THE THREAT OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Quote:

Of course you are correct Cycloptichorn. Those who think Jews or Arabs or Homosexuals or African-Americans are the cause of most of the problems we face these days, are outrageously bigoted and just plain wrong, but you have put your finger on the cause of most of the problems we face today: The Overly Religious.

I, for one, have absolute faith in your ability to set the bar for the acceptable level of religous belief. If you deem a group overly religious, I'm with you. Please point out these overly religious groups and I will do all in my power to aid your cause in sanctioning and repressing them. God damn it we just can't let these Overly Religious people keep ruining our properly religious world!

Well, you see, that's the point, Finn. I didn't ever say we should identify, sanction, or do anything to these groups at all - they have a perfectly good right to be the people they are, even if I don't agree with their philosophies or actions.

That being said - those who are overly religious tend to have a difficult time recognizing the fact that other people have a right to their own philosophies and actions as well, and therein lies the problem....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, you see, that's the point, Finn. I didn't ever say we should identify, sanction, or do anything to these groups at all - they have a perfectly good right to be the people they are, even if I don't agree with their philosophies or actions.

That being said - those who are overly religious tend to have a difficult time recognizing the fact that other people have a right to their own philosophies and actions as well, and therein lies the problem....

Cycloptichorn

So, as long as you do not act upon your bigotry, it's OK?

Is this how it works?

I assert that Jews are pushy and greedy, but I acknowledge they have a perfectly good right to be the people they are, even if I don't agree with their philosophies or actions.

I'm now in the clear as far as prejudice goes?

You are are attempting to hide your prejudice behind the use of the term "overly." Of course what constitutes being overly religious is at your sole discretion.

I don't have a problem will all Jews, just the ones who are overly pushy and greedy.

The use of the term "overly," implies excess. It also implies that there is an acceptable standard which is being exceeded.

Who gets to establish this standard when it comes to religious belief, and once it is established and agreed upon, is it so far fetched to imagine that it might one day be enforced? After all, if overly religious people are truly responsible for most of the problems we face today, why shouldn't society to something about them? Are you suggesting that having identified the source of most of our woes, we should simply accept our afflicted state because the source has a perfectly good right to be the people they are?

I suggest that if you and your beliefs and actions are the source of most of the problems faced by the members of your community, you will soon find that your neighbors have joined forces to somehow deal with you - hopefully in a legal manner of course, but barring that recourse, in some way.

Whether or not overly religious people actually do have this problem (which, thankfully, you have been spared) in recognizing that other people have a right to their own philosophies and actions as well, it wouldn't be material unless they were able to exercise power over those with whom they disagree.

Exercising influence within the accepted political and legal structures of our nation is a far cry from directly exercising power over individuals.

Overly religious is an oxymoron. Once a member of a faith begins to twist its teachings to satisfy personal goals or inclinations they can no longer claim membership in the faith. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of individuals in the world who have used and are using religion as a vehicle to advance their personal goals and inclinations: Witness Iraq. However, the same can be said about any ideology. Arguably, Communism in it's pure form offers the possibility of improved lives for millions of people. That it has consistently failed in this attempt suggests some basic flaws in it's tenets, but is due in the main to its use as a vehicle by individuals to advance their personal goals and inclinations. Clearly, in its relatively short history, it has been demonstrated that Communism has been every bit as powerful a tool for creating and driving fanaticism as religion. Ideologies are very powerful, and anything of power can be misused by those with the will to do so.

In principle, I don't have a problem with the concept of overly religious people being a problem, because in the same vein, overly liberal people are a problem, and overly aggressive people are a problem and overly lazy people are a problem. The problem in all these cases is extremism.

One difficulty I have with what I perceive to be your position is where you are setting the bar as the acceptable norm.

That members of a religion organize around their beliefs that abortion or same sex unions are immoral to exert influence over the legislative process in an attempt to outlaw these practices is not extreme, unconstitutional, or all that different from advocates of feminism or gay rights organizing around their ideological beliefs to also influence the legislative process in attempt to preserve or legitimize these practices.

Another is the insistence on suggesting that those who are religious are somehow feeble in the ability to reason, and uniquely succeptable to demagougery.

If you think about the most successful demagoges of the recent past, you'll find that their demagoguery was based on race, class or ideology and not religion: Adolph Hitler and Mao Tse Tung are the foremost examples. On a lesser scale we find Juan Peron, George Wallace, Robert Mugabe, and Joseph McCarthy. As for religious demagogues, who other than the Ayatollah Khomeni makes the list?

0 Replies

Bin Laden makes the list Finn.

