Dealing with Fundamentalism: Secular alternative, or take back the church?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What do you hope to acheive?

More persecution of religion and religious expression?

History shows this to be a poor course to undertake if one wishes to defeat Christians in the long run.

Don't make this into something it isn't.

We dont want to "defeat christians" this isn't some petty war of religion vs. anti-religion.

We want our science classes to teach SCIENCE, not religion. We want our children to be free to follow any religion or not as they see fit, without the state advocating one religion or lack thereof over another. We want to live in a society that accepts the idea that diversity is a strength and that forcing religious views upon people is not a good thing. There are many, many christians that want the same thing, some of them ministers, some of them church-goers, some of them believers in the christian faith that do not find enlightenment at church.

If there is any "war" going on, it is those that support freedom of thought, freedom for diversity against those that want everyone to have nearly identical beliefs.

-Drachasor

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And I'm rejecting your definition. Deal with it.

It's your own fault if you refuse to read my frigging post!

If I say "y = x^2, and x = 5, therefore y = 25" would you say "but how do you know x = 5?"

[Ben Kenobi]

Faith in something for which there is no evidence sounds gullible to me, BK.

True. Which is why I give grounds for my beliefs, in such a form as you can understand.

Please realise, that why I believe in God now, is different from before I was a Christian. I am giving you what helped me then.

[Kuciwalker]

BK, how about this: just copy and paste my original poste into Notepad and do a search and replace on the word "universe" and the phrase "set of everything that exists", 'k?

[Alexander's Horse]

Our new parish priest is a bit of a fundamentalist. He's Polish, one of Jean Paul's own. Last weekend after the sermon he berated the congregation for parking on the lawn, arriving late and leaving the service early.

At the end of the service the priest faces the altar before leaving down the aisle. While his back was turned, as usual, about a third of the congregation stampeded out of the church, including one dozy guy I noticed who got left behind, woke with a start and practically sprinted out before the priest turned to leave.

When the priest turned back to face the congregation the back doors of the church were still swinging with not a soul to be seen out of the pews but obviously a lot less people

But he knew - it was the most perfect Australian style "up yours" and your rules. It's our way of saying "This isn't Poland mate". He told us a few weeks ago that he thought it rude that people left the church before he did. Bad luck eh?

This to me is a perfect example of how fundamentalist foolishness is defeated by ordinary folks being themselves.

[Ben Kenobi]

We want our science classes to teach SCIENCE, not religion.

Is that why they have Earth days in all the schools? There is plenty of good science, but also plenty of just plain bad stuff, masquerading as science in the schools.

We want our children to be free to follow any religion or not as they see fit, without the state advocating one religion or lack thereof over another. We want to live in a society that accepts the idea that diversity is a strength and that forcing religious views upon people is not a good thing. There are many, many christians that want the same thing, some of them ministers, some of them church-goers, some of them believers in the christian faith that do not find enlightenment at church.

How are these principles being violated by the US state today?

You have all this.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK, how about this: just copy and paste my original poste into Notepad and do a search and replace on the word "universe" and the phrase "set of everything that exists", 'k?

*sigh*

Why don't you address my point, eh? If the universe really is not the set of everything that exists, then it is not a closed system.

What is your justification for defining the universe as the set of all that exists?

[Ben Kenobi]

This to me is a perfect example of how fundamentalist foolishness is defeated by ordinary folks being themselves.

You should be thankful to have a priest like that.

We could use ones like that here.

It's really your loss, if you choose to disrespect the priest, and make his life difficult.

I hope he stands his ground. If you don't respect him, why go? If you are in such a hurry to go to cricket, why go to the mass at all?

[Kuciwalker]

Why don't you address my point, eh? If the universe really is not the set of everything that exists, then it is not a closed system.

Because it has nothing to do with anything!

When I say universe, I mean the set of everything that exists. I'm not talking about the "obvservable universe" or our particular contiguous region of space-time, so whatever happens to be true or untrue of them is irrelevent. I really don't care about the correlation between observable universe and the set of everything that exists, except for the obvious fact that we obviously can't count as a member of that set anything that we have not observed (directly or indirectly).

What is your justification for defining the universe as the set of all that exists?

I don't like typing "the set of everything that exists" fifty million times.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fine. Then you concede my point that there is no good reason to believe that the universe is a closed system.

C'mon Sky. You can do much better than this.

[Ned]

Simple: The left has to start supporting Bush on the war on terror. The ABB syndrom is causing the left to coddle fundamentalism, to Hitchens' dismay:

This is from Chris Hitchens:

"So here is what I want to say on the absolutely crucial matter of secularism. Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of "despair." The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as "insurgents" or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I'll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn't want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).

One probably should not rest too much on the similarity between Bin Laden's last video and the newly available DVD of Fahrenheit 9/11. I would only say that, if Bin Laden had issued a tape that with equal fealty followed the playbook of Karl Rove (and do please by all means cross yourself at the mention of this unholy name), it might have garnered some more attention. The Bearded One moved pedantically through Moore's bill of indictment, checking off the Florida vote-count in 2000, the "Pet Goat" episode on the day of hell, the violent intrusion into hitherto peaceful and Muslim Iraq, and the division between Bush and the much nicer Europeans. (For some reason, unknown to me at any rate, he did not attack the President for allowing the Bin Laden family to fly out of American airspace.)

George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries. The "antiwar" faction even recognizes this achievement, if only indirectly, by complaining about the way in which it has infuriated the Islamic religious extremists around the world. But does it accept the apparent corollary—that we should have been pursuing a policy to which the fanatics had no objection?

Secularism is not just a smug attitude. It is a possible way of democratic and pluralistic life that only became thinkable after several wars and revolutions had ruthlessly smashed the hold of the clergy on the state. We are now in the middle of another such war and revolution, and the liberals have gone AWOL. I dare say that there will be a few domestic confrontations down the road, over everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the display of Mosaic tablets in courtrooms and schools. I have spent all my life on the atheist side of this argument, and will brace for more of the same, but I somehow can't hear Robert Ingersoll* or Clarence Darrow being soft and cowardly and evasive if it came to a vicious theocratic challenge that daily threatens us from within and without."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109377/

[Agathon]

Chris Hitchens is a contrarian drunk.

His motto is, "if you're with me, I'm against you."

[Last Conformist]

Since when does calling someone an "insurgent" imply a positive attitude towards him?

[Agathon]

Since when does calling someone an "insurgent" imply a positive attitude towards him?

Because anyone who refers to them as anything less than baby-killing terrorists does not recognize the difference between good and evil, and is a pinko liberal moral relativist.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
You have no standing to call me the Pot, Kid.

Feeling a little superior, aren't you?