<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: That Crazy Consensus About Religion and Politics</title>
	<link>http://larison.org/2006/04/28/that-crazy-consensus-about-religion-and-politics/</link>
	<description>n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Glaivester</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2006/04/28/that-crazy-consensus-about-religion-and-politics/#comment-451</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2006 20:08:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2006/04/28/that-crazy-consensus-about-religion-and-politics/#comment-451</guid>
					<description>Islamism?  Christianism?  What about the threat of &lt;a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2006/03/scientologyism.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;Scientologyism&lt;/a&gt; and the radical Scientologismists?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Islamism?  Christianism?  What about the threat of <a href="http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2006/03/scientologyism.html" rel="nofollow">Scientologyism</a> and the radical Scientologismists?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Daniel Larison</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2006/04/28/that-crazy-consensus-about-religion-and-politics/#comment-450</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2006 16:57:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2006/04/28/that-crazy-consensus-about-religion-and-politics/#comment-450</guid>
					<description>I think you're right about both.  It is a measure of how low we've fallen as a people that a view that does seem to judge everything in terms of making homosexuality more acceptable and providing it with more guarantees against the normal social impulse to ban and marginalise it is not only taken seriously but has become, among blogs anyway, one of the more prominent views out there.  But as long as he is leading the attack on the place of religion in public life, and enough people are reading and possibly taking him seriously, his harangues have to be addressed and answered.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;re right about both.  It is a measure of how low we&#8217;ve fallen as a people that a view that does seem to judge everything in terms of making homosexuality more acceptable and providing it with more guarantees against the normal social impulse to ban and marginalise it is not only taken seriously but has become, among blogs anyway, one of the more prominent views out there.  But as long as he is leading the attack on the place of religion in public life, and enough people are reading and possibly taking him seriously, his harangues have to be addressed and answered.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Maximos</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2006/04/28/that-crazy-consensus-about-religion-and-politics/#comment-449</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:52:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2006/04/28/that-crazy-consensus-about-religion-and-politics/#comment-449</guid>
					<description>Sullivan wants to attain Jacobin ends by employing ostensibly Christian means; or, more clearly, wishes  the realization of radical ends, and evacuates the content of Christianity, filling the garments of the Faith with the fetid substance of his faith in the importance of radical self-creation.  

If I were a journalist, and I oriented all of my work around the proposition that page 164 of the Kama Sutra was the &lt;i&gt;summum bonum&lt;/i&gt; of human existence, I would not merely deserve not to be taken seriously, I would deserve the acme of derision.  Why, then, is this man, who reduces everything, ultimately, to the question of whether it facilitates the greater societal acceptance of his perversion, regarded seriously?  I know the answer to the question.  But it is no less absurd for all of that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sullivan wants to attain Jacobin ends by employing ostensibly Christian means; or, more clearly, wishes  the realization of radical ends, and evacuates the content of Christianity, filling the garments of the Faith with the fetid substance of his faith in the importance of radical self-creation.  </p>
<p>If I were a journalist, and I oriented all of my work around the proposition that page 164 of the Kama Sutra was the <i>summum bonum</i> of human existence, I would not merely deserve not to be taken seriously, I would deserve the acme of derision.  Why, then, is this man, who reduces everything, ultimately, to the question of whether it facilitates the greater societal acceptance of his perversion, regarded seriously?  I know the answer to the question.  But it is no less absurd for all of that.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

