On sectarianism

22 08 2020

I was listening to Hare Krishna content while doing things around the house (as I am wont to do these days) and I listened to first a talk and then an interview with devotees from two different parts of the world. The first was by an initiating guru and sannyasi with a reputation for conservatism and orthodoxy. But this time, his line was more that, if people were really doing proselytism, in this case distributing Srila Prabhupada’s books, there would be less inner tension within ISKCON itself. Internal strife according to this reasoning isn’t an impediment for preaching to others, but rather it’s a product of not preaching and focusing on internal problems. The interview was with another devotee who seems to be coming from a less controversial position. He helps run a temple in Utah, of all places, and has nothing but praise for the Mormons around him, stating that the Mormon church even helped build their temple.

Read the rest of this entry »




Notes on theological liberalism

20 08 2020

Some of you have been reading me for almost fifteen years, so you know that I am not some knee-jerk reactionary. On the other hand, I hate attempts to “update” and explain away various religious premises and doctrines. Here I am jotting down some ideas as to why:

  1. I find that, in a lot of revisionist / liberal projects, there is an overt switch in belief from submission to power. In other words, there is always an unspoken agenda to it, a fake deference to tradition all the while planning to stab it in the back. And if you try to call it out, gaslighting ensues. The liberal will never fess up to his or her bias or real agenda, but everyone knows they have one, and most everyone knows what it is, but it dare not speak its name lest one be called a “bigot,” “closed-minded,” fundamentalist,” etc.
  2. In that vein, the favorite tactic of the theological liberal is the mote and bailey: attack one premise under the guise of going deeper into the tradition, only to knock the whole edifice down gradually, and retreat back into the particular interpretation of tradition whenever attacked. This is actually a pretty effective tactic.
  3. Don’t cite, just assert. Don’t actually engage with particulars, stick to words like “hermeneutics,” “higher criticism,” etc. Claim that you have the mind of the authority but don’t actually cite anything the authority says. After all, almost every interpretation of the authority seems to be defective, except your own.
  4. Bad cases make good law, and exceptions are rules. Every system has to deal with difficult cases, and all of the past methods of dealing with them are defective except the one you are now proposing (fancy that!) In other words, all problems of the past were too complex for simple solutions, but all modern solutions are totally transparent and will totally work.
  5. This is about sex, isn’t it? Everybody must be as depraved and is having as difficult of a time of it as you are. Of course, people in the past were not more virtuous or at least didn’t have enough of a sense of shame to fake it. That’s crazy talk.
  6. Credentials are the new priesthood. Even though most humanities fields just regurgitate the same theories over and over again with more opaque language, somehow degrees somehow still mean something. When all else fails, argument from authority.