Talk:Shadia Drury

Relocate from article page --Bob Burton 23:18, 30 May 2005 (EDT)

While Shadia Drury would pick things from Aquinas or Leo Strauss to show you (if you're lucky) and then interpret it for you (incorrectly, as far as I've seen), I will invite you to do a google search for her name and read what others think about her. But, I will also ask that you go to her home-page to hear at least some good things about her (that she herself wrote)...

She never says what her method is, tells us vaguely what it might not be, throws in some quotes that don't really make any sense, misunderstands Plato and Strauss himself, but what is truly amazing is when she paints Leo Strauss to be an evil, and sometimes even senile villain. She contradicts herself quite often indeed.

This is written not to summarize Drury but to encourage someone else to write a more thorough (which shouldn't be hard) account of Drury. I feel bad that a 54+ year old has wasted so much time being wrong and intractable, but it's still her fault.

Paul Wolfowitz had ONE economics class with Leo Strauss. Leo Strauss didn't teach economics regularly. Shadia Drury has an axe to grind against Conservatives for sure, Leo Strauss probably being an avenue to that, and will not admit when she's wrong.

Shadia Drury
Shadia Drury is an unabashed liberal, with some impressive books. The latest one on Christianity and terror is thorough and well documented. I thought I knew the general picture of how immoral christian history and doctrine were-- having read such books as peter mcwilliam's "Ain't Nobodies Business" Which is free online at http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/403a.htm#admonitions.

...And Bertrand Russel's article "Why I'm Not a Christian (also online for free) But Shadia took the evidence about christianity to a whole new level with careful analysis and documentation... and with out any distortions that I noticed.

I haven't read the earlier book on Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives, but from what I've read it appears correct in the primary thesis and is corroborated by those who knew strauss. She gives a radio interview available online that seems quite insightful. at http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/audio.html

The controversy around her is expected ---seeing as how she slams the ideology of the right. It IS from a liberal perspective but yet it appears honest because she doesn't pretend otherwise(neutral). Another article here claims she doesn't get plato, but I don't understand why he says that and to make that claim without supporting it is shabby in itself. The allegations that she's misrepresenting Aquinas on abortion are somewhat murky--she correctly quotes that he distinguished the age of the fetus as important.....-- as she does and goes on to say that's her reasoning in support of early abortions. It's not clear that she suggests Aquinas approved of abortions.

After all she's written implicating the right--if that's the best they can do to discredit her --jeez (I wish the prolifers were as critical of corporations and governments that harm life for money and power ---as they are of women) If they were---I might actually believe they they were prolife and not anti-sex(which they are) or simply trying to act superior.(which they do)