Sekularizem ni eden, sekularizma sta dva

Prejšnji teden je Bonald predstavil kritiko sekularnega liberalizma kot nazorskega modela oziroma politične prakse, ki je inherentno netolerantna do verskih prepričanj, kadar ta pridejo navzkriž z ideološkim programom, na katerem temelji sekularni družbeni konsenz.

Liberalizem? Ne, progresivizem

Pri tem je govoril o »sekularnem liberalizmu«, kar ni napačna oznaka, vendar bi bilo pravilneje govoriti o naprednjaški ali progresivistični paradigmi. Če je namreč liberalizem v političnem pogledu, kot je zapisal španski filozof Ortega y Gasset, predvsem »volja živeti z nasprotnikom, še več, s šibkim nasprotnikom«, pa progresivizem temelji na normativnem idealu družbe, na podlagi katerega državljane deli na »napredne« in »nazadnjaške«, pri čemer si smejo le prvi nadejati enakopravnega sodelovanja v političnem procesu. Težava je v tem, da se ta ideal venomer spreminja (»napreduje«, pač) in s tem, kot je v svojem stalinističnem obdobju dejal Milovan Đilas, »tako kot reka med svojim tokom na bregovih pušča blato in drugi balast«. V »napredni družbi« so takšno blato seveda »nazadnjaške ideje«; balast pa tisti, ki se jih trmasto oklepajo.

“Tudi sodobno nestrpnost proti Katoliški cerkvi težko razumemo mimo dejstva, da smo pred drugo svetovno vojno Slovenci po številnih kriterijih bili najbolj katoliški narod v Evropi.”

Continue reading

Advertisements

Zakaj sekularni liberalizem ni liberalen

Pred kratkim smo lahko na spletni strani RTV Slovenije brali poročilo o dnevu boja proti homofobiji, v okviru katerega je bila organizirana okrogla miza, ki so se je udeležili številni eminentni tuji in domači gostje. Na tem mestu nimam namena obnavljati vseh razprav, ki, resnici na ljubo, niso prinesle pravzaprav nič novega. Mojo pozornost je vzbudila izjava državne sekretarke Martine Vuk, ki je poudarila, da homoseksualna skupnost ne potrebuje tolerance, temveč sprejetost. Toleranca po mnenju sekretarke namreč ni dovolj, saj smo lahko do nečesa tolerantni, a to še vedno odklanjamo. Njenemu mnenju se je pridružil finski veleposlanik, ki je opozoril: »Mi si ne želimo tolerance, ampak enakopravnost. Razlika je, ali vam nekdo reče, da vas “tolerira” ali pa da ste mu “enaki”.«

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

branje13

Like Haidt, Girard observes that ideology becomes a source of tribal identity, but at its most extreme it becomes increasingly dependent not on the principles that it espouses but on the psychological kinetics of its adversarial relationship to its rivals. Positive philosophy gives way to the need to feed on rivalry as a source of meaning. This is why extremist ideologies tend to be built upon fabulist views of a possible future: the more spectacular the vision, the more unreachable the goal, the more immersive the cause.

(…)

In the penultimate chapter of The Righteous Mind, Haidt shares with the reader the disorienting moment when he realized conservatism wasn’t so backward and parochial after all:

»As a lifelong liberal, I had assumed that conservatism = orthodoxy = religion = faith = rejection of science. It followed, therefore that as an atheist and a scientist, I was obligated to be a liberal. But Muller asserted that modern conservatism is really about creating the best possible society, the one that brings about the greatest happiness given local circumstances«

Why Secular Liberalism Isn’t Liberal – Forfare Davis, The University Bookman

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

branje2

Nemtsov had been preparing for an anti-Kremlin march scheduled for this Sunday. Hours before he was killed, he did a radio interview urging people to attend the march, and connecting the country’s economic woes to Putin’s policy in Ukraine. “The most important reason for the crisis is aggression, which led to sanctions and, in turn, isolation,” he said. Nemtsov understood that he, along with everyone else involved in anti-Putin politics, was being pushed to the fringes, having less of a voice and a foothold in Russian society than ever before. “Three years ago, we were an opposition. Now we are no more than dissidents,” he told the Financial Times earlier this week.

Then why was he killed? Without knowing who gave the orders, it’s possible to understand that the current political environment allowed for this to happen.

Assassination in Moscow – Joshua Jaffa, The New Yorker

Continue reading