[MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[david]

Dan said to Ridgecoyote:

... Donald Trump for President? I'd say Trump appeals to a certain demographic in the United States, namely old, white, angry males. Luckily, those fanatics are in the minority.



Ridgecoyote said to Dan:

He reminds me of two other politicians, both hugely successful - Reagan and Putin.  Reagan was laughed at by the intellectuals and  his own party elite  but had the last laugh and Putin with his bigger-than-life self-promotion all the time.   In a way, I hope it happens.  I think the leader should reflect the character of the people and think Trump captures where America is at today.  Yuck, I know, but there it is.



dmb says:

Be careful what you wish for. Trump appeals to the creepiest, most hateful and ignorant demographic in the United States.

"At the time, I happened to be reporting on extremist white-rights 
groups, and observed at first hand their reactions to his candidacy. 
Trump was advancing a dire portrait of immigration that partly 
overlapped with their own. On June 28th, twelve days after Trump’s 
announcement, the Daily Stormer, America’s most popular neo-Nazi news 
site, endorsed him for President: 'Trump is willing to say what most 
Americans think: it’s time to deport these people.' The Daily Stormer 
urged white men to 'vote for the first time in our lives for the one man
 who actually represents our interests.'  

Ever since the Tea Party’s peak, in 
2010, and its fade, citizens on the American far right—Patriot militias,
 border vigilantes, white supremacists—have searched for a 
standard-bearer, and now they’d found him. In the past, “white 
nationalists,” as they call themselves, had described Trump as a 
“Jew-lover,” but the new tone of his campaign was a revelation. Richard 
Spencer is a self-described “identitarian” who lives in Whitefish, 
Montana, and promotes “white racial consciousness.” At thirty-six, 
Spencer is trim and preppy, with degrees from the University of Virginia
 and the University of Chicago. He is the president and director of the 
National Policy Institute, a think tank, co-founded by William Regnery, a
 member of the conservative publishing family, that is “dedicated to the
 heritage, identity, and future of European people in the United States 
and around the world.” The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Spencer “a 
suit-and-tie version of the white supremacists of old.” Spencer told me 
that he had expected the Presidential campaign to be an “amusing freak 
show,” but that Trump was “refreshing.” He went on, “Trump, on a gut 
level, kind of senses that this is about demographics, ultimately. We’re
 moving into a new America.” He said, “I don’t think Trump is a white 
nationalist,” but he did believe that Trump reflected “an unconscious 
vision that white people have—that their grandchildren might be a hated 
minority in their own country. I think that scares us. They probably 
aren’t able to articulate it. I think it’s there. I think that, to a 
great degree, explains the Trump phenomenon. I think he is the one 
person who can tap into it.” 
Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance,
 a white-nationalist magazine and Web site based in Oakton, Virginia, 
told me, in regard to Trump, “I’m sure he would repudiate any 
association with people like me, but his support comes from people who 
are more like me than he might like to admit.” 
From
 the beginning of the current race, the conservative establishment has 
been desperate for Trump to be finished. After he disparaged the war 
record of Senator John McCain, the New York Post gave him a front-page farewell—“DON VOYAGE”—and a Wall Street Journal
 editorial declared him a “catastrophe.” But Trump carried on—in part 
because he had activated segments of the electorate that other 
candidates could not, or would not. On July 20th, three days before his 
trip to Texas, Ann Coulter, whose most recent book is “¡Adios, America! 
The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole,” 
appeared on Sean Hannity’s show and urged fellow-Republicans to see 
Trump’s summer as a harbinger. “The new litmus test for real 
conservatives is immigration,” she said. “They used to say the same 
thing about the pro-life Republicans and the pro-gun Republicans, and, 
‘Oh, they’re fringe and they’re tacky, and we’re so embarrassed to be 
associated with them.’ Now every one of them comes along and pretends 
they’d be Reagan.”
>From the New Yorker article, "The Fearful and the Frustrated" by Evan Osnos.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated

 

Dan said to Ridge:

County clerks withholding marriage licenses because of their religious convictions? Really? The christian fundamentalists are no different than radical Islam.



Ridge said:

Exactly.  Unfortunately, intellectuals don't have any effective means of dealing with either.  Intellectuals are too smart to get their hands dirty by talking about religious things, so religious things are allowed to grow and fester in the dark, uncriticized. That's a mistake  I believe and  Bagginni's article  confirms my belief.



Dan replied:

I'd say the court dealt with it... wouldn't you?



dmb says:

Yes, the court dealt with it and our highest laws speak directly to the issue of "religious things," particularly the first amendment to the constitution. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc.. Secular pluralism means religious freedom and that means protecting religious diversity and atheism too. It means the competition between ideas and values should not and cannot be decided by cops or armies but by critical engagement with those various ideas and values. Lawrence Krauss is hopelessly scientistic and more than a little anti-philosophical so I'm not a fan - but he makes some good points about the Kim Davis case. 


"Sometimes, I refer to the fact that religion and science are often in 
conflict; from time to time, I ridicule religious dogma. When I do, I 
sometimes get accused in public of being a “militant atheist.” Even a 
surprising number of my colleagues politely ask if it wouldn’t be better
 to avoid alienating religious people. Shouldn’t we respect religious sensibilities, masking potential 
conflicts and building common ground with religious groups so as to 
create a better, more equitable world? I found myself thinking about 
those questions this week as I followed the story of Kim Davis,.." -- 
Lawrence Krauss in "All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists"  (The New Yorker, Sept 8th).


"Ultimately, when we hesitate to openly
 question beliefs because we don’t want to risk offense, questioning 
itself becomes taboo. It is here that the imperative for scientists to 
speak out seems to me to be most urgent. As a result of speaking out on 
issues of science and religion, I have heard from many young people 
about the shame and ostracism they experience after merely questioning 
their family’s faith. Sometimes, they find themselves denied rights and 
privileges because their actions confront the faith of others. 
Scientists need to be prepared to demonstrate by example that 
questioning perceived truth, especially “sacred truth,” is an essential 
part of living in a free country. I
 see a direct link, in short, between the ethics that guide science and 
those that guide civic life. Cosmology, my specialty, may appear to be 
far removed from Kim Davis’s refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay 
couples, but in fact the same values apply in both realms. Whenever 
scientific claims are presented as unquestionable, they undermine 
science. Similarly, when religious actions or claims about sanctity can 
be made with impunity in our society, we undermine the very basis of 
modern secular democracy. We owe it to ourselves and to our children not
 to give a free pass to governments—totalitarian, theocratic, or 
democratic—that endorse, encourage, enforce, or otherwise legitimize the
 suppression of open questioning in order to protect ideas that are 
considered “sacred.” Five hundred years of science have liberated 
humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate 
this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.   If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label."


I really don't understand how anyone can take sides with knuckle-draggers like Trump or Davis. If these people don't give you the willies, I think your hateful bullshit detector is broken.