Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

Yes, my friend, it IS a wonderful prospect. The image pleases me greatly.

God I loved her.

She was a true leader in every sense of the word.

She was a Englishwoman in the mold of Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria......

Living proof that many English women have more balls than their men.

When she was made Prime Minister and Reagan became President, all over the world, conservatives let out a mighty cheer.

It will be a long time before England will be blessed with a woman of her strength and vision again.

Or that amount of unemployment and poverty.

You have your facts wrong Hobit. The UK was stagnating economically: she improved the situation for all. Take a look at the history of UK GDP and national debt.

My favorite Thatcher quote..."Pinochet is a great friend to democracy."

He was indeed. He stopped a socialist, authoritarian revolution, stabilized a difficult situation, and stepped aside restoring the democratic republic in much improved political and economic condition,

He certainly did more for Chile than Alliende.

Setanta - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

Enjoy.

A Pinochet Admirer.
Perhaps also an admirer of Somaza, Sha of Iran, Muslolini, Hitler and King George aka Dubya the Dunce and Stalin?

Scrat, you must have searched long and hard to find a definition which partially, and only partially, supports your blatantly idiosyncratic usage:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

That last clause: "and is intolerant of those who differ" is inferential. Please also note the text on the derivation of the word, with an original meaning of superstitious and hypocritical--sounds a lot like the fervently religious to me. Note also that the definition you found lists only a single entry, and refers to another source, the American Heritage Dictionary. It is highly uncommon for any dictionary not to list definitions in usage priority. It is highly suspect to find a "dictionary" site which references the original source, and is not the source itself.

I am more than happy to concede your point to you, if it is that important to you. I would then point out that one small letter: n. That means it is a noun. Therefore, without expanding your definition, using another source, you have no authority (from that site, at least) for a usage of "bigoted," which would be a past participle, and therefore, derived from a verb. Your source lists bigot as a noun, you would need to show that it is a verb, as well.

But, i'm willing to concede your point to you. Why? Because you still have no argument. You attempt to posit an equivalency between race and religious belief. But you have no argument because these are not analogous. One cannot choose one's race, one cannot change one's race, one cannot modify one's race.

One makes a choice of religious belief, one can choose to change it, one cannot modify the terms of belief.

Those holding religious beliefs with an expressed intent of changing society's laws to make others adhere to their beliefs are potentially a threat to my civil liberties, and bear watching.

setanta wrote

I agree with this statement. I would also add, by way of further clarification "...changing society's laws to make other adhere to their beliefs or values..." (e.g., 'oral/genital contact is perverse').

Would setanta's sentence be coherent if one were to replace 'religious beliefs' with 'secular beliefs'? This is, after all, a not uncommon formulation in such a discussion, that a 'secular' stance is not qualitatively different from a 'religious' stance - both are equally and merely belief systems.

I don't think that second sentence is coherent. Where such a claim is made (hi george) it ignores a fundamental difference, and it is on that difference that the liberty issue hinges.

"Secular" is defined as:

"Secularism" is defined as:

The etymology is:


We should probably note two aspects in these terms - the philosophical position of 'skepticism or indifference', and the political/constitutional position of 'religious considerations excluded from civil affairs or education.'

This first aspect, skepticism/indifference, presents no problem within the context of a free state. Nor does the fact of holding a particular religious belief present any problem in a free state.

The second aspect, exclusion from civil affairs and education, presents the trickier question - to what degree ought we to safeguard against even the appearance that the state is forwarding/favoring a particular religious view. I'm sure we each, like each SC justice, have our notions on this question, but that's not really what I wish to get into here.

Rather, I would like to concentrate on the first aspect above, and argue that such a conception as 'forcing' secularism is intrinsically incoherent.

What makes this charge incoherent - and this is where the liberty difference sits - is that a secular view is non-discriminating, or non-exclusionary. It stands outside of any singular truth-claim. To argue that 'scepticism' or 'indifference' or 'pluralism' is forceable is as nonsensical as to claim that 'freedom' is forceable.

A fallacious argument that gets slipped in here commonly is the false implication that 'secularism' equals 'atheism'. Of course, they are clearly different (which is why we find many religious groups joining with the ACLU in speaking against the representation of the symbols of a particular faith in the operations of the state). Atheism is forceable, or at least it's attemptable as in the USSR, so the fallacious identification of atheism and secularism is often slipped in.

On the other hand, it is entirely coherent to claim that a singular belief system IS enforceable.

Blatham and I had a brief moment of agreement on this particular point, but I fear that the simplicity and clarity of the view from the sun-drenched mountaintop was more than he could bear for long. He has descended, obscured in a cloud of sophist dust. I have not entirely given up hope though. The seed that brought him to the mountaintop may yet act again.

Let me restate the proposition in question with a single change of word and some bold typeface for emphasis.

"Those holding ANY beliefs with an expressed intent of changing society's laws to make others adhere to their beliefs

I would add that BL's definitions of secular to an extent signifantly differentiate that concept from the concept of the religious. However, the proposition which George advances, based upon a rewording of my proposition, is not at all out of line, to my way of thinking. This carries us back to the discussion in the thread on whether or not there were a secular threat to society. I know far too many atheists who make a religion of science, and prosyletize their atheism in a disgusting manner. These people have no right to the term atheist, in that their "rationality" is their god, and to that extent, they are indeed theist.

Let me make yet another emmendation.

Anyone holding a belief not predicated upon demonstrable descriptions of reality from which their proposed remedy may be logically derived, with an expressed intent of changing society's laws to make others adhere to their beliefs are potentially a threat to my civil liberties, and bear watching.

All of which being said, just about anybody intent on changing society's laws for any reason is a prime cadidate for close scrutiny. My objection, and i feel it not unreasonable to suggest that this is the objection of many others, to the religious in all of this is that definitionally, at the least, religion is simply a form of superstition, not admissable of replicable testing, or empirical demonstration.

george

You're just pissed that you have a hunk of potato where your third eye used to sit (do Hindi mystics, after a hashish binge and when pulled over by a traffic cop, quickly put eyedrops in their third eye?)

You done missed precisely the differentiation which I detailed. Secularism isn't a belief. Sceptism isn't a belief. Indifference isn't a belief. They are the absence of such.

I did not call secularism a belief, i referred to it as a concept. Have your fun, but don't be surprised if i refer to your response as nonsensical when you've misquoted me.

Quick example...

george's rusting vessel steams into (or is paddled furiously by attractive scantily clad virgins into) a protective south pacific island cove. george swims ashore. george discovers that the locals believe that their island was set onto the vast oceans by an original ancestor with supernatural powers. george is sceptical. george's scepticism is not a belief.

set
was referring to george's post, not yours

My ill-natured apology, BL, thanks for spoiling my haughty fun . . .

another quick example....

I have no certainty at all on the origin of the universe, or if it even had an origin, or if limited us might ever come close to fathoming that. My scepticism of or indifference to any culture's origin stories is of a categorically different nature than any one of those 'held to be true' positions.

set

LOL...I'm not worried, you'll find other instances for such enjoyments.