This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

The Guardian ^ | April 14, 2007 | Julian Baggini

[neverdem]

Relativism has made liberal openness appear weak, empty and repugnant compared with the clarity of dogma

I don't usually consider either the Ministry of Defence or the Vatican to be prescient founts of wisdom. But when two such different oracles issue remarkably similar warnings, you have to take notice. Earlier this week it was revealed in this newspaper how the MoD believes that "the trend towards moral relativism and increasingly pragmatic values" was causing more and more people to seek "more rigid belief systems, including religious orthodoxy and doctrinaire political ideologies, such as popularism and Marxism". Flash back to 2004 and you find Pope John Paul II encouraging the then Cardinal Ratzinger to challenge a world "marked by both a widespread relativism and the tendency to a facile pragmaticism" by boldly proclaiming the truth of the church. Ratzinger has been preaching about the dangers of relativism ever since.

Put the two together and you have a worrying prognosis. The clash of civilisations is happening not between Islam and the west, as we are often led to believe, but between pragmatic relativism and dogmatic certainty. On this analysis, it is easy to see liberal democracy not as the crowning achievement of civilisation but a manifestation of a laissez-faire, morally bankrupt modernity. "Relativism appears to be the philosophical foundation of democracy," said Ratzinger in 1996. "Democracy in fact is supposedly built on the basis that no one can presume to know the true way." It is no surprise that both the MoD and the Pope believe that the beneficiaries of this polarisation will be those offering certitude, since belief in something is almost always preferable to belief in nothing. As Walter put it in the film The Big Lebowski: "Say what you like about the tenets of national socialism, Dude, at least..."

[neverdem]

That comes from the left wing rag the Guardian, so it’s worth nothing.

It's a guest OpEd challenging moral relativism. In the Guardian, that's like man bites dog.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link and excerpt!

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

There is no neutral ground in the universe—every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counterclaimed by Satan. — C.S. Lewis

[Savage Beast]

"The clash of civilisations is happening not between Islam and the west...but between pragmatic relativism and dogmatic certainty.

"On this analysis, it is easy to see liberal democracy not as the crowning achievement of civilisation but a manifestation of a laissez-faire, morally bankrupt modernity."

Actually, there may be something to this.

Many people--perhaps most people--crave certainty and external authority. Many want to be told what to do, how to think, what to believe.

It is quite possible that the uncertain Left subconsciously craves certainty and authority, subconsciously saboutages its own dogma, and hence is drawn to the certainty of totalitarianism in the form of Marxism, Islam, and corrupt dictatorships throughout the world.

Islam provides certainty.

Marxism and corrupt dictatorships provide authority.

[Rembrandt]

Julian should enjoy his time speaking out.

In about 6 - 7 years, he won’t dare to speak out (or he’ll be dead) because then the UK will be under Sharia law.

[Paperdoll]

What the clash of civilizations has always been about is Good against Evil.

[A. Pole]

Bump for later reading.