Sorry for the Bob Marley reference in the title line, but it is useful for my post.
With quotes like:
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living can go against it." and; "The act of Defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice." I wonder if Chesterton became charged/recharged whenever he took a stand on something. Often times, I feel a bit frightened to take a stand for something out of fear that I will offend. So I don't. Then I become a dead thing floating with the stream. I may even feign impartiality just to get out of tackling a contentious topic. Here too, Chesterton goes on the attack: "Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." I neither want to be seen as dead thing floating drifting with the stream nor do I want to be seen as being ignorant. Perhaps in taking a stand for a thing, provided it is the right thing, one can become find the thrill that Chesterton lived out as he championed orthodoxy? Take a stand for the wrong thing and Chesterton here too responds: "Fallacies do not cease being fallacies because the become fashion." Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Connor, didn't you mean a "living thing?" that is a living thing can go against it"?
I'm sorry to point out the typo, but it just reads better if you add that in.
oops,
Yes that's what I meant. thanks for catching that.
~c.
Connor said:
"Perhaps in taking a stand for a thing, provided it is the right thing, one can find the thrill that Chesterton lived out as he championed orthodoxy."
Well, there's the rub . . . "provided it is the right thing." there are many things that seem right, but may be, in actuality, wrong. there are some things that are, as Chesterton put it, "fashion," which are not fallacious, but are good and right. I think of tolerance, for example; tolerance can be a good thing. I think diversity can be a good thing. Aren't these fashionable?
The problem with quotes is that they tend to oversimplify things. What Chesterton has done, in these quotes that you have selected Connor, is that he has created bumper stickers of a sort ( I know that I risk anachronism here as there were probably not too many bumpers around at the turn of the last century), but these quotes are bumper sticker sloganeering of a sort. Don't you think?
Good! a little push back this was what I was waiting for. Thanks Longbottom.
Longbottom,
You bring up two separate points in your previous post. I will address the “bumper sticker sloganeering,” point first and then tackle, as best I can, your second point about tolerance and diversity being both good and fashionable, which would appear to negate Chesterton’s sloganeering.
Brevity, as it is often said, is the soul of wit. Chesterton proves that he has a sharp wit as he is able to get to the heart of the matter in as few words as possible (at least insofar as his quotes are concerned because he goes on and on in his book). What you may call bumper sticker sloganeering, however, I would call wit. Tomato – tomahto right? The difference, for me at least, is that people who display bumper stickers go around displaying other peoples’ original wit; Chesterton’s wit was all originally his own. He had no need for someone else to do for him what he was very capable of doing himself, and that was to think and to then succinctly verbalize what he thought. If anyone were to be accused of, bumper sticker sloganeering it would be me for unabashedly quoting Chesterton the way I did in my post.
Second: Yes, I agree, diversity and tolerance can be good things. And yes, they are fashionable. But here’s where the breakdown occurs: because they are fashionable, they seem to be practiced to excess (for moderation in things is rarely fashionable). In this country we do many things to excess. We have excessive cars, we eat excessive portion sizes, we have excessive sexual appetites, etc. Having said that, what do tolerance and diversity look like when done in excess? They begin to resemble something wholly other.
Tolerance, when practiced in excess, resembles intolerance (we are tolerant of every viewpoint/opinion as long as it is a viewpoint/opinion that is in fashion with what is defined to be tolerant) this is not true tolerance in its purest sense, rather, it is an agenda-driven tolerance (I go pretty easy on tolerance here, there are plenty of arguments for tolerance being a thing to be reviled).
Then there’s diversity: diversity, when practiced in excess becomes forced or contrived. It is not enough for us to let diversity happen naturally of its own accord. Diversity that happens naturally is wonderful and can be an educational and edifying experience. Now that diversity is fashionable we feel the need to manufacture it. Forced diversity, however, that comes by way of lofty idealism and social engineering pilot projects, can be destructive and can foment hatred. So perhaps Chesterton is right after all: fashionable things are seldom good.
I must be quite fashionable and hip. The DHS diversity trainings are rubbing off on me... Here are a couple of definitions. I don't understand how there could be an "excess" amount of these things.
Tolerance the acceptance of the differing views of other people, e.g. in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views
Diversity social inclusiveness: ethnic variety, as well as socioeconomic and gender variety, in a group, society, or institution
as a side note. I don't know who "longbottom leaf" is? Also, I got my book today.
Later!
Tom
Eureka! We finally found two things, that in the whole course of human history from the Fall in the Garden in Genesis chapter 3 until now that have remained completely untarnished by man's uncanny knack of "screwing the pooch," (a.k.a. sin nature) namely, Tolerance and Diversity.
Come on, there must be a way mankind can screw up these two highly laudable endeavors? And by the way, I am not disputing your definitions nor do I dispute Longbottom Leaf in his assertion that Tolerance and Diversity are good things, but surely, even these can be corrupted can't they? Sex is a good thing, but has been corrupted through porn. Food is a good and necessary thing as well, but here too, this has been corrupted through gluttony hasn't it? But of all these good and necessary things we have finally chanced upon the two things that are incorruptible: Tolerance and Diversity.
I finally got my book too. I can't believe Amazon took that long!?
I don't know who Longbottom Leaf is either, but it is an interesting tactic to use a nom de plume in order to remain anonymous.
