The world-view of the Religious Right is incomprehensible

Amazing that such a small section of protestants can raise such ire.

The framework of reality from the Religious Right is not open to objective analysis. Either you stand with the Religious Right's idea of God, God's plan on Earth as revealed thru the Scripture, and God's followers or you are against them.

An overreaching generality that you would likely not tolerate if it were directed at a group which you ideologically favor.

If people are not inclined to agree that religious factors should be incorporated into civil, secular society via codification of laws, they are proclaimed as "bigots."

A misrepresentation of the argument being made, and an ironic one at that. The hurling of "BIGOT!" has long been the exclusive property of the Left. How it chafes when it appears as if it may be turned back upon them.
The argument being made is not that secularists are bigots. Rather it is that if people of faith are automatically disqualified from governmental positions based upon the tenants of their faith, this is a form of bigotry.

This push to codify religious doctrines (dogmas) into law is a response from some religious minded people to the disinclination of civil society itself to incorporate the incomprehensible "mysteries of faith" along with the comprehensible (materialism/rationalism) as necessary constituents of the world.

Those who believe that the world can not be explained merely by the comprehensible, those who cherish the idea of the ineffability of "God's secrets" are often scorned openly as superstitious where only critically established understanding possesses value.

Rationalism rejects "God's secrets" as being ineffable. rationalism rejects the incomprehensible, and instead yields a secret-less view with its highest potentialities called wisdom and its priests are philosophers and educated people.

What we have here is the Religious Right's response to this scorn and it cannot be rebutted rationally, because it is a-rational, a-comprehensible (incomprehensible).

The religious right is fighting on a different field, using different weapons than the secular rationalists who oppose injecting the incomprehensible into the comprehensible world.

There is an element of the absurd in this argument. The presumption seems to be that secular humanists are all enlightened rationalists with a full understanding of scientific truths and no reliance, whatsoever, on generalities or common misconceptions. What you would seem to have us believe is that all secularists are representives of the highest form of rationalism, while all people of faith are superstitious primitives. This does smack of bigotry though.

Those of who want to live in a secular, pluralistic society do not wish to enforce their private spiritual views upon public discourse by law, nor do they accept the validity of those who do. This rejection of the incomprehensible is not bigotry.

An entirely inconsistent statement born of the desire to cast one side of the argument in the most favorable of lights.

According to your argument, not everyone who favors societal secularism is an absolute rationalist. This is an expected extension of the Left wings' attempt to inject the magic words of "faith" and "values" into their ideology. So the Left is left with the feeble contention that their members of "faith" are, nevertheless, enlightened because they realize that their own primitive superstitions should not be forced down the throat of their neighbors. Despite what your personal position might be, if we are to believe that the societal secularists can include people of faith, they cannot possibly reject the incomprehensible.

Secularists fear a negative impact on secular society from injecting the incomprehensible religious "mysterious of faith" into it because such "faith-based reality" can not be backed up by evidence,

It would appear that despite my extensive travel throughout this country I have not come across this great mass of rationalist secularists who demand scientific proof of everything that influences their lives and informs their opinions: The Bush family had extensive ties to Nazi Germany, Americans never really landed on the moon, the Trilateral Commision actually rules the world, 9/11 was perpetrated by the CIA etc.


Like the logical fallacies employed by the Right-Wing elsewhere, the religionists are demanding that secularists prove why it is necessary to keep religion out of secular society when it is really the case that the religionist have to show why it is necessary for it to be included.

Upon what do you base the contention that religionists are demanding that secularists prove anything?

And you know what happens next?

When secularists demand to know from the religionists why the latter's incomprehensible religious "mysterious of faith" are necessary for secular society, the latter call the former "anti-religionist bigots."

I think you need to associate yourself with tribalists rather than secularists.

It is scary to think how much influence these people appear to have with the US President and his milieu.

