THE THREAT OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

As for Finn's nonsense, i haven't said that Bush believes he is the choice of God, but i have pointed out that there is a quotation attributed to him which i find no evidence he as publicly denied it.

So if someone attributes to you the quote "I believe little green men live on the moon," it is imbued with veracity if you have not publicly denounced it? Are you really trying to argue that Bush is to be expected to confirm or refute every quote ever attributed to him, and if he doesn't, we are to suspect that those he does not comment on are actually true? Please stop this feeble attempt at coyness, you merely pointed out the quotation for a very specific reason.

It is a classic and intellectually dishonest dodge to decry in your defense that you did not categorily say, that which you have explicitly implied.

The quote you have used, while not containing the words "I am the Chosen of God," if believed, can only lead a reasonable person to conclude that the speaker does, in fact, believe he is the Chosen of God.

You then attempt to argue that the quote is to be believed because you can not find a public rejection of it by Bush.

Later in your posting you write

"My point is that if one is convinced that they are the chosen of God, then there is no longer a sense of responsibility to consider the views of others, or even to proceed in a democratic manner."

Who might "one" be? Anyone? Lyndon LaRuche? Fred, your building super?
If your concern is actually for what his religious supporters might believe, what is the point of this statement? It should be noted that you yourself have characterized the statement as your "point."

And further on:

"Those who believe in scriptural authority and revealed truth will neither oppose nor challenge the motives of those whose claim to divine authority is accepted by them."

As I've already pointed out, this is, at best, a specious statement, but it also once again raises the spectre of the self-annoited "Chosen of God." Who might that be, if not the very person you have implied believes he is the choice of God?

I have specifically throughout pointed out that i'm not concerned with what passes for thought with the Shrub, but rather for what the "devout" among his supporters believe.

And you have specifically made the point you are concerned about the person who believes he or she if the choice of God. Will you continue to insist that you have not?

It is no demagoguery to point out that a minority president wants to implement programs dear to the heart of a smaller minority than that which voted for him.

It is very much demagoguery to cast the so called Religious Right in the role of Iranian Mullahs or mindless zealots:

"Those who believe in scriptural authority and revealed truth will neither oppose nor challenge the motives of those whose claim to divine authority is accepted by them. More than that, they will become good christian soldiers in the army of the righteous, devoted to their candidate and his agenda."

"And finally, the voice of dissent is quickly labeled as the propaganda of the Anti-Christ, and eventually, by extension, treason against the nation."

This is, clearly, an attempt to appeal to the prejudices and emotions of a leftist populace that reflexively views religion as a destructive force in society...and that, dear Setanta, is demagougery

It is germaine to point out the particular character (this is in response to Jim and Adrian) of the religiously devout, in that they will not question what they consider to be divine writ or decision, which is burden of my argument here.

A burden which you have failed, miserably, to shoulder.

It is germaine to point out that anyone who believes in the devine (and at last count, that's pretty much the vast majority of the human population) is not going to question what they consider to be divine writ or decision. Again, this is axiomatic. What is justly at issue is what it is that they might believe to be devine writ or decision.

It's a fair statement that the Religious Right, to the extent that they are fundamentalists, do believe that the Bible is divine writ. This is, of course, subject to discourse, and is a creed that should not be foisted on non-believers, but it hardly represents a clear and present danger to American society...as you would suggest.

"Devine decisions," opens, for you happily, a whole other can of worms. If you are not contending that the Religious Right, as a group, believes George Bush being President is a "devine decision," your writing has failed you. Incredibly, you base this contention on a quote by Pat Robinson and a citation from a website (and, of course, the assurance that you have reams of other authoratative evidence which you've chosen to spare us). I guess by your logic, the fact that every single conservative Christian has not publically rejected these claims, means they accept them.

A labor union member might, and they frequently do challenge the assumptions of their leadersip. The religiously fervent are already in the business of seeking wisdom from on high.

Blacks all want government handouts.
Arabs are all Islamic terrorists.
Gays are all promiscuous.
Women are all catty.
Jews are all pushy.
Indians are all drunks.
The Religious Right never question their Leadership.

Bigoted statements all.

I have not stated categorically that the Shrub thinks he's divinely chose, although i do suspect the idea appeals to him, and will do so increasingly if he feels himself beset by enemies on all sides.

Again, please stop playing coy.

I have very strongly, and continue to state that religious devotion carries with it an unquestioning acceptance of the dictates of religious leadership which is not present in other categories of interest groups. If anyone cares to argue that, i'm willing. The rest is simply dross, as this thread has never been about the ego of the pathetic little boy in the White House.

By all means, please argue this inane contention.

