I haven’t been able to write much lately as I’ve been thoroughly swamped. At any rate, Rolling Stone has a new article out on how American youth are being recruited for a religious holy war.
He’s [Ron Luce] been doing this for two decades but it didn’t take off until days after the Columbine shootings of 1999 when, when Luce rallied 70,000 angry, weeping kids at the Pontiac Silverdome outside Detroit. In 2006, he brought his rallies to more than 200,000 kids. Overall, he’s preached to 12 million.
They’re the base. Of that number, Luce has sent 53,000 teen missionaries around the globe to preach “spiritual purity”- chastity, sobriety, and a committment to laissez-faire capitalism… Luce selected more than 6,000 for his Honor Academy, some of whom become political operatives, media activists and militant preachers who then funnel fresh kids into the Academy. It’s a very vertically integrated movement, a machine that produces “leaders for the army”, a command cadre that can count on the masses Luce conditions as its infantry.”
Maybe Anthony Paul Smith and Adam Kotsko can amuse me some more by explaining how these groups are fringe lunatic groups that are little more boogeymen fabricated by the media. Where are those progressive religious folk preaching to millions of folk again? Just be sure you don’t use the word “Christian” in referring to these groups. After all, they’re not “true Christians”. Funny me, I take people at their word when they call themselves something. After all, there are millions of good Christians and they never support neo-fascist organizations like this by voting and acting on the basis of brand-name recognition and not bothering to find out more about these groups. That never happens.
Read the article here. Dailykos also has a nice diary up on this filled with lots of linky goodness.
April 10, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Not really, but you always amuse me when you turn my position into a straw man. You have never taken what I’ve tried to explain numerous times seriously and have shown time and again you are only interested in talking to a few other centrist Liberals about how bad religious people are. That’s fine, you need a place to vent, but let’s not pretend you’re doing some really serious work here.
April 10, 2007 at 7:51 pm
You have never taken what I’ve tried to explain numerous times seriously and have shown time and again you are only interested in talking to a few other centrist Liberals about how bad religious people are.
I’ve always referred to Christo-fascism and fundamentalism, not religious folk in general and have made qualifications to this effect on numerous occasions. As usual, another knee-jerk over-emotional response from you trying to cut off any negative discussion of religion whatsoever. As for “centrist liberals”, what nice little rhetoric. I wasn’t aware that you had a position beyond reactionary posturing and cries of outrage claiming that you’re a victim.
April 10, 2007 at 8:11 pm
“I’ve always referred to Christo-fascism and fundamentalism, not religious folk in general and have made qualifications to this effect on numerous occasions.”
How can you always do something and then make qualifications on that very thing that, by always doing the other, you’ve never done?
“As usual, another knee-jerk over-emotional response from you trying to cut off any negative discussion of religion whatsoever.”
No, I think this is obviously a bad phenomenon for the left. Having a fundamentalist preacher tie the power of fundamentalist beliefs to free-market principles is very bad. Very, very bad. If someone shot this guy I wouldn’t have a problem with it except on a strategic level. What I object to is your linking of what I think with this sort of horse shit. I also object to the kind of bullshit you take on yourself. “Oh, I’m just talking about the material social reality of the reality of the situation. You just fail to take an immanentist approach, whereas I, the all knowing and mighty Lacanian analyst, simply sit back and let people tell me what they are.” If this was actually the case you’d realize that many of these kids are dragged to this horseshit, don’t buy it all, and on and on. That life, even for the religious person, is a bit more complex than one article in Rolling Stone will make it out to be. So, yes, this is very bad. But it is not a complete picture of what actually is going on in evangelical kids lives. That, somehow, maybe magically, this asshole isn’t the only person these kids will be exposed to in their lives and that, perhaps by some miracle, they aren’t simply Christian robots who only suck in what Luce says.
“As for “centrist liberals”, what nice little rhetoric. I wasn’t aware that you had a position beyond reactionary posturing and cries of outrage claiming that you’re a victim.”
Yep, that’s me, just a reactionary playing the victim. You sure got me diagnosed, Doc. Whereas you have never played the victim. Never have you whined about how “Christo-fascism” (and I can take that about as seriously as I take Islamo-fascism) is destroying your hope for a society perfectly ordered along purely rational lines, just like Iceland. No, your views on religion are completely revolutionary, not a bone of reaction in them at all! How I’ve been so blind. Thanks Doc!
April 10, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Anthony, radical that you are, however, perhaps you can educate and improve me. What do you make of these Christian rock bands and the massive audiences that they’re playing to? We don’t see many Buddhist rock bands, for instance. What do you think of the corporatization of religion in this way? If you follow the link to dailykos there are some interesting youtube clips from these events. What do you think of the rhetoric that these Christians are fighting a war and that we need a more warlike Church? What do you think of the fact that 150 of Bush’s appointees are from Pat Robertson’s Regent University? Why do you think forms of worship such as these concerts and these megachurches have been such a big success? Do you think these are things that should just be ignored?
April 10, 2007 at 8:27 pm
“I’ve always referred to Christo-fascism and fundamentalism, not religious folk in general and have made qualifications to this effect on numerous occasions.”
How can you always do something and then make qualifications on that very thing that, by always doing the other, you’ve never done?
Easy. This is sophistical. In communicating you can take something as obvious and implied, but your reader can take you as talking about something else. As Lacan says, “all communication is miscommunication.” As a result you later have to qualify what you’re saying so that the person you’re talking to understands.
What I object to is your linking of what I think with this sort of horse shit.
I don’t believe that you believe these sorts of things, nor have I ever suggested– to my recollection –that you do. I just think that you tend to cut off discussion when these issues are brought up for reasons that baffle me… It’s as if you somehow still identify with these things while nonetheless believing them atrocious, and feel threatened when others talk about what, to use your language, “horseshit” they are.
If this was actually the case you’d realize that many of these kids are dragged to this horseshit, don’t buy it all, and on and on.
This is possible. Do you have evidence to support this hypothesis? It seems to me that these things have been very successful nationally. How do you account for that? How, for instance, do you account for the multi-million dollar industry surrounding reactionary Christian literature and inspirational work such as the Left Behind books?
That life, even for the religious person, is a bit more complex than one article in Rolling Stone will make it out to be. So, yes, this is very bad. But it is not a complete picture of what actually is going on in evangelical kids lives.
This is sophistical again. Language will always fail to capture the complexity of anything and will always fail to completely do things justice. Following this advice would lead us to reject whatever we find unpleasant and inconvient and to never speak at all.
