1
   

A Modern Secular Religion

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 12:17 pm
Lola wrote:
Secular means non-religion or without religion, ...


And I thought, we were using it incorrectly as a terminus technicus in historical sciences (the secularisation in 1803/06) or in the churches (secular staff) in Germany/German! :wink:
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 12:42 pm
This was a great conversation. Was? Yup. I just don't want to be in a discussion anymore when Scrat is present. Do I always disagree with Scrat? No. Do I think Scrat has a really rude, confrontational, and unpleasant way of presenting arguments? Yes. So do most of us occasionally -- but not ALL THE TIME! Sometimes Scrat just kills the discussion. This is one of those times. See y'all later.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 12:46 pm
Tartarin wrote:
This was a great conversation. Was? Yup. I just don't want to be in a discussion anymore when Scrat is present. Do I always disagree with Scrat? No. Do I think Scrat has a really rude, confrontational, and unpleasant way of presenting arguments? Yes. So do most of us occasionally -- but not ALL THE TIME! Sometimes Scrat just kills the discussion. This is one of those times. See y'all later.


Actually -- Scrat won't even talk to me because she thinks I am too nasty. Can you beat that? A sweet guy like me being shunned by someone as nasty as she is supposedly because I am too nasty.

Go figure!
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 12:50 pm
Tartarin wrote:
George -- You've just stated the problem, the problem that the religious have created for themselves. You live your life within a construct which goes on in your own head. We all do. In order to maintain comity in this modern world where we value freedom, we ask that people keep their constructs to themselves, not attempt to impose them on the lives of others. The lives of all are protected by agreed-upon secular laws -- a secular construct, if you wish, or The Social Contract which protects you no less than it protects others.

As long as you understand that your construct IS a construct and that, born an American citizen (I assume), you agree to lead your public life within the agreed social contract, there isn't a problem. The problem comes when the religious want to tinker with the social contract, add their own constructs. Nope. Not allowed.

Good points, Tartarin. They lead me to a question (perhaps more than one)...

How do you differentiate between a "good" secular change proposed for that social contract and a "bad" faith-based change to that social contract if the person or group pushing the change is a religious one?

Consider two individuals who wish to ban abortion; one is a fundamentalist Christian and the other is an atheist. Both seek the same change to the social contract but for different reasons. The fundy thinks abortion should be banned based on her religious beliefs. The atheist seeks the same thing based on his understanding of biology and a purely secular, personal opinion that the fetus is a human life. I suspect you would challenge the fundy simply by arguing that her religious beliefs have no place in the social contract, but what of the atheist? And, given that the atheist has come to the same conclusion as the fundy on this issue, does simply challenging the fundy on her faith really pass muster? I think it does not.

In fact, I think the only reasonable, rational way to argue with both of these individuals is on the merits or weaknesses of the change to the social contract they propose, without reference to their faith or lack thereof. Why either thinks what each thinks and whether it derives from a personal faith is not a valid argument against what they propose; it is an attempt to use the fact of personal faith against the person, an attempt to disallow her participation in the social contract by arguing that her faith makes her ineligible to hold and espouse an opinion in the marketplace of ideas wherein that social contract exists and takes shape.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 01:12 pm
Oops. I guess I wasted my time replying to Tartarin, above. If I had known that she had no tolerance for people responding to Blatham when he insults that person, I might have chosen to ignore his open and unprovoked insult, but... I guess that horse has left the barn. (sigh...)

Of course, I am forced to wonder whether Tartarin ever finds Blatham's tendency to label others "idiot", etc. a reason to quit a discussion. (?) It seems her tolerance for uncivil behavior is indirectly proportional to her agreement with your point of view. When Blatham (or Tartarin herself) choose to be hostile, insulting or uncivil Tartarin clearly never finds it the least uncomfortable, yet when I have the temerity to respond to an insult (by simply clarifying my position which Blatham attempted to misrepresent) Tartarin has a fit of high pique, offers her own insults, and storms off.

Curiouser and curiouser... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 01:29 pm
Scrat - you're forever puzzled about why someone won't tolerate your nonsense...

that's what's "curious".
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 02:04 pm
snood wrote:
Scrat - you're forever puzzled about why someone won't tolerate your nonsense...

that's what's "curious".

