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."
Yes it is, and for the sake of clarity let's revisit your actual comments:
"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."
Your reply to my challenge is a nonsequitor.
One can only hope, bucko, that you appreciate that Faith which cannot be validated by physical evidence has no logical connection whatsoever with a "if you ain't with us, you're agin us" nature.
The framework of reality for the Religious Right will not change as a result of external analysis - objective or otherwise. Predictably, you have cast this fact in the darkest of lights because (it would seem) that you have no use or tolerance for faith. I feel certain that with time and additional information I could show that the great rationalist Kuvasz is, himself, a creature, to some degree, of faith. Not faith in religious dogma or even the notion of a higher being, but faith in principles for which you have no empirical evidence. I note that you have conveniently excised this snide shot at the Religious Right from your follow up comment: "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."
Argue as you will, but this is a generality of the sort that you would not tolerate if it were directed at atheists or agnostics.
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
So what?
Are you really trying to argue that Chan Chandler is representative of all politically conservative pastors and/or that his silly actions are somehow representative of the policy of the group you have labelled The Religious Right? From a purely rational perspective (this should bake your biscuit buckaroo), if this event was typical of the Religious Right, then at the very least we would find far more similar stories than this one, and at the most we would find no such stories at all.
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.
This is a specious argument. One is not required to find examples of Hindus or Christians denied positions as file clerks at the Smithsonian to prove that Faith is a discriminating factor when positions such a Circuit Judge are considered.
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'ta 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.
The significance of Uncle Nick's experience is pretty damned close to the significance of Pat Robertson's blather. In short, neither is all that significant.
If you choose to base an argument against Pat Robertson, and whomever declares themselves his followers, on the utterances of Robinson, you will at least be entering a rational ballpark of discourse. Having no use, whatsoever, for PR, I still appreciate that even his nutty words can be misinterpreted and manipulated by his critics and so I'm afraid I can't concede that your criticism of Goofy Pat are, de facto, accurate, and I most certainly, cannot concede that criticism of PR extends to the entire Religious Right.
The crux of the argument, in my opinion, is that the so called Religious Right is far broader than the followers of Robertson and Falwell, and ascribing all of these two dolts' comments to the entire group is similar to ascribing all of the comments of Cynthia McKinney and Jim McDermott to a group labelled "Liberals."
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.
What is this addiction leftists seem to have for the Straw Man argument?
Unless you accept an identity as The Straw Man, then this line of argument goes nowhere.
I do not, and did not try to use code. If you would lay out the glossary of terms we are permitted to use in this debate, I will be happy to comply...providing I am allowed to coin new phrases.
Secularists, Secular Humanists, Secular Rationalists, Rationalists...it's all rock na roll to me.
I can't keep up with all the euphemisms for Liberal, so forgive me if I manifest my confusion. Name them as you will, "They're all Liberals, to me."
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."
Distortion does not become you. I did not cite "superstitious primitives" as an actual group. It is clear that you believe such a group exists and that they are, in general, people of faith.
I am well contented by your admission that Rationalists do not have a grip on the secret of Life, but by the very principle of rationalism, unless one has the
grip, it is foolish to criticize the beliefs of others.
Once again you rely upon the intellectually weak argument that a single expression (a bumper sticker) is somehow indicative of the philosophy of a larger group.
There were several jackass Liberals who contended that 9/11 was righteous retribution. Should I contend that all Liberals are bound by the asinine comments of these morons?
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.
Not at all.
Those who would argue against the contentions of faith are not bigots.
Those who would argue that the faithful are idiots or fascists are 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.
This is utter nonsense and cannot be supported by anything I have written. I appreciate that folks such as yourself are desperate to characterize anyone of faith as some sort of close minded moron, but all such desperation reveals is your bigotry.
I am not a Christian. Nor am I a Jew. a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Taoist or any other label at which you can sneer. However, I am a person of faith. I believe that there is a truth that surpasses the ability of the human mind to grasp. I believe that I cannot ever know all that there is to know, and when my descendents reach, if they ever do, a point where they know all that God knows, they will return to God.
Much of the dogma of our earthly religions seems terribly primitive and superstituous to me, but since I believe that there is a space in our reality that not only is not known, but cannot be known, it would be incredibly presumptive of me to argue that others' interpretation of this spiritual blind spot is not only wrong, but it is stupid. This is where bigotry enters the picture.
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?
This is a reprehensible distortion of my argument.
Kuv you want to have it both ways: You want to be able to hurl bigoted darts at the people with whom you disagree, but, at the same, time you want to cloak yourself in the mantle of objective rationalist.
My argument has never been that rationalists are bigoted because they do not believe in the irrational. Instead, my argument has and continues to be that rationalists are bigoted if they derisively dismiss out of hand the arguments of the faithful.
You are a classic bigot as you are totally prepared to base you opinion of a large group of your fellow Americans on the actions of a very small and no way representative segment.
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.
And here you attempt to bounce from the sublime back to the profane.
Pick a level for debate and stick to it.
The fact remains that if your confreres can include people of faith, than your derisive and dismissive comments about faith are either indicative of your personal irrational bias or indicative of a totally false and cynical movement.
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.
Bingo!
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 attempt 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.
I call this bigotry when it is leveled at everyone who belives smearing **** across their breast is redemptive.
I call it bigotry, and worse, when critics of religion confine their arguments to the basest expression of faith.
Hopefully there will be a handful of critics of faith who are willing to debate the issue at a level beyond the lowest common denominator.
For those who insist on piling on the lowest common denominator I have nothing but scorn for their bullying and sympathy for the ambiguity.
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.
Oh, so you are accepting the notion that you will support irrational cheese spreaders simply because you believe finn will opject.
Can there be a more ridiculous argument?
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.
No we are not. Try and stick to the arguments you made rather than the one you wished you made.
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.
And here, again, you launch forth upon an argument of your choosing.
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.
Redundant
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.
And so your point is?
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.
Well, anyone can change the issue to suit his reply. Ironic that you initially caterwauled about my semantics and yet now find no issue with exchanging "fundamentalist religionists" with "religionists."
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
Rail at the fringe and consider yourself a hero.
that homosexual marriages will hurt society, and demand from those who advocate such a right to prove it is not wrong.
Homosexual marriages will hurt society. I don't care what their supporters may argue. Nevertheless, assuming all who are anti-same-sex marriages think just the way you suggest, how is that bigotry?
why that abortion is murder, and demand that those who are pro-choice prove it is not murder.
This is a tiresome pattern. You're floundering Guv.
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
Nonsense!
I do not ask anyone to prove why they believe in anything.
This is your path Kuv, and a rocky one it is.
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.
Sorry bucko but your are a classic tribalist:
Everyone who perceives the world or truth different from you is a miscreant. They are an "other."
You are arguing these points as a member of a tribe. What that tribe may be only God and Bucko knows but it s pretty damned clear that I am not a member. I have no inherent problem with tribalism, only those that deny it. How predictable that a so-called rationalist would never accept membership in a tribe.
Go with God
