral reasoning that many in our culture can practice . . . a sort of "who am I to judge?"-style abdication of the responsibility for making reasoned judgments when it matters.
The problem with multiculturalism, of course, is that for it to make any sense, one must buy into moral relativism. There isn't any "right" or "wrong"; it's what's right for me and/or wrong for you. When one is nothing more than the product of a culture, there are no natural rights and no ultimate truths.
And when that view has been drilled into a society's mind with sufficient frequency and force, it diminishes the cultural and moral confidence that's required for asserting our own values and advancing our world view.
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:12 PM
6 Comments:
Goebbels would be proud of this: "And when that view has been drilled into a society's mind with sufficient frequency and force, it diminishes the cultural and moral confidence that's required for asserting our own values and advancing our world view."
Mulitculturalism and moral relativism aren't related at all. All it takes is for one to condemn violence no matter what culture its in.
Multiculturalism has nothing to do with any "melting pot". In fact, it's inhibited any "melting" at all as different cultures seek to cling to their own to the detriment of the American culture. There's a great difference between coming here and keeping the memory of one's roots alive, and insisting that the American culture somehow adjust and adhere to a new culture. We see this with Spanish and Polish being posted all over the place. I've nothing against anyone from anywhere, but they need to decide if they want to be American. If not, they must still work within our system and not force US to change to accomodate THEM.
Now the fact that this attitude has prevailed at all has meant that our society has come to be confused regarding the importance of any given culture, or rather, that every culture is somehow equal to the overall American culture and deserves an equal share of respect. This is crap. Each culture is unique and has it's own set of standards and values that don't necessarily mesh with the American culture. To expect American culture to compete with, say, Sharia law, is absolute nonsense. One is either American or one is not. But in any case, American law and culture takes precedence over anyother in this country.
And that's where multiculturalism leads to moral relativism as the standards and values of other cultures are given the same place in American society as American values and standards. The fear of saying, "Yeah, that's real nice. But you're in America, now." has only caused this relativism to spread. It's not the same as the relativism we are bored with from the spineless, self-gratifying far left, but it is relativism nonetheless.
Now, I'm certainly all for condemning violence, but with people of another culture asserting their cultural differences over American culture, can we be sure that everyone will feel the same? I doubt it.
P.S. Hey eddy! You wouldn't know the difference between American and unAmerican if it kicked you in the ass.
editor is dhead posting where he said he wouldn't post anymore.
Marshall and Carol, you are both hitting the nail on the head. Marshall has is right with the melting pot comments...there's not melting anymore, it's oil and water.
" No two people can always agree on everyhting." How about you and the frog in your pocket?
" Is it not surprising you can't get along with other nations, religions, and races. " Sez you. I can get along with anyone who understands what being an American means. If someone from another religion wants to put his religion above our culture, that person isn't interested in America. If you want to suck up to foreigners, hop on a plane and go live with them.
One can find Christian or religious references in every founding document of every state in the union (at least the 1st 48 for sure). The Mayflower Compact, the journals of Colombus, and damn near every one of the initial settlers held that the furtherance of the Gospel was what drove them to come here and the purpose of developing the New World. All of the universities founded in the early years of the nation were tied in some way to Christianity and most were run by ministers. Some required a healthy knowledge of Scripture for entrance. There's much more that illustrates the level to which religion played a part in the founding and despite the deliberate desire to form a secular government, there was never any intent to form a secular nation. It's a distinction often lost on many. It was believed that without a moral people, the experiment called the United States of America would likely fail. So our culture was indeed shaped by religious values and for most of our history, maintained by immigrants who understood them and abided by them. I have no problem holding up our values (or rather what once was our values) as an example to any other nation of how to better themselves, and I pray that someday soon, the vast majority of our population will return to those values. eddy, it is YOU who needs a history lesson.
What historians do you mean? David Barton (I'm assuming that's who you think has been discredited) gets his info from the Library of Congress and the writings and speeches of the founders. So name your sources and their creds and who thinks they are worth a damn.
Post a Comment
<< Home