Never have you whined about how “Christo-fascism” (and I can take that about as seriously as I take Islamo-fascism) is destroying your hope for a society perfectly ordered along purely rational lines, just like Iceland.
I can’t recall ever once suggesting that society should be ordered along perfectly rational lines or that this is even possible. Do you really read me this way or believe that this is what I think? I just dislike Nazi’s, that’s all.
April 10, 2007 at 8:35 pm
After sadly reading numerous one twos between your goodself Mr Larval and APS and Kotsko, I gotta say this post seemed unneccesarily aggressive from the offset – the linking of the article in a way that says “look how wacky these people are” doesn’t really help, and neither does baiting people on blogs.
April 10, 2007 at 8:41 pm
True that, Alex. Perhaps it can be forgiven as resulting from long experience whenever these things are brought up and enormous amounts of stress due to the looming pile of grading in front of me.
April 10, 2007 at 8:47 pm
To be honest, I think you should pretty much state your position on all this up front at some point. I think all APS is trying to do very consistently is advise caution on making too sweeping generalisations on matters religious.
April 10, 2007 at 8:47 pm
And knowing APS in meatspace, he is hardly adverse to criticising religions or discussing them…
April 10, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Alex, my positions on what? Clearly I’m opposed to how Christo-fascism is functioning politically in the United States today. I do not believe all Christians are Christo-fascists. Would I like to see all religion disappear from the world? Sure. I think it’s nonsense, but much of it is fairly benign. Do I get upset with most of it? No. I’m not sure what else there is to state. All of this has been stated many times before on this blog and elsewhere. What’s unclear?
April 10, 2007 at 8:54 pm
“What do you make of these Christian rock bands and the massive audiences that they’re playing to?”
Massive? Bigger audiences than mainstream artists? Seems to me you got a niche market there.
“We don’t see many Buddhist rock bands, for instance.”
Something tells me this has more to do with what would sell as I’m sure there are plenty of people in rock bands who self-identify as Buddhist.
“What do you think of the corporatization of religion in this way?”
It’s bad, but nothing new.
“What do you think of the rhetoric that these Christians are fighting a war and that we need a more warlike Church?”
Depends on who the war is against. Since you only know how to deal with fundamentalist evangelicals, and I’m guessing not the Emergent types, I’m gonna go with bad on this as well. Interestingly you get this rhetoric in non-Christian circles as well and even in secular ones.
“What do you think of the fact that 150 of Bush’s appointees are from Pat Robertson’s Regent University?”
Considering it is the Bush administration I wouldn’t exactly be happy if the appointees were from Harvard either, but yeah, that’s bad. I’m guessing you would feel better if they were from Harvard.
“Why do you think forms of worship such as these concerts and these megachurches have been such a big success?”
The same reason that any big event is a big success. Haven’t you ever been to a concert? Some other people have looked into this though http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0206/p13s01-lire.html and http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/megastoday2005_summaryreport.html (this one is a seminary, but it seems to be pretty much by the numbers). I actually think that if you look at the way the youth are reacting to megachurches you see two things – a move away from institutional faiths (so even the megachurches themselves) and towards ’emergent’ forms of faith. Both of these are outgrowths of Protestantism. One is basically the civil religion of common sense in a country like the US and the other is an attempt to create a subculture within that civil religion. I fear both especially as they are radically deterritorialized from doctrine, liturgy, and all the material of religion they usually reterritorialize onto capitalism.
“Do you think these are things that should just be ignored?”
Christ, if you even have to ask me that I wonder if you’ve read a damn word I’ve ever written regarding these subjects. Since you are likely not really reading this I couldn’t take it that seriously. I am serious about the nature of megachurches and capital, but I didn’t spell it out in as much detail as I have in my written work (which you will never read). This is all just reactionary victimhood though. Not like your very serious stand by way of complaining on a blog.
April 10, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I think you should take caution with throwing things around like Christo-fascist without due attention and qualification.
It is interesting that rather than say something like “would it matter to me if religion disappeared from the world” you say “would i like”, eg “i would like religion to disappear from the world”. This kinds of undermines your statements about not being upset by most of it…if so not upset, why get rid of it?
April 10, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I think you should take caution with throwing things around like Christo-fascist without due attention and qualification.
The meaning of “Christo-Fascist” should be clear from the context defined by the links. Here it is useful to consult Quine on the inscrutability of reference in Word and Object. “Christo-fascist” is actually a qualification attempting to be more precise and distinguish between many other Christians not caught up in these movements.
It is interesting that rather than say something like “would it matter to me if religion disappeared from the world” you say “would i like”, eg “i would like religion to disappear from the world”. This kinds of undermines your statements about not being upset by most of it…if so not upset, why get rid of it?
Well I’m a realist and know that there are many religious people that I love and admire despite their quirky beliefs, and also recognize that it’s not going away anytime soon. For instance, I think Martin Luther King is nifty. However, I do find it interesting that believers tend to be the only ones who take any criticism or rejection of their beliefs as a horrific affront and personal attack, as if others should remain silent regarding their metaphysical claims. For instance, during the Enlightenment, as Descartes’ mechanist hypotheses spread throughout the universities in Europe, the response of those who disagreed either sought to fire those teaching Cartesian mechanism, ban the teaching of mechanism at the universities and require the teaching of Aristotlean physics, or enact laws of the state preventing the exploration of these positions. I am not endorsing Cartesian mechanism, but only offering it as a historical example. There is something internal to Christianity that seems to shut down critical discussion that is welcome in other aspects of life. Of course, religion is not alone in this. For instance, you seem to take offense at my casual remark that I wouldn’t mind seeing religion disappear from the world. I wonder if you’d be similarly bothered by my dim view of the phlogiston hypothesis or the aether hypothesis?
April 10, 2007 at 9:11 pm
“Easy. This is sophistical. In communicating you can take something as obvious and implied, but your reader can take you as talking about something else. As Lacan says, “all communication is miscommunication.” As a result you later have to qualify what you’re saying so that the person you’re talking to understands.”
Not worth responding to as it, in actuality, is ‘sophitical’.
“I don’t believe that you believe these sorts of things, nor have I ever suggested– to my recollection –that you do. I just think that you tend to cut off discussion when these issues are brought up for reasons that baffle me… It’s as if you somehow still identify with these things while nonetheless believing them atrocious, and feel threatened when others talk about what, to use your language, “horseshit” they are.”