And you left Lenin and Stalin off the anti-religious group. Smile

0 Replies

The simple fact is, in America, the religious right have become a politicised group. They fanatically back their chosen candidates, based on religious fervor. The left would be dummies to fail to notice. These folk have a right to their religion and their politics. Those who do not see it their way are not necessarily anti-religious. Most are believers in God, just not that brand of fundamentalism. Just as the religious right is and should be free to persue their policies, so, the left is and should be free to organize an opposing force. This is not predjudice, but simple politics.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Bin Laden makes the list Finn.

And you left Lenin and Stalin off the anti-religious group.

Bin Laden is certainly a demagogue (and a religious one at that), but how successful has he really been?

Of course he has been successful in dispensing death and destruction, but I believe that these are his means and not his goal. If I am correct, and his goal is to create a modern Caliphate, with him as Caliph, there is no evidence at all that he has made significant progress towards his objective.

I have not attempted to create an anti-religious group.

Lenin does belong on the list of successful demagogues, and while he had no use for and saw the Church in Russia as an enemy, his demagoguery was based far more on class than religion.

Stalin, on the other hand, wasn't a demagogue. He ruled with an absolute iron fist. He cared nothing for invoking any emotion other than fear among the populace, and that fear was to be specifically focused on him rather than other groups. Very similar to Saddam.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

The simple fact is, i America, the religious right have become a politicised group. They fanatically back their chosen candidates, based on religious fervor. The left would be dummies to fail to notice. These folk have a right to their religion and their politics. Those who do not see it their way are not necessarily anti-religious. Most are believers in God, just not that brand of fundamentalism. Just as the religious right is and should be free to persue their policies, so, the left is and should be free to organize an opposing force. This is not predjudice, but simple politics.

Doesn't it go without saying that any group that can be called the Religious Right is a politicized group?

The question is what is the definition of a member of the Religious Right, and how expansive is the membership.

All fundamentalist Christians are not members of the Religious Right, and all members of the Religious Right are not fundamentalist Christians.

With all due respect, it is foolish to state that members of the Religious Right are any more fanatic in their support of chosen candidates than leftists. I have a feeling you don't know too many people who might be considered members of the Religious Right.

These people are committed to ideals, and perhaps more so than Democrats or Republicans. Should Bush make a left turn from one of the issues they care about, he will lose their support far more quickly than Kerry will lose the support of liberals if he were to make a similar left (or should I say "right?") turn.

You are absolutely right that people who do not agree with members of the so called Religious Right or fundamentalist Christians are not necessarily anti-religious or prejudiced. However people are prejudiced if they assume that all or even most fundamentalist Christians are:

1) Part of the Religious Right
2) Fanatical in their support of their candidates, or their religious beliefs
3) Mindless in their following of their religious leaders
4) The cause of most of the problems in this country
5) Some sort of insidious danger to the nation

For many of such people (and they have a fair representation on A2K) their prejudice is a product of their antipathy for religion.

Although not as strong or as publicized, there is a Religious Left out there, and yet their activism doesn't seem to concern too many of the folks who are so protective of the separation of Church and State. I wonder why?

0 Replies

I question whether the religious left is not as strong as the religious right. I know many more politically active poeple on the religious left here than I know people from the religious right. I think they may be perceived as less strong purely because the media does not identify them as 'religious' like it identifies activists from the religious right.

0 Replies

There is a core to the religious right that fits my description. Sure, you can pick out John Q. Fundament over there and say, "See; he's different," but that doesn't alter the overall scheme and you know it.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

There is a core to the religious right that fits my description. Sure, you can pick out John Q. Fundament over there and say, "See; he's different," but that doesn't alter the overall scheme and you know it.

I just love the degree of certainty in your positions that consistently allows you refuse to believe that anyone, actually, disagrees with you, but rather is pretending to an opposing position for some mischievous purpose.

There is, indeed,a core to the Religious Right that fits your description. There is also a core to the Wildeyed Left that fits disparaging characterizations of lunatics and traitors. For that matter there is a core of every ideological, racial, and economic group that fits the stereotypes developed about them.

Exaggerating the representative nature of these core group as respects the whole is bigotry.

0 Replies

"despitus abdicare scrutinium": contempt before examination.

Latin for: a contemptible person who renounces something before making an honest search or examination.

That's the shoe, try the fit, Finn, and your fellow travels in the Religious Right won't get pinched toes either. There is no intellectual integrity coming from your posts, just an intellectually dishonest knee-jerk support for religious faith directed political actions. Just like your support for faith-based, trickle-down economics.

