07/06/2004: "Defining the culture wars"

If you've ever wondered what the expression "culture wars" means, Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, provides a textbook example:

The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.

Please take note: the gravest danger facing the West is not terrorism, but religious faith. The people he describes aren't fundamentalists, they aren't fanatics, they are simply ordinary believers (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc.). Some of his contrasts are simply ridiculous (since when do "those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority" refuse to utilize science, reason, or logic?), but in any case they indicate a mindset that essentially says that any set of beliefs that doesn't bow before the god of secularism is a threat to our way of life.

Now that's the rant of a religious fanatic.

(Thanks to Ramesh Ponnuru on NRO for the quote. The entire Reich article is at The American Prospect.)

Replies: 2 Comments

on Wednesday, July 7th, Greg S said

I am surprised and disapointed by all of this. Oddly enough, I've always liked Robert Reich, and usually take the time to read his article or watch him on talking head shows. Of course, I rarely agree with him completely, but he seems to make well reasoned arguments and afford respect and consideration to the opposing viewpoint.

Should be interesting to see if he tries to say this was a mistake.

on Wednesday, July 7th, Baillie said

Birds of a feather...

From Melanie Phillips:

"It is little short of astounding that, on the very day that Home Secretary David Blunkett refuses to do anything other than �monitor� the visit to Britain of the Muslim extremist Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who has expressed violent Jew-hatred and support for human bombs, Blunkett brings forward proposals for a second time to foist upon us a new law that will almost certainly criminalise any criticism of Islam, Muslims or any other religion.

Blunkett claims that the new law would not do this but would merely prevent incitement to religious hatred, like the law against incitement to racial hatred. But there is a big difference between the two.

(...)

"Yet now look at Blunkett�s attitude towards Christians. In the Commons today, he said:

�We need to be able to take on those extremists and say, I�m afraid in our society, pluralism and openness, the ability to accept differences without being subsumed, is crucial to our survival, it�s what distinguishes all of us, from every faith, from those who would take our lives because they reject our faith, and it applies equally from far right evangelical Christians, to extremists in the Islamic faith.�

Astonishingly, he appeared to be equating Islamist extremism with evangelical Christianity! Where are the evangelical Christians who would �take our lives because they reject our faith�, for heaven�s sake? The new law would trap Christians and those of other faiths and none for saying things which others may find insulting, while the government continues to turn a blind eye to the actual incitement and links to terrorism that have turned London into �Londonistan�. Just what kind of inverted thinking is going on here? Whose side is David Blunkett on?"

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/