Also ‘sophistical’. You quite blatantly link me to a kind of quietism with regard to religious fundamentalism and its negative aspects in American politics. My attempt, on blogs like this one and Jodi Dean’s and my own, is not to cut off discussion but to sharpen it. There is a verse in Christian scripture – as iron sharpens iron so one man does another or some such wisdom. If you and I were, say, to meet on Little Green Footballs and they were going on about the virtues of having people from Regent University in Bush’s administration I would not take this stance. You and I would appear as pretty much a united front. And, no, I do not identify with them, but I do think I understand them in much greater detail than you do.
“This is possible. Do you have evidence to support this hypothesis? It seems to me that these things have been very successful nationally. How do you account for that? How, for instance, do you account for the multi-million dollar industry surrounding reactionary Christian literature and inspirational work such as the Left Behind books?”
Do you have evidence that it isn’t the case? And, yes, I do. There have been articles written about this in the mainstream press and evangelicals themselves have expressed a great deal of concern among their own publications. I explain the industry the same way I explain any industry – there is a desire to buy that kind of product. There has always been shitty literature out there and it just so happens that this one happens to have a nefarious political aspect (as lots of other shitty literature has in the past). I fail to see how this is that alarming.
“This is sophistical again. Language will always fail to capture the complexity of anything and will always fail to completely do things justice. Following this advice would lead us to reject whatever we find unpleasant and inconvenient and to never speak at all.”
No, following this advise could lead to formulating thesis’ that are more precise and careful, while recognizing the ever open nature of the phenomenon. I’ve never suggested we stop talking about things that are unpleasant. Would likely have not even said anything about this post other than “Wow, that sucks” if you hadn’t linked me to it as a supporter by proxy.
“I can’t recall ever once suggesting that society should be ordered along perfectly rational lines or that this is even possible. Do you really read me this way or believe that this is what I think? I just dislike Nazi’s, that’s all.”
This was rhetoric on my part. I do think you would prefer this and if it wasn’t a complete misunderstanding of human reality I would too! But, yes, I think you are essentially a Hegelian on political matters. I also dislike Nazi’s, but I don’t see much socialism here. I do think the phrase Christo-fascist is really stupid on strategic and intellectual grounds. Strategic because you’re are leaving yourself open on why Islamo-fascism is a misnomer and intellectually because it is about as accurate a description as Christo-fascist. Some friends of mine in the RCPUSA also do this and I think it has made them look even crazier than usual.
April 10, 2007 at 9:15 pm
“For instance, during the Enlightenment, as Descartes’ mechanist hypotheses spread throughout the universities in Europe, the response of those who disagreed either sought to fire those teaching Cartesian mechanism, ban the teaching of mechanism at the universities and require the teaching of Aristotlean physics, or enact laws of the state preventing the exploration of these positions. I am not endorsing Cartesian mechanism, but only offering it as a historical example. There is something internal to Christianity that seems to shut down critical discussion that is welcome in other aspects of life.”
My fucking God!
Yeah, thank the mechanics of the universe that nothing like this ever happens in a univeristy now! No sir! No one would ever be fired for holding to a radically different view than the ones that came before.
Why is it that if Christianity shuts down discourse that is something inherent to it, but if Christianity, as it has done throughout the centuries, actually increases knowledge that is something accidental? You don’t see how wrong such a position is?
April 10, 2007 at 9:30 pm
“However, I do find it interesting that believers tend to be the only ones who take any criticism or rejection of their beliefs as a horrific affront and personal attack, as if others should remain silent regarding their metaphysical claims.”
I think this is clearly a bit silly. Have you ever had a political debate with anyone, ever. Do they not take your attack on their beliefs as a personal attack, I know I do. This is because, unless the person is incredibly shallow, they take any attack on their beliefs in someway personally. Here’s a thesis for you: Lacan was a complete fraud, who made up for his complete lack of actual understanding of the mind by using over complicated language and taking a load of followers along with him who are al. His dubious researches do not usefully extend understanding of the mind, moreover, they cannot hold a candle to cognitive science and evolutionary psychology. Lacan’s book aren’t worth the paper they are written on and have as much empirical data to back them as most religious truth claims.
See, I don’t believe that at all, but I bet that stung you just a bit.
“There is something internal to Christianity that seems to shut down critical discussion that is welcome in other aspects of life.”
This is rubbish. Which Christianity? At which historical period? All of them? The Christianity now is the same as Kierkegaard’s? The same as Paul’s – whose basis was critical discussion of Judaism and the Roman state. Puh-leaze.
April 10, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Do you have evidence that it isn’t the case? And, yes, I do. There have been articles written about this in the mainstream press and evangelicals themselves have expressed a great deal of concern among their own publications. I explain the industry the same way I explain any industry – there is a desire to buy that kind of product. There has always been shitty literature out there and it just so happens that this one happens to have a nefarious political aspect (as lots of other shitty literature has in the past). I fail to see how this is that alarming.
Sure, but the question is whether or not these voices are prevailing. I’m glad they’re out there though.
Also ‘sophistical’. You quite blatantly link me to a kind of quietism with regard to religious fundamentalism and its negative aspects in American politics. My attempt, on blogs like this one and Jodi Dean’s and my own, is not to cut off discussion but to sharpen it. There is a verse in Christian scripture – as iron sharpens iron so one man does another or some such wisdom.
This is terrific, but I don’t see your interventions as really doing this. Often they just change the subject and end up causing big kerkuffles over things that are largely agreed upon already and taken for granted. You seem to work on the assumption that whenever the signifier Christianity is used all Christians are being placed in the camp of what is being referred to.
This was rhetoric on my part. I do think you would prefer this and if it wasn’t a complete misunderstanding of human reality I would too! But, yes, I think you are essentially a Hegelian on political matters.