K

Quote:

"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."

and Mr. Finn's response?

Quote:

How wise, how facile.

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

After you wipe the drool from your chin, you might wish to re-consider that remark in light of the mistake you made inferring that one's belief that having God on their side a priori makes them fundamentalist as we generally consider the term in the US, i.e., a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

You are smart enough, or cagey enough to know that is not necessarily the case. But nice try to put words in my mouth.

You deserve a treat for that one

http://www.fadtoys.com/celebrity/tv-shows-series/howdy-doody-lg-new.jpg

I expect you to be aware that there is a difference between American Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. After all, Jerry Falwell is a Fundie; Jimmy Carter is an Evangelical. I would submit that while both men believe that God is on their side, I doubt that Jimmy Carter wants to ban abortion or deny homosexuals the same rights of marriage as straights because God told him to.

I note that you continued to use the same rhetorical tactic against Cycloptichorn too, in responding to his post where you consider that those who do not want the religious beliefs of others shoved down their throats in the free market place of ideas are expressing prejudice.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, you see, that's the point, Finn. I didn't ever say we should identify, sanction, or do anything to these groups at all - they have a perfectly good right to be the people they are, even if I don't agree with their philosophies or actions.

That being said - those who are overly religious tend to have a difficult time recognizing the fact that other people have a right to their own philosophies and actions as well, and therein lies the problem....

Cycloptichorn

So, as long as you do not act upon your bigotry, it's OK?

So, according to the rules of your bizarro world, Cycloptichorn opines that he/she does not think that "we should identify, sanction, or do anything to these groups at all - they have a perfectly good right to be the people they are, even if I don't agree with their philosophies or actions," and yet, this is a working, Finnian definition of bigotry.

Standard fare from you once again.

Finn's further bloviations

Quote:

Is this how it works?

I assert that Jews are pushy and greedy, but I acknowledge they have a perfectly good right to be the people they are, even if I don't agree with their philosophies or actions.

I'm now in the clear as far as prejudice goes?

Clear? Clear as mud, because you have yet to produce evidence that the actions of those "pushy and greedy" "Jews" in the society are attempting to influence public policy based solely upon fundamentalist religious convictions.

After all, that was the point Setanta made in starting this thread

If those "pushy and greedy" "Jews" demanded, as a requirement of their personal religious faith the enactment of the Law of the Covenant where all goyim males are to be circumcised, then they would be in the same position of those who wish to inflict their religious beliefs on others just as those you cite below.

Finn

Quote:

That members of a religion organize around their beliefs that abortion or same sex unions are immoral to exert influence over the legislative process in an attempt to outlaw these practices is not extreme, unconstitutional, or all that different from advocates of feminism or gay rights organizing around their ideological beliefs to also influence the legislative process in attempt to preserve or legitimize these practices.

That is the crux of it at last. You feel that it is a legitimate exercise of personal rights for citizens of a similar private morality to band together and promote their preferred version of public morality.

Fair enough, I do too. In a democracy one would expect it. However, when such positions are held and attempts are made to thrust them into public discourse and become codified by public law, intellectual honesty demands that these positions are weighed in the common marketplace of ideas, as are all such ideas that consider actions towards public policies. The sharp-edged tools of the common intellectual marketplace, viz., logic, rationality and scientific method, in short, Godless dialectic materialism, examine such ideas.

Positions on public policy driven by religious conviction are not exempt from analysis using the tools of logic, rationality, and scientific method simply because they are based upon religious dogmas. Once such ideas and opinions cross the threshold of the church door and amble down to the secular marketplace, they are open to critique. Critiques of these positions that point out the logical flaws of such positions (and their own age-old prejudices) are not prejudice or bigotry, unless by prejudice and bigotry one demands that the application of logic, rationality, and scientific method are themselves bigoted and prejudicious tools in a functioning democracy.

Finn

Quote:

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.

Well, that is a pretty good functioning definition of inchoate fanaticism if you describe your views as above external examination.

It reminds me of a remark made by one of your intellectual gurus, Homer Simpson; "I never apologize. I'm sorry, that's just the way I am."

Finn

Quote:

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.

Your ability to cut and paste my remarks is far from commendable, for these were my words.

Quote:

Generally , the religious right-wing is populated by ideologues 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.

Your remarks showed that you did not understand them. The "moral sellouts" referenced above refers to religiously driven citizens who must, by nature of living in a pluralistic democracy, compromise. Yet any such compromise is anathema to those who have the belief that they hold TRUTH as divine revelation. It did not refer to those who have not drunk the Kool Aid.

Finn

Quote:

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!"