No, I'm forever puzzled why some people here would rather discuss other members than discuss the topics.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 08:33 pm
That's enough for me too. The tone just went from discussion to rant. So unless we can get back to discussion, I'm outa here too.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 08:50 pm
god said to abraham "kill me a son"
abe said "man you must be putting me on"
god said "no"
abe said "whoa"
god said "you can do anything you want but the next time you see me coming you better run"
abe said "where you want this killing done?"
god said "out on highway 61"
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 09:08 pm
Why am I reminded now of that old 'fart in an astronaut suit' joke?

scrat...I suspect you are probably a very fine and loving grandfather. You and I disagree on a host of issues, not least being how one ought to valuably go about this enterprise of online discussion. I earlier used the term 'idiocy' to refer to an argument you made on this thread. I've used other such derogations in the past to refer to other arguments or rhetorical moves you've made. It is simply that I think you have some bad ideas kicking around in your noggin and that your strategies in pressing them often work against you and the discussions generally. But I have no reason to believe you are a worse person than I, and I haven't suggested that. Whereas setanta's mother wears army boots.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 09:09 pm
dys

Have you read Woody Allen's take on the Abraham story?
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 11:47 am
blatham wrote:
Why am I reminded now of that old 'fart in an astronaut suit' joke?

scrat...I suspect you are probably a very fine and loving grandfather. You and I disagree on a host of issues, not least being how one ought to valuably go about this enterprise of online discussion. I earlier used the term 'idiocy' to refer to an argument you made on this thread. I've used other such derogations in the past to refer to other arguments or rhetorical moves you've made. It is simply that I think you have some bad ideas kicking around in your noggin and that your strategies in pressing them often work against you and the discussions generally. But I have no reason to believe you are a worse person than I, and I haven't suggested that. Whereas setanta's mother wears army boots.

Blatham - I honestly, genuinely appreciate this response.

It might be true that I find someone's ideas idiotic, but the reality that I think that doesn't mean I shouldn't expect the other person to take insult at my choice to use the word "idiotic". I may choose to do so, but when I do, I am accepting the likelihood that I will offend. I can't simply argue that I really think it and therefor it isn't insulting. You're a smart guy. I bet you could find a more palatable way to register your disagreement if you chose to do so. (Curiously, when I do choose to use such words, people point to it as proof that I am the worst thing to ever find its way into A2K. When you do, I get castigated for taking offense. Funny that.)
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 11:54 am
Question:
What do you get when you cross a person with low-esteem with a paranoid person?

Answer:
Someone who believes that people are out to get him, but they are no one important.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 11:55 am
Try a little bit of chastising, Scat, and no-one will castigeing you :wink:
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 11:58 am
Please see This article.

Again it comes down to personal attacks.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 12:00 pm
snood wrote:
Question:
What do you get when you cross a person with low-esteem with a paranoid person?

Answer:
Someone who believes that people are out to get him, but they are no one important.

Of course it would be paranoid of me to think that you are once again taking time out of your busy day for nothing more than a chance to insult me, right? Rolling Eyes

Have a nice day, Snood.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 02:40 pm
Scrat,

Not to be insulting, but if you are, what can I do? But you may notice that everyone here seems to be against you. Not even your politically likeminded folks will come to your rescue. This can only mean one of two things. !. Your paranoia is warranted or 2. You're doing something to provoke this response in others. Or, now that I think about it, it's probably both.

You know, the good news is that if it's something you're doing to set it all up, there's something you can do to change it..........that is, if you want it changed. Somehow, something tells me you don't. Sado-masochism is a fine art. Some of us are better at it than others. At least you might want to work on your technique.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 02:43 pm
There is nothing that can be done by any of us minority's to change your positions. We will sit in the back of the bus and drink from the "conservative only" water fountain. Someday we may be even able to eat at the counter with the "liberals" that inhabit this board. Until that happens, we will just do our best to exist and keep out of the way.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 05:03 pm
McGentrix wrote:
There is nothing that can be done by any of us minority's to change your positions. We will sit in the back of the bus and drink from the "conservative only" water fountain. Someday we may be even able to eat at the counter with the "liberals" that inhabit this board. Until that happens, we will just do our best to exist and keep out of the way.

McG - Sorry, but this post of yours does not exist. Lola clearly stated that no one here supports me in any way, this post is merely a figment of your imagination. You never wrote it, nor did you think it. (Come to think of it, you probably don't exist either.) Shocked
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 05:06 pm
An Army of Two.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2022 at 05:09:58