Currently, there are many of religious devotion crying out for a constitutional amendment to prevent the states from legalizing "gay marriage." Time for Finn to head to the ramparts.

Not surprisingly, you perceive this effort as an attempt to create a State Religion or persecute non-believers. More evidence of demogoguery.

Earl Grey needs to get a grip.

I leave this to the Earl.

So if someone attributes to you the quote "I believe little green men live on the moon," it is imbued with veracity if you have not publicly denounced it? Are you really trying to argue that Bush is to be expected to confirm or refute every quote ever attributed to him, and if he doesn't, we are to suspect that those he does not comment on are actually true? Please stop this feeble attempt at coyness, you merely pointed out the quotation for a very specific reason.

It is a classic and intellectually dishonest dodge to decry in your defense that you did not categorily say, that which you have explicitly implied.

The quote you have used, while not containing the words "I am the Chosen of God," if believed, can only lead a reasonable person to conclude that the speaker does, in fact, believe he is the Chosen of God.

You then attempt to argue that the quote is to be believed because you can not find a public rejection of it by Bush.

Who might "one" be? Anyone? Lyndon LaRuche? Fred, your building super? If your concern is actually for what his religious supporters might believe, what is the point of this statement? It should be noted that you yourself have characterized the statement as your "point."

As I've already pointed out, this is, at best, a specious statement,

. . . but it also once again raises the spectre of the self-annoited "Chosen of God." Who might that be, if not the very person you have implied believes he is the choice of God?

Quote:

"I have specifically throughout pointed out that i'm not concerned with what passes for thought with the Shrub, but rather for what the "devout" among his supporters believe."

And you have specifically made the point you are concerned about the person who believes he or she if the choice of God. Will you continue to insist that you have not?

It is very much demagoguery to cast the so called Religious Right in the role of Iranian Mullahs or mindless zealots:

Quote:

"Those who believe in scriptural authority and revealed truth will neither oppose nor challenge the motives of those whose claim to divine authority is accepted by them. More than that, they will become good christian soldiers in the army of the righteous, devoted to their candidate and his agenda."

"And finally, the voice of dissent is quickly labeled as the propaganda of the Anti-Christ, and eventually, by extension, treason against the nation."

This is, clearly, an attempt to appeal to the prejudices and emotions of a leftist populace that reflexively views religion as a destructive force in society...and that, dear Setanta, is demagougery

Quote:

It is germaine to point out the particular character (this is in response to Jim and Adrian) of the religiously devout, in that they will not question what they consider to be divine writ or decision, which is burden [sic] of my argument here.

A burden which you have failed, miserably, to shoulder.

It is germaine to point out that anyone who believes in the devine (and at last count, that's pretty much the vast majority of the human population) is not going to question what they consider to be divine writ or decision. Again, this is axiomatic. What is justly at issue is what it is that they might believe to be devine writ or decision.

It's a fair statement that the Religious Right, to the extent that they are fundamentalists, do believe that the Bible is divine writ. This is, of course, subject to discourse, and is a creed that should not be foisted on non-believers, but it hardly represents a clear and present danger to American society...as you would suggest.

"Devine decisions," opens, for you happily, a whole other can of worms. If you are not contending that the Religious Right, as a group, believes George Bush being President is a "devine decision," your writing has failed you. Incredibly, you base this contention on a quote by Pat Robinson and a citation from a website (and, of course, the assurance that you have reams of other authoratative evidence which you've chosen to spare us). I guess by your logic, the fact that every single conservative Christian has not publically rejected these claims, means they accept them.

Blacks all want government handouts.
Arabs are all Islamic terrorists.
Gays are all promiscuous.
Women are all catty.
Jews are all pushy.
Indians are all drunks.
The Religious Right never question their Leadership.

Bigoted statements all.

Again, please stop playing coy.

By all means, please argue this inane contention.

Not surprisingly, you perceive this effort as an attempt to create a State Religion or persecute non-believers. More evidence of demogoguery.

I leave this to the Earl.

There are two aspects of you postings which I find so objectionable and which I cannot ignore.

One is the so often seen disingenuous attempts of posters to distance themselves from the very points they have intentionally made, once called on them.

The other is the attempt to cloak prejudice in a self-styled and sanctimonious defense of virtue.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

So if someone attributes to you the quote "I believe little green men live on the moon," it is imbued with veracity if you have not publicly denounced it? Are you really trying to argue that Bush is to be expected to confirm or refute every quote ever attributed to him, and if he doesn't, we are to suspect that those he does not comment on are actually true? Please stop this feeble attempt at coyness, you merely pointed out the quotation for a very specific reason.

It is a classic and intellectually dishonest dodge to decry in your defense that you did not categorily say, that which you have explicitly implied.

