<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Immanent Frame &#187; Gil Anidjar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/author/anidjar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif</link>
	<description>Secularism, religion, and the public sphere</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:22:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>So, what about the Christian lobby?</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/01/31/so-what-about-the-christian-lobby/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/01/31/so-what-about-the-christian-lobby/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:35:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gil Anidjar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Religion & American politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/?p=1165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You see, the interview on Al Arabiya confirms that the politics of fear can safely endure, barely disguised as the politics of love. It's (Christian) politics as usual, in other words. The extended hand of love and friendship---for the enemy---continues to veil the indisputable fact that there is only one iron fist in "the region as a whole."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2009/01/31/so-what-about-the-christian-lobby/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Equal opportunity criticism (affirmative faction)</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/02/15/equal-opportunity-criticism-affirmative-faction/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/02/15/equal-opportunity-criticism-affirmative-faction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gil Anidjar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Is critique secular?]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/02/15/equal-opportunity-criticism-affirmative-faction/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Heidegger did not need to point out (but he did) that God occupies a hegemonic place as the figure of transcendence that characterizes the Christian and post-Christian tradition (let us not rush too quickly to operate our own secularizing machines, global experts on world-religions that we are, to claim that other “traditions” equally partake of this particular character).  But – and here is some more outbidding – God is not transcendent enough. In order to be a critical secularist, one would have to demonstrate a more unyielding antagonism, take a more radical stance (or agonizing distance), and install oneself in a more <em>transcendent </em>position vis-à-vis the object of one’s critique. What object? More often than not “religion” and better yet “religions.” But not only religion, of course.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2008/02/15/equal-opportunity-criticism-affirmative-faction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A review in three parts</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/12/26/a-review-in-three-parts/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/12/26/a-review-in-three-parts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:58:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gil Anidjar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Stillborn God]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/12/26/a-review-in-three-parts/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img title="stillborn11.jpg" src="http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/stillborn11.jpg" border="0" alt="stillborn11.jpg" align="right" />“The world of today is torn asunder by a great dispute; and not only a dispute, but a ruthless battle for world domination. Many people still refuse to believe that there are only two sides, that the only choice lies between absolute conformity to the one system or absolute conformity to the other.” What Czeslaw Milosz in <em>The Captive Mind</em> was calling “a great dispute,” Mark Lilla calls “The Great Separation.” With this phrase, <em>The Stillborn God</em> presents itself, like its predecessor, as an account of the world, “our world, the world created by the intellectual rebellion against political theology.”]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/12/26/a-review-in-three-parts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
