What are you currently reading?

[Florestan]

As in all of the Ishiguro novels I have written

[Philoctetes]

The same could be said of Derrida, Levinas. Perhaps even Heidegger, Sartre. Some might even propose Frank Zappa.

No. It really couldn't be said.

[Fëanor]

Without seeming to justify all instances of "political correctness", I will assert that there is an immense difference between defending basic human rights & equalities, and promoting superstition.

Believe me, I have read the gospels extensively, but feel free to quote whatever you think might support your case.

Oh, sorry, now I realize that the way I formulated it implied it was addressed directly to you, when in fact it was intended as a rhetoric address. I apologize.

No apology necessary.

For my part I apologize once and for all to religious people for denigrating their belief.  Please understand that it is much more "belief" in general that I disagree with, being a profound skeptic, than anybody's belief in particular.

[AndyD.]

No. It really couldn't be said.

It was! 

[DavidRoss]

Without seeming to justify all instances of "political correctness", I will assert that there is an immense difference between defending basic human rights & equalities, and promoting superstition.

Such as the superstition that a centralized authoritarian elite will make better decisions to govern the behavior of a nation's people than the people themselves acting freely to serve what they see as their own, their family's, their community's, and their nation's best interests?

[AndyD.]

Such as the superstition that a centralized authoritarian elite will make better decisions to govern the behavior of a nation's people than the people themselves acting freely to serve what they see as their own, their family's, their community's, and their nation's best interests?

Great point. But I wonder how many nation's leaders, throughout history, have fostered in their subjects the idea that they (the people) are acting freely to serve what they see as their own, their family's, their community's, and their nation's best interests?
Just throwing that out there.

[Philoctetes]

It was! 

Clearly you have the wit of Henning.

[Philoctetes]

Understanding Contemporary Africa edited by April and Donald Gordon

It's a fairly good read so far. It's my favorite out of my Africa bundle, thus far, because it's the most updated, and has almost no 'policy' ideas. Straight up, shooter.

[AndyD.]

Clearly you have the wit of Henning.

You overestimate me. I am of a far, far lower order. Wheeeeee!

[karlhenning]

I have been advised to make my wit available for hire, though.  Will work for shiitake . . . .

[Philoctetes]

You overestimate me. I am of a far, far lower order. Wheeeeee!

You're definitely selling yourself short.

[AndyD.]

You're definitely selling yourself short.

And you are very kind.

[Brian]

Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. So far, fantastic. I don't always agree, but I still should have read this guy years ago.

[MN Dave]

Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. So far, fantastic. I don't always agree, but I still should have read this guy years ago.

Good one.

[Fëanor]

Such as the superstition that a centralized authoritarian elite will make better decisions to govern the behavior of a nation's people than the people themselves acting freely to serve what they see as their own, their family's, their community's, and their nation's best interests?

Maybe you'll allow that the United States, the most of any nation, has enshired the notion of "...the people themselves acting freely to serve what they see as their own, their family's, their community's, and their nation's best interests"?  For my part, I will allow that the U.S. is a nation that gives one person one vote.  Yet it is also a nation where an "elite", through the manipulation of voters and politicians alike, "govern the behavior of [the] nation's people" with substantial disrgard for the people's interest. The American elite isn't government (-- albeit it owns government --) and it wants the smallest, least regulating, and cheapest government it can buy.  It is deeply ironic the so many Americans, not of the elite, fear "big government".

[Florestan]

Without seeming to justify all instances of "political correctness", I will assert that there is an immense difference between defending basic human rights & equalities, and promoting superstition.

The specific content of a state-enforced ideology is irrelevant for my point: in the US (or Europe, for that matter) certain beliefs and thoughts, if expressed publicly, could get their holder into greater or lesser trouble with the authorities --- just as in the Roman Empire. 

For my part I apologize once and for all to religious people for denigrating their belief.  Please understand that it is much more "belief" in general that I disagree with, being a profound skeptic, than anybody's belief in particular.

No need to apologize either. In my book, skepticism about "belief" is very different from denigration. I didn't feel insulted at all by your posts.  0:)

[karlhenning]

Re-reading Waugh's Edmund Campion: A Life

. . . in the first week of Lent [1570] a [Papal] Court of Enquiry heard the evidence of twelve trustworthy English witnesses; Elizabeth was charged and found guilty on seventeen counts; on February 12th Pius pronounced the sentence which on the 25th was embodied in the Bull Regnans in Excelsis. Elizabeth was excommunicated and her subjects released from the moral obligations of obedience to her.

Three months later, on Corpus Christi Day, May 25th, a manuscript copy of the document was nailed to the door of the Bishop of London's Palace, in St Paul's churchyard, by Mr John Felton, a Catholic gentleman of wealth and good reputation.  He was tortured and executed.  On the scaffold he made a present to the Queen of a great diamond ring which he had been wearing at the time of his arrest, with the assurance that he meant her no personal harm, but believed her deposition to be for her own soul's good and the country's. He was the first of the great company of Englishmen who were to sacrifice their entire worldy prospects and their lives as the result of Pius V's proclamation.

[Fëanor]

Re-reading Waugh's Edmund Campion: A Life

. . . in the first week of Lent [1570] a [Papal] Court of Enquiry heard the evidence of twelve trustworthy English witnesses; Elizabeth was charged and found guilty on seventeen counts; on February 12th Pius pronounced the sentence which on the 25th was embodied in the Bull Regnans in Excelsis. Elizabeth was excommunicated and her subjects released from the moral obligations of obedience to her.
Three months later, on Corpus Christi Day, May 25th, a manuscript copy of the document was nailed to the door of the Bishop of London's Palace, in St Paul's churchyard, by Mr John Felton, a Catholic gentleman of wealth and good reputation.  He was tortured and executed.  On the scaffold he made a present to the Queen of a great diamond ring which he had been wearing at the time of his arrest, with the assurance that he meant her no personal harm, but believed her deposition to be for her own soul's good and the country's. He was the first of the great company of Englishmen who were to sacrifice their entire worldy prospects and their lives as the result of Pius V's proclamation.

It is significant though, that Felton's conviction was for treason, not for religious deviance.  The Papal bull denied the legitimacy of Elizabeth's reign and advocated her overthrow, and Felton explicitly endorsed this position and freely admitted treason (even before he as tortured).  By the way, this is first I've heard about him offering the Queen his diamond ring; it might be true, but though he might have meant her no personal harm, he had not denied his treason.  Bear in mind that this was a very different age from our own when it was normal to define as treason any questioning of the monarch's right to rule.

Thus Felton's punishment was unlike, say, the many earlier executions (by burning) of Protestant martyrs during Mary Tudor's reign for only religious deviance, (from Catholic dogma), despite, in many cases, their assertions of loyalty to the then queen.

[karlhenning]

It is significant though, that Felton's conviction was for treason, not for religious deviance.

Yes, though of course, the matter is not so cut-and-dried.  History simply vindicates Elizabeth I's reign, but Waugh points out (what the conquerors will simply sweep under a carpet) that (a) Elizabeth was illegitimate (by both canon law and English statute law), and (b) she had, by her religious acts, violated her coronation oath.  We might therefore argue that Felton's act was not treasonous against a rightful sovereign.

[Florestan]

(a) Elizabeth was illegitimate (by both canon law and English statute law), and (b) she had, by her religious acts, violated her coronation oath.  We might therefore argue that Felton's act was not treasonous against a rightful sovereign.

This and another point: there is only one thing a person can be treasonous against: one's own conscience; not a few people had to choose between conscience and king/queen/emperor/fatherland etc.