No, the point of this entire thread, which i have repeatedly stated in this thread, is how Bush is perceived among an electoral base of the christian right. You show how little consideration you give to the ramifications of an event. That Bush has not publicly refuted the contention is significant because, intended by his handlers or not, it puts him in a position of simple "deniability" if this were to become an issue, but while remaining silent, the contention can appeal to that portion of his electoral base who would heartily approve the expression of such a sentiment. He gets the best of both worlds out it that way. Now, i'm not contending that this is a purposeful act, because i obviously don't know. But just as you obviously have your opinion on the subject of this putative quote, i have mine on the likely meaning of the lack of a response by the Administration. Maybe they just hope it goes away--and maybe they hope they might have use for it in other ways, as well. There's never been a peep out of the religious right about this, either. Many, many of them would like to think that Bush had spoken forthrightly in that manner. And this is the burden of what i am putting forth in this thread--that there are many in this country who would have approved of Bush saying as much.

And again you make the argument that the point of your thread is something different than what your originally stated was your point:

"My point is that if one is convinced that they are the chosen of God, then there is no longer a sense of responsibility to consider the views of others, or even to proceed in a democratic manner."

Perhaps I need to beg the indulgence of Earl Grey and use caps to catch your attention as you seem to insist upon ignoring what you yourself wrote.

That Bush has not refuted the quote you have cited is only significant if you expect Bush to make a public comment upon every quote attributed to him. The simple fact is that to do so he would need a sizeable staff to constantly search the internet for all the many actual and absurd attributions. In addition, he would be providing acknowledgement of every crack pot in the world who chooses to falsely quote him. Once again you have ducked the question: Are you really trying to argue that Bush is to be expected to confirm or refute every quote ever attributed to him, and if he doesn't, we are to suspect that those he does not comment on are actually true? And if you are not than how can you possibly sustain the contention that it is significant that he has not refuted the quote you have cited?

Now you have introduced the specious (at least as respects your fellow travelers) argument that it is merely a matter of opinion or perspective relative to the validity of the quote and Bush's failure to specifically respond to it. Sorry, but it is not. It is a matter of your bias encouraging you to bend rational thinking to a point where it allows the conclusion that to not refute an ascribed quote is to imply its validity.

Thomas mentioned Communists and Environmental extremists. Were the subject of this discussion either of those groups, i would have the same suspicion of manipulative planning and political "spin." Because both of those groups would expect the same unquestioning and unyielding adherence by their followers, while being politically savy enough avoid public censure for any pose they wish to execute for their followers.

And once more you backpedal and dissemble to rehabilitate the face of your argument. Thomas did not, at all, mention "extremists." You very deliberately interjected that term. What you argued, and Thomas took exception to, was that only faith based interest groups consist of zealots.

What you consistently fail to appreciate is that conservative Christians, whom you disparagingly insist on calling The Religious Right are as capable of the discretionary thought that sperates Environmentalists for Radical Environmentalists or Labor Advocates from Extreme Labor Advocates.

Quote:

The quote you have used, while not containing the words "I am the Chosen of God," if believed, can only lead a reasonable person to conclude that the speaker does, in fact, believe he is the Chosen of God.

You then attempt to argue that the quote is to be believed because you can not find a public rejection of it by Bush.

As i've repeatedly said, the truth of the matter is not the issue, its the perception of events by the religious right. I have no doubt that you will continue to attempt to color this as a slur against Bush himself. I don't need to inferentially cast slurs, because, frankly, when i wish to vilify the man, i do so outright. I am happy to do so right now: for whatever the sincerity of the Shrub's profession of faith, i have not the least doubt that he has an aristocratic view of his electoral base as his legitimate political prey, and that he is willing to do anything which he is told will not risk censure to accommodate the image they have or wish to have of him.

More backpedaling, and with indignation to boot. Simply admit that you flew off on a tangent in your original posting and we will be at rest. Continue to insist that your "repeated" attempts at rehabilitation are somehow dispositive of your original posting and we will not.

Quote:

Who might "one" be? Anyone? Lyndon LaRuche? Fred, your building super? If your concern is actually for what his religious supporters might believe, what is the point of this statement? It should be noted that you yourself have characterized the statement as your "point."

Indeed i have, and it remains my point. And, as noted above i am entitled to have, and to express my opinion on how Bush sees himself to just that extent that you are entitled to characterize how i see him as you think it best. Please spare me your insinuations of moral indignation.

Well, now you revert to it as your point. Whiplash alert!

