Post by Petersean on Jun 18, 2008 16:08:49 GMT
How many factual or logical errors can you spot in this essay by Shadia Drury - Canada Research Chair in Social Justice at the University of Regina in Canada?
Reading the essay put me in mind of the line from "A Fish Called Wanda" when Wanda is unmasking Otto's intellectual pretensions: "Now let me correct you on a couple of things here. Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself,' and the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."
Amazingly, in her essay, Drury argues that the Dominican order of the Catholic Church are more evil than the Nazis and Communists combined because, while the Nazis and Communists knew that what they were doing was evil, the Dominicans didn't but actually thought that they were doing good:
"Catholic apologists shrug off the Inquisition by saying that every age has its atrocities. Every age does indeed have its atrocities, but no other age was blessed with a philosopher who was morally blind enough to defend its crimes. The moral blindness of Aquinas and his fellow Inquisitors transcends the callousness of the most spectacular secular criminals.
Unlike Aquinas and his fellow Dominican Inquisitors, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin), the leader of the Russian Revolution, retained his moral sensibilities and did not display the same callous disregard for the killing of the innocent. Unlike Aquinas and the Catholic Church, Lenin recognized his actions as crimes; he had to make a conscious effort to harden his heart so he could carry them out. Lenin loved listening to Beethoven’s Appassionata, but he did not allow himself this pleasure too often because the beauty of the music made him feel like patting everyone’s head. As a revolutionary, he had to break a lot of heads. He had no illusions about the wicked means involved in his project of world transformation. He recognized his crimes for what they were."
Here is the complete essay.
Here is a response from a "Dominican-symp."
As an Aquinas afficianado, let me ask my intellectual superiors in things medieval about this claim:
"Thomas Aquinas was fully aware of the hostility of the people toward his fellow Dominicans. When Aquinas arrived in Paris in 1245, the friars could hardly venture out of their monastery for fear of insults and assault. The royal troops of King Louis IX (St. Louis) had to guard the monastery at St. Jacques, where Aquinas was staying."
I've never heard of such a thing, and given Drury's other tendentious claims, I'm not inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.
But does anyone know if this claim has any basis?
Reading the essay put me in mind of the line from "A Fish Called Wanda" when Wanda is unmasking Otto's intellectual pretensions: "Now let me correct you on a couple of things here. Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself,' and the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."
Amazingly, in her essay, Drury argues that the Dominican order of the Catholic Church are more evil than the Nazis and Communists combined because, while the Nazis and Communists knew that what they were doing was evil, the Dominicans didn't but actually thought that they were doing good:
"Catholic apologists shrug off the Inquisition by saying that every age has its atrocities. Every age does indeed have its atrocities, but no other age was blessed with a philosopher who was morally blind enough to defend its crimes. The moral blindness of Aquinas and his fellow Inquisitors transcends the callousness of the most spectacular secular criminals.
Unlike Aquinas and his fellow Dominican Inquisitors, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin), the leader of the Russian Revolution, retained his moral sensibilities and did not display the same callous disregard for the killing of the innocent. Unlike Aquinas and the Catholic Church, Lenin recognized his actions as crimes; he had to make a conscious effort to harden his heart so he could carry them out. Lenin loved listening to Beethoven’s Appassionata, but he did not allow himself this pleasure too often because the beauty of the music made him feel like patting everyone’s head. As a revolutionary, he had to break a lot of heads. He had no illusions about the wicked means involved in his project of world transformation. He recognized his crimes for what they were."
Here is the complete essay.
Here is a response from a "Dominican-symp."
As an Aquinas afficianado, let me ask my intellectual superiors in things medieval about this claim:
"Thomas Aquinas was fully aware of the hostility of the people toward his fellow Dominicans. When Aquinas arrived in Paris in 1245, the friars could hardly venture out of their monastery for fear of insults and assault. The royal troops of King Louis IX (St. Louis) had to guard the monastery at St. Jacques, where Aquinas was staying."
I've never heard of such a thing, and given Drury's other tendentious claims, I'm not inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.
But does anyone know if this claim has any basis?