I’m really unclear as to what you’re getting at here. How am I a Hegelian in political matters? More importantly, what does it mean to be a Hegelian in political matters? In my own self-understanding, much of my work is about the messiness of the social space and its complex nature. This is one of the reasons I often agree with Jodi Dean as she strikes me as having a very administered notion of the social, wanting a top down, very hierarchical approach. I think there’s also a bit too much empahsis on the intentions of actors, and not looking at complex and multi-stratified phenomena involving everything from technologies, to local environmental conditions, to economy, to networks that emerge and pass away, to ideas that inspire groups, etc., etc., etc. In short, I understand my thinking about social and political matters to be very ecological in nature. And throughout all my thought I try to emphasize the autonomy of groups and actors from the State or structure… I emphasize groups and individuals doing things for themselves. This is what attracts me to Lacanian analysis, where the analyst is not a master that knows everything and tells the analysand how it is, and where the analysand does most of the work, and where the outcome is defined by the analysand’s own desires. This is why I celebrate and focus a lot of attention on networks that emerge and groups that form such as net communities as well as worldly communities, and so on. Drawing again on I Cite as a contrast, I resolutely do not advocate the position she outlines with regard to political theorists where there’s an attitude that the people are to be blamed (the so-called “object-oriented” politics). Rather, I’m more on the same page as folk like Rousseau or Marx, where the people should define their own destinies.
Also ‘sophistical’. You quite blatantly link me to a kind of quietism with regard to religious fundamentalism and its negative aspects in American politics.
Yes, you’re correct, I do this. The post before your most recent one gives a clear sense why. In every line of your response you minimize or reject any threat posed by the Christian right, treating claims that there is a threat as being ridiculous and alarmist. Consequently, while I don’t believe that you yourself are a Christian fundamentalist, I do believe that your rhetoric or way of addressing these issues treats concern about the Christian right as unfounded and largely irrelevant. I’m unclear as to why you feel compelled to do this.
I also dislike Nazi’s, but I don’t see much socialism here.
I have no idea what you’re getting at with this remark.
I do think the phrase Christo-fascist is really stupid on strategic and intellectual grounds. Strategic because you’re are leaving yourself open on why Islamo-fascism is a misnomer and intellectually because it is about as accurate a description as Christo-fascist. Some friends of mine in the RCPUSA also do this and I think it has made them look even crazier than usual.
Point well taken. What term do you feel would be superior? Is there a signifier you feel would identify precisely the groups in question when these issues come up and that would avoid the impression that all Christians are being referred to?
In the post prior to this one I’m unsure as to why it’s relevant that we’re discussing a niche market. Remember, I advocate thinking in terms of populations. If we’re thinking ecologically, then one relevant issue is how one population changes the ecosphere of the whole. For instance, the introduction of the cane toad in Australia forms a niche, but it’s a nitch that transformed the entire environment. Consequently, here we have a very organized social movement that is training youth in church and other activities to be soldiers fighting for very repressive sets of state policies. This niche has tremendous amounts of wealth and high-level governmental connections, as well as a number of career appointments in American government. Consequently, while this niche might be comparatively small with respect to other niches, it is also one that is and has the power to significantly alter government and lives.
April 10, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Yeah, thank the mechanics of the universe that nothing like this ever happens in a univeristy now! No sir! No one would ever be fired for holding to a radically different view than the ones that came before.
You’re honestly contending that state legislation is being implemented to prevent the teaching of certain things at the university level and that there have been mass firings across the country?
April 10, 2007 at 9:45 pm
APS said: “I’ve never suggested we stop talking about things that are unpleasant. Would likely have not even said anything about this post other than “Wow, that sucks” if you hadn’t linked me to it as a supporter by proxy.”
Sinthome, i think this really needs to be emphasized. You did basically set up a situation where: (a) APS would feel the need to defend himself, and (b) as soon as he defends himself, you can easily set him up as supportive of Regent University and co.
In fact, Sinthome, shouldn’t this entire series of comments should be bracketed in light of this?
April 10, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I think this is clearly a bit silly. Have you ever had a political debate with anyone, ever. Do they not take your attack on their beliefs as a personal attack, I know I do. This is because, unless the person is incredibly shallow, they take any attack on their beliefs in someway personally.
Laughing. You asked me what my position was and I told you. I wouldn’t have told you had you not asked and wouldn’t have even seen it as particularly relevant. Why should it come as a shock that an atheist doesn’t believe in God, angels, spirits, demons, the devil, the afterlife, unicorns, elves, souls, etc., etc., etc? I wasn’t actively trying to persuade you to adopt this stance as well, though I might write philosophically in other connections. I like my friend John who believes in chakras and crystals, but I think his beliefs are nonsense. Fortunately John’s beliefs don’t really impact me in any way and I can simply overlook them… Until, of course, he proposes to treat his child with these things, then I might get worried and speak up.
Here’s a thesis for you: Lacan was a complete fraud, who made up for his complete lack of actual understanding of the mind by using over complicated language and taking a load of followers along with him who are al. His dubious researches do not usefully extend understanding of the mind, moreover, they cannot hold a candle to cognitive science and evolutionary psychology. Lacan’s book aren’t worth the paper they are written on and have as much empirical data to back them as most religious truth claims.
See, I don’t believe that at all, but I bet that stung you just a bit.
Well presumably at this point we could have a discussion and you could tell me 1) what your understanding of Lacan is, and 2) make your case for why this is false. Once I know what you believe Lacan is saying, I can either contend that you’ve gotten Lacan wrong and that while I agree the views you’ve described are absurd, Lacan is really talking about something quite different. If you have an accurate understanding, then I could begin to address your actual criticisms. If you prevail with your criticisms I would, as intellectually honest, discard my Lacanianism for the superior model that you endorse. We could have a discussion about it. What’s interesting in much religious discourse is that discussion is prohibited. As is often said at the dinner table: there are two things you never talk about, politics and religion. Another favorite is “everyone is entitled to their beliefs”. Religion gets a free pass.
April 10, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Discard, I would agree if it weren’t for a prior discussion that occured on a previous occasion here:
https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2006/12/16/why-i-get-frustrated-with-the-religious-turn-in-theory/
There were posts that followed it where comments were even more extensive and heated. In these instances APS wasn’t directly targeted but he felt compelled to jump in and shout, even though he wasn’t being targeted and it was clear the target was religious fundamentalism. APS has a history of doing this whenever discussions of religious fundamentalism come up, which is why I mentioned him in the post. I was anticipating an attack simply for posting about things going on among fundamentalists that I find tremendously disturbing.
April 10, 2007 at 9:52 pm
The discussion can be traced by looking at the archives for december and it bled to other blogs as well.