Of course you are entitled to express any opinion, no matter how inane it may be, you may have. It is, once more, diversionary to suggest that I am arguing otherwise. It is intellectual, not moral, indignation that I will not spare you. Come clean and simply state that you hate W's guts and that he is, in your opinion, the personification of evil and I will be more than happy to leave you to stew in your own juices and A2K postings. Attempt to construct an intellectual shell around such a visceral reaction and I'll engage you.

Quote:

As I've already pointed out, this is, at best, a specious statement,

No, you have contended it is specious, you haven't established the case on any better ground than contrarian opinion. As this is an opinion piece from start to finish, there's nothing wrong with that (and you can expect me to disagree)--but you needn't frame it as statement from authority or a logical fait accompli on your part.

But it is. On its face, your argument is specious unless you are capable of providing proof of it's validity. I'm very sorry but

"Those who believe in scriptural authority and revealed truth will neither oppose nor challenge the motives of those whose claim to divine authority is accepted by them. More than that, they will become good christian soldiers in the army of the righteous, devoted to their candidate and his agenda."

is not the intellectual equivalent of

"In my opinion, those who believe in scriptural authority and revealed truth will neither oppose nor challenge the motives of those whose claim to divine authority is accepted by them. More than that, they will become good christian soldiers in the army of the righteous, devoted to their candidate and his agenda"

The former is, rightly, subject to a challenge of proof, the latter, while grudgingly indulged as rightful opinion, is easily dismissed as the opinion of someone of a narrow mind or limited experience.

Quote:

. . . but it also once again raises the spectre of the self-annoited "Chosen of God." Who might that be, if not the very person you have implied believes he is the choice of God?

This is the most specific statement i could make on the perception of divine authority by those who long to believe as much. So the statement you've quote is very much on the theme of this thread, which you have already taken notice of--and it is very much taken out of context in your attempt to color everything here as an attack on Bush. To that extent, you're engaged in a disingenuous attempt to conflate a statement about what the fanatically religious might believe about divinely appointed authority with a contention of what Bush himself might think of that. However, my statement, "Those who believe in scriptural authority and revealed truth will neither oppose nor challenge the motives of those whose claim to divine authority is accepted by them." directly refers to anyone whom the faithful accept as having divine authority, and was written with the priesthood of all religions in mind--not Bush at all. This statement is a broad statement about the acknowledgement of and subordination to established authority of the faithful, and can apply to communism as easily as christianity. You're rushing the piece, we haven't gotten to the act in which i connect the dots of a general statement about the submission of the faithful to authority which they believe to be divinely sanctioned with the circumstance of this particular case. You need to keep your paranoia about Bush-bashing in check. This statement is not even referential to Bush, its a statement about the consequences of fervor.

Think what you will about my retorts, but there is nothing disingenuous about them. I don't think I could be more straightforward in expressing my criticism of your arguments.

In quoting me thus, FdA wrote:

Quote:

"I have specifically throughout pointed out that i'm not concerned with what passes for thought with the Shrub, but rather for what the "devout" among his supporters believe."

And you have specifically made the point you are concerned about the person who believes he or she if the choice of God. Will you continue to insist that you have not?

I have mentioned my opinion of the subject once, in the spirit of honesty. You are the one who is attempting to twist everything which follows into an argument on my part that Bush thinks he's divinely chosen, and to thereby imply that i've that for a point in this thread, and not the perception of Bush by others. I will continue to point out your silly, contorted arguments intended to drag the discussion in that direction, while continuing to pursue the direction i had intended.

And thus Setanta rises above Finn in her noble pursuit of the truth. Excuse me...my involuntary gag reflex just kicked in.

Quote:

It is very much demagoguery to cast the so called Religious Right in the role of Iranian Mullahs or mindless zealots:

I am no demagogue. Here, i am anonymous, and make no appeal for the support of anyone. I have no personal political or financial stake in the extent to which anyone chooses to agree with me, and i'm not, in the words of Webster's online dictionary: "A leader of the rabble; one who attempts to control the multitude by specious or deceitful arts; an unprincipled and factious mob orator or political leader."--you might as well dispense with the term demagoguery since you can't make that case.

Pardon me, I didn't realize your posting was the equivalent of a hermit's scratching his musings in the sand. Actually, characterizing you as a demagogue is something of a compliment, but since you will have none of it, I will recant. Your screed is not demagoguery, but merely bigotry.

Your reference to Iranian Mullahs and mindless zealots was gratuitous, and has no support in my text.

Not at all. Virtually all of your text supports this reference. Please explain, if you can, how you are not equating the followers of the Religious Right to mindless zealots and their leaders to Iranian Mullahs.

Quoting me again, FdA wrote:

Quote:

"Those who believe in scriptural authority and revealed truth will neither oppose nor challenge the motives of those whose claim to divine authority is accepted by them. More than that, they will become good christian soldiers in the army of the righteous, devoted to their candidate and his agenda."