I don't know, Connor. I'm with Tom on this one.
You are beginning to sound like one of those WASP college applicants to Michigan State University a few years back, who made a federal case because they believed they were turned down due to the fact that they weren't black (nevermind their 1400 SAT scores). Whatever happened to that case anyway?
Yeah, I suppose there's a case to be made for Diversity's ugly side being racial quotas and such, but that's stretching things a bit don't you think? Diversity and Tolerance are still pretty good things.
Longbottom,
Since you asked: The outcome of the Supreme Court ruling in Gratz vs. Bollinger -- the case regarding the University of Michigan’s program to award 20 preference points to minority applicants -- was that the University of Michigan was no longer able to carry out such a practice in their undergraduate school, but in typical King Solomon style, the Supreme Court “split the baby in two,” by ruling that the University was able to maintain this preferential-point system for minority applicants to its graduate law school. This confusing ruling where the preferential-point system was bad for the undergrads, but good for the grads shows that even the Supreme Court is not immune to the overwhelming forces of fashion.
Recipe for corrupting a good thing:
Prepare baking surface with the grease of fashion
Be sure to remove the delightful spontaneity of naturally occurring diversity
Add:
1 part agenda-driven forced diversity program
1 part centuries of built-up white guilt
mix together on a university campus
cook at 420 degrees for indefinite amount of time
Remove from oven when minority student begins to doubt if he/she was smart enough to gain acceptance to the university on his/her own intellectual merits.
Voila an example of diversity corrupted.
Here's the thing. Christianity doesn't exactly have the geatest history when it comes to things like tolerance and diversity. I have to scratch my head and wonder why we seem so late to the party when it comes to treating people as Christ would have...and does. I've got this image of Rev. Fred Phelps standing at Mathew Shepherd's funeral with a "God Hates Fags" picket sign and I'm guessing there were a lot of Christians who were watching it on the news and thinking, "Well at least someone has the guts to say what we are all thinking." Then Dobson gets on the radio and announces that America is in "crisis" and your kids are going to be turned into little flamers at public school, Falwell and Billy G. start calling down God's judment on San Francisco and Hagee informs us that Hurricane Katrina was due to all those homos in N.O. Is it possible that Christianity is coming across as a little judgmental?
A recent Barna report states:
"Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative. Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians. The most common favorable perceptions were that Christianity teaches the same basic ideas as other religions (82%), has good values and principles (76%), is friendly (71%), and is a faith they respect (55%).
Interestingly, the study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else." http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=280
So basicaly, the message that the world is getting is that Christianity is about hating (my word for excessive contempt) homosexuals. Now, I'm not trying to say that homosexuality is okay. The scriptures and Jesus himself seem pretty clear on that. But if we knew what most of those men and women have been through in their lives that brought them to the point of living a homosexual lifestyle we would probably be a lot more loving and empathetic.
I was just thinking what would happen if an obvious transgendered person walked into my church. How would she/he be treated? Man, how would I treat that person? Okay, pretty extreme example. But it was only a generation ago that African-Americans couldn't go to church with caucasions much less use the same restroom or drink from the same drinking fountains. Unbelievably, I think as a group (Christianity) we have been humbled by the culture. Could it be that DHS has a better understanding of what it looks like to live in God's Kingdom than most churches? Heaven forbid.
I have to agree with Connor, sex is good!
I can see that I am alone on this: first, Longbottom Leaf, then Tom, then John. Well, I agree with you all; diversity and tolerance are good things and, yes, DHS does have the corner market in carrying these things out to the chagrin of Johnny and Jane Evangelical.
Nevertherless, and here's the point I failed to make yet will reiterate with the hope of clarification: I remain sceptical about the motivations behind what the current fad (Chesterton uses "fashion") is. and while diversity and tolerance may be inviolable, I am concerned with the intentions behind some peoples' implementation of diversity and tolerance.
It is my hope that diversity and tolerance be genuine as I would hope love would be genuine. But even love, or what is perceived as the actions of love can be exploitative and false if there is an agenda behind that "love". If we can recognize that love can be a mask for something else, then why is it so difficult to admit the same thing for diversity and tolerance? That is, that certain acts of diversity and tolerance can be disingenuous and that diversity and tolerance can be used as leverage for someone's agenda? I am going to stop now as I am, even to my own ears, beginning to sound conspiratorial.
And yes sex is a good thing. hopefully it won't go out of fashion.
Connor,
I get what you are saying about genuinness. (Is that a word?) There are people and groups that come to mind when you say words like "exploitative" in conjuction with diversity and tolerance. Most folks do have an agenda and that agenda isn't always good, as I understand good. After thinking about what I wrote I thought of a better way to say it. I don't really think DHS has a corner on the "kingdom living" market, by any stretch. But I do think there are some areas that modern American Christianity has fallen very short of God's heart. Honestly, I feel ashamed of some of what Christianity has stood for. We are pretty good at loving our neighbor as long as they are middle-class white Republicans who burn Harry Potter but devour cheesey Left Behind books. You know what I mean?
Do I sometimes feel there are militant homosexuals trying to cram an agenda down our throats? Yeah, sometimes. Does Al Sharpton kinda rub me the wrong way? Yeah, he does. But maybe some of what these people are saying is: "Treat me like a respected human being." In that way I think the church could learn from the DHS's of the world.
Post a Comment