Cite the evidence that Setanta asserted "conservative Christian fundamentalists are fanatical and mindless followers of a wild eyed and sinister leadership."

Or was that just a bit of poetic, or shall we say sophist license on your part?

As to your personal hygiene, I will leave that to your nanny.

Finn

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.

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.

Naturally, like the "Limbaughs, O'riellys, Hannitys, Savages of the world" I advocate the incarceration, threats of physical violence, economic boycott, or abuse of my political adversaries. And surely you can find readily a quote from me on such calls for action.

K

Quote:

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."

Finn

Quote:

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.

See above, and btw, I entered this thread posting remarks to Setanta that laid out the dynamics and inherent tensions to a pluralistic society of the faith-based political posturing of the Religious Right, and how such dovetail with his remarks. I did not post in response to you, but I was quickly cited by you as in cahoots with Setanta.

Quote:

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.

And just as clearly you found security in ad hominum attacks, misquoting, and distorting Setanta's discourse about his concerns about the Religious Right's affect in the political realm.

Finn

Quote:

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!"

Damn it, you know how I hate to agree with you.

0 Replies

K wrote:

"despitus abdicare scrutinium": contempt before examination.

Latin for: a contemptible person who renounces something before making an honest search or examination.

That's the shoe, try the fit, Finn, and your fellow travels in the Religious Right won't get pinched toes either.

Thanks for the latin lesson "K." On the basis, alone, that you have superciliously and erroneously categorized me as "religious fanatic" and a member of the "Religious Right," it would seem that this particular shoe fits you perfectly.

and Mr. Finn's response?

Quote:

How wise, how facile.

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

you might wish to re-consider that remark in light of the mistake you made inferring that one's belief that having God on their side a priori makes them fundamentalist as we generally consider the term in the US, i.e., a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.

You are smart enough, or cagey enough to know that is not necessarily the case. But nice try to put words in my mouth.[/quote]

So you wish to enlarge the target of your bigotry beyond simply fundamentalists to all who believe God is on their side? I suspected this was the case anyway.

This has been the thrust of the positions expressed on this thread: Those who believe that they have a personal relationship with God, who believe God is on their side, that God speaks to them are fanatics and somehow a danger to society.

I expect you to be aware that there is a difference between American Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. After all, Jerry Falwell is a Fundie; Jimmy Carter is an Evangelical. I would submit that while both men believe that God is on their side, I doubt that Jimmy Carter wants to ban abortion or deny homosexuals the same rights of marriage as straights because God told him to.

I am aware that the primary difference between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals is that one is the name liberals like to use for those Christians with political beliefs they cannot abide, and the other is the name they use for those they can tolerate: Falwell v Carter. I am also aware that both fundamentalists and evangelicals belief in the inerrancy of the bible, and the ability to have a personal relationship with God.

Since Carter doesn't want to ban abortions ( I have no idea of what Carter's position on same sex marriage is) it goes without saying that he doesn't believe God told him to support such a ban. However, do you know that Carter's support of a woman's right to abortions was not prompted by his personal conversations with God?

I note that you continued to use the same rhetorical tactic against Cycloptichorn too, in responding to his post where you consider that those who do not want the religious beliefs of others shoved down their throats in the free market place of ideas are expressing prejudice.

You are attempting to recast the arguments being made on this thread as merely the expression of a reasonable desire to not have someone else's opinions forced upon them, and that simply isn't't the case. Even if it were, it would be incumbent upon those expressing this concern to offer some explanation of how the bully boys are forcing their opinions on innocent free thinkers.

Finn

Quote:

That members of a religion organize around their beliefs that abortion or same sex unions are immoral to exert influence over the legislative process in an attempt to outlaw these practices is not extreme, unconstitutional, or all that different from advocates of feminism or gay rights organizing around their ideological beliefs to also influence the legislative process in attempt to preserve or legitimize these practices.

That is the crux of it at last. You feel that it is a legitimate exercise of personal rights for citizens of a similar private morality to band together and promote their preferred version of public morality.

Fair enough, I do too. In a democracy one would expect it. However, when such positions are held and attempts are made to thrust them into public discourse and become codified by public law, intellectual honesty demands that these positions are weighed in the common marketplace of ideas, as are all such ideas that consider actions towards public policies. The sharp-edged tools of the common intellectual marketplace, viz., logic, rationality and scientific method, in short, Godless dialectic materialism, examine such ideas.