"And finally, the voice of dissent is quickly labeled as the propaganda of the Anti-Christ, and eventually, by extension, treason against the nation."

This is, clearly, an attempt to appeal to the prejudices and emotions of a leftist populace that reflexively views religion as a destructive force in society...and that, dear Setanta, is demagougery

I am not dear to you, and am disgusted by a sneering familiarity on your part.

You are as dear to me as all of God's creatures.

Disgusted by my use of "dear?" I shudder to think what might happen if I opened a door for you, or simply smiled in your direction.

Interestingly enough, you have chosen to focus on my use of "dear" than my criticism of your specific use of what is, at best, hyperbolic characterizations.


Once again, i have nothing to gain by this, and it is not therefore demagoguery.

Point conceded - substitute "bigotry."

Were your loose definition accepted, you are as guilty of attempting to "appeal to the prejudices and emotions of a rightist populace that inflexibly views criticism of religion as a destructive force in society . . ." I am hilariously amused by someone attempting to verbally tilt from a position of moral superiority, in the lists astride a very high horse indeed. I don't view religion as a destructive force in society, and i don't write to appeal to a "leftist populace." I do view, and will continue to state, that unquestioning adherence to scriptural and putative divine authority is a destructive force, and the evidence is available in christian, jewish and muslim societies. There is a very good reason to use the term religious right, in that it describes a particular subset of the religious. Therefore, i categorically deny your self-serving and puerile characterization of me as inflexibly viewing religion as a destructive force in society. You're heating up the rhetoric, but you're not making any case, you're simply slinging groundless accusations around, and erecting a "leftist" strawman--i certainly never stated that religion is a destructive force in society.

Once again you revert to the defense of what you have stated vs what you have implied. I know I shouldn't say this, but that's a clear characteristic of a demagogue.

Again quoting, FdA wrote:

Quote:

It is germaine to point out the particular character (this is in response to Jim and Adrian) of the religiously devout, in that they will not question what they consider to be divine writ or decision, which is burden [sic] of my argument here.

A burden which you have failed, miserably, to shoulder.

(Damn, i hate it when i fail to properly edit what i've written.) Apart from an inapt attempt to extend the metaphorical use of burden, this is another statement from authority when the matter at hand is opinion. It would be a good deal more honest of you to label your opinions as such.

We should all be forgiven our ocassional misuse of metaphors, notwithstanding substance, your writing skills are not to be sneezed at.

Quote:

It is germaine to point out that anyone who believes in the devine (and at last count, that's pretty much the vast majority of the human population) is not going to question what they consider to be divine writ or decision. Again, this is axiomatic. What is justly at issue is what it is that they might believe to be devine writ or decision.

A breathtaking performance of logic . . . if a little weak on spelling. Once again, i have restricted my comments to a particular subset of the religious, as you take note in writing . . .

And the spelling gaff is?

I'm glad you appreciate my introduction of logic into the debate...someone had to.

Quote:

It's a fair statement that the Religious Right, to the extent that they are fundamentalists, do believe that the Bible is divine writ. This is, of course, subject to discourse, and is a creed that should not be foisted on non-believers, but it hardly represents a clear and present danger to American society...as you would suggest.

I've not said that belief in the Bible is a clear and present danger to American society. I do believe that to the extent that said beliefs motivate attempts to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion, or to circumscribe the public lives of homosexuals--such a dependence upon scriptural authority is a positive detriment to personal liberty, and a dangerous meddling in the lives of others.

Again you dissemble. Do I really need to reproduce your quotes which clearly cast a literal interpretation of scripture as being perilous?

To this paragraph: So you are OK with a literal interpretation of the Bible as long as no one attempts to take it seriously?

A woman's right to an abortion can hardly be counted among the fundamental rights that transcend time and cultures. The mere fact that abortion is such a polarizing issue is proof of this. The mere fact that this "right" is so, legally, tenuous is proof that it is not a transcendent right.

I may be wrong, in which case I'm sure you will correct me, but I assume that your concern around the public lives of homosexuals is focused on their ability to obtain a legally sanctioned union through the institution of marriage.

In this case, it is irrefutable that the acceptance of same sex marriages is a, legally and popular, minority position. One of 50 states is prepared to recognize these marriages. The majority of Americans oppose them. Of course the majority opinion is not synonymous with the morally correct opinion, but the fact that the right of same sex marriages is a minority position does refute any argument that the Religious Right are somehow an extremist fringe in this regard.

