Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 10:05 pm
No. I think he has other reasons for lapsing into ad homs. I think there are subjects he is very earnest to distract from, and ad homs serve his turn as deflectors. You can note that whenever we get too close to the disassociating with "Catholicism" from "the European West" or "Christianity," he goes ad hominem immediately. He's defending a sacred cow of his, which is his theory of European culture, from that which would expose it as a mistake.
A great deal depends on this assertion. But if the assertion is seen to be false, it falls apart. If it does fall apart, what then are we to decide about the accusation?
First, and if looked at through the perspective I have recently been working with, Protestantism and Catholicism are structured *belief-systems* whose
purpose must be understood (what I call *function*). I will grant that it is possible to create an intellectually constructed edifice -- an ideal religious picture -- and that these are worthy of examination and study, but the fundamental beliefs, based on metaphysical predicates, that Protestantism and Catholicism are committed to are essentially the same, though obviously the details differ.
Catholicism is a syncretistic religion and a blending, on so many levels, of varying beliefs and also symbols that were incorporated into it. That story of blending, of assimilation, of the marriage of symbols, and the perceptual view that pertained to Europe for a thousand years and more,
is the story of Europe. Catholicism -- this disparate blending of religious practices and rituals, and the attempt to consolidate them logically through theological endeavor -- is actually what European Christianity
is.
He's defending a sacred cow of his, which is his theory of European culture, from that which would expose it as a mistake.
In order to 'defend a sacred cow' you have to believe in the theology standing behind it. The reason a
cow is sacred, for Vaishnava Indians, is because the cow was Krishna's pet in the gardens of Vrkndaven. The mythology of Krishna is set in a pastoral setting and the cow produced milk that was made into many different foodstuffs.
The origin of the veneration of the cow can be traced to the Vedic period (2nd millennium–7th century BCE). The Indo-European peoples who entered India in the 2nd millennium BCE were pastoralists; cattle had major economic significance that was reflected in their religion. Though cattle were sacrificed and their flesh eaten in ancient India, the slaughter of milk-producing cows was increasingly prohibited. It is forbidden in parts of the Mahabharata, the great Sanskrit epic, and in the religious and ethical code known as the Manu-smirti (“Tradition of Manu”), and the milk cow was already in the Rigveda said to be “unslayable.” The degree of veneration afforded the cow is indicated by the use in rites of healing, purification, and penance of the panchagavya, the five products of the cow—milk, curd, butter, urine, and dung.
But to apply the term 'sacred cow' to my understanding of what Catholicism is and has been for Europe -- deeply meshed with its culture on all levels and profoundly so -- is a false accusation. The reason being that I have come to a point where I have intellectually transcended the laden and rich symbols with which Christianity is enmeshed, and can no longer *believe in* them. In this way I become problematic for people like Immanuel Can who, as zealots and fanatics, must defend the validity of the symbols they are aligned with in the manner of those denizens of Plato's Cave must *believe in* the reality and the validity of the images that dance along the wall of projection.
Though it appears that by describing religious fanaticism as I do here I am accused of employing ad hominem, I completely reject the accusation when my overall position is considered and understood.
However, there is another element that needs to be mentioned and, I think, it will help those who read here to better understand Immanuel Can's
virulent anti-Catholicism. Here is a section from the Wiki page on anti-Catholicism:
Anti-Catholicism in the United States concerns the anti-Catholic attitudes first brought to the Thirteen Colonies by Protestant European settlers, composed mostly of English Puritans, during the British colonization of North America (16th–17th century). Two types of anti-Catholic rhetoric existed in colonial society and they continued to exist during the following centuries. The first type, derived from the theological heritage of the Protestant Reformation and the European wars of religion (16th–18th century), consisted of the biblical Anti-Christ and the Whore of Babylon variety and it dominated anti-Catholic thought until the late 17th century. The second type was a variety partially derived from xenophobic, ethnocentric, nativist, and racist sentiments and distrust of increasing waves of Roman Catholic immigrants, particularly from Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Mexico. It usually focused on the pope's control of bishops, priests, and deacons.
Historians have studied the motivations for anti-Catholicism in the history of the United States. The historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. characterized prejudice against Catholics as "the deepest bias in the history of the American people." The historian John Higham described anti-Catholicism as "the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history". The historian Joseph G. Mannard says that wars reduced anti-Catholicism: "enough Catholics supported the War for Independence to erase many old myths about the inherently treasonable nature of Catholicism. ... During the Civil War, the heavy enlistments of Irish and Germans into the Union Army helped to dispel notions of immigrant and Catholic disloyalty."
Immanuel Can is quite obviously deeply enmeshed with
veritable *sacred cows*, and these are best understood through the term
Bible literalism, but the larger relevance of referring to a singular man is principally to illustrate the degree to which the functions of these sacred cows are in high operation in our present. Immanuel Can as a person is irrelevant. The state of the long on-going Culture Wars in the United States are deeply enmeshed with religious issues and questions. And my understanding of this is that when people feel threatened and their way of life is under assault, they very naturally seek *anchors* through which they can ground themselves. And one of the main anchors is religious affiliation.
Does it seem as if I am
criticizing this? That would be an inaccurate assessment. I try to observe what is going on around me and assigning labels and *cataloguing* is a large part of what I do.
