Dear subscribers, Before I begin I need to apologize for my lack of production here. I was dealing with a back injury and two doctoral classes that were time consuming and exhausting. Thankfully, I am pretty much healed from the injury and done with the most difficult class in the program. I have a bit over a week before the next, and hopefully, last class before I begin my project for the program. Thank you for your patience and support.
So sorry to hear about your back injury, but glad you are on the rebound now. We have missed you!
The so-called mainstream media are giving Trump's lies much more credibility than they deserve and are downplaying Biden's accomplishments. WHY? Is it because they hope to see Trump elected in November because bad news far outsells positive news? Is it sensationalism they seek? Whatever their reason, they are endangering the future of this nation and while I have long been a supporter of a free press, in return I expect them to have integrity. Today, I don't think they have much, particularly the New York Times. And the ignorance of so many of the people in this country astounds and disappoints me ... I really thought we were better than this.
Thanks for solving the mystery of whatever happened to Steven Dundas. I look forward to your recovery and your auspicious posts which demand scrupulous attention.
First, while it's not as relevant to Holocaust denial in particular, it's also important to keep in mind a fourth kind of statement: bullshit, in the Frankfurtian sense. That is, statements that, rather than having some shade of truthfulness or lack thereof or some kind of subjectivity to them, simply have no relationship with reality. David Barton's obsession with lionizing Thomas Jefferson (and the broader American reactionary project of founder-worship) is a good example, I think. While the actors in question will happily tell lies in support of these narratives, the narrative itself doesn't have quite the same feel as a lie, at least to me. Rather than being a construct created with the intent of concealing some truth, this kind of mythologizing is often viewed as an end in itself, and any "fact of the matter" *must* be distorted to match the target perception. You can't put together a set of evidence, real or hypothetical, that would cause Barton to believe that Jefferson was a bigoted, hypocritical rapist; because Jefferson is a major figure in the founding of the USA, he is by definition a paragon of virtue, and all evidence of his actual personhood will distort to fit that frame.
Second: the importance of the *religious* character of the speech you describe is something that immediately jumped out at me. Obviously it's something that worked out in your favor in this case (as in the cases of the various Jehovah's Witnesses who created much of the backbone of our modern free speech doctrines), but there are many cases and rights where it doesn't, or where it is only now, and only tentatively, that the special status of beliefs that can be characterized as "religious" is being wielded to expand, rather than to diminish, individual freedoms. Witness a few cases of Jews and others claiming, for example, a religious right to receive abortion care. The definitely real but difficult to describe misalignment between what we mean by "freedom of conscience" as a civic ideal and "freedom of religion" as a legal matter is something I've been thinking about for a while, but I find I can't really take it to any sort of conclusion because I don't have confidence in what "religion" means to religious people, in a very literal, dictionary definition sort of sense. Related to this, since it sounds like you've got some experience with the Chaplain Corps, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the atheist chaplain issue specifically.
So sorry to hear about your back injury, but glad you are on the rebound now. We have missed you!
The so-called mainstream media are giving Trump's lies much more credibility than they deserve and are downplaying Biden's accomplishments. WHY? Is it because they hope to see Trump elected in November because bad news far outsells positive news? Is it sensationalism they seek? Whatever their reason, they are endangering the future of this nation and while I have long been a supporter of a free press, in return I expect them to have integrity. Today, I don't think they have much, particularly the New York Times. And the ignorance of so many of the people in this country astounds and disappoints me ... I really thought we were better than this.
Good to see you again, Padre!
Thanks for solving the mystery of whatever happened to Steven Dundas. I look forward to your recovery and your auspicious posts which demand scrupulous attention.
Two points:
First, while it's not as relevant to Holocaust denial in particular, it's also important to keep in mind a fourth kind of statement: bullshit, in the Frankfurtian sense. That is, statements that, rather than having some shade of truthfulness or lack thereof or some kind of subjectivity to them, simply have no relationship with reality. David Barton's obsession with lionizing Thomas Jefferson (and the broader American reactionary project of founder-worship) is a good example, I think. While the actors in question will happily tell lies in support of these narratives, the narrative itself doesn't have quite the same feel as a lie, at least to me. Rather than being a construct created with the intent of concealing some truth, this kind of mythologizing is often viewed as an end in itself, and any "fact of the matter" *must* be distorted to match the target perception. You can't put together a set of evidence, real or hypothetical, that would cause Barton to believe that Jefferson was a bigoted, hypocritical rapist; because Jefferson is a major figure in the founding of the USA, he is by definition a paragon of virtue, and all evidence of his actual personhood will distort to fit that frame.
Second: the importance of the *religious* character of the speech you describe is something that immediately jumped out at me. Obviously it's something that worked out in your favor in this case (as in the cases of the various Jehovah's Witnesses who created much of the backbone of our modern free speech doctrines), but there are many cases and rights where it doesn't, or where it is only now, and only tentatively, that the special status of beliefs that can be characterized as "religious" is being wielded to expand, rather than to diminish, individual freedoms. Witness a few cases of Jews and others claiming, for example, a religious right to receive abortion care. The definitely real but difficult to describe misalignment between what we mean by "freedom of conscience" as a civic ideal and "freedom of religion" as a legal matter is something I've been thinking about for a while, but I find I can't really take it to any sort of conclusion because I don't have confidence in what "religion" means to religious people, in a very literal, dictionary definition sort of sense. Related to this, since it sounds like you've got some experience with the Chaplain Corps, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the atheist chaplain issue specifically.
In any case, it's good to have you back.