April 10, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Here’s another link:
https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2006/12/19/differends/
April 10, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Further issues in the background, perhaps worth addressing more explicitly, it seems, include the following:
(1) APS has a concept of religion revolving around a temporal theory of attention. One could say a lot of this, but basic familiarity with Goodchild’s use of Deleuze would suffice. This, i imagine, is what’s at stake for APS when religion is brought up. Sinthome is concerned with empirical phenomena, and thus for him APS’s theory of religion ultimately underwrites these. Yet this collapses the very concept of religion. For APS, to think of religion according to this sample of empirical phenomena is to avoid the central question of a concept of religion. Sinthome emphasizes the population-study character of religion, but it still seems there must be a concept of religion there for him, insofar as there’s something called religion he wants to get rid of.
(2) Sinthome’s critique of religion seems to be implicitly allied with a liberal political orientation. Religion is, at base, unenlightened, irrational, no? I believe APS’s concept of religion is tied to a basically Marxist orientation. So perhaps an interesting question would be what role politics plays in this? What conflicts between Marxism and liberalism are being played out beneath Sinthome’s critiques of religion and APS’s responses? Sinthome’s position, whether as critique of religion or as positive politial proposal, never seems to go beyond liberalism.
April 10, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“Well presumably at this point we could have a discussion and you could tell me 1) what your understanding of Lacan is, and 2) make your case for why this is false. Once I know what you believe Lacan is saying, I can either contend that you’ve gotten Lacan wrong and that while I agree the views you’ve described are absurd, Lacan is really talking about something quite different…We could have a discussion about it.”
Well, isn’t this precisely what I, Adam and APS are suggesting here. We are saying that your understanding of these pheomena are false. We are undercutting you at stage one – this is a discussion. And Christians don’t do this of course! Well they do. Have you ever tried to discuss with a Christian their Christianity versus your atheism. This will mostly start with you expressing your problem with Christianity etc and them saying if you have accurately represented them.
“What’s interesting in much religious discourse is that discussion is prohibited. As is often said at the dinner table: there are two things you never talk about, politics and religion. Another favorite is “everyone is entitled to their beliefs”. ”
In dinner party discussion these things arent supposed to happen because it is politeness to not discuss issues that will likely cause a big row. And I think in the UK at least, everyone is entitled to their beliefs extends to prefix anyones discussion of anything. Perhaps it is me being naive, but isn’t the internet awash with people discussing this stuff? And real life?
April 10, 2007 at 10:09 pm
These are all great questions and observations:
(1) APS has a concept of religion revolving around a temporal theory of attention. One could say a lot of this, but basic familiarity with Goodchild’s use of Deleuze would suffice. This, i imagine, is what’s at stake for APS when religion is brought up. Sinthome is concerned with empirical phenomena, and thus for him APS’s theory of religion ultimately underwrites these. Yet this collapses the very concept of religion. For APS, to think of religion according to this sample of empirical phenomena is to avoid the central question of a concept of religion. Sinthome emphasizes the population-study character of religion, but it still seems there must be a concept of religion there for him, insofar as there’s something called religion he wants to get rid of.
I’m speaking of religion as a population or physical institution, where APS is interested in ideas. There’s no real mystery as to how I identify this phenomenon: This is how those I’m talking about refer to themselves. It isn’t the specifically religious nature of the phenomenon that bothers me. It could could be atheistic brown shirts that have no belief in God and I’d be concerned as well.
I mean no disrespect to APS, but I’m just not all that concerned with Goodchild or his conception of religion. This doesn’t mean that I might not be interested in these ideas in other discussions and contexts. But unless APS is organizing masses of marxist Goodchildeans, I just don’t see how it’s very relevant to what I’m referring to when I write about things like this. Let me emphasize again: If APS and I were having a philosophical discussion, I might be very interested in what he has to say, but it’s just off the radar where populations and social tendencies are concerned in my thinking. I could be mistaken. Perhaps there’s a huge movement promoting what APS is interested in and I’m just not aware of it. Educate me!
(2) Sinthome’s critique of religion seems to be implicitly allied with a liberal political orientation. Religion is, at base, unenlightened, irrational, no? I believe APS’s concept of religion is tied to a basically Marxist orientation. So perhaps an interesting question would be what role politics plays in this? What conflicts between Marxism and liberalism are being played out beneath Sinthome’s critiques of religion and APS’s responses? Sinthome’s position, whether as critique of religion or as positive politial proposal, never seems to go beyond liberalism.
It’s worth emphasizing that my critique of religion is independent of the points responding to your point 2 above… These are philosophical commitments, that are secondary to considerations of populations and social movements. I can say that philosophical I advocate an ontology that has no place for the sorts of entities often postulated by religion. I really have no idea where APS stands on these issues. Does he believe in a transcendent god? The soul? The afterlife? We’d disagree. Does he believe in some sort of divine world-system based on ecology? I’d be inclined to say that I just see no reason to think of that as divine or relating to God, but that I certainly endorse an ecological view of being. Then our discussion would be semantic and we’d largely agree.
Anyway, the point I want to make is that my philosophical commitments don’t prevent me from holding that there can be viable forms of religious Marxism or leftist religion as populations. I can perfectly well hold that a population has a mistaken ontology and hold that they have a genuinely leftist politics. I will say, however, that apart from a couple of blips such as Martin Luther King and Ghandi, it seems that Christianity has historically been on the wrong side of political struggles and has been an apologist for the State. I wonder if there isn’t something internal to either dominant religious doctrines or the Bible that leads to this.
If I’m mistaken on this please correct me through sociological analysis of religious movements that have signicantly worked to undermine dominant class interests beyond those I’ve already cited. And please do so without invectives or personal insults. It could be that I’m just ignorant of history– there’s much history I am ignorant of –and that I’m not acquainted with these other movements.
April 10, 2007 at 10:12 pm
“Sure, but the question is whether or not these voices are prevailing. I’m glad they’re out there though.”
You’re glad that kids are out there rejecting the institution of the megachurch but making the ideology even more nefarious by linking it to abstraction even more than the megachurches? I think you failed to see my point there.
“This is terrific, but I don’t see your interventions as really doing this. Often they just change the subject and end up causing big kerkuffles over things that are largely agreed upon already and taken for granted.”
Well I should try harder then. Though if I caused kerkuffles about things that were largely taken for granted, maybe not, since I think much of what you are taking for granted is wrong. Which leads to…
“The post before your most recent one gives a clear sense why. In every line of your response you minimize or reject any threat posed by the Christian right, treating claims that there is a threat as being ridiculous and alarmist.”
