dagblog - Comments for "The Hazards of Religious Fundamentalism in Politics"

You must be talking about

smithers_T — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:21:40 +0000

In reply to Umm....go back to you Magical

You must be talking about thinking things you can't be sure about which make you feel as though certain things are real and certain others things aren't real...? Or, that certain events, people, etc. based on said thoughts mean something, or correlate in some way, that you also can't be sure about, but which you sincerely believe are true and act upon them as if they were true...? (Even though you know they're merely perceptions or assumptions that you can't prove?)

....much like your presumptions above that, in fact, have no basis in fact and therefore they can't be proved?

The style of your analysis is is the very thing you're griping about.

Look, if you are one of the writers who prefers one or two line quips or barbs, or you simply want to avoid having a substantive debate, that's fine with me. But it's reasonable enough that when a person can't be sure of what they say (as you surely are not) they have no excuse to complain of others who do the same thing (on the basis that it's magical /abstract /uncertain /etc.)

Umm....go back to you Magical

cmaukonen — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:24:32 +0000

In reply to There's not a shred of

Umm....go back to you Magical Thinking and your bible.

There's not a shred of

smithers_T — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 04:46:56 +0000

In reply to The Hazards of Religious Fundamentalism in Politics

There's not a shred of evidence of greater hazard (trouble dilemma, evil, etc.) for wars due to religious (theological) views than for wars due to secular (ideological) points of view. Both are abstract, subjective and unproven constructs that require belief / adherence of people. Whatever may occur to make wars just or unjust may occur equally well with either pretext. Generally, wars and revolutions are fought over beliefs. The belief can be rooted in religious ideas or a secular ones. What is your premise? Are you saying socio-political dogma is superior to religious dogma? If so, on what do you base that assumption?

Unless I'm in the midst of some great oracle (which would be much more hazardous, wouldn't you say?) the following statement is a pointless and wholly unprovable prediction:

"These fanatics - they are all of the far right - have ranged from the Ayatollah Khomeini to George W Bush, from the far right leaders of the state of Israel to far right American fundamentalist like Michelle Bachmann who - if she and her fellow travelers have their way - would replace the Constitution and Bill of Rights with the Bible and turn America into a (Reconstructionist) theocracy."

Honestly, you've done little more than make baseless assumptions that can't be proved, and that won't convince anyone who doesn't already ether despise or mistrust religious views.

One trap that you can fall

rmrd0000 — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:47:45 +0000

In reply to Ramona I wish I knew. It's

One trap that you can fall into is to say that the Bble is the irrefutable word of God. This assumes that the Bible has not undergone tampering in translation or by real intent.

Take the case of Paul. Nowadays, Paul is viewed as a strict Fundamentalist Christian. however if you read early writings of Paul, he was a Radical leftist. The early Paul speaks against slavery. The later Paul either seems to justify or ignore slavery. The difference? The later Paul scrolls were published after the death of the original Paul. Thus we have Paul and Pseudo Paul appearing in the Bible as one individual.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-dominic-crossan/apostle-paul-letters_...

Along with original source problems we have the issue of one's own beliefs. If you believe women should be submissive, you find verses in the Bible that support your view. If you think that blacks are inferior, you say that the Bible says that God said blacks are inferior, "the curse of Ham". It dos not matter that the curse came from a drunken father and not God. You internalize a falsehood as the truth.

If you believe that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuals, you find vindication in the Bible. All you have to do is ignore the verses that suggest that the big sin was how the city treated the poor. You ignore events and words in the Bible that go counter to your beliefs.

With religion, climate change and politics people zero in on their core beliefs and find support in statistics, the bible or the Constitution. Generally if you are a biblical Fundamentalist, you have similar rigidity on government and social issues.

When confronted with opposing views, they will just double down on their core beliefs. But be comforted by the fact that "only" 30% of the public takes the Bible literally.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/biblical-literalism_n_893358.html

Ramona I wish I knew. It's

cmaukonen — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 03:28:02 +0000

In reply to Interesting that they

Ramona I wish I knew. It's almost like some people I knew who were Obsessive-Compulsive.

Interesting that they

Ramona — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 03:08:53 +0000

In reply to The Hazards of Religious Fundamentalism in Politics

Interesting that they interpret the bible in the same way they interpret the constitution. Any way that suits them, and anyone not buying what they're selling is the enemy.

And, again, my question is always why? What makes them this way?