The other day I wrote about Radical Islam in contrast to thoughts on Democracy. Reinhold Niebuhr was a theologian, ethicist and commentator on politics at Union Theological Seminary and I quoted his statement thusly: “Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”
I was castigated for the reference to Niebuhr. It read: “Wow, way to sully the reputation of Reinhold Niebuhr by associating him with anti-Muslim tripe.”
I welcome commentary concerning my writing. It’s the only way I ever know if somebody’s reading it, considering what’s discussed and maybe understood and what it’s trying to accomplish through discussion and debate. I don’t say I have all the answers. How can I be a know-it-all when I’m questioning and delving deeper into subjects to understand the thought behind the process placed into action.
My intent wasn’t to sully Mr. Niebuhr, nor was it to serve up “tripe” as a subject matter. I prefer to think my thought process is above the level of drivel. It was to make a point that fundamentalist, literalist political doctrine I believe is masquerading as religion is contrapuntal (very actively and strongly differentiated) from other religious teachings. Certain religious doctrines can be seriously combative, despotic and unyielding in both arenas; religion and politics.