My point is that I don’t think we understand the nature of the threat posed by the Christian right. You seem to be happy with just shouting all day, “The Christian Right poses a threat!!!!!! Oh MY GOD!!!! A THREAT!!!! FROM THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT!!!!!” That’s fine, we always need a Paul Revere, but it seems like the group of people you are talking to already knows about that threat. You seem to think that the threat is primarily political in nature, i.e., that the Christian Right has some kind of political power by way of institutions. I’m not so sure, instead I wonder if the Christian Right constitutes Bush’s willing executioners while believing themselves to have the very power you think they have. That their practice of religion, which is more abstract than liturgico-materialist, has allowed them to be co-opted by the Bush administration. I would go into this more, but you’re eyes just glazed over and you are more interested in showing how I’m a quietist. Though perhaps this would be interesting to link up with the ecology stuff you outlined.
Oh, and the Nazi’s, part of the name was ‘socialist’. That’s all. It was just a joke that the Christian Right doesn’t even have socialism. Geez. As to what to call this phenomenon – I don’t know. Christian Right seems to work alright. It has its problems, in part because it ties it to a specific form of Christianity that is not exactly connected in a straightforward way to the megachurches you also want to talk about. But, yeah, it seems less stupid than Christo-fascists. Though, I would actually want to talk about the micro-fascism at work, but find it politically dangerous in wider circles because of the rhetoric from the Right about Islamo-fascism (and of course Islam has micro-fascims too, but I just don’t want to add to a growing war drum).
It is now April, for the record and the debate has been focused since December. Discard has been along the whole time anyway, so you aren’t exactly educating him on something. Looking over the conversation you link to I don’t think I am more heated there than I am here. I’ve explained in the past my preconceptions about what this space constituted and what led me to post there, but you continue to ignore it. I assumed that this was a blog where we could talk about, you know, the turn to religion in relation to religious fundamentalism. Instead you wanted it to be a bitch fest about religious fundamentalism.
I’m very open to pursuing an ecological analysis of the Christian Right. In part this is what I’m pursuing in a conference paper, though I’m looking at religion more generally there. But let’s be clear on this – you’ve never posted on it in this way and so how could I respond to it before?
And, of course, Discard speaks more clearly on my views than I find myself able to do. I think the scheme he has laid out is basically right, though this doesn’t preclude us talking to each other about the other’s view of religion. But this would have be negotiated, as always.
April 10, 2007 at 10:13 pm
This is where you’re wrong:
Well, isn’t this precisely what I, Adam and APS are suggesting here. We are saying that your understanding of these pheomena are false. We are undercutting you at stage one – this is a discussion. And Christians don’t do this of course! Well they do. Have you ever tried to discuss with a Christian their Christianity versus your atheism. This will mostly start with you expressing your problem with Christianity etc and them saying if you have accurately represented them.
This isn’t a discussion about Christianity versus atheism. This is a discussion about a particular social movement that happens to call itself Christian. So a discussion asking what this or that Christian believes is irrelevant. What’s relevant is what is being done on schoolboards and the government by people that happen to belong to this social movement. I’m not sure why this point is so difficult to get.
To drive the point home: I could be myself a Christian and be concerned about these social movements. Adam Kotsko, bless his heart, said exactly this recently over at I Cite. Anthony has repeated this point in a number of points in this thread, pointing out that he thinks the things I’m pointing to are horrible. The issue here isn’t one of a philosophical discussion of beliefs and metaphysics.
April 10, 2007 at 10:17 pm
My point is that I don’t think we understand the nature of the threat posed by the Christian right. You seem to be happy with just shouting all day, “The Christian Right poses a threat!!!!!! Oh MY GOD!!!! A THREAT!!!! FROM THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT!!!!!” That’s fine, we always need a Paul Revere, but it seems like the group of people you are talking to already knows about that threat. You seem to think that the threat is primarily political in nature, i.e., that the Christian Right has some kind of political power by way of institutions. I’m not so sure, instead I wonder if the Christian Right constitutes Bush’s willing executioners while believing themselves to have the very power you think they have. That their practice of religion, which is more abstract than liturgico-materialist, has allowed them to be co-opted by the Bush administration. I would go into this more, but you’re eyes just glazed over and you are more interested in showing how I’m a quietist. Though perhaps this would be interesting to link up with the ecology stuff you outlined.
No, this is great stuff… You should go into it more. And I’m not being sarcastic when I say this.
I think you’ll be surprised by what I argue in my forthcoming paper on Badiou and Zizek if you read it. I have a long section on Zizek’s engagement with Paul and Christianity at the end.
April 10, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Ahem. Christianity has been on the wrong side of political struggles? That is nonesense of the worst kind. Remember that before this century political struggles were always between Christians. The Christians were doing the struggling as well as the oppressing. As for being an apoligist for the state, yes, but also, no, because again, Christians were both apoligists and deniers.
I should point out that socialism largely began in religious circles and was only later allied with materialism and atheism. So the idea that you can’t have a genuinely leftist politics within a religious framework is false. Milbank would probably claim that all socialism is finally theological, because it denies at the base of it something of materiality and is hence metaphysical.
As for ” So a discussion asking what this or that Christian believes is irrelevant”, well hardly. Understanding what they believe and how their theology ties in with their political allegiance is very much part of solving the problem or even describing it. I am working on something of paper about the reasons that orthodox Christianity cannot endorse these positions, and where abouts (Calvinism mainly) they went wrong. This debate in the end will be theological because it is the language these people speak. Lacan will do nothing here!
Is it just me but is Zizek shit on Christianity? I strongly suspect that it might just be me.
April 10, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Your point, by the way, about Paul Revere is well taken. Because of discussions we’ve had in the blogosphere around these issues (not just with you, but in general), I’ve become keyed up and now share whatever I find as I’ve felt that I’ve had to prove, in the past, that something exists. For instance, I think Alex’s unhelpful remarks are instance of this… He keeps shifting a socio-political issue to a discussion about beliefs and true and false Christianity, etc. I don’t see the point. So I throw these things up here whenever I come across them.
I’m far more interested in questions of why and what to do. For instance, this is what I was dealing with in my paper on Apocolyptism. You’ll note that this paper dealt with secular visions of apocalypse. In part this was because of discussions with you and others. I wanted to show a perversive sense of apocolypse in popular culture and how this isn’t restricted to the religious, and then tie it back into technological and economic shifts and a way of responding to the challenges these present to us. On the other hand, I think there are all sorts of questions as to why these forms of reactionary religiosity have grown so much since the early 70’s. What is it that has progressively made the Christian right so appealing? In part I think this has to do with the collapse of labor movements, in part with the collapse of leftist alternatives in the public space. Whether a social movement were to arise in the States that was genuinely leftist was religious or secular wouldn’t be an issue of much concern to me. This could be a topic of lively philosophical discussion, but I don’t see that leftist movements have to be secular or that religion is inherently reactionary.
