Intolerant absolutism comes in many forms, not all of them religious or even theistic. Soviet style "Communism" was utterly intolerant of any cultural or political challenge or even alternative viewpoint.['b] Moreover it bred a host of societal ills, ranging from mass extermination to (as we learned after its fall) to widespread corruption and gangsterism. The Chinese version under Mao was hardly different. Nazi Germany also practiced a seculasr form of absolutism, and delivered rather efficient mass exterminations in the process.
As this thread so eloquently demonstrates there are also relatively more benign forms of intolerant secular absolutism. The great irony here is the similarity of their version of close-mindedness to that of the religious absolutists they so liberally criticise, and, as well, the absurdity of the arguments they put forward to support their claims - this one being an excellent example.
georgeob1 wrote:Intolerant absolutism comes in many forms, not all of them religious or even theistic. Soviet style "Communism" was utterly intolerant of any cultural or political challenge or even alternative viewpoint.['b] Moreover it bred a host of societal ills, ranging from mass extermination to (as we learned after its fall) to widespread corruption and gangsterism. The Chinese version under Mao was hardly different. Nazi Germany also practiced a seculasr form of absolutism, and delivered rather efficient mass exterminations in the process.
As this thread so eloquently demonstrates there are also relatively more benign forms of intolerant secular absolutism. The great irony here is the similarity of their version of close-mindedness to that of the religious absolutists they so liberally criticise, and, as well, the absurdity of the arguments they put forward to support their claims - this one being an excellent example.
Indeed, a point made at the beginning of this thread. Seems you ddn't read it?????
If you refer to me, I just think born agains are loony - I don't consign them to hell, or say they can't marry, or teach, or be in the army, or should be burned, or that they cause earthquakes and such.
Small difference?
Unfortunately blatham, you do not get to decide who is a respectable spokesperson for Christianity.
I am happy to find that you are positively inclined towards the writings of Niebuhr. I have no doubt that he would have been quite gratified knowing that you, and perhaps dlowan, considered him an acceptable fool.
Of course post-modernists will recoil in horror from anything that smacks of the absolute, and in their smug self-assurance they will assume that anyone of education, intelligence, and means will recognize that moral relativism is the way of the real world.
Your fear is of external limitations. You trust yourself to decide what is and isn't proper (all the while ignoring that bias may play a part in the decision), but not a body of thought from outside. I can understand this fear.
I certainly don't consistently abide by the absolute (and, tediously, it is necessary to point out that this is not necessarily Christian) principles in which I believe. In fact there are times when I defiantly, and with arrogance, petulantly disregard these principles, but I never attempt to dodge them by asserting they are born of ignorance, or worse...evil.
I like Falwell and Robinson no more than do you, but please stop trying to assert that your arguments (and those of your secular humanist comrades) are centered solely on such idiots. If they were, you would be guilty, only, of exaggerating the importance of TV evangelists. (Let's be clear - you are clearly guilty of this offense).
The facile argument that bad things can be associated with religion is only remarkable to those who believe religion is perfect, and those who think everyone who adheres to religious teachings believes religion is perfect.
You and dlowan and Brooks have every right to argue that the rational trumps the irrational in each and every way. Hell, you may even be right, but it is a bit dicey to argue such a point irrationally.
This thread is about Muslim fanatics right?
McGentrix wrote:This thread is about Muslim fanatics right?
Yes. And your grandmother.
Can I interject here?
I think there has been an assumption, promoted heavily by the Right with the help of the Moral Majority, that the "religious" are Bush's base and heavily voted for him.
I have yet to see proof of this claim.
Which came first? The support of Bush by the religious or the claim of their support that then caused those that viewed themselves as religious to jump on the wagon?
I think the Red/Blue divide is not a valid claim of one state having more Christians than another (making it Red), as much as economic and educational differences.
Indeed, a point made at the beginning of this thread. Seems you ddn't read it?????
If you refer to me, I just think born agains are loony - I don't consign them to hell, or say they can't marry, or teach, or be in the army, or should be burned, or that they cause earthquakes and such.
