Still haven't read any Dreher, so I can't really agree or disagree with this piece as a review. However, it really kickstarted a couple of thought processes.
One is the weird historical association between Christianity and Rome (and its successors). Even Augustine used to oppose violence in debates within the Church, until he saw how incredibly expedient the Emperor's sword was in suppressing the Donatists. (See Augustine's lengthy letter with the mental gymnastics: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102093.htm Also, a quick wikipedia primer on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogatists)
The other concerns two historical events on April 12, 1204 and 1638. The first one is the sack of Constantinople, a messed up result of the incredibly politicized religious situation. The witless crusaders were first duped into a crusade to Egypt (by saying they were going to Jerusalem) and then duped into supporting a pretender to the Emperor's throne (didn't end well). The other historical event is the fall of the outer defenses of the Christian Shimabara rebels' "castle".
Both of the events display the incredible danger that arises from allying with the Emperors of the world when your religion is about a liberating message. "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
I'm having trouble parsing out the argument for freedom of speech in atheistic ethics, though. Just because a group of primates has found arguments and disagreement to be expedient, doesn't seem to make it into moral action. In a world of arbitrary values, why should the alleviation of human suffering be prioritized over the sacred cow of consensus?
Still haven't read any Dreher, so I can't really agree or disagree with this piece as a review. However, it really kickstarted a couple of thought processes.
One is the weird historical association between Christianity and Rome (and its successors). Even Augustine used to oppose violence in debates within the Church, until he saw how incredibly expedient the Emperor's sword was in suppressing the Donatists. (See Augustine's lengthy letter with the mental gymnastics: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102093.htm Also, a quick wikipedia primer on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogatists)
The other concerns two historical events on April 12, 1204 and 1638. The first one is the sack of Constantinople, a messed up result of the incredibly politicized religious situation. The witless crusaders were first duped into a crusade to Egypt (by saying they were going to Jerusalem) and then duped into supporting a pretender to the Emperor's throne (didn't end well). The other historical event is the fall of the outer defenses of the Christian Shimabara rebels' "castle".
Both of the events display the incredible danger that arises from allying with the Emperors of the world when your religion is about a liberating message. "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
I'm having trouble parsing out the argument for freedom of speech in atheistic ethics, though. Just because a group of primates has found arguments and disagreement to be expedient, doesn't seem to make it into moral action. In a world of arbitrary values, why should the alleviation of human suffering be prioritized over the sacred cow of consensus?