Tolerance that is not

One really has to read it to believe it: Dante's Divine Comedy 'offensive and should be banned'.
It is a world-renowned work of literature and one of the foundation stones of the Italian language, but Dante's Divine Comedy has been condemned as racist, homophobic, anti-Islamist and anti-Semitic.

The classic work should be removed from school curricula, according to Gherush 92, a human rights organisation which acts as a consultant to UN bodies on racism and discrimination.

Dante's epic is "offensive and discriminatory" and has no place in a modern classroom, said Valentina Sereni, the group's president. (...)

Schoolchildren and university students who studied the work lacked "the filters" to appreciate its historical context and were being fed a poisonous diet of anti-Semitism and racism, the group said. It called for the Divine Comedy to be removed from schools and universities or at least have its more offensive sections fully explained.
As the Anchoress writes, this is where the bastardization of the meaning “tolerance” has taken us: People who fancy themselves as broad-minded intellectuals support the banning of a classic in world literature.

So, what's next? A bonfire on Times Square where all and sundry will be invited to throw copies of La Divina Commedia into the blaze?

Vox Day comes to the conclusion that Muslims have the right idea after all: secularism merits nothing more than being stamped out, ruthlessly and without remorse.
Secular progressives are totalitarians and book-burners every bit as fanatical as religious extremists they decry. They always have been, they just build their cultural walls one stealthy and dishonest brick at a time.
Who will rid us of these troublesome fools?

2 reacties:

DP111 zei

You might have heard of the furore regarding a feminist ethics academic advocating post-birth abortion. 

A liberal ethicist believes babies are not persons
Doctors should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers, an academic with links to Oxford University has claimed.

Francesca Minerva, a philosopher and medical ethicist, argues a young baby is not a real person and so killing it in the first days after birth is little different to aborting it in the womb.


and now this from another liberal ethics academic

How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate ChangeA new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less.Some of the proposed modifications are simple and noninvasive. For instance, many people wish to give up meat for ecological reasons, but lack the willpower to do so on their own. The paper suggests that such individuals could take a pill that would trigger mild nausea upon the ingestion of meat, which would then lead to a lasting aversion to meat-eating. Other techniques are bound to be more controversial. For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less resource-intensive children.

Klein Verzet zei

Yes. Read about that. This merits a comment or two (or three). Hope to get around to it. Cheers.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...