We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.”
Further went on to say —
“We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism, and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils. We have no place for haters in America — none, whatsoever.
The present is extolled as the AGE OF LIBERALITY. And so far as it guarantees to every individual the free exercise of his opinions, unawed by the sword of secular power, or the fires of ecclesiastical tyranny–so far as it renders homage to the sincerity and purity of the purposes of the heart, however the understanding may be subjected to the sway of erroneous opinions–so far as it denies no office of Christian kindness, no courtesy of social intercourse, no sentiment even of personal affection to the honest and the worthy, though bearing a different religious name, and unhappily informed by heresy and schism–so far as the present age thus establishes the rights of conscience, and banishes that bigotry which, in denouncing errors, would persecute their abettors–it deserves the plaudit of an enlightened and Christian liberality.
Yet even if circumstances did not establish the fact, the theory of human nature would justify the apprehension, that liberality to men would be extended to their opinions; and that from admitting the equal sincerity of the former, the acknowledgment would be made of the equal truth, or, to speak more properly, of the equal indifference of the latter; so that sincerity of intention would be considered as the only standard of truth, and the age of liberality become the AGE OF INDIFFERENCE.
It is in this view that it is the duty of Churchmen to guard against that popular liberality which claims for professions of respect and kindness which Churchmen may reciprocate, a return which, without treachery to their Church and to their Master, Churchmen cannot render–an indifference or a lukewarmness in professing and vindicating the distinctive principles of their Church.
I say, my Brethren, Churchmen cannot adopt the phraseology of the day, and rank their distinctive principles among the non-essentials of religion, without treachery to their Church and to their Master. For their Church considers many of these principles as lying at the foundation of that sacred edifice, which, in clearing from the false ornaments and unhallowed appendages with which superstition and ambition had deformed it, she has sought to exhibit in the lustre with which, reared by apostles, martyrs, and confessors, it shone forth in the first ages of Christianity.
The Right Reverend John Henry Hobart, Third Bishop of New York, warns against syncretism in his charge The Churchman
You said Gods as in plural. What religion are you from? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.
I don’t have a religion, i just don’t want any of the deities to feel left out so I include them all in the plural. No one can say that i’m not fair. Also it’s a habit from back when I used to read a lot of nordic mythology. (May the hate mail increase with this answer 😂😂😂)
A procession organized by the Hindu community in my neighborhood just came by with music and an altar to carry through the streets and I am so happy right now, because I woke up with church bells this morning and now this is the sound of the afternoon and that is the kind of country I want to live in.
In a campaign to improve its image abroad, the Israeli government plans to provide scholarships to hundreds of students at its seven universities in exchange for their making pro-Israel Facebook posts and tweets to foreign audiences.
The students making the posts will not reveal online that they are funded by the Israeli government, according to correspondence about the plan revealed in the Haaretz newspaper.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, which will oversee the programme, confirmed its launch and wrote that its aim was to “strengthen Israeli public diplomacy and make it fit the changes in the means of information consumption”.
The government’s hand is to be invisible to the foreign audiences. Daniel Seaman, the official who has been planning the effort, wrote in a letter on 5 August to a body authorising government projects that “the idea requires not making the role of the state stand out and therefore it is necessary to adhere to great involvement of the students themselves, without political linkage or affiliation”.
According to the plan, students are to be organised into units at each university, with a chief co-ordinator who receives a full scholarship, three desk co-ordinators for language, graphics and research who receive lesser scholarships and students termed “activists” who will receive a “minimal scholarship”.
Mr Netanyahu’s aides said the main topics the units would address related to political and security issues, combating calls to boycott Israel and combating efforts to question Israel’s legitimacy. The officials said the students would stress Israeli democratic values, freedom of religion and pluralism.
But Alon Liel, the doveish former director-general of the Israeli foreign ministry, criticised the plan as “quite disgusting”. “University students should be educated to think freely. When you buy the mind of a student, he becomes a puppet of the Israeli government grant,” he said. “You can give a grant to do social work or teach but not to do propaganda on controversial issues for the government.”
(Photo Credit: Daily Slave)
Editor’s Note: This article was published August 2013.
Also the way that Zizek effectively compares anti-colonialist destruction of European cultural hegemony to late-capitalism’s proliferation and commodification of identities…..those two forces are so directly opposed!! but of course he’s casting about for connections to defend his trash xenophobic thesis.
Global capitalism has no problem in accommodating itself to a plurality of local religions, cultures and traditions. So the irony of anti-Eurocentrism is that, on behalf of anti-colonialism, one criticizes the West at the very historical moment when global capitalism no longer needs Western cultural values in order to smoothly function.