That's easy. The aforementioned groups are reasonable people - nothing to be scared of there.

goodfielder wrote:

That's easy. The aforementioned groups are reasonable people - nothing to be scared of there.

Oh, no prejudice revealed in that statement.

It doesn't really matter either way. Personally I have no tolerance whatsoever for religion and politics being mixed up. There is no place for religion in politics, none at all. I don't care if it's Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or any other religion, there is no place for it in politics. Politics is secular. Where religion and politics mix there is theocracy and by definition there is no democracy.

As I said, it doesn't matter. Your getting wound up over my views is pointless. And I'm not being spiteful or difficult to get on with. I am very tolerant of religion - in its place. That place is in the minds and hearts of people - not in the halls of political power.

An overreaching generality that you would likely not tolerate if it were directed at a group which you ideologically favor.

One of the local women who got excommunicated said on TV that it was like a cult. Another man who got excommunicated said that the rest of the congregation stood up and applauded as the Democrats were told to leave."

Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville Baptist, had been exhorting his congregation since October to support his political views or leave, said Selma Morris, a 30-year member of the church.
"He preached a sermon on abortion and homosexuality, then said if anyone there was planning on voting for John Kerry, they should leave," she said.

A misrepresentation of the argument being made, and an ironic one at that. The hurling of "BIGOT!" has long been the exclusive property of the Left. How it chafes when it appears as if it may be turned back upon them.
The argument being made is not that secularists are bigots. Rather it is that if people of faith are automatically disqualified from governmental positions based upon the tenants of their faith, this is a form of bigotry.

There is an element of the absurd in this argument. The presumption seems to be that secular humanists are all enlightened rationalists with a full understanding of scientific truths and no reliance, whatsoever, on generalities or common misconceptions. What you would seem to have us believe is that all secularists are representives of the highest form of rationalism, while all people of faith are superstitious primitives. This does smack of bigotry though

An entirely inconsistent statement born of the desire to cast one side of the argument in the most favorable of lights.

According to your argument, not everyone who favors societal secularism is an absolute rationalist. This is an expected extension of the Left wings' attempt to inject the magic words of "faith" and "values" into their ideology. So the Left is left with the feeble contention that their members of "faith" are, nevertheless, enlightened because they realize that their own primitive superstitions should not be forced down the throat of their neighbors. Despite what your personal position might be, if we are to believe that the societal secularists can include people of faith, they cannot possibly reject the incomprehensible.

It would appear that despite my extensive travel throughout this country I have not come across this great mass of rationalist secularists who demand scientific proof of everything that influences their lives and informs their opinions: The Bush family had extensive ties to Nazi Germany, Americans never really landed on the moon, the Trilateral Commision actually rules the world, 9/11 was perpetrated by the CIA etc.

Upon what do you base the contention that religionists are demanding that secularists prove anything?

I think you need to associate yourself with tribalists rather than secularists

Frightening stuff, Kuv, that Robertson interview . . .

" . . . i think the gradual erosion of the consensus which holds our soceity together is a far greater threat than a few bearded terrorists who fly planes into buildings . . . "

What a loon . . . what is scarey is that so many will continue to follow him, to take his word for what America is.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

An overreaching generality that you would likely not tolerate if it were directed at a group which you ideologically favor.

No its not. The dogmas of the sacred texts of the Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists can not be verified with physical evidence.

It is why they are called "Faiths."

BTW did you notice the Baptist Church In North Carolina this week throw out all Democrats in the congregation, because they were simply Democrats?

Exhibit A: East Waynesville Baptist Church has just kicked out all its Democratic members.

Yes. You read that right. If you didn't vote for Bush, you had to "repent your sin". And finally, they figured why deal with the liberal sinners at all..

Quote:

One of the local women who got excommunicated said on TV that it was like a cult. Another man who got excommunicated said that the rest of the congregation stood up and applauded as the Democrats were told to leave."

Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville Baptist, had been exhorting his congregation since October to support his political views or leave, said Selma Morris, a 30-year member of the church.
"He preached a sermon on abortion and homosexuality, then said if anyone there was planning on voting for John Kerry, they should leave," she said.

Here is the news report:

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050507/NEWS01/50506036/1001

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

A misrepresentation of the argument being made, and an ironic one at that. The hurling of "BIGOT!" has long been the exclusive property of the Left. How it chafes when it appears as if it may be turned back upon them.
The argument being made is not that secularists are bigots. Rather it is that if people of faith are automatically disqualified from governmental positions based upon the tenants of their faith, this is a form of bigotry.

No Christian (or Jew, or Moslem, or Hindu, or Buddhist for that matter) is "automatically" denied employment in the US government because he/she holds to the Christian faith. I would like you to present evidence of that being untrue.

The overwhelming majority of US government workers probably are Christians if population averages hold. And there used to be faith qualifications that one HAD to be a Christian to hold public office.

However, note what the most popular Fundamentalist Christian in America Pat Robertson just said 6 days ago with remarks on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that Muslim Americans are not fit to serve in the US cabinet. It is actually much worse than that.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20050502/ts_latimes/robertsonsaysgiulianiwouldbegoodpresident

the video is here see it with your own eyes.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/01.html#a2721

Robertson also implied that Jews are unfit to serve on the Supreme Court because some of them defend the ACLU, which he equates with defending Communism. The anti-Jewish bigotry among some evangelicals that codes Jews as a "cultural elite" promoting non-Christian values just drips from his words.

That sounds more like what my very first paragraph indicated, so at least, I can provide evidence to support my remark, and I await you to substantiate your claim that Christians are restricted from employment in the US government.

I mean, for Christ's sake haven't you ever heard of the National Cathedral? Would an anti-Christian nation even have one of those?

And as an aside, I would like you to know that my Uncle, Nicholas Summa, was the iron wright who actually made the wrought iron doors to the National Cathedral in 1936-7.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

There is an element of the absurd in this argument. The presumption seems to be that secular humanists are all enlightened rationalists with a full understanding of scientific truths and no reliance, whatsoever, on generalities or common misconceptions. What you would seem to have us believe is that all secularists are representives of the highest form of rationalism, while all people of faith are superstitious primitives. This does smack of bigotry though

.

Straw man alert. You are confusing the person (a secularist) with the intellectual process of rationalism and verification by material proof. I note as well you changed the suffix from "rationalist" to "humanist" which I did not use. Nice try at again confusing the issue. A secular rationalist in this discussion might well hold to a religious faith, but is disinclined to inject his/her religious dogma into the workings of government. The "secular humanist" you are describing is your code-word for a Godless atheist and you are attempting to equate a lack of religion as a faith like any other religion. The two are not the same. And an attempt by you to point out that if secular humanism is a religion and secular humanist theory is allowed in government, then Christianity should be too.

But nice try anyway.

Rationalists might not have complete understanding of scientific truths, and may also employ generalities, and have mis-conceptions, but the difference between them and the "superstitious primitives" you cite are that the former group is willing to examine new evidence and change their ideas on what is true, while the latter group can best be illustrated by the bumper sticker theological phrase " Its in the Bible, God said it. Its true."

Is it secular rationalists or superstitious primitives who have no idea of the working definition of what is referred to a "theory" in science; who also think the world is only 6,000 years old, that God create the universe in 6 days, that mankind sprang up all at once? That the entire Earth was flooded at once, that the Sun stood still in the sky over the walls of Jericho so Joshua could capture it and put every man, women, child and beast to death?

Are those who you defend as informed, intelligent people whose faith is open to factual verification and rational thought?

Yet you call those who point out that none of those things can possibly be true in a physical sense, bigots.

You seem to think that those who do not believe in the faiths of others are bigots, not understanding that anyone who holds to one faith a priori does not believe in the faiths of other religions. So, according to you, anyone who does not believe your way of looking at the world is a bigot.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

An entirely inconsistent statement born of the desire to cast one side of the argument in the most favorable of lights.

