Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Julius Caesar killed "in the name of secularism".
Next, we'll be told that Hammurabi was a Communist.
Nobody has ever been killed "in the name of secularism". The word does not mean what some seem to think it means. It does not, for example, mean "godless" or "pagan" or "communist".
Just send flaming bags of dogshit to the white house?
I never thought of the word "secular" as related to an "-ism."
In fact, I found the very idea improbable- until I happened on the passage found on page 6 of this thread:
"Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."
That sounds more like a syllogistic just-so "explanation" than a definition, to me.
And speaking for myself, my religious faith- a word I use advisedly, as "the evidence of things unseen", a phenomenon which is not to be confused with the nonexistent or hallucinatory, although dogmatic skeptics demand that it be so- is also "manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."
For me, secular stuff is just secular stuff. Going to an exhibit of Impressionism or Dadaism at an art museum is a secular activity, for me. So is eating lunch. I consider myself to be a Christian, but I don't insist that my experiential world be comprised of devout symbolism, 100% of the time.
If I have an issue with the secular realm, it has to do with what I find lacking about it.
My advice is to not make an "-ism" out of the secular. That way lies dogmatism. Attempting to attribute every instance of societal malevolence and mass bloodshed in history to a "religion-related" cause, for instance.
Well, Bush said Iraq had WMD's and it didn't. He said there was a connection to AL-Queda and there wasn't. Now, what exactly is she wrong about?
I just got through reading some tripe about Laura and a 300 pound gingerbread house. Then I turn to this:
"I had an immediate, convulsive reaction to the request," she says. "Why would I want to put a smiley face of tacit approval on an administration famous for lies, greed, warmongering and religious fundamentalism?"
I cannot top that. No wonder you get 100 comments. If I had a 3 hour interview with the ghost of Winston Churchill, I could not get that many comments.
I am no fan of Bush, but come on. When she was invited to participate in the ornament design, she had two choices: design an appropriate ornament or decline the commission. Anti-Bush sentiments have their place, and it's not on a White House Christmas tree. She has no right to feel victimized by the "censoring" of her ornament. Would she display in her own home an ornament attacking her? This is one of the most ridiculous news stories of the week.
The letter titled "Bush", from 'Revere', deserves a star for sure, perhaps even two stars!!
GSC
"Why doesn't Salon send flaming bags of dogshit to the White House?"
(That's (almost) an excellent idea! Yes, I do know you were being 'ironical').
Actually, Salon - and 50 million other US citizens; along with at least 100 to 200 million world citizens - should all send bags of dog shit and human excreta (flames not needed) NOT to the White House (whose next occupant seems to be a decent and very intelligent human being), but directly to GW Bush, War Criminal, at his Crawford, Texas, ranch where he says he will be be retiring to.
(Also, do read "Revere's" letter under the title of "Bush" at this very thread: it may be worthwhile sending those bags of shit as contributions to the proposed George W. Bush Presidential Library - they will match in quality anything that GW Bush has said or written during his eight years of digging the US and the world into a hole from which we may never be able to dig ourselves out. More and more this seems a very good idea to me: the George W. Bush Presidential Library, with contents: around 100-200 million pounds of dog shit and human shit! [to represent the world's opinion of his contribution to history]).
That may to some extent reflect the anger we should all feel at the damage GW Bush and his War Criminal Gang have done to the world during his tenure.
-- GSC
IT'S NEVER TOO LATE, AS A WELL-DESERVED GIFT, TO CHIMPEACH bush
AND GIVE HIM & cheney A WELL-DESERVED KICK IN THE TUSH!!!!!
TO THEM AND bushland
A ROUSING CONDEMNATION HAND!!!!!!
A FITTING XMAS PRESENT FOR THESE CRIMINALS THAT WE MUST PUSH!!!!!
HAH!!!!! (^0^)V VENGEANCE UPON bush, cheney & bushland!!!!!
As are many aspects of Christianity. The French Revolution wanted to establish a modern, liberal democracy. All have been associated with terrible violence.
Nietzsche said it best - "It is not their love of man, but the impotence of that love that keeps the Christians of today from burning us."
If you truly, honestly believed that you had a unique insight into what is good, then you have no choice but to believe that your leadership is a positive benefit to others. If you believe that the good you possess is a form of final, ultimate good, then any opposition must be aligned with evil, whether it realizes it or not. And there is no fate worse than being aligned with evil. Anything you do to an opponent is a net benefit if it gets them off their false path, or prevents them from persuading others from adopting their false path.
Many people witness the atrocities of history, and falsely blame the notion of good. They think that if people did not have a universal, ultimate vision of right and wrong, they would not perpetrate atrocities. These people are misguided.
The Crusades and the Inquisition were not about Christianity. The reign of terror was not about fraternity, liberty, and equality. The soviet purges were not about establishing a classless state. What they were about is something more fundamental and non-ideological - the fact that reasonable persuasion and good intentions can not get people to do what you want.
These issues are more complicated than a single issue, of course, but central to them is the fact that these people, who knew they were only trying help, and knew they had only the best intentions, went out into the world and met people who refused to be converted. Worse yet, they actively worked to reverse the progress that had already been made. How do you respond to that?
It's not an easy question to answer. It's not false to assume that some opponents of these movements were in fact as wicked as they were portrayed (not every ideological conflict is between people of good will). Violence is tempting because it is a way of decisively removing people who refuse to listen to reason.
And that's the trap.
In a climate of violence, reason becomes impossible. The sort of wise and cautious people who advise moderation and reconciliation become enemies every bit as vile as ideological foes. Criminals, thugs, and soldiers ascend to the highest ranks of power. Inevitably, whatever good was initially sought is lost - the ability to decisively remove one's opponents becomes the only arbiter of influence. At its worst, you elevate people like Stalin or Napolean, figures who are the antithesis of what the original ideologogues valued.
The ideology was never the problem. The problem is the adoption of military force as an acceptable means of enforcing the ideology.
This is a problem that will persist for as long as people with humanitarian vision continue to feel the irrational shame that comes along with pacifistic impotence. Thugs, and only thugs, have the ability to force compliance.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