Positions on public policy driven by religious conviction are not exempt from analysis using the tools of logic, rationality, and scientific method simply because they are based upon religious dogmas. Once such ideas and opinions cross the threshold of the church door and amble down to the secular marketplace, they are open to critique. Critiques of these positions that point out the logical flaws of such positions (and their own age-old prejudices) are not prejudice or bigotry, unless by prejudice and bigotry one demands that the application of logic, rationality, and scientific method are themselves bigoted and prejudicious tools in a functioning democracy.

A fine speech, "K," I could not' agree more.

My problem with the arguments made on this thread is that they are not a series of well reasoned critiques of the flaws in fundamentalist thought, but rather a prejudicial recitation of the dangerous nature and limited or deranged mental capacity of a group of people with which the posters do not agree. I would love to read the sort of critique you suggest and might very probably agree with it. I have little use for fundamentalism in any domain, including what amounts to a liberal creed.

Finn

Quote:

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.

Well, that is a pretty good functioning definition of inchoate fanaticism if you describe your views as above external examination.

And of course I haven't. I suppose that when you get into one your invective zones, substance plays second fiddle to the sheer pleasure of bitchiness.
As I expect you to know K, an ideologue is one who is an advocate of a body of ideas that form the basis of a system. Refusing to apologize for this condition in no way suggests that my views are above external examination. You have repeatedly accused me of being a fanatic, and I hardly expect you to stop because I have pointed out that you have yet to provide one shred of evidence that the label sticks, but since you are such a self-professed champion of integrity and intellectual honesty, one might expect that you would at least try to practice what you preach. But then, I know you too well K.

Finn

Quote:

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!"

Cite the evidence that Setanta asserted "conservative Christian fundamentalists are fanatical and mindless followers of a wild eyed and sinister leadership."

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. When this happens, those whoSE theological views are not consonant with said agenda, and those who are disturbed by or actively opposed to religious agendas worked out in the public arena are marginalized. Those who are of strong religious conviction but who do not subscribe to the creed or creeds being promoted are marginalized. And finally, the voice of dissent is quickly labeled as the propaganda of the Anti-Christ, and eventually, by extension, treason against the nation.

the burden of my post which begins this thread is the religious right, and their belief that Bush is the chosen of God. This is disturbing because it means that not only are such voters unlikely ever to question the policies of the administration and the statements of the Shrub, but that they will condemn any who do criticize the administration. The potential for the smothering of dissent, and the exclusion of "non-believers" from input into national policy is disturbing

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.

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 do view, and will continue to state, that unquestioning adherence to scriptural and putative divine authority is a destructive force

such a dependence upon scriptural authority is a positive detriment to personal liberty, and a dangerous meddling in the lives of others.

"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..."[/i]

Quote:

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.

Naturally, like the "Limbaughs, O'riellys, Hannitys, Savages of the world" I advocate the incarceration, threats of physical violence, economic boycott, or abuse of my political adversaries. And surely you can find readily a quote from me on such calls for action.

Now you are dissembling. Deny that you constantly attack those who differ with you. There was no reason to believe that you were referring to any of the alleged unsavory tactics of these folks since you purposefully chose in include me in your list of right wing devils, and I do not engage in them. Surely you can readily find a quote from me on such calls for action, if you think otherwise.

Better yet, spare us your fantasy role playing of the Leftist Paladin, and return to the sidelines.

0 Replies

Finn
The core that I speak of is influential enough to be the kind of force I've spoken of. You love to play the "bigot" card at every opportunity - Perhaps you see leftists as being ultrasensitive to that label and weish to return the favor of right wingers having been labeled bigot for so long. It's a stupid charge in this case, just a part of slash and burn arguing.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Finn
The core that I speak of is influential enough to be the kind of force I've spoken of.

If such is the case than surely you can offer some substantiation of this assertion other than "Because I said so and I'm entitled to do so."

You love to play the "bigot" card at every opportunity - Perhaps you see leftists as being ultrasensitive to that label and weish to return the favor of right wingers having been labeled bigot for so long.

Astute observation edgar. I do relish pointing out the bigotry of folks who use the term with abandon. Punching holes in conceit is satisfying.

It's a stupid charge in this case, just a part of slash and burn arguing.

Well this is what we have been arguing, but if you say it's stupid, I guess it must be. End of discussion everybody!

0 Replies

I'm tired of your incessant trying to unseat every discussion by calling me a bigot. This is the second thread you have tried it. It's so stupid, I don't intend to respond to you anymore.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I'm tired of your incessant trying to unseat every discussion by calling me a bigot. This is the second thread you have tried it. It's so stupid, I don't intend to respond to you anymore.

Aren't you the touchy one edgar?