Small difference?
Indeed, a point made at the beginning of this thread. Seems you ddn't read it?????
If you refer to me, I just think born agains are loony - I don't consign them to hell, or say they can't marry, or teach, or be in the army, or should be burned, or that they cause earthquakes and such.
Small difference?
OK...let's do this again.
Finn said:Quote:Unfortunately blatham, you do not get to decide who is a respectable spokesperson for Christianity.
But indeed I do. In precisely the same manner in which I or you might properly make moral or theological judgements regarding whether Osama represents a "respectable spokesperson" for all of Islam. Later in your post, finn, you bring up "moral relativism". That term, at least in the parlance of popular modern conservativism, means precisely the opposite of any such value differentiation as I've just made above. That is, it refers to an inability or refusal to differentiate between moral claims.
Quote:I am happy to find that you are positively inclined towards the writings of Niebuhr. I have no doubt that he would have been quite gratified knowing that you, and perhaps dlowan, considered him an acceptable fool.
I consider Niebuhr ("One doesn't have to take the bible literally to take it seriously.") to be no kind of fool. Nor the Dalai Lama. Nor Desmond Tutu. Nor Malcolm Muggeridge. Nor very many other men and women of "faith".
Quote:Of course post-modernists will recoil in horror from anything that smacks of the absolute, and in their smug self-assurance they will assume that anyone of education, intelligence, and means will recognize that moral relativism is the way of the real world.
Whatever have you been reading? You've discerned the postmodernist tendencies in my thought from my critique of architecture? My adherence to a variety of literary theory? If I represent postmodernism here, who would you name as a representative of modernism? In which exclusive and definitive camp do you spot yourself?
As to "absolutism" (perk up here, george), via what rationale or history do you attribute a distaste for absolutism as arising in postmodernism? Your own founders were deeply distrustful of absolutism. Or you could turn to enlightenment and renaissance writings and find it there (you could do a wonderful paper on Shakespeare's study of of political absolutism). Or even go back further, to Aristotle ..."All things in moderation". So, yes, I have an abiding distaste for absolutism.
Quote:Your fear is of external limitations. You trust yourself to decide what is and isn't proper (all the while ignoring that bias may play a part in the decision), but not a body of thought from outside. I can understand this fear.
You may share my fear, but you fail in the naming of it. I have little problem with "external limitation" established by others, eg stop signs. I may choose to ignore them, but they do not constitute a serious or profound liberty problem.
What I do refuse to accept is any insistence by others that I ought to consider my own moral judgements and life choices as inferior to theirs; that I should or must accept that they have access to moral truths of an (here it is again) absolute nature and that I have no comparable or equal access. Any attempts to coerce my agreement or subservience to another's moral ideas and value judgements, via laws or any other means, do constitute a profound jeopardy for individual liberty.
Quote:I certainly don't consistently abide by the absolute (and, tediously, it is necessary to point out that this is not necessarily Christian) principles in which I believe. In fact there are times when I defiantly, and with arrogance, petulantly disregard these principles, but I never attempt to dodge them by asserting they are born of ignorance, or worse...evil.
This is an odd bit of thinking, finn. Yes, you and I and Jimmy Carter lust after pretty things walking along. Moral principles often stand in conflict with other moral principles or with our desires and wishes. No news here.
But what makes a moral principle absolute? (note your use of absolute above). Can you name such a principle? You seem to discount and suggest at the same time that moral principles can arise only from religious ideas. Why use "dodging" as the verb here? You have a principle that says you shouldn't kill and another that says you should protect your family. Does violation of the first to achieve the second constitute 'dodging'? And who has claimed that principles are founded only in ignorance? Not I. Not dlowan. As to the word "evil", I don't think the term has any meaning at all other than "I have a really strong preference against x".
Quote:I like Falwell and Robinson no more than do you, but please stop trying to assert that your arguments (and those of your secular humanist comrades) are centered solely on such idiots. If they were, you would be guilty, only, of exaggerating the importance of TV evangelists. (Let's be clear - you are clearly guilty of this offense).