April 10, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Ahem. Christianity has been on the wrong side of political struggles? That is nonesense of the worst kind. Remember that before this century political struggles were always between Christians. The Christians were doing the struggling as well as the oppressing. As for being an apoligist for the state, yes, but also, no, because again, Christians were both apoligists and deniers.
This is false. A number of the enlightenment thinkers were either deists or outright atheists, as were many of the Founding Fathers in the United States. This is a nice myth the Christian Right likes to repeat, however.
April 10, 2007 at 10:28 pm
So, now you’re a sociologist?
“I’m speaking of religion as a population or physical institution, where APS is interested in ideas.”
I want you to look at this really, really hard. A population is an idea, an idea is a population. You can’t think about ‘religion’ without having an idea of it or without being part of a population or without its being a population. This is sophistry if you really expect me to buy it.
“It isn’t the specifically religious nature of the phenomenon that bothers me. It could could be atheistic brown shirts that have no belief in God and I’d be concerned as well.”
If this were the case you would talk about these people. They do exist and they have growing power in Europe. Usually their connection to religion is tertieary, as in England the BNP has a vague sense of Christianity that is in no way connected to any real population of the Church of England. Is this not a population that interests you?
“I mean no disrespect to APS, but I’m just not all that concerned with Goodchild or his conception of religion.”
Right, that is to your own detriment on this issue because his is not merely philosophical. Even in so far as most philosophical issues worth being thought about are not merely philosophical his is actually connected to the very populations you claim to be talking about. And, no, I’m not organizing an organization of marxist Goodchildeans. This leads me to wonder if you’re missing the point here about the nature of thinking about these things. I’m not a political leader. I’m currently a student of religion and philosophy and I hope to add by way of my scholarship to political struggles, but I know my place will never be that of Lenin or Mao or Marcos.
“These are philosophical commitments, that are secondary to considerations of populations and social movements.”
No, they are not. My own beliefs are not irrelevant to the way I think about these things, of course, no thought is purely cynical and disinterested.
“If I’m mistaken on this please correct me through sociological analysis of religious movements that have significantly worked to undermine dominant class interests beyond those I’ve already cited. And please do so without invectives or personal insults. It could be that I’m just ignorant of history– there’s much history I am ignorant of –and that I’m not acquainted with these other movements.”
Yes I’d say it is ignorance. Of course Christianity has been on the wrong side of things. It’s also been on the right side. The same goes for Buddhism, liberalism, Islam, Communism, workerism, everything! How does one quantify this sort of thing though? This seems to be what you want, a definitive quantification of the good that Christianity has brought verses the bad. I don’t see how this is possible.
“This is a discussion about a particular social movement that happens to call itself Christian.”
It should have been until you suggested that Adam and I only want to defend these people.
I would like to go into it more but, really, you’ve made me very upset. I need to cool down and then maybe give it another go. Though this seems counter-productive because of the ground made on this issue I have to say that I don’t think you can separate belief and metaphysics from looking at movements. I don’t think this means we have to fight about the beliefs and the metaphysics, but I’m not so interested in separating sociology (or, for that matter, ecology) from philosophy and certain forms of theology. But, that is for another time, or maybe for you and Alex to talk about.
April 10, 2007 at 10:37 pm
“This is false. A number of the enlightenment thinkers were either deists or outright atheists, as were many of the Founding Fathers in the United States. This is a nice myth the Christian Right likes to repeat, however.”
Does this really help your point though? I mean, you’ve expressed your support for Jefferson in the past, but can we really deny that he didn’t deserve the rope just as much as any Pope leading the charge in the Crusades (by certain standards)? If not Jefferson then any other number of leaders of the American Revolution would do.
Alex is British, for the record, and so his views are not shaped by the Religious Right. There is no such thing as a Religious Right in the UK in any sense similar to that in the US. I think his point actually still stands though. Derrida has shown, among others, that the Enlightenment atheism is a Christian thing. Even Deists went to Church and, lets face it, the majority of the population doing the labour of oppressing (so, your everyday foot solider) or being oppressed was not a self-identifying deist or atheist. Some Deists even were active in ecclesial movements. If I remember right some sociologists at Nottingham Trent, part of the Theory, Culture, and Society journal, have done work on this.
April 10, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Okay.
1. I think that I will still stand-by the point that Christianity is broadly on both sides in a huge number of political debates in the preceding centuries. I could cite numerous examples from 19th century working class political struggles (the chartists, the corn law riots) that opposed Christians versus other Christians at the baricades. Ditto the move to improve working class provisions in terms of public health. And slavery.
“For instance, I think Alex’s unhelpful remarks are instance of this… He keeps shifting a socio-political issue to a discussion about beliefs and true and false Christianity, etc.”
2. I am not attempting to do this at all. I am simply suggesting as I think APS is, that beliefs, metaphysical frameworks, theology and personal philosophy cannot, should not and will not be seperated from socio-political issues. You cannot study the American Christian right without asking “what theology do they hold? why? how does this uphold their political vision?”. I just don’t know how you can seperate beliefs and desires from socio-political discussion – isn’t this kind of this a mainstay of sociological work?
April 10, 2007 at 11:02 pm
So, now you’re a sociologist?
Where academic identifications are concerned, I’m not really sure what I am. I do a number of different things that overlap with a number of different disciplines.
“I’m speaking of religion as a population or physical institution, where APS is interested in ideas.”
I want you to look at this really, really hard. A population is an idea, an idea is a population. You can’t think about ‘religion’ without having an idea of it or without being part of a population or without its being a population. This is sophistry if you really expect me to buy it.
These are good points. I think what I’m trying to get at, and am perhaps expressing poorly, is that it is a fact that a group of people exists that believe such and such things. The reason I keep bringing this up or coming back to this is that when discussion of this group(s) emerges it quickly shifts to a discussion of whether or not this is truly religious or whether it reflects the Bible or whether it’s theologically informed, etc. These discussions, while interesting, does not change the fact that such a group(s) exist.
“It isn’t the specifically religious nature of the phenomenon that bothers me. It could could be atheistic brown shirts that have no belief in God and I’d be concerned as well.”