I took another run through this thread and could not find a single instance where I called you a bigot. (And I suspect that I haven't done so on any other thread either)

I did make the following comments:

"However people are prejudiced if they assume that all or even most fundamentalist Christians are:

1) Part of the Religious Right
2) Fanatical in their support of their candidates, or their religious beliefs
3) Mindless in their following of their religious leaders
4) The cause of most of the problems in this country
5) Some sort of insidious danger to the nation "

"Exaggerating the representative nature of these core group as respects the whole is bigotry."

I did not assert that you were guilty of the above transgressions, but if you are now saying that you are...

For the record, I don't think you are a bigot, but this doesn't mean that you are incapable of bigoted thinking. Who is?

If you remain adamant about refusing to ever again respond to my posts, so be it (I think this was my reply the last time too). I won't be glad for it, but, I think I'll manage to get by.

One final piece of advice before we cut all ties, if you are going to be so touchy about what people say about you, you might want to reflect upon what you say about them.

0 Replies

I spoke hastily in withdrawing from the discussion. You worded your response in a way to suggest I am a bigot, but you have no case for it; therefore I am back. You called me a bigot in the thread about the taking down of the statue of Hussein, where all I said up to that point was the asking of a simple, "Why not?" I will leave it up to some other authority just who is the touchy one. Your characterization of what makes a bigot re the religious right is your opinion. That the religious right that controls so much of Republican politics by fanatically supporting chosen candidates is factual, is a truth so obvious to practically everybody that I don't feel the burden of proving it. It is not bigoted to make the kinds of statement I have made here.

0 Replies

Ah Finn

Quote:

K wrote:
"despitus abdicare scrutinium": contempt before examination.

Latin for: a contemptible person who renounces something before making an honest search or examination.

That's the shoe, try the fit, Finn, and your fellow travels in the Religious Right won't get pinched toes either.

Thanks for the latin lesson "K." On the basis, alone, that you have superciliously and erroneously categorized me as "religious fanatic" and a member of the "Religious Right," it would seem that this particular shoe fits you perfectly.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, Finn.

Also, your feathers are showing.

http://www.dragg.net/users/pennywitt/daffy/daffy23.gif

Let us see why I call you a religious fanatic and a bunky of the Religious Right in America. Could it be remarks of yours like these?

Quote:

So you wish to enlarge the target of your bigotry beyond simply fundamentalists to all who believe God is on their side? I suspected this was the case anyway.

This has been the thrust of the positions expressed on this thread: Those who believe that they have a personal relationship with God, who believe God is on their side, that God speaks to them are fanatics and somehow a danger to society.

Whoa there fella', your reactionary and defensive response is both ignorant and appalling.

No one on this thread, especially neither Setanta nor I said any of that. You are making that up in your mind.

Your remarks could not be farther from the truth. I don't care if God whispers in your ear or if that Son of Sam dog does. But, what I do care about is you demanding that others kow tow to or accept as valid your opinions because you claim they came from your god.

You dismiss out of hand and call others bigots because they demand substantiation of the political positions the "faithful" proclaim beyond merely accepting them because your god said so.

That's out. You don't get a pass on that kind of stuff. I reserve the right to examine with a critical eye any such declarations of divine inspiration if they move out of the church into the secular society with the tools of logic, rationalism, and scientific method, and if I find your remarks lacking by objective assessment, I will consider them as bogus.

You use the accusation of "bigotry" whenever someone disagrees with you and your divinely inspired opinions and challenges you to prove with evidence your stances.

Btw: Did I say that I was against religion? Did I say that I was against people taking into the political arena their faith based opinions?

Or did I say that those who do so should expect their faith-based political opinions to be challenged, just like any other opinion people bring to the table for political discussion, and that critiques of those positions are not "bigoted," unless you demand that the use of logic, rationalism and scientific method are themselves tools of devilish bigotry.

Is that what you mean by my bigotry; that I am bigoted because I am using logic, rationalism and scientific method to assess political positions that emanate from religious dogma? I use the same objective intellectual tools to assess the validity of other "isms" as well.

Since I am doing that, viz., examining the stances of others with logic, rationalism and scientific method, how is it then that I am accused by you of being a bigot, one described by

Quote:

despitus abdicare scrutinium": contempt before examination.

Latin for: a contemptible person who renounces something before making an honest search or examination.

Just how does that figure in your noggin? I am using objective methods of inquiry that are time-tested tools in public intercourse for examining facts and political positions, but that is bigotry on planet Finn because I do not accept at face value the validity of the Divine Revelation of others.

