WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Gee---I'm certainly happy now that you have cleared that up for me. I didn't say I had swallowed any of it------it was the constant effort I objected to ----

But now you know.

Perc,

I'd not indict the opinionated because I am opinionated. It is my suggestion (to swallow or not ;-) ) that you do not either.

Lola

Thanks for you lengthy and eloquent response----I won't respond until I have had time to give it the thorough examination it deserves. I can see immediately that you are deeply distressed about the potential consequences posed by the alleged agenda of the religious right. Let me take a second look from your point of view.

Lola: "And he rationalizes it with his "belief" in Jesus."

Actually, Lola, I think he bought into the idea, 'way back during his run for governor in TX, that he was God's candidate -- Ralph Reed reiterated that belief in the talk show I heard yesterday if I remember correctly. That's too delicious an ego-trip (or crutch) for an alcoholic to dismiss -- don't you think?

In analysing your response in an attempt to see this from your viewpoint, I need more information so let's start with your statement above. From your personal experience.........................their method is one of coercion and control. You say mere influence is not enough. Could you please give more information about that "personal experience"? It obviously had a huge impact on your mental constructs/perceptions regarding motives.

I don't know a whole lot about Lola's experience, but my experience is one of intolerance, having made friends with and discussed religion with a post-alcoholic, converted young woman -- a nice person in many respects but one who, finally, had to tell me that I would go to hell because I didn't believe as she did, because I wasn't "saved."

Her rationale was long and windy and, at four years distance (or so), I'd have a hard time quoting her exactly, but the purport was that people who didn't believe her (fundamentalist) church's reading of scripture were damned and should not be allowed any social or political space... in America... on the planet.

We live in a society built on diversity of belief and non-belief. One's belief and the church which teaches it should fairly inform one's vote, but it should not be taken as license to dominate others culturally or politically. Springing from religious beliefs (like my friend, above) and from political ambition (as with Ralph Reed and kin), is an increasingly cohesive and well-greased fundamentalist movement which would like to assume social and political control. No doubt about it.

tart

Your anecdote above points to a way we could maybe look at this issue...the idea of 'fitness' for office.

The lady in your anecdote holds that anyone who has not been born again in Jesus is unfit for office. One could surely suspect that either Robertson or Reed would concur with this criterion (they wouldn't necessarily be forthright if you asked, as their earlier comments tell us however), and this would hold for many of their parishoners too.

Clearly, the folks forwarding the impeachment of Clinton used this notion as a foundation for their actions - his moral unfitness as evidenced by sexual profligacy, an unChristian behavior.

These sorts of criteria are deeply exclusionary - what are the chances, for example, a Jew will become president, not to mention a Buddhist?

due to too much imbibing, I have been rendered incoherent for the next little while.........Craven where are you? My bucket's got a hole in it.

perc,

When I can think once again, after dinner.........I'll work on an answer to your question. I know I have one, but I'll just have to re-cop........back later.

I do appreciate your question..........thanks.

Lola

Your incoherence is noted --give hubby a cup of coffe, take two tylenol, go to bed and hope for the best---

Well, applying the same principle would you regard Tartarin's former friend as unfit for public office? How about Ralph Reed or Pat Robertson.? Would you regard them as fit for office? The drift I get from your other remarks is that you would not trust them with such a position.

In short, how is your view in any way superior to hers?

george

That is the good question.

I tried to make this point to another earlier, but it wasn't accepted.

'Democracy' is, if nothing else, inclusionary. If that is so, then one species of ideology becomes a threat to democracy itself - that species of ideology which excludes all but itself, which values only itself. Such a species of ideology is, prima facie, unique in a democracy.

The point is NOT that anyone believes in the resurrection or in an afterlife or that the bible is literally true. The point is that anyone, holding ANY belief set, becomes a threat to liberty and democracy when they ALSO hold that their believe set is the only possible TRUE belief set, and hense the only one upon which social arrangements ought to be founded.

You will, I'm sure, claim that 'liberalism' too holds that it is a superior ideology. But if you do argue that, then you are skimming past the most important element in this conversation....inclusion and exclusion.

A liberal, such as myself, seeks to limit only that which threatens liberty. There can be a church on every block, and I will not seek to close them. A parson can extoll any notion about biblical interpretation, and I won't ask him to shut up. People of any faith may pass on that faith to their children, and I won't insert myself into that family's dinner conversations. A fellow can retreat to a cave, and whip himself for ten hours a day, eating only ants and grubs, and I will not seek to have the police bring him into the sunlight.

As a liberal, I want whatever state institutions that exist to oversee all communitarian needs (highways, communications, schools, food production, etc) and to NOT involve themselves in the lives of individuals on the assumption that they have some superior knowledge as to what is good and bad for that individual (where others are not harmed, of course).

In this sense, liberalism means what Mill spoke of...freedom and liberty for the practical reasons of growth. But I also hold that such liberties of one's conscience and one's body and one's associations are rights intrisic to being a unique individual, a unique conscience entity.

Democracy is not threatened by freedom, it is threatened by the instantiation in social policy and laws of the beleifs of a single ideology which holds that is is the only valid social ideology.

george,

If all candidates are honest about what they will do once in office..........then domocracy should do the trick. Unfortunately, being a fundamentalist Christian or a neo con doesn't require such honesty..........the ends, for them justifies the means.

Perc,

I'm all better now. :wink:

Cigar time............Blatham, gotta a cigar?

well said, Blatham...........will you marry me?

(slipping on groucho nose/glasses/eyebrows)

"Have I got a cigar?! Well, (eyebrows quick up and down) have you got a humidor?

I do, let me look...............see if I can find it...........giggle, oh, dear, .........but you didn't answer my other question...............ignoring me are you?

I cannot refuse so gracious a request from so intelligent and tasteful a woman such as yourself.

Wife number three you now are.

oh goody................such a privilege. All is right with the world :wink:

I agree that democracy in our general concept tends to be inclusionary, but not absolutely so. Democracies vary in the degree to which they act to protect minorities. That was why the Bill of Rights was added to our constitution.

I'm not sure I am willing to accept your statement concerning absolute beliefs. They are not necessarily a threat to anything.

.

Were the aggressive Darwinists of a generation or so ago threats to liberty and democracy? I suspect some fundamentalists Christians would say they were, but I'll bet you would disagree.

Strictly speaking your words, "... the only possible TRUE belief set..." are very restrictive. I can conceive of descriptions for the origin of the universe that do not involve the act of a creator. However I do not believe they are true. In what way could the certainty of the presence or absence of a creator in the cosmology of the universe ever be a threat to liberty and democracy?

The behaviors of both secularists and zealous religious people in this country and others exhibit sufficient conviction of the possession of absolute truth to concern me. On what basis can you say that one is any better or worse than another? Intolerance is the same no matter what the convictions of the perpetrator.

Holy ****! I'm writing about cosmology while Lola is looking for a cigar and Blatham's humidor is open.

I'll marry you tomorrow!