Kiwiblog, on the other hand, has used a story of ultra orthodox Jews acting like the Taleban with regard to the treatment of an 8 year old girl for dressing "immodestly". This has provided an entree for atheists to declare how equal all religions are, how bad the one in question is, and then by a process of deduction, how they are therefore all equally bad. Whilst there is a little bit of Jew bashing on the side, for the most part they stay on topic.
It's tempting therefore to wonder if our own society, increasingly secular and increasingly atheist, bears some responsibility for the increase in sexual violence from youth. In a kind of reverse Taleban, is Liberal Fanaticism an equal kind of danger? Perhaps the steady diet of soft porn on TV, the easy access to hard core porn via the internet and the general objectification of women through advertising, the destruction of the family and general liberalization is generating a new form of Liberal Fanaticism that requires everything else to be blamed, but itself? Is it Fanatical Liberalism that is pushing resolutely onwards for greater freedom with less responsibility?
No such introspection allowed on that kind of thread though. When I pushed the point:
So is your theory that the Turangi Terror is a fundamental orthodox Jew then? This response:
More likely a half baked christian of some description who hasn’t quite shaken off the heathen savagery of pagan Pasifika, inclusive of Maori, beliefs.I guess many in NZ are looking to understand the reasons behind the attack on the 5 year old girl in Turangi. Some expect there is an understandable explanation - like the person themselves were abused. Some assume drugs and alcohol were to blame. What I worry about is that there is no clear reason, and that it really is a natural byproduct of our increasingly amoral and immoral society. Western societies do not want the kind of quasi-religious/authoritarian fanaticism displayed by Taleban-like fundamentalists, but they also don't appear to understand that the pendulum swings both ways. The Turangi case may simply be an aberration, rather than a litmus test. Time will tell.
What's not an aberration but is a litmus test is the rate of child abuse in this country - this was to all intents and purposes unknown 50 years ago but it is almost a weekly occurrence now.
ReplyDeleteAnd we now the picture - woman with multiple children, multiple fathers involved and a boyfriend who is often not a father of the victim.
Perhaps the difference is the sort of behaviour that the ideology itself endorses. Even if you accept that random sexual violence is a biproduct of a more liberal society (I wouldnt, but thats a different point), a liberal who takes a harm principle based view of individual rights would absolutely condem this violence. Liberalism doesnt teach that violence is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, DPF was poining out that many people with extreme religious beliefs DO condone violence, because the main driver of their beliefs is obedience to God. Its perfectly ok for me as an ultra orthadox Jew to abuse the girl wearing the skirt because my interpretation of scripture implies that thats what god would want. An 'ultra liberal' by contrast would not abuse or do anything else to the girl.
Liberalism doesnt teach that violence is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteNeither does Christianity.
Which is the crux of the issue. The extremists have to ignore the totality of the teachings in order to justify their own desired actions. Yes, their interpretations of their religious texts supposedly justify their actions, but other orthodox people will be horrified at those actions too.
Such justifications appear in different ways for all those prepared to do what they want and ignoring the intrinsic human rights of others. But perhaps liberals will only kill a few to save many:
"Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.”
— The Village Voice’s Michael Feingold, in a theater review of all places
As I said above, if the Turangi child-rapist is not driven by ideology, then that's still not a great advertisement for not having one.
a liberal who takes a harm principle based view of individual rights would absolutely condemn this violence.
Yes, and so would a Christian. Yet, on the Kiwiblog thread ultra-Christians are no doubt considered capable of condoning violence, but not "ultra-liberals"? I think you might be surprised over time on that score - unless different labels can be applied to get liberalism off the hook.
Liberal Rhetoric
"..unless different labels can be applied to get liberalism off the hook."
ReplyDeleteWhich they are, very frequently.