|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
 Posted - 01/30/2007 : 08:11:25 [Permalink]
|
OY: Not nitpicking, I just hate seeing terms like "true American" and true patriot backed up with something when I am unsure of the meaning.
But I digress.... The more I read Hamilton, the more I ponder the Federalists, and whether ther were right to be against the Bill of Rights. The Constitution limited the government to "you can do this, period." But I have not read enough of it yet to form a firm opinion. History books I enjoy, things like the Federalist Papers and journals can be like pulling teeth.....
Peace
Joe
|
 |
|
|
Orwellingly Yurz
SFN Regular
USA
529 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 11:21:48 [Permalink]
|
YO: Beskeptigal mentions here about too much control by religions and the danger it brings. To connect with that, I heard Tom Hartmann on his radio talkshow this morning setting out some semantics for what, I think, we're talking about here. Hartmann says those who want to use their religion today to cause governance, (calling themselves Christians), he identifies as Christianists.
Hartmann says he's a Christian, but not a Christianist.
I've been using for a while now a slightly different set of terms to say much the same thing: Those who are religious and those who are religionist.
OY! |
"The modern conservative...is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy. That is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith
If dogs run free
Then what must be,
Must be...
And that is all
--Bob Dylan
The neo-cons have gotten welfare for themselves down to a fine art.
--me
"The meek shall inherit the earth, but not the mineral rights."
--J. Paul Getty
"The great thing about Art isn't what it give us, but what we become through it."
--Oscar Wilde
"We have Art in order not to die of life."
--Albert Camus
"I cling like a miser to the freedom I lose when surrounded by an abundance of things."
--Albert Camus
"Experience is the name so many people give to their mistakes."
--Oscar Wilde |
| Edited by - Orwellingly Yurz on 01/30/2007 11:22:30 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 12:13:51 [Permalink]
|
Interesting terminology OY. I think it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 12:39:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Interesting terminology OY. I think it makes sense.
Beats the hell out of fundy, which is much to general a term, besides it being an ad hominem. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 13:20:41 [Permalink]
|
Like Islamic vs. Islamist. Makes sense, but I still think "fundamentalism" is a good term, especially as it is generally accepted by both fundies and their detractors both within and without religion. It also is fairly clearly defined as literal belief in scripture. No term is perfect, but I'll use fundamentalism rather than have to try to define a new term to people all the time. I also like it because it applies equally to fundy Muslims and fundy Jews, etc. As it should, the underlying authoritarian psychology being the same.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 13:41:26 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, I don't think fundamentalism is a bad term. I think fundy is. Fundy is basicly an ad hom. And, as it applies to politics, it's too general a term. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 15:35:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Oh, I don't think fundamentalism is a bad term. I think fundy is. Fundy is basicly an ad hom. And, as it applies to politics, it's too general a term.
Slightly OT, but I read this article quite recently and thought it somewhat appropriate. It relates to words with real meanings becoming derogatory and then not.
It may have been slightly more relevant in the Michael Richards thread a while back, but my time machine's broken. When I get it fixed, I'll come back and edit this message appropriately, so you really should never get to read this sentence.
Edit: My time machine is still broken. Maybe I'll never get it fixed. Or maybe I'll get hit by a bus tomorrow. I'll give my numerologist a call if I can find her number, right after I check my horoscope. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
| Edited by - JohnOAS on 01/30/2007 15:39:34 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 16:38:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
...
Slightly OT, but I read this article quite recently and thought it somewhat appropriate. ...
"I'm Karen Stollznow (Cunning) Linguist," [the site author]
What a crack up.
Good site, John. I emailed her re my TAM paper.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/30/2007 16:53:50 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 17:39:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner:
Like Islamic vs. Islamist. Makes sense, but I still think "fundamentalism" is a good term, especially as it is generally accepted by both fundies and their detractors both within and without religion. It also is fairly clearly defined as literal belief in scripture. No term is perfect, but I'll use fundamentalism rather than have to try to define a new term to people all the time. I also like it because it applies equally to fundy Muslims and fundy Jews, etc. As it should, the underlying authoritarian psychology being the same.
Emphasis mine
Just to pick a very minor nit here, HalfMooner, a fundamentalist believes in scriptural inerrancy. I do not believe anybody holds a literal belief, since that would lead to very direct contradictions. An inerrant bible, however, means that seeming contradictions can be rationalized. For a great (and far more thorough) discussion of this, read Fundamentalism: the Search for Meaning, by Malise Ruthven.
