Well, no, because "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," as Barry Goldwater said (though the idea is classic and ancient in origin). I suppose our Lord is "extreme" in certain respects, which we could profitably explore.
How does "turn the other cheek" play into "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice?" The former seems to be a contradiction of the latter. "Liberty" would not seem to have trumped all other considerations in Jesus' estimation. Extremism in following, or promoting, the true religion would not seem to be a vice provided extremism did not include any action contrary to the teachings of the religion.
Just noting that the terms of the debate need to be more specific.
On "extremism" and "liberty." The "Extremism" Goldwater was referencing was, as I understand it, having an uncompromising, dogged, "sold-out" commitment to human "liberty." My point has little to do with "liberty" or with a political agenda supported by Goldwater or anyone else, but with the notion of "extremism."
The reason I responded as I did to the notion that "extremism period" might be the problem is that "extremism," like "fundamentalism," is one of those equivocal words that can mean several different things. If people who actually believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church are dismissed as "fundamentalists," I would embrace that fundamentalism as a positive thing. By the same token, if magisterial Catholics are called "extremists" by "Cafeteria Catholics," then I would embrace this extremism as a positive thing -- if you see what I mean. The word demands qualification.
In fact, "extremism" is potentially so multivocal that I don't see it as necessarily incompatible with Aristotle's call for "moderation" in all things. Why? Because Aristotle's definition of virtue as a sort of "moderation" in most cases (as courage mediates between an excess of recklessness and a defect of cowardice) itself presupposes a commitment to a certain partisanship -- what Aristotle called being a "partisan of virtue."
That, of course, would mean that Aristotle didn't hold a relativist or subjectivist view of virtue, which would be regarded by some people, doubtless, as a form of "extremism," if not "fundamentalism." Hurray for Aristotelian "extremism," then, which embodies the ideal of "moderation in all things"!
As for "turning the other cheek," there is nothing more radical -- and in that sense, "extreme" -- than Jesus' injunction that we ought to "turn the other cheek" when wronged. What He is proposing is, then, a form of this sort of ethical radicalism or "extremism" in support of a kind of "liberty" that releases us from the vicious cycle of violent and vengeful vendettas as one sees in the Middle East.
This, of course, is not identical to what Goldwater means by "liberty" any more than "Pax Christi" is identical to "Pax Romana," but the principle, I believe, still stands.
All of this is beside the point of the post, however, which is that political and cultural liberals accuse religious conservatism of being the problem, since, they suppose, it necessarily represents and leads to "extremism," by which they mean intolerance and violence.
What D'Souza rightly points out, however, is the obliviousness of political and cultural liberals to the irony of their running to support the Ground Zero Mosque, for example, when their values (acceptance of sexual promiscuity, easy divorce, lewd language and movies and styles of clothing, and laissez-faire attitudes toward pornography, a "woman's right to choose" abortion, etc., etc.) evokes all the Muslim images of the "Great Satan," that drives them to jihad.
9 comments:
How about just extremism period?
Well, no, because "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," as Barry Goldwater said (though the idea is classic and ancient in origin). I suppose our Lord is "extreme" in certain respects, which we could profitably explore.
The winner goes to the one(s) who left the G@*?@#! barndoor open.
Outside threats are one thing. Internal disunion as encouraged by relativism is another.
And isn't it an irony of history that such relativism should actually encourage the sprouting of a tyranny?
Dr. Blosser,
Specifically what "extremism" was Goldwater referring to? What was his definition of "liberty"?
Donna
Wasn't it Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas who essentially said moderation in all things?
Now I suppose that one could actually be practicing moderation, yet seen by fellow members of society as acting extreme.
How does "turn the other cheek" play into "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice?" The former seems to be a contradiction of the latter. "Liberty" would not seem to have trumped all other considerations in Jesus' estimation. Extremism in following, or promoting, the true religion would not seem to be a vice provided extremism did not include any action contrary to the teachings of the religion.
Just noting that the terms of the debate need to be more specific.
Dan
On "extremism" and "liberty." The "Extremism" Goldwater was referencing was, as I understand it, having an uncompromising, dogged, "sold-out" commitment to human "liberty." My point has little to do with "liberty" or with a political agenda supported by Goldwater or anyone else, but with the notion of "extremism."
The reason I responded as I did to the notion that "extremism period" might be the problem is that "extremism," like "fundamentalism," is one of those equivocal words that can mean several different things. If people who actually believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church are dismissed as "fundamentalists," I would embrace that fundamentalism as a positive thing. By the same token, if magisterial Catholics are called "extremists" by "Cafeteria Catholics," then I would embrace this extremism as a positive thing -- if you see what I mean. The word demands qualification.
In fact, "extremism" is potentially so multivocal that I don't see it as necessarily incompatible with Aristotle's call for "moderation" in all things. Why? Because Aristotle's definition of virtue as a sort of "moderation" in most cases (as courage mediates between an excess of recklessness and a defect of cowardice) itself presupposes a commitment to a certain partisanship -- what Aristotle called being a "partisan of virtue."
That, of course, would mean that Aristotle didn't hold a relativist or subjectivist view of virtue, which would be regarded by some people, doubtless, as a form of "extremism," if not "fundamentalism." Hurray for Aristotelian "extremism," then, which embodies the ideal of "moderation in all things"!
As for "turning the other cheek," there is nothing more radical -- and in that sense, "extreme" -- than Jesus' injunction that we ought to "turn the other cheek" when wronged. What He is proposing is, then, a form of this sort of ethical radicalism or "extremism" in support of a kind of "liberty" that releases us from the vicious cycle of violent and vengeful vendettas as one sees in the Middle East.
This, of course, is not identical to what Goldwater means by "liberty" any more than "Pax Christi" is identical to "Pax Romana," but the principle, I believe, still stands.
All of this is beside the point of the post, however, which is that political and cultural liberals accuse religious conservatism of being the problem, since, they suppose, it necessarily represents and leads to "extremism," by which they mean intolerance and violence.
What D'Souza rightly points out, however, is the obliviousness of political and cultural liberals to the irony of their running to support the Ground Zero Mosque, for example, when their values (acceptance of sexual promiscuity, easy divorce, lewd language and movies and styles of clothing, and laissez-faire attitudes toward pornography, a "woman's right to choose" abortion, etc., etc.) evokes all the Muslim images of the "Great Satan," that drives them to jihad.
Post a Comment