You are demanding that political positions, based upon religious beliefs are above reproach and should not subject to the same scrutiny as all the other ideas about politics, because by your definition, such a critical examination would be prima fascia evidence of religious bigotry.

You think that your political positions are beyond examination because they are religiously based, and calls to examine your positions via enlightened reason are examples of bigotry?

What are you thinking, that no one is allowed to be critical of a person's religiously based political positions, otherwise they are bigots?

You think that is the way a rational person operates? Or is that the sign of a debilitating mental illness?

I am not coming into the church to criticize the sermon. The preacher is coming out of the church, standing out on the public thoroughfare and preaching religiously based political positions.

Once that preacher moves away from the pulpit and places his opinions and sermons into the public domain and secular marketplace of ideas, faith is irrelevant to the substantiation of those positions, because not everyone agrees on issues of faith.

Are you so poisoned by the blood of Jesus that you are incapable of delineating the difference between an attack on one's religion versus a logical, rational, and critical examination of the basis for holding a political position based upon religious tenets?

These are not the same things.

Obviously, in such a vein, you would call as a bigot any physical scientist who laughs in the face of those who bray on about "creation" science, the Garden of Eden, the Great Flood, God holding the sun in its place over the walls of Jericho and a myriad of other Biblical stories.

Quote:

I am aware that the primary difference between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals is that one is the name liberals like to use for those Christians with political beliefs they cannot abide, and the other is the name they use for those they can tolerate: Falwell v Carter. I am also aware that both fundamentalists and evangelicals belief in the inerrancy of the bible, and the ability to have a personal relationship with God.

No, you are wrong again. The primary differences are that all Fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (and its 6,000 year old world creation).

Evangelicals need not believe so. Jimmy Carter surely doesn't and many Evangelicals I know don't either because those folks are smart enough to realize the metaphors in the Bible for what they are and are moved by Grace, not dogma, as with Fundamentalists. Nor do Evangelicals attempt to convince the rest of the nation to conform to their own biblical ideals for social behavior by using the power of the government. That is the game of Fundamentalists.

Quote:

Since Carter doesn't want to ban abortions ( I have no idea of what Carter's position on same sex marriage is) it goes without saying that he doesn't believe God told him to support such a ban. However, do you know that Carter's support of a woman's right to abortions was not prompted by his personal conversations with God?

Two can play that game, Finn. How do you know that my own support for using logic, rationalism, and scientific method in examining religiously based political positions do not derive from my own personal conversations with God?

How can you disprove that? Why would I have to prove it to you if my God said it to me?

Are you supposed to take my word for it, on Faith, and agree to do what I want because my God said so? Or are you going to challenge me and my beliefs if I carry then out of the church and into the secular marketplace all the while demanding that others follow my views because my god said so?

If you do the first, you are just an idiot. If you do the latter, then by your own words you have used against me, you are a bigot.

That is the point. Unlike economic theories of socialism, communism, liberalism, or even conservatism, neither of us can prove nor disprove opinions based upon religious conviction. But what can be examined for objective accuracy is the well spring that produced those religiously motivated positions. And those well springs would be the dogma of such religions.

When such things are thrown into the secular marketplace of ideas and laid upon the dissecting table there is no commonly agreed upon system or yardstick to measure the validity of the positions except logic, rationalism, and scientific method. So any religiously derived political opinion should be capable of being defended by more than just "Its in the Bible."

In such cases, your call that your god tells you to support the enactment of antiabortion laws gets cancelled out by my call that my god tells me not to support enactment of antiabortion laws.

Bringing gods into this accomplishes nothing because each of us has their own ideas on God.

Quote:

You are attempting to recast the arguments being made on this thread as merely the expression of a reasonable desire to not have someone else's opinions forced upon them, and that simply isn't't the case. Even if it were, it would be incumbent upon those expressing this concern to offer some explanation of how the bully boys are forcing their opinions on innocent free thinkers.

Are you serious or just not paying attention here?

The argument here is and has been that religiously directed people who want to use the power of the collective, i.e., the government to shape the society in the image of their god's desire are willing to have their positions shaped not by logic, reason or scientific method, but by little voices in their heads that they call God.

That little voice in your head that you call God told you to be an anti-abortionist. There can be no discussion as to the particulars, because you have Revealed Word to support you. If I disagree, then in your eyes I am going against Revealed Word and this is no longer a debate between two people but between one person who has their god on their side against one who does not.

What angers you is that when such positions are critiqued by logic, rationalism, and scientific method, you think that is religious intolerance and bigotry because others do not accept the authority of another person's god.

