Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ David
[Read the article: John McCain's "I care about poverty" tour]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks, David.
Hyperbole's fine, to be sure, and has its place. I guess what I object to most of all is that the lines between hyperbole and solid argument have become so blurred that it's often unclear to discern if someone is just speaking colloquially, out of general frustration, or whether they're really trying to offer hard analysis.
Turnip seemed to be doing both, which I think can be dangerous in that it distorts reality or at least threatens to, to the point where we all inhabit a world of images, stereotypes and prejudices rather than one grounded in reality. I just think the lines between argument and polemic need to be kept clear.
Arguments can and should be tested. Polemic is in a different category, and some slack can be permitted if we're all clear that polemic is not the same as argument.
As to the "whore" image, yes, it does come from Luther, and is meant to symbolize what he criticised as being the reprehensible worldliness of the church.
My basic point, I guess, is that I object a little to people practicing history without a license.
In this case, invoking the Catholic church's perennial anti-semitism as a way of substantiating Hagee's claim that it's a whore is just half-baked polemic masquerading as argument.
It's important to me that the rules of argumentation be respected, at least by liberals, because, as I say, commitment "science and reason" against "superstition and prejudice" and "common knowledge" are bedrock liberal values.
They need to be sacrosanct if liberalism is to mean anything.
-
@ David
[Read the article: John McCain's "I care about poverty" tour]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One more point:
"turnip was engaging in hyperbole, but if he had used the word "any other religion" rather than "any other institution" he would have been correct"
I'm not even sure this is true, or how one might substantiate this claim. In order to test it, we'd have to look at the histories of Calvinism, Lutheranism, etc., and see what their relationship to Jews has been.
Luther, as I understand it, was no friend to Jews, nor was Calvin.
Hyperbole can be dangerous because it makes assertions about reality premised on a kernel of truth. But in this case, even that kernel of truth (i.e., that the Catholic church, as opposed to Protestant churches) is somehow more implicated in the anti-semitism that in part caused the holocaust has not been established--the author, as far as I can see, is appealing to common knowledge rather than hard facts and argument.
-
@ rupert c
[Read the article: John McCain's "I care about poverty" tour]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok. It's hard to know where to start because 1) you're all over the place and 2) your comments make it clear you're not hearing my words.
"Holocaust - when the Catholic Church would round up all the inhabitants of a Cathar (heretic) town and burn them alive in order to save their souls for one.
They wiped out a third of the population in southern France."
What does this have to do with "the Holocaust?" I thought we were talking about nazi Germany?
"Then the Knights Templar got to much money and power so they killed all of them too."
ACtually, as I undertand it, it was Philip the Fair, the king of France, who crushed the Templars. This doesn't mean that the Church wasn't complicit or cooperative, but you can't just throw around the pronoun "they" without qualification.
How many millions dies from the Inquisition and the witch hunts?
Actually, I'd have to research this, but my educated guess would be not millions at all, but thousands, if that matters. See? You're being polemical here and it's not helpful.
As to witch hunts, actually, they were really a Protestant phenomenon, not a CAtholic one. Catholic persecution was generally focsued not on witches, but on heretics.
Oh, they don't do that anymore? So it is OK with you?
What???
Nazis don't run concentration camps anymore either - at least not in Europe and not with that brand name or logo. So how long before Nazis are OK with you?
What???
What's with the non-sequiturs?
Once a religion has done so much evil throughout their history, one tend to view their godliness and holiness as suspect.
Ok, but that has zero bearing on the initial assertion about the Catholic church and its role as primary cause of the Holocaust. Also, now you're talking about "a religion" rather than "the Catholic church." It's important not to conflate the two.
What happened to the native cultures and religions of Northern Europe and the Americas?
Genocide?
They were wiped out and exterminated.
Your point being?
Belief, faith and mind control cause people to pause and we tend to obscure and ignore the misdeeds that make people uncomfortable with the control mechanisms to which they adhere and cleave to.
This seems to be the meat of your argument but I'm not sure quite what you're saying.
Protecting pedophiles makes them still a little bit unsavory even today.
What does this have to do with anything?
The initial assertion, I'll remind you, was about the Catholic church's role in the Holocaust.
Not that they are any different than nay other religion either - there seems to be a flaw with the concept. Religion has nothing to do with God."
Now you're talking about an entirely different topic.
You seem to be motivated by a desire to demonstrate that the CAtholic church is bad news and you seem to believe I'm defending its crimes just because I'm questioning the merits of a particular assertion, namely, the the Catholic church has done more than any institution to lead to the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust.
As I say, I'm not trying to champion the Catholic church, I'm trying to champion reasoned discourse.