Likewise, the lack of tolerance in American Christianity can be as frightening as it can in Islam. When I once professed support for IVF, a man glared across the table, tight-jawed, and asked: "What does it feel like to be a mass murderer?" With such people there is no conversation, only a tiptoeing from the room.
If you want to see real intolerance, Simon, say something deemed politically incorrect by the people in your set and check out the reaction. What an ass.
An ass? Why? And why 'your set'? Aren't you making rather hasty assumptions? Jenkins seems to take a fairly balanced view of things:
ReplyDelete'All that said, the death of conversation has been announced as often as that of the book...The "post-digital" phenomenon, the craving for live experience, is showing a remarkable vigour. The US is a place of ever greater congregation and migration, to parks, beaches and restaurants, to concerts, rock festivals, ball games, religious rallies.'
And as to intolerance in Christianity, I've seen plenty of evidence of it myself (though admittedly, I've seen plenty of evidence of intolerance just about everywhere). I remember sitting in a library in Florida, trying to do some research, while two thirtyish women in the nearby stacks discussed their pastor's recent sermon in very loud voices - very penetrating voices. Unable to concentrate, I finally went over and asked them politely if they could talk a bit more softly, since I was reading. Immediately one of them began to rant that I was anti-Christian! I found their assumption that the issue concerned religion and not considerate behaviour quite interesting.
Well, he cites one instance and makes a grand statement about American Christianity. Like you, I've encountered intolerance everywhere, but rarely more obliviously than among many of those preaching tolerance. This bit about the intolerance of American Christians has become a liberal cliché. I've met all sorts of evangelicals, and just about every one was a perfectly decent individual, not out to persecute anybody. I've also met priests who were extraordinarily unpleasant.
ReplyDeleteAs for Jenkins's main point about the death of conversation, first, the art of conversation was never as widespread as he seems to assume — precisely because it is an art — and second, how many more pieces do we have to have telling us that technological change is bringing about the death of this or that? More people communicate with each other by means of writing now than at any other time in human history — because email is easier than snail mail, and because it is easier to write at a computer than it is using any earlier devices.
Whether liberal cliché or not, it contains - like many clichés - a good deal of truth. Jenkins is providing an example, not statistical proof. I don't know what happened to my second comment, which linked to Maud Newton's piece, but it's relevant in this regard:
ReplyDelete'Whichever side of this divide you sit on, you’re unlikely to seek rapprochement with the other. In our à la carte media world, most of us seek only to reinforce what we already think, and it’s zealots who drive the discourse.'
Frank, you write: 'As for Jenkins's main point about the death of conversation, first, the art of conversation was never as widespread as he seems to assume — precisely because it is an art — and second, how many more pieces do we have to have telling us that technological change is bringing about the death of this or that?'
The first point is a good one, but Jenkins more or less made the second point himself in his piece: 'All that said, the death of conversation has been announced as often as that of the book.' (Apologies for reposting.)
I'm posting the actual Maud Newton link separately, in case Blogger is unhappy to leave it inside a normal comment:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/my-son-went-to-heaven-and-all-i-got-was-a-no-1-best-seller.html?pagewanted=2
Oh, I dunno, I've been on the receiving end of Christian evangelical intolerance more times than I can count. It usually happens the instant they find out I'm neither heterosexual nor Christian, then the rude conversion speeches begin, and the hellfire and damnation threats begin. LOL
ReplyDeleteI guess it depends who you are, and who you hang out with.
Lou Harrison once told me that when the evangelicals showed up on his doorstep, he politely told them, "No thank you, I'm Buddhist," smiled, and gently shut the door on them. I've tried that myself at my own home, and it works.
Well, I live in a metropolitan area where many people are devoutly "progressive." Like many devout people they tend not to examine the grounds of their devotion or to doubt for a minute that those who disagree with them them are either evil or stupid or both. Like so many people, their intellectual life is one long path of confirmation bias. Few Christians, I fear, actually heed St. Paul's admonition to "think on these things." There are no easy answer when you think of Jesus' cry, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me." I don't have one, that's for sure, but I do think on it.
ReplyDeleteI also think of Jesus saying, "Love your enemy," and note how few seem to think on that.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the underlying issue is that many think not at all, on anything. I certainly agree with that. Relying on received wisdom rather than thinking for yourself is the root of thoughtless intolerance.
But I would out that condemning progressives as intolerant only holds water if you also condemn conservatives for doing the same. It's the militants not the centrists who tend to be condemnatory. At which point I return to wondering where "Love your enemy" disappeared to.
Oh, I quite agree. Intolerance is intolerance from whatever direction it comes.
ReplyDelete