I am supposed to accept it without criticism if you tell me that your god told you that 1 + 1 = 3, and that because of this, you want me to give credit for 3 instead of 2? That is akin to shooting dice with no marks on the face of the dice and that I am supposed to trust you when you tell me that god told you what marks are on the face of the dice, even though I can not see the marks.

Quote:

Quote:
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.

Naturally, like the "Limbaughs, O'riellys, Hannitys, Savages of the world" I advocate the incarceration, threats of physical violence, economic boycott, or abuse of my political adversaries. And surely you can find readily a quote from me on such calls for action.

Now you are dissembling. Deny that you constantly attack those who differ with you. There was no reason to believe that you were referring to any of the alleged unsavory tactics of these folks since you purposefully chose in include me in your list of right wing devils, and I do not engage in them. Surely you can readily find a quote from me on such calls for action, if you think otherwise.

Actually, if you read closely I included you as one who does "attack those who differ with them." But did not include you later with those who "advocate the incarceration, threats of physical violence, economic boycott, or abuse of my political adversaries.

That's not dissembling on my part, just fuzzy reading on yours.

But if you want to know the "attacks" of which I speak, a normal one for you is the post of yours calling Cycloptichorn's remarks bigotry, when in fact, his/her response was pointing 180 degrees in a different direction from bigotry.

How you get bigotry from the following is beyond the pale of rational thought.

Quote:

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, you see, that's the point, Finn. I didn't ever say we should identify, sanction, or do anything to these groups at all - they have a perfectly good right to be the people they are, even if I don't agree with their philosophies or actions.

That being said - those who are overly religious tend to have a difficult time recognizing the fact that other people have a right to their own philosophies and actions as well, and therein lies the problem....

Cycloptichorn

So, as long as you do not act upon your bigotry, it's OK?

Cycloptichorn opines that he/she does not think that "we should identify, sanction, or do anything to these groups at all - they have a perfectly good right to be the people they are, even if I don't agree with their philosophies or actions,"

That's rational? To call Cycloptichorn's remark bigotry?

Quote:
Better yet, spare us your fantasy role playing of the Leftist Paladin, and return to the sidelines.

Tell you what, I'll put down my six-shooter when you stop lofting those inane dirigibles of hot air, ad hominums, and fuzzy logic.

Until then, Paladin I am.

"Ballad of Paladin"

Have Gun Will Travel reads the card of a man.
A knight without armor in a savage land.
His fast gun for hire head's the calling wind.
A soldier of fotune is the man called Paladin.

Paladin, Paladin Where do you roam?
Paladin, Paladin, Far, far from home.

He travels on to wherever he must;
A chess knight of silver is his badge of trust.
There are campfire legends that the plainsmen spin
Of the man with the gun,
of the man called Pa-l-l-l-l-a-din

by Johnny Western, Richard Boone, and Sam Rolfe
Performed by Johnny Western

0 Replies

I've just looked down the front of my pants, and have reassured myself that i am, to this point, still male.

Having dispensed with that, i feel it necessary to copy here the operative paragraph from my opening post:

To begin--with errors in tact--I wrote:

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. 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. When this happens, those whoSE theological views are not consonant with said agenda, and those who are disturbed by or actively opposed to religious agendas worked out in the public arena are marginalized. Those who are of strong religious conviction but who do not subscribe to the creed or creeds being promoted are marginalized. And finally, the voice of dissent is quickly labeled as the propaganda of the Anti-Christ, and eventually, by extension, treason against the nation. For these reasons, i am continually and diametrically opposed to the injection of religious tenants into the arena of public policy decision.

Therefore, the following from Finn, is completely unwarranted: "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!" I have very specifically identified those whose religious convictions about revealed truth have the potential to engender an unquestioning adherence to a policy program. I did not identify this to be all conservative christian fundamentalists, i did not describe all conservative christian fundamentalists as "fanatical and mindless followers," i did not suggest that there were any "wild eyed [sic] and sinister leadership" involved. This does not even rate a "nice try," because of the painfully evident distortion which it was necessary for Finn to make in order to so characterize my statement as to make it amenable to his charge of prejudice, and am relieved to see that he is leaving aside the misuse of the word bigotry in this example.

As for Finn's personal hygiene, we are here spared olfactory sensations, and therefore, i am not obliged to form an opinion of Finn's cleanliness, nor is he obliged to react to a relative judgment of mine.

0 Replies

Thank you, Kuvasz. You said it better than I could.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thank you, Kuvasz. You said it better than I could.

Cycloptichorn

thank ya' kindly pardner, I gotcher back

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/richard-boone-c2.jpg

0 Replies

THE THREAT OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know