Comments on: Globalization – the new Secularization Thesis?

By: Jeffrey Polet

Jeffrey Polet — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:32:54 +0000

The piece you wrote for “The Hoya” was superb. I’ve liberally borrowed from your arguments to fight battles on my own campus. Kudos.

By: polistra

polistra — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:57:41 +0000

When secularism, globalism, egalitarianism, become central assumptions, the result is a remarkably primitive and selfish form of thinking. It’s the way a 3-month-old baby thinks, before he realizes that the world contains objects outside of ME. It’s all part of ME, therefore nothing can possibly exist which does not agree in every respect with MY present set of tastes and taboos.

When the leftist assumes everyone is alike, he doesn’t assume that everyone is Christian or everyone is Islamic; he assumes that everyone thinks exactly the same as this week’s New York orthodoxy. When the orthodoxy changes next week, everybody naturally follows along. Those who don’t follow are incomprehensible.

This is why “nobody expected” 9/11. Our elites had unilaterally disarmed their minds. Of course plenty of non-elites did expect something like 9/11, if not the exact timing and form of the attack.

By: cecelia

cecelia — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:39:05 +0000

Globalized trade and the migration of people is not exactly new. In the 500′s we know that the Welsh traded tin for Spanish wine, the Irish monks making their books got some of the material for their inks from Italy. We know silk from Byzantium made its way to Northumberland in England in the 600′s. Ya know – those Dark Ages.
We even find newly minted coins from Antioch in what is now Scotland from the 400′s.

Yes globalized trade is a laot larger now, but with our population everything is bigger.

So I would just suggest when considering the consequences of globalization one might want to consider how it functioned and affected human society in the past – cause it sure is nothing new.

By: D.W. Sabin

D.W. Sabin — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:19:04 +0000

Come now Mr. Deneen, have you not heard? Discussing morality in relation to the larger issues of the day, and in such close proximity to the Federal district is bad form. Not to mention that in Academia, one is not supposed to bog one’s self down in the pursuit of knowledge with the importunate superfluities of mere morality.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:52:44 +0000

Excellent. As a fellow Hoya, I’ll be tracking your column regularly.