First of all, I am no longer permitted to speak for my comrades because of the salty language and frequent allusions to bodily fluids. But secondly, and once again...whatever have you been reading? You seem to believe that secular humanism refers to something necessarily atheistic and absolutist. That's incorrect, if a popular usage in modern conservative thought. Secular can refer to an individual who is a member of a faith but not of any discreet order. It can refer to that which is unrelated to religious traditions (secular music). And "Humanism", from the American Heritage...
" Humanism A cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized secular concerns as a result of the rediscovery and study of the literature, art, and civilization of ancient Greece and Rome."
My arguments, contrary to what seemed clear to you, ARE are not directed broadly, but discern the differences betwen religious figures and theologies such as you mention above. Falwell and Osama. Not Leonard Cohen in his buddhist retreat and not the Anglican John Hicks.
Quote:The facile argument that bad things can be associated with religion is only remarkable to those who believe religion is perfect, and those who think everyone who adheres to religious teachings believes religion is perfect.
Sure, but such arguments are not necessarily facile at all, though many we see are. Group dynamics being what they are (eg, mob behavior, radical nationalisms, etc) and certain facts of psychology (eg, fear of death, emotional discomfort with the notions of a purposeless universe) differentiate religious phenomena and organizations from other human groupings in perhaps quite important ways.
Quote:You and dlowan and Brooks have every right to argue that the rational trumps the irrational in each and every way. Hell, you may even be right, but it is a bit dicey to argue such a point irrationally.
That's not an argument I've ever made. It would be an absolutism, of course. Much of the human experience is pictured most 'accurately' through poetry, for example, not rational description.
dlowan wrote:
Indeed, a point made at the beginning of this thread. Seems you ddn't read it?????
If you refer to me, I just think born agains are loony - I don't consign them to hell, or say they can't marry, or teach, or be in the army, or should be burned, or that they cause earthquakes and such.
Small difference?
Perhaps you are referring to your terse one line comment on page two to the effect that 'dogmas in any form suck'.
I don't think that, on a five page thread mostly dedicated to trashing "godism" and religion (and labelled that way as well), this constitutes addressing the point I made, and the basic contradiction it implies with respect to the proposition around which the thread was established and embellished on the subsequent pages.
Moreover the fixed ideas and dogma to which you refer often include as well the doctrines of contemporary political correctitude which you and Blatham appear to accept as revealed truth.
Hypocricy is the appropriate word.
Is discrimination in work opportunities really "disguisting"? Quite the contrary. I (and many others) do it all the time. I work hard to see to it that our folks discriminate adequately between the competent and incompetent, the alert, intelligent prospects and the complacent placeholders, the energetic, ambitious and creative and the self-satisfied followers. Discrimination is a necessary part of achievement in any field of endeavor - we may argue only about just what constitutes useful, suitable or acceptable criteria for such discrimination. Only the true believers in PC dogma blindly decry "discrimination" as though it were an objective evil in itself. I find it remarkable that an adherant of such mindless cant could find a position from which to look down on religion in all its forms.
Ok, to dot the i's and cross the t's, since it seems you are playing a game of feigned misunderstanding.
Discrimination, in the example I used (which you well knew, but hey) was on the basis of gender and sexual preference.
So gays would make less efficient soldiers, or women be inferior ministers of religion?
Aha.
And, if you actually bothered to read, I look down mostly on rabid fundamentalists in religion.
Just as you look down on me. So?
Where exactly have your rabidly hated "liberals" advocated that christians and righties not be allowed to be ministers, or join the army, or that they will burn in hell?
You actually equate the excesses of fundamentalism with the views of those having different political views from you, who do not push any such baseless discrimination?
So, am I also not allowed to criticise fundamentalist Islam? Is it ok to call those who will not allow women to drive, or leave the country without male permission, or work etc loonies? Am I allowed to express my very dark views of a caste system which dooms millions to social exclusion?
I take it your sneering references to "liberals" will stop since you find the practice so reprehensible?