If this were the case you would talk about these people. They do exist and they have growing power in Europe. Usually their connection to religion is tertieary, as in England the BNP has a vague sense of Christianity that is in no way connected to any real population of the Church of England. Is this not a population that interests you?
I think the obvious point here is that I’m not in Europe and so these groups are not on my radar or constantly in my life. You made a similar point with regard to Alex and the Christian Right. I only have a very vague knowledge of the movements you describe in Europe. I recall months ago I saw a documentary on HBO, but that’s really it. By contrast, I constantly deal with the Christian Right here in Texas on a very concrete level in the classroom and professionally in my job.
“I mean no disrespect to APS, but I’m just not all that concerned with Goodchild or his conception of religion.”
Right, that is to your own detriment on this issue because his is not merely philosophical. Even in so far as most philosophical issues worth being thought about are not merely philosophical his is actually connected to the very populations you claim to be talking about. And, no, I’m not organizing an organization of marxist Goodchildeans. This leads me to wonder if you’re missing the point here about the nature of thinking about these things. I’m not a political leader. I’m currently a student of religion and philosophy and I hope to add by way of my scholarship to political struggles, but I know my place will never be that of Lenin or Mao or Marcos.
I will follow it up when I can. You have peaked my interests in your passing remarks about his book on religion and capitalism. It’s a shame that these remarks– in the blogosphere, not your writings –tend to be only in passing.
“These are philosophical commitments, that are secondary to considerations of populations and social movements.”
No, they are not. My own beliefs are not irrelevant to the way I think about these things, of course, no thought is purely cynical and disinterested.
I work with a number of anthropologists who are atheists and deeply secular, yet this does not seem to get in the way of their fieldwork and their analysis of the religious belief systems of the various cultures they investigate. But perhaps I’m mistaken.
Yes I’d say it is ignorance. Of course Christianity has been on the wrong side of things. It’s also been on the right side. The same goes for Buddhism, liberalism, Islam, Communism, workerism, everything! How does one quantify this sort of thing though? This seems to be what you want, a definitive quantification of the good that Christianity has brought verses the bad. I don’t see how this is possible.
Fair enough. But again, if we’re thinking ecologically we have to think of dominant tendencies, no? For instance, I can imagine someone arguing the virtues of nationalism and patriotism, pointing to all the good things it produces. But this doesn’t change the fact that it also has a tendency to produce conflict, xenophobia, and oppression towards outside groups.
“This is a discussion about a particular social movement that happens to call itself Christian.”
It should have been until you suggested that Adam and I only want to defend these people.
I apologize. You’ve clarified a number of your motivations and the nature of the discussion has shifted from initial defensiveness to something richer.
Does this really help your point though? I mean, you’ve expressed your support for Jefferson in the past, but can we really deny that he didn’t deserve the rope just as much as any Pope leading the charge in the Crusades (by certain standards)? If not Jefferson then any other number of leaders of the American Revolution would do.
Good point, though I don’t know that I was saying one is inherently good and another bad. I was suggesting that it is too exclusive to say that these conflicts were simply among Christians. Atheists, Romans, Jews, Hindus, American Indians, etc., etc., etc., have been involved.
Derrida has shown, among others, that the Enlightenment atheism is a Christian thing.
I find this kind of argument specious. It’s like saying that birds are reptiles because they emerged out of reptiles.
April 10, 2007 at 11:11 pm
“I find this kind of argument specious. It’s like saying that birds are reptiles because they emerged out of reptiles.”
I’m not sure this is a good analogy. In actually fact the whole point is that atheism, in that mode, defines itself against theism. But I take your point.
“The reason I keep bringing this up or coming back to this is that when discussion of this group(s) emerges it quickly shifts to a discussion of whether or not this is truly religious or whether it reflects the Bible or whether it’s theologically informed, etc. These discussions, while interesting, does not change the fact that such a group(s) exist.”
That’s fair. I’ll try to avoid derailing your posts in the future.
I also take your point concerning tendencies from systems theory. This is something to talk about further I think.
It’s after midnight here though and I’ve been reading all day so I’m really tired. If I had to put what I think the endpoint of all of this is I’d sum it up thus: we have more to talk about and there should be no baiting at that time.
April 10, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? 37 comments in 4 hours? How do you get actual writing done?
April 10, 2007 at 11:31 pm
In my case, at the last minute, in an awful panic.
April 10, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Ha! This is called procrastination in the face of a massive pile of papers to mark. Alex, Discard, and Anthony were kind enough to help me vent my stress and aggression.
One of the things I like about Athony is that he’s as obsessive as me and can’t walk away once a heated discussion has begun.
April 11, 2007 at 12:40 am
I’m not sure this is a good analogy. In actually fact the whole point is that atheism, in that mode, defines itself against theism. But I take your point.
I get it now. A number of things I’ve written on Hegel with regard to containing the other in itself and determinate being would have this consequence as well.
That’s fair. I’ll try to avoid derailing your posts in the future.
I also take your point concerning tendencies from systems theory. This is something to talk about further I think.
It’s after midnight here though and I’ve been reading all day so I’m really tired. If I had to put what I think the endpoint of all of this is I’d sum it up thus: we have more to talk about and there should be no baiting at that time.
I agree. I don’t generally think of myself as baiting anyone. Although I will confess that I was looking for a good argument/discussion with this particular post and therefore put the jab at you and Adam to pull you out. Apart from the invectives, I got it.
April 13, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Just in case there’s not enough acrimony here, I’d like to point out that birds ARE reptiles. At least that’s what most taxonomists would say. Here’s some info:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
April 13, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Alright, alright, but you get the idea. Just because a human comes from chimpanzees it doesn’t follow that a human is a chimpanzee. A thing is not identical with its origins.
April 13, 2007 at 7:32 pm
[…] over at Larval Subjects also appears to have chimps on the brain – although (particularly in light of Tyler Cohen’s […]
April 13, 2007 at 8:52 pm
A thing is not identical with its origins. Agreed. But just another correction — humans did not come from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, but there’s no more reason to call that common ancestor a chimp than there is to call it a human. The chimp evolved to fill a particular niche at a particular place and time, and there’s no good reason for us to think of it as more primitive or less evolved than humans. We’re cousins, if anything.
April 13, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Just one more note — I’ve been reading your site for several months now and really enjoy it, even though it deals with subjects quite distant from my usual interests. Thanks for making your thoughts so readily available, and I apologize that in my first two posts I might have come across as a nit-picking primate.