Quote:

"Devine decisions," opens, for you happily, a whole other can of worms. If you are not contending that the Religious Right, as a group, believes George Bush being President is a "devine decision," your writing has failed you. Incredibly, you base this contention on a quote by Pat Robinson and a citation from a website (and, of course, the assurance that you have reams of other authoratative evidence which you've chosen to spare us). I guess by your logic, the fact that every single conservative Christian has not publically rejected these claims, means they accept them.

In fact i don't recall having specifically used a term "divine decision"--and i'm not going to bother to read back through my posts to see if you're inventing this or if i've actually used it.

Neither am I, but is there any material difference between a divine decision and a divine choice, as in Chosen of God? Perhaps I used " " when I should have used italics - sue me.

I am pointing out that there are those among the religious right who so believe, and my opinion that this is what can be used to define participation in the religious right, as opposed to simply having religious conviction.

And if you began your posting with "there are those among the religious right who believe...." we might not be engaged in this back and forth, but, of course you did not. Should you now want to modify your argument, fine, but please do not do so with the argument that such a modification was unspoken from the start.

It is enough to show that even a few believe as much, as i have done, to open the topic for discussion.

By this logic it is enough to show that a few Americans are rapists to open a discussion on how Americans Are Rapists.

Persnickety or not, I am not going to allow you to begin a post with all barrels blasting and then back off (in the face of contention) without acknowledging the overly broad nature of your original premise. Perhaps I am unfairly singling you out (and if that isn't a pompous statement I don't know what is) but, as I have stated, I find it objectionable that so many posters refuse to acknowledge that they may have originally overstated their premise and insist upon arguing it ad nauseam, while they backstep within their argument. We are all capable of flawed argument. Best to acknowledge the flaws and redefine the argument, then to join the Light Brigade and charge into the Valley of Death.

You could have spared yourself and me a good deal of typing by simply denying the significance of the contention, rather than eagerly looking for opportunities for vituperation bordering on ad hominem and constructing "leftist" strawmen. SCoates and i had a series of exchanges on the significance of applying one's religious beliefs to personal political decisions, and manage to do so without trotting out allegations of demagoguery or dishonesty against one another. I rather suspect that SCoates doesn't agree with me. I consider that SC has disagreed with me in a far more civilized manner than your clumsy attempt at an assault here.

Clearly, I could not have spared myself any typing as you persist in defending the indefensible. As for SCoates, all I can say is "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din." "Bordering" on ad hominem and/or strawmen arguments is, unfortunately, consistent with your practice of throwing charges out there that you can back off through technicalities thereafter. Where are the ad hominem attacks or strawmen arguments? Reveal them and I will respond accordingly. Insinuate, and you are back on your favorite track.

Quote:

Blacks all want government handouts.
Arabs are all Islamic terrorists.
Gays are all promiscuous.
Women are all catty.
Jews are all pushy.
Indians are all drunks.
The Religious Right never question their Leadership.

Bigoted statements all.

Saying that: "The religiously fervent are already in the business of seeking wisdom from on high."--is not saying that the religious right never question their leadership. This isn't even a nice try. It's a bumbling attempt to misquote me in aid of alleging bigotry on my part.

Good grief, do you have a cognitive failure?

"Those who believe in scriptural authority and revealed truth will neither oppose nor challenge the motives of those whose claim to divine authority is accepted by them. More than that, they will become good christian soldiers in the army of the righteous, devoted to their candidate and his agenda."

"I have very strongly, and continue to state that religious devotion carries with it an unquestioning acceptance of the dictates of religious leadership..."

"The dictates of national leadership are not subject to question by the membership, and leadership is not subject to the pressures of democratic participation. "

"I have called for vigilance to assure that the unquestioning adherents of a belief set which does not characterize the majority do not overwhelm the polity as a result of such quirks of the system as a minority presidency. "

"This statement is a broad statement about the acknowledgement of and subordination to established authority of the faithful..."

Bumbling attempt to misquote you?

Please don't make this debate so easy

Do you contend that the religiously fervent do not, in fact, seek wisdom from on high? Surely even you in the midst of your nasty-fest here wouldn't be so absurd. I was impressed with your personal familiarity with prejudicial stereotypes, though--must be a reflection of the quality of discourse among your acquaintance.

You go girl! Don't let those Righties monopolize the Low Ground!

Quote:

Again, please stop playing coy.

Nothing in the least coy about that, it's an honest statement of my opinion of just how simple-minded this man is. It eludes me how you consider it coy to openly criticize someone, while honestly acknowledging that you haven't the means to establish the veracity of your belief . . . but you rock on, i know its important to you to cast me as dishonest about the disgust i feel toward the Shrub.

Can I be more explicit? You attack and then withdraw, then attack and then withdraw...all the while protesting your objectivity. Coy is charitable.

Quote:

By all means, please argue this inane contention.

