Saturday, February 17, 2007
Martin Amis quote:A few weeks ago author Martin Amis was on the Charlie Rose show. He's hard to catagorize politically (at least for this blogger who knows nothing about him except for the Rose appearance). Most recently, Amis has expressed a very dim view of Islamic fundamentalism. In any event, during the interview he made a statement about ideology which, while he was applying it to religious fundamentalists, would be apt for secular ideologies. Here is what he said: Ideology is always violent. Because it always involves illusion. You can't defend it with work of mind alone. So, [with] an ideology - including religions, very much - you tighten your fist. Because you can't shout in an even louder voice that God exists, and that God is great. The first recourse is violence.
posted by Quiddity at 2/17/2007 07:20:00 PM
7 comments
I agree both religious fundamentalism and hard political ideology are evil and detrimental to society.
Here's how I see both:
Everyone should be free to develope spiritually but, by it's very natural, spirituality is a very personal thing. Religion and religious fundamentalism in particular are against this approach and try to thwart it.
Politically, I'm don't thing ideology is useful. I believe in a natural yin/yang movement. I'm progressive. (No, I'm not liberal and I resent the two being used synonmously.) I see true conservatives (paleocons?) as my necessary balance. We progressive would march forward hell-bend on advancement and change. We need the moderating voice of the conservatives to allow the forward pace to be steady, even, and not disruptive to society.
Ideology is always violent. Because it always involves illusion.
Moronic.
Abolitionism is/was an ideology.
(1) Was it always violent?
(2) If sometimes violent, was that violence, ipso facto, unjustified?
(3) In what sense did it involve "illusion"?
liberal:
Was abolition an ideology? Yes.
Was abolition justified? Yes.
Was abolition delusional? No.
Is violence sometimes justified? Yes.
But abolition was radiacl and it did lead to the Civil War which was the first modern war and extremely violent.
rockie the dog wrote, But abolition was radiacl and it did lead to the Civil War which was the first modern war and extremely violent.
BS. You're blaming the champions of liberty for violence, rather than the destroyers of liberty, who are the ones responsible for the violence.
If you enslave someone, and then that person is incited to free himself by any means possible, including violence against you, you the slaveholder are responsible for the violence, not the slave who pursued his freedom or those who assisted him.
Anyone with a smidgen of an intuitive sense of right and wrong can see this.
Those that commit acts of violence for political, sociological, or religious reasons will always justify their violence as having been caused by whomever they are opposing. The ideolog always believes he is right and, therefore, whatever means he choses to employ are justified.
Rockie the Dog wrote, Those that commit acts of violence for political, sociological, or religious reasons will always justify their violence as having been caused by whomever they are opposing. The ideolog always believes he is right and, therefore, whatever means he choses to employ are justified.
Hypothetical question for ya, genius.
There's a bunch of people enslaved somewhere. The slavers refuse to release them, despite all peaceful entreaties. (Such as the case in the antebellum American South.)
Care to apply your claim to those who use violence to free the slaves in this situation?
This thread was originally about whether political ideologs and religious fundamentalist were the same.
Then "liberal" asked are they always violent and is violence justified.
I answered, yes, violence is sometimes justified.
So, what's your point? Anf why don't you have a name?
|
