Thoughts on theology, philosophy, politics, and culture generally
Just a quick note to inform all my loyal reader that I’m still alive and will be blogging again on a regular basis quite soon, now that the intense hurricane of commencing a new school year after a long and lazy summer has begun to settle into a familiar pitter-patter. You know how a homeboy buckles under pressure. Catch you on the flip.
In the meantime, check out this video of a guy taking the Ipecac Challenge:
What the tribunal really means (II)
Re: What The Tribunal Ruling Really Means, letter to the editor, Sept. 4.
As a former human rights commission employee, Pearl Eliadis can’t bring herself to admit that censorship is a violation of Canadian values. It’s understandable — it must be embarrassing to know that you’re part of an industry that has been illegally prosecuting Canadians for years.
In her letter yesterday, Ms. Eliadis is in full denial mode. She writes “Warman vs. Lemire does not, actually, declare Section 13 to be unconstitutional.”
Really? Here’s the full text of paragraph 295 of the tribunal’s landmark ruling this week: “For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.”
Perhaps Ms. Eliadis thinks she can censor that, too.
Ezra Levant, Calgary.
Note from Nathan: John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it… [all lose] the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
It’s On (Dr. Dre) 187um Killa (1993).
Note from Nathan: This ditty, in many ways epitomizing early-’90s West Coast gangsta rap — a guilty pleasure of mine — and delivered in the customary vainglorious fashion, is unquestionably one of the greatest diss tracks ever recorded (Dr. Dre and the then-Snoop Doggy Dogg being the recipients of Eazy-E and friends’ lyrical wrath). Choice words: “Beatin’ up a woman don’t make ya It, but then again some brothas think it makes a man/Damn, it’s a trip how Dre could switch so quick from wearin’ lipstick to smokin’ on chronic at picnics/And now ya think you’re bigger, but to me you ain’t nothin’ but a trick-ass busta/That ain’t worth a food stamp…” I’d ‘bounce’ to this even if it were me Eazy was talking about.
To my shock and horror I learned yesterday that Atticus Books, the best surviving second-hand scholarly/antiquarian bookstore in Toronto, perfectly situated a stone’s throw from the University of Toronto’s downtown campus at Harbord St. and Spadina Ave. and frequented my many of the University’s professors and students (especially my homies in the philosophy and Classics departments), is yet another fallen soldier. Taking leave of brick-and-mortar for whatever reasons (the ever-popular local discount/remainder chain BMV Books opening up a site a couple of blocks north on Bloor St. not long ago may well be a factor), Atticus’ powers that be will now be doing business exclusively online through AbeBooks.com, like Abelard, McBurnie & Cutler, and a host of others before it. (Better than nothing, I suppose, but we’re talking about a store which hosted Maimonides and Seneca reading groups — in the Hebrew and the Latin, respectively — and a fair number of author readings/signings every year.)
I am genuinely saddened. It is a mighty big hit to the local scholarly community and to the city’s culture generally. What’s next?
T.N.T. (1975).
Weekly Standard associate editor Matthew Continetti warns of the return of the Angry White Liberal, prompted by the unfathomable opposition to Dear Leader Barack Obama’s health care reform efforts by conservatives and other stupid, every day Americans at town hall meetings across the nation, in the current edition of that publication.
An excerpt:
We’ve spent the month of August talking about alleged right-wing rage, but it’s really time we started discussing the Angry White Liberal. When things aren’t going his way, the Angry White Liberal wails and gnashes his teeth, rends his garments, and hurls invective at the opposition. His rhetoric and prose is so heated, it’s gotten to the point where you need to put on oven mitts before opening the paper. He is so convinced of the righteousness of his positions that he lashes out uncontrollably at anybody who disagrees with him. For the Angry White Liberal, dissent is anathema. Antagonism is illegitimate. Only conformity to prevailing liberal opinion is enough to still his rage.
It’s been awhile since the Angry White Liberal was spotted in the wild. He’s been in hiding since 2006, when the electorate started handing victory after victory to the Democratic party. For a while there, whenever a liberal surveyed the political scene, it looked as though the country had finally come to its senses. Americans no longer deigned to elect conservatives to high office. In 2008 voters fell for the dulcet tones of a young, charismatic liberal senator from Illinois. A “new progressive era” was about to begin. James Carville’s latest book, published earlier this year, promised to explain “how the Democrats will rule the next generation.”
Then something bizarre began to happen. As Barack Obama’s presidency unfurled, his approval ratings fell. The public showed skepticism at his major initiatives. The federal government bailed out GM and Chrysler over widespread public opposition. The costly economic stimulus bill appeared not to be working. The climate-change legislation that the House of Representatives passed on a party-line vote was D.O.A. in the Senate. And even though “health care” is not the top voter priority, even though the budget deficit stands at more than a trillion dollars, President Obama decided that this was the moment to remake one-sixth of the American economy.
The more Obama talked about health care reform, the further his numbers dropped… [t]he Angry White Liberal reaction? Outrage and calumny. Protest, which a few years ago was the highest form of patriotism, is now considered artificial, dishonest, misinformed, cynical, and mean-spirited. “An ugly campaign is underway,” Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer wrote in USA Today on August 10, “not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. . . . Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”
Read the whole thing here.
…and the nature of Islam
Re: The Quran And Me, Tarek Fatah, Aug. 21.
I respect Tarek Fatah for his aim to speak the truth against violent behaviour from the Islamic world. However, this column gives rise to some very difficult questions.
Mr. Fatah describes himself as “a hardened secularist,” so why does he write “Prophet Muhammad … received the first verse of the Quran from God”? Why would a self-proclaimed secularist elevate Muhammad to the status of prophet of God? (then add “peace be upon him”)?
Mr. Fatah also quotes many lovely verses from the Quran, and this gives rise to my second question. How does Mr. Fatah reconcile the peaceful verses he quotes, with the very large number of warlike verses in the Quran?
Surely he is aware of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation (clearly stated in Surah 2:106)? Abrogation means that verses (peaceful) from the early part of Muhammad’s life (Mecca), are nullified by contrary verses (violent and warlike) from later in Muhammad’s life (Medina), when he became a powerful warlord.
According to the revelation of Muhammad (Sura 2:106), Allah repudiated the earlier verses and replaced them with verses of an opposite meaning. If these later verses are truly the words of God (as claimed by Islamic scholars), then the violent Jihadists are clearly following the words of Allah according to the Quran.
Gurth Whitaker, Calgary.
Note from Nathan: Secularists do not make effective religious reformers. The problem, as is the case with all of the other secular liberal ‘Muslims’ who have come out of the woodwork in recent years in protest of the extremes of conservative and radical Islam, is Mr. Fatah’s lack of authority among true believers. He is not one of them, and genuine theological reform comes from within the circle, not outside of it. The motivation must be truth, in other words, what God wants in the eyes of believers, not making the religion more socially acceptable or ‘peaceful’ in the eyes of unbelievers.
Clockers (1995).
Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington, outlines the historical evangelical doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the video below, a snippet from Mars Hill’s outstanding 2008 sermon series “Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe.” Driscoll is careful to distinguish the doctrine from the modern fundamentalist revision ‘Solo’ Scriptura, which is a very important thing to do for at least two reasons: (1) Seemingly nine out of every ten attacks on ‘Sola Scriptura‘ by Roman Catholics are, in fact, attacks on ‘Solo’ Scriptura; and (2) many otherwise solid evangelical churches have unwittingly adopted the fundamentalist perversion (while claiming to uphold Sola Scriptura), not realizing what the historical evangelical doctrine is, leading to all kinds of theological and practical shenanigans.