Although the textual evidence of what you post suggests that no one here is better equipped to judge inanity, i fear i must disagree.

Yes, I am well suited to judge inanity, and I judge your positions inane.

Quote:

Not surprisingly, you perceive this effort as an attempt to create a State Religion or persecute non-believers. More evidence of demogoguery.

Hardly--although i'll acknowledge that i do consider it a form of persecution. However, in your original remark, you did specify heretical, and i admit that i had it more in mind that the reaction of the fervent to the subject of homosexuality is one of an abomination, rather than heresy per se. Hey, you actually scored once . . . good for you!

She shucks, she jives! She darts, she weaves!

Quote:

I leave this to the Earl.

As well you should, it's none of your damned business. He and i have in fact discussed it by private message, and well before you began lugging the vitriol over here for a response.

Oh how touchy we have become. Fraying at the edges? If it is none of my damned business, limit it to a PM.

Quote:

There are two aspects of you postings which I find so objectionable and which I cannot ignore.

One is the so often seen disingenuous attempts of posters to distance themselves from the very points they have intentionally made, once called on them.

This is course, nonsense. I've made a point from the outset of saying that i don't know that Bush seems himself as divinely chose; and i have from the outset stated that i believe he does. I have not distanced myself from that, i've simply pointed out that it is not the burden of the thread.

You perceive it as nonsense! Surprise, surprise. I don't, now, expect you to acknowledge that you are backpedaling faster than Lance Armstrong is pedaling. The proof is in the puddin, as they say, and the puddin is out there. Deny it if you will.

Quote:

The other is the attempt to cloak prejudice in a self-styled and sanctimonious defense of virtue.

Nothing in the least sanctimonious about my presentation. Keep in mind, i don't believe in sanctity. Of course, it wouldn't have done for you to attempt to cast so much opprobrium on me, and not attempt to end it with a flourish.

Nothing at all...because righteousness only applies to the religious. Of course.

I don't know you other than what you post under your nome de plume. I do have scorn for what you have argued, and, by extension, I have scorn for "Setanta," but that is because "Setanta" is no more, to me, than her postings. If I knew the real you, I assure you, I would be more discreet with my scorn, and would, assuredly, soften my reaction and place in the context of our overall relationship. As it is, though, we have no relationship beyond what we write in this forum. Take it personal if you will, but to do, given the circumstances, is bizarre. I know I don't, so have at it.

I consider that you've done nothing here but attempt to discredit the opinion i express through the use of many inferential and a few direct ad hominems, and to characterize this as "leftist" demagoguery.

What a surprise! Attack me rather than my argument. Isn't that the definition of ad hominem?

I actually embarked on an extended consideration of this topic over many weeks before posting this, as i had heard a caller to the NPR program Talk of the Nation tell about efforts others had made to get him to hand out voting instructions to the members of his congregation, and his comments about how he is disturbed that people would attempt to exploit his ministry in that manner. Of course, that could all be left-wing propaganda perpetrated by NPR, huh? They probably had a fake caller planted in the phone cue for just the occasion, huh? There, i've spared you the necessity of thinking up another of your palid refutations.

Hey, if you say you've spent weeks or months thinking about this topic, who am I to question you? But then, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? You launched into the topic with a seriously flawed argument and have been backpedalling ever since. I'm not questioning your commitment to your beliefs (and herein you are probably right that I have misused demogougary) but this does not elevate them beyond bigotry and wrongheadedness.

If you want to modify your statement to something like:

"There are some fundamentalist Christians who do not question what they are told by their religious leaders and this is not a good thing."

I will respond: "Here, Here. That Setanta has nailed it!"

However, if you insist on implying that Bush thinks he is the chosen of God, and that all fundamentalist Christians (Religious Right) believe this and are prepared to support him no matter what position or action he takes, then I'm coming back at you (No longer-this is too tedious- but figuratively).

Clearly you are passionate about the danger of irrational thinking. I share your concern, however there is a considerable danger in allowing one's argument against irrationality to become, itself, irrational. Partisanship promotes such a slip.

One can argue against irrationality without irrationally generalizing.

In any case: vaya con dios

Finn seeks to undo the ones he percieves as out of sinc with his view of the world.

Hmmm, worrying this.

I still agree with Finn.

Set.

Attacking a minority because YOU don't like them is bigotry.

I don't like that minority much either but I don't attack them. I tend to just poke fun, point out when they're wrong, that sort of thing.

Attacking a minority because YOU don't like them is bigotry.

Quote:

Attacking a minority because YOU don't like them is bigotry.

What if that minority is consistently responsible for some of the most asinine problems of our society, in my opinion? Is that bigotry, then, to attack them?