Really? You can support your remark with evidence that rational people are bigots if they do not believe in the irrational?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

According to your argument, not everyone who favors societal secularism is an absolute rationalist. This is an expected extension of the Left wings' attempt to inject the magic words of "faith" and "values" into their ideology. So the Left is left with the feeble contention that their members of "faith" are, nevertheless, enlightened because they realize that their own primitive superstitions should not be forced down the throat of their neighbors. Despite what your personal position might be, if we are to believe that the societal secularists can include people of faith, they cannot possibly reject the incomprehensible.

No, I never said that, you did. I said that there are many people who hold deeply religious faith who do not wish to have theirs or anyone else's private spiritual views made into general laws.

It doesn't matter what they believe in, because they are not trying to inject whatever they believe in private into the workings of government.

You seem to not understand or are purposely ignoring the real issue, which is whether or not peole force others tobelieve in what they believe in and attewmpt to use the force of government to do it.

Nobody cares if Finn smears $hit all over his body and yodels at the Moon in his backyard because it gets him right with his God. But, just don't attempt to demand others to do it by force of law. If you do, those who do not believe they can right with their God by smearing $hit all over their body have every right to question the veracity of how they get right with God by doing so.

However, you call this bigotry.

Some of those folks might actually want to smear cheese all over their bodies to get them right with their God, but they are not demanding laws that force Finn to go out and buy cheese and do so.

It has nothing to do with your loopy idea that the political Left is try in to attach religious-based values onto its ideologies.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

It would appear that despite my extensive travel throughout this country I have not come across this great mass of rationalist secularists who demand scientific proof of everything that influences their lives and informs their opinions: The Bush family had extensive ties to Nazi Germany, Americans never really landed on the moon, the Trilateral Commision actually rules the world, 9/11 was perpetrated by the CIA etc.

We are talking directly about "Creationism" and the view put forth that the world is only 6,000 years old, that evolution is not verifiably true. But, the same principles that gave us the means to travel to the Moon are the same ones that allow us to see the computer screen and read these words, are the same ones that verify Evolution.

When one puts forth a religious based position that rejects evolution, one need to support that position with more than pointing to the Bible and the list of the Patriarchs.

If I ask for further proof, because I do not believe the Bible stories can be verified by rational, objective analysis, yet submit evidence that supports evolution as the process of life on earth, that is not being an anti-religious bigot.

Note to Finn: the Bush family did have extensive business ties with the Nazis (even in 1942). But that is not the same as saying that such ties made them Nazis, or that they agreed with the philosophy of German National Socialism.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Upon what do you base the contention that religionists are demanding that secularists prove anything?

Um, how about these: fundamental religionists (note the modifying adjective) want religious dogma taught as science and demand from the secularist to prove why shouldn't it be taught alongside evolution theory in a science class.

How about the demand that this is a Christian nation and that adult led prayer in the school is going to make schools better and demand from its opponents why it shouldn't be allowed in the schools

that homosexual marriages will hurt society, and demand from those who advocate such a right to prove it is not wrong.

why that abortion is murder, and demand that those who are pro-choice prove it is not murder.

that corporeal punishment of children is the best way to raise a child and demand to know why it is wrong.

In each instance, those who promote such ideas demand why they should not be a part of secular society.

When the tables are turned and it asked of them to prove why they believe in such things, and all they can point to is their sacred texts. Yet when they are told to provide proof other than "God said so" they call their questioners "anti-religious bigots."

As you have on this site repeatedly

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I think you need to associate yourself with tribalists rather than secularists

Nice projection, there buckaroo. Note you are the one who wants to inject your religious tribal dogma into secular society. I am not going into churches to get them to agree with my secularism. I am standing outside the church and am questioning them on the veracity of their religiously derived political positions.