I agree that the revival of classical liberalism should be done in a religion free manner.
What I find interesting about the photo in the article, from the Parents Rights Day of Action June 9 in Ottawa, is that it puts the likes of the OCDSB and the wokes in general in a rhetorically difficult position. Their itchy Racism!!!-accusing trigger fingers, normally primed for any sign of 'Islamophobia' in the zeitgeist, would now be squarely aimed back at themselves should they decide to make any negative comments about the rainbow-flag-stomping. So they are stuck, and really, victims of their own descent into identity politics. Its crazy and messy. The only way out of this, in real terms, is to simply stop with the identity politics, and treat everyone as the individual they are. Focus on one identity (Canadian) and cut out the special special interest groups, and the constant focus on identity groups, and the emphasis of difference.
Westerners may eventually have a stark choice... choose between an authoritarian far left "woke" dystopian theocracy or some manner of far right Christian/Muslim alliance religious dystopian theocracy. This assume the classical liberal types won't be strong enough to hold the middle ground and let's hope they can for all our sake. Otherwise it's going to be a matter of picking your poison.
Neo-marxists have long been allied with Islamists to help fill their coffers, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union. (Research Islamo/Leftism online). Both wanted to turn liberal sentiment away from traditional Western values and alliances (e.g. Israel) Yet both are diametrically opposed in ideology and will ultimately sabotage each other. The same would happen if Western conservatives who oppose our current woke hegemony form alliances with the religious Islamic hegemony in the Middle East. To paraphrase an old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my friend."
In response to Jan Hanna, who writes so beautifully and intelligently, I certainly agree with building bridges to the Muslim community, from where I draw many friends and acquaintances. But I am jaded, in part because I subscribe to Charlie Hebdo! I have long witnessed Islamic terror and the censorial chill that comes from apologists who cry Islamophobia at every turn. I am committed to human rights and feel disdain for religious laws that subjugate women, that ridicule nonbelievers as kaffirs and dhimmis, that compel speech and thought, and that call for the murder of homosexuals, apostates, and infidels. Jordan Peterson is a hero of mine, but he needs to call out the fundamentalists and thugs.
Argue whatever you prefer, be it a religion or a philosophy. Do it in anyway you want, BUT do NOT stop others from opposing, questioning, supporting, changing-amending your ideas.
Most of the pushback today is because some have suppressed others basic, fundamental, requirement of free and open discussion/debate/dispute. Your product will be better if you encourage the Right of Free Expression. Paul
Trying to stop civilizational suicide is it’s own form of civilizational suicide? No. If christians are skeptical of islamic theology they are islamophobic, but if they align with it they are far right theocrats. Notice how all roads lead to attacking followers of Jesus who are being driven out of the public square for dissent.
An other excellent, lucid, and seminal article by this author, who writes: "Poet Emile Cammaerts (often mistakenly attributed to GK Chesterton) that '[when] men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing. They then become capable of believing in anything.' This quote is such nonsense. The value of faith to me is far less than the value of rational thought, which tells us that the fascist, totalitarian woke program and the equally fascist, totalitarian Muslim religion (which calls for the death of apostates, heretics, kaffirs...). As the author says, Jordan Peterson is really wrong to court fundamentalist Muslims against the woke and to describe such anti-diluvian thinkers, as he does in his cited video, as the "light of the world."
Hi Jim, I followed your story with speaking honestly about the reality of TB being the most significant cause of death in the IRS. Thank you for your courage.
I am wondering if you see, at least some, value in Peterson building bridges with the Muslim Community. I agree with you that many fundamentalist and literalist approaches to Islam are totalitarian and oppressive, especially to non-Muslims. But there are also some benign and benevolent interpretations and approaches, that allow for peaceful and flourishing coexistence with Christians and other non-believers. The reality remains that in dozens of countries, hundreds of millions of Muslims exist peacefully with many non-Muslim citizens. The continued hope for these non-Muslim people, most of them indigenous to those countries, depends on these Muslims and their peaceful approach to Islam. There may be great wisdom in building bridges that unite Muslims and non-Muslims, particularly around shared values like the traditional family.
I happen to share Mark Twain's opinion that, "religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” Despite the polarity of beliefs, parents are united by their bond of love for their children and despite race, creed or culture, present a cohesive force against the threat of trans activism in their schools. It was a foot stomping delight to watch clips of that protest.
Would you perhaps consider the more charitable explanation that religion evolved out of a genuine desire to explain the mysterious phenomena our ancestors came across?