Cycloptichorn

The result of this leads to a lack of the pluralistic political principle necessary for a functioning democracy that cripples them from working with people whose moral values differ from their own for a political order in which all can obey their convictions.

Well, I guess it would be a wee bit much to expect my moniker to be spelled correctly when used to smear others by guilt of association.

How droll, how affected.

Btw: Finn, you're wrong. My God just told me so, and who are you to go against the Word of God?

But wait, so say you too......I guess we will have to find a way to compromise then...but, but, if God is on my side I need not compromise, and if God is on your side you need not compromise either.

And so, this is how Holy Wars commence.

How wise, how facile.

This leap from fundamentalism to Holy War is an expression of the very same prejudice reflected in Setanta's postings.

How Setanta can expect an intellectually consistent discussion with you can be only a result of his hope that rational thought pervades your mind.

But, I know you better.

Religious fanatics like yourself live in their own little world of certainty and brook nothing that discomforts them. A sad and unfortunate reflexive response to change or intellectual discomfort motivates these types. After all, it gets harder for one to believe in one's ideas when these are challenged by logic and rationalism. In fact, this is a primary impetus for missionary work i.e., a need to have all those around oneself in agreement least independent thought occurs and challenges to basic dogma arise.

You seem to be fairly intelligent, and so I can only assume that you have either not read what I have written, or prefer to simply ignore it in favor of conjuring a right wing bogey man against which you might righteously rant.

Sadly, it is to be expected that you would resort to invective, but in light of your reliance on this tactic, perhaps it is not too much, this one time, to ask that you share the basis for your assessment that I am a "religious fanatic."

Since you do not know me beyond the comments I have made in forums such as this, and given the certainty of your characterization, I would think it should be fairly easy for you to present all sorts of statements that I have made that reveal my religious fanatacism.

I note here the accusatory remarks of your earlier post and the projection of your own drone-like mentality onto your opponents as you assume a missionary position here before us today.

This is such a overstuffed sentence, I'm not sure what it's core might be. I will, however, admit that my prior posting was accusatory. I have little use for the sort of snide sidebars which you and others find so amusing, and so safe.

Generally , the religious right-wing is populated by ideologues like yourself who have drunk the Kool Aid, thus achieving a level of moral clarity and certainty that dismisses out of hand political compromise as a moral sell-out and heretical position vis a vis their religious beliefs.

I may very well be an ideologue, but I make no apologies in this regard. Of course I realize that you are injecting the false connotation of fanaticism into the word and thus it is intended as an insult. You are a creature of habit, if nothing else.

This statement is yet further evidence that you have not actually been following the exchange on this thread, but prefer to resort to canned rants. I have made no argument that those who do not ascribe to the fundamentalism of the so called Religious Right are "moral sellouts" or heretics. If you're going to continue this sort of wild assault, you really should be prepared to offer some substantiation.

My relevant argument is that Setanta is prejudiciously asserting that conservative Christian fundamentalists are fanatical and mindless followers of a wild eyed and sinister leadership. It would appear that you share this fallacious contention, but then it's hard to discern much from your posting other than "Finn stinks!"

The result of this leads to a lack of the pluralistic political principle necessary for a functioning democracy that cripples them from working with people whose moral values differ from their own for a political order in which all can obey their convictions.

This is why one sees the Limbaughs, O'riellys, Hannitys, Savages and Finns of the world constantly attack those who differ with them

Unlike kuvaz of course.

It is the recognition of such principles by normal people that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful, democratic society. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

Moreover, the inability of these religious ideologues to tolerate viewpoints other than Far Right Wing religious ones shows they do not care a fig about any type of social contract where their dogma is not the dominant one.

I assume that it is this that concerns Setanta and most other normal people about your ilk, who can best be described as "despitus abdicare scrutinium."

Well, I'm sure you're quite proud of your ending flourish (particularly since you got to throw in some latin) but this entire posting has been little more than your usual sniping from the sidelines, with the single exception that you spent some time on your soapbox.

If this is your notion of engaging in debate, then, by all means, remain on the sidelines. Clearly Setanta and I disagree on the issues expressed on this thread, but discourse with her has been stimulating; not tedious.

Should you feel compelled to attempt to get in the last word, let me spare you the trouble and post, on your behalf, and in true kuvazian style: "Finn is an ideological halfwit, who would start Holy Wars and burn heretics at the stake!"

The Overly Religious. They transcend all races and creeds, and cause most of the problems we face these days.

Kusavs has it right:

Quote:

The result of this leads to a lack of the pluralistic political principle necessary for a functioning democracy that cripples them from working with people whose moral values differ from their own for a political order in which all can obey their convictions.

Cycloptichorn