In the video below Jordan Peterson speaks on the threat to free speech in Canada. The constant attempts by Red Fascists to interrupt his speech of course underlined what he was saying.
Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts notes the quandary for Mark Shea that Jordan Peterson presents. Being a Leftist now Shea realizes he should hate Peterson. However Bishop Barron poses a problem for Mark:
Mark Shea ponders Jordan Peterson
Hilarity ensues. Mark’s hatred of everything to the right of center, mixed with his slavish devotion to almost every narrative and doctrine of the political Left, should have put Peterson in the cross hairs months ago. With the exception of “gay marriage”, which Mark barely mentions anymore, and abortion, which he blames almost exclusively on capitalism and sexist men, there are few significant differences between Mark and Daily Kos, or MSNBS, or Vox, or any other radical secular Left wing rag.
The problem? Bishop Robert Barron has spoken and written somewhat extensively on the positive contributions that Peterson brings to the modern table. Of course Bishop Barron points out that Peterson is not a priest expounding the complete Gospel message. And he, like most I know who value Peterson, can tell where Peterson is in line with the Christian tradition and where he isn’t.
Nonetheless, Bishop Barron, who has not bowed before the Leftist juggernaut, obviously sees much value in Peterson and in the timing of Peterson’s ascension. This makes it tough for Mark. Mark has long praised Bishop Barron as a shining light in modern Catholicism. And rightly so. Bishop Barron brings much to the modern debate. And what’s more, he says the same thing about Peterson that most Christians I know say about Peterson. So Mark does what he can. I was going to write a lengthy piece unpacking Mark’s humorous attempts to twist and turn and desperately avoid the obvious points Bishop Barron makes, but I figured I’d do what he did to Barron’s review of Peterson – post a link. Read away. Especially read the comments, since they help explain why so many see value in Peterson, given the appeal to arrogance behind many of his critics. Not just arrogance aimed at Peterson but, as usual, aimed at any who don’t fall in line behind the Left (which one reader seems to think doesn’t really exist). There are exceptions of course. (NOTE: as of now, the comment explaining identity politics/Marxist influences has been removed, though it could be a glitch since there is no note saying it was removed – having been on Patheos, I know it’s a different animal to actually erase a comment than merely deleting one.. Perhaps check back later)
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke conceal’d,
Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.
For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.
And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!