I agree that the revival of classical liberalism should be done in a religion free manner.
What I find interesting about the photo in the article, from the Parents Rights Day of Action June 9 in Ottawa, is that it puts the likes of the OCDSB and the wokes in general in a rhetorically difficult position. Their itchy Racism!!!-accusing trigger fingers, normally primed for any sign of 'Islamophobia' in the zeitgeist, would now be squarely aimed back at themselves should they decide to make any negative comments about the rainbow-flag-stomping. So they are stuck, and really, victims of their own descent into identity politics. Its crazy and messy. The only way out of this, in real terms, is to simply stop with the identity politics, and treat everyone as the individual they are. Focus on one identity (Canadian) and cut out the special special interest groups, and the constant focus on identity groups, and the emphasis of difference.
Westerners may eventually have a stark choice... choose between an authoritarian far left "woke" dystopian theocracy or some manner of far right Christian/Muslim alliance religious dystopian theocracy. This assume the classical liberal types won't be strong enough to hold the middle ground and let's hope they can for all our sake. Otherwise it's going to be a matter of picking your poison.
Neo-marxists have long been allied with Islamists to help fill their coffers, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union. (Research Islamo/Leftism online). Both wanted to turn liberal sentiment away from traditional Western values and alliances (e.g. Israel) Yet both are diametrically opposed in ideology and will ultimately sabotage each other. The same would happen if Western conservatives who oppose our current woke hegemony form alliances with the religious Islamic hegemony in the Middle East. To paraphrase an old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my friend."
In response to Jan Hanna, who writes so beautifully and intelligently, I certainly agree with building bridges to the Muslim community, from where I draw many friends and acquaintances. But I am jaded, in part because I subscribe to Charlie Hebdo! I have long witnessed Islamic terror and the censorial chill that comes from apologists who cry Islamophobia at every turn. I am committed to human rights and feel disdain for religious laws that subjugate women, that ridicule nonbelievers as kaffirs and dhimmis, that compel speech and thought, and that call for the murder of homosexuals, apostates, and infidels. Jordan Peterson is a hero of mine, but he needs to call out the fundamentalists and thugs.
Argue whatever you prefer, be it a religion or a philosophy. Do it in anyway you want, BUT do NOT stop others from opposing, questioning, supporting, changing-amending your ideas.
Most of the pushback today is because some have suppressed others basic, fundamental, requirement of free and open discussion/debate/dispute. Your product will be better if you encourage the Right of Free Expression. Paul
Trying to stop civilizational suicide is it’s own form of civilizational suicide? No. If christians are skeptical of islamic theology they are islamophobic, but if they align with it they are far right theocrats. Notice how all roads lead to attacking followers of Jesus who are being driven out of the public square for dissent.
An other excellent, lucid, and seminal article by this author, who writes: "Poet Emile Cammaerts (often mistakenly attributed to GK Chesterton) that '[when] men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing. They then become capable of believing in anything.' This quote is such nonsense. The value of faith to me is far less than the value of rational thought, which tells us that the fascist, totalitarian woke program and the equally fascist, totalitarian Muslim religion (which calls for the death of apostates, heretics, kaffirs...). As the author says, Jordan Peterson is really wrong to court fundamentalist Muslims against the woke and to describe such anti-diluvian thinkers, as he does in his cited video, as the "light of the world."
Hi Jim, I followed your story with speaking honestly about the reality of TB being the most significant cause of death in the IRS. Thank you for your courage.
I am wondering if you see, at least some, value in Peterson building bridges with the Muslim Community. I agree with you that many fundamentalist and literalist approaches to Islam are totalitarian and oppressive, especially to non-Muslims. But there are also some benign and benevolent interpretations and approaches, that allow for peaceful and flourishing coexistence with Christians and other non-believers. The reality remains that in dozens of countries, hundreds of millions of Muslims exist peacefully with many non-Muslim citizens. The continued hope for these non-Muslim people, most of them indigenous to those countries, depends on these Muslims and their peaceful approach to Islam. There may be great wisdom in building bridges that unite Muslims and non-Muslims, particularly around shared values like the traditional family.
I happen to share Mark Twain's opinion that, "religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” Despite the polarity of beliefs, parents are united by their bond of love for their children and despite race, creed or culture, present a cohesive force against the threat of trans activism in their schools. It was a foot stomping delight to watch clips of that protest.
Would you perhaps consider the more charitable explanation that religion evolved out of a genuine desire to explain the mysterious phenomena our ancestors came across?