I have finished my off-topic digression, and encourage anybody who wants to discuss this to open a thread in the Religion section of this forum.
Edited for formatting |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 01/30/2007 17:41:45 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 20:37:20 [Permalink]
|
A good friend of mine who is Pentecostal is proud to call himself fundamentalist, as he takes the word to mean "someone who believes in the fundamental teachings of Jesus".
When ever I use the word "fundie" he reminds me that I'm talking about extremists, and not really fundamentalists. On one level I guess he's right.
He is at least partly a critical thinker, and a liberal christian, far from Pentecostal norms. I just hope one day he'll see the light of enlightment and follow my steps. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 21:10:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Fundy is basicly an ad hom. And, as it applies to politics, it's too general a term.
An ad hom? How is that a logic fallacy at all? Heck, how is that even logic? I agree, a statement such as:
You're a fundy, so you must be wrong.
Is an ad hom. But calling someone a fundy is just an insult, nothing more. For anything to be an ad hom, there must be some conclusion.
Well, when it's most often used the conclusion is implied. If, a few years ago, I'd posted something along the lines of "well Ashcroft is just a [bleep] fundy!" in response to some attempt to mesh US law with the Bible, my remark would have been an admittedly poor attempt to influence opinion against Ashcroft's by saying that he's afundamentalist, ergo his stance is weak, or whatever.
At least, that's when I recall most seeing/hearing it used... |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 21:41:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Fundy is basicly an ad hom. And, as it applies to politics, it's too general a term.
An ad hom? How is that a logic fallacy at all? Heck, how is that even logic? I agree, a statement such as:
You're a fundy, so you must be wrong.
Is an ad hom. But calling someone a fundy is just an insult, nothing more. For anything to be an ad hom, there must be some conclusion.
Well, when it's most often used the conclusion is implied. If, a few years ago, I'd posted something along the lines of "well Ashcroft is just a [bleep] fundy!" in response to some attempt to mesh US law with the Bible, my remark would have been an admittedly poor attempt to influence opinion against Ashcroft's by saying that he's afundamentalist, ergo his stance is weak, or whatever.
At least, that's when I recall most seeing/hearing it used...
Ad hominem or insult, however you want to use it, it doesn't necessarily describe a theocrat or religionist or whatever the best word is. I don't use the word because it's always derisive. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 09:05:00 [Permalink]
|
The conclusion, often, is an implied one Ricky.
But yeah, mostly the word is just an insult.
As for McCain, he is a sellout. I would have voted for him over Hillary before he started pandering to Falwell's crowd. So would have many democrats.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 10:06:08 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: quote:
Unfortunately for us, I don't think a republican can get elected anymore without brownnosing the religious right…
While I agree to some degree, I think there are also clear signs that in the long term, that strategy will fail big-time. By pandering so much to the religious right, the Republican party has regionalized itself exclusively to the United States. They simply cannot toss enough bones to the religious right to gain all their favor or keep those votes, but by tossing as many bones as they have, they have seriously begun to alienate freethinkers within their own party and moderates who are open to voting for either party.
Half wrote:quote:
IMHO, McCain has taken the Iraq war tiger by the tail and now doesn't know how to let it go. And his attempt to flirt with the fundies has missed the peak of their ascendancy. His run for President is doomed, I think. He'll likely get the nomination, if his health holds out, but won't win in the general election. The GOP needs to clean out their NeoCons. Until they do, they'll keep losing.
Boy do I hope you're right!
Kil wrote: quote:
Beats the hell out of fundy, which is much to general a term, besides it being an ad hominem.
I agree that it beats the hell out of “fundy” (regardless of whether we agree on this forum on the whole ad hom issue) because with just because something is a fundamentalist doesn't mean they support certain politics. We forget that plenty of fundamentalist Christians in America don't vote at all because they have not been impressed by many Republican politicians pandering to them. Many fundamentalists actually support separation of church and state because they view themselves as a minority that needs protection from a neutral state which allows freedom of religion. Many fundamentalists do not want a marriage of even their church and state because, just as we think religion would corrupt politics, they think politics would corrupt their religion.
Dude wrote: quote:
As for McCain, he is a sellout. I would have voted for him over Hillary before he started pandering to Falwell's crowd.
Based on what that he's done/said politically before said pandering? I never would have voted for him, but then I'm certainly left of center in my political views. I'm just curious what actual issues McCain was tempting moderate Independents and Democrats with.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
