Religion and Politics

[Stone Island]

From, Is Democracy Possible Here? Principles for a New Political Debateby Ronald Dworkin:

Quote:

[i]t is hardly plain that it would be desirable for people of religion to keep their convictions divorced from their politics even if that were possible for them. Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of faith, and he invoked his religion to condemn prejudice with great effect; Catholic priests speaking as priests have been vanguard fighters for social justice in Latin America and elsewhere. In any case, however, liberals will not succeed if they ask people of faith to set aside their religious convictions when they take up the role of citizens. That role demands sincerity and authenticity, which is impossible for such people unless they keep their religion very much in mind. The schism over religion in America shows the limitations of Rawls’s project of political liberalism, his strategy of insulating political convictions from deeper moral, ethical, and religious conviction.


(More at Ronald Dworkin, Is Democracy Possible Here? Principles for a New Political Debate [Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006], 65)

h/t Keith Burgess-Jackson

[Robin]

From Mary Shelley

Quote:

Though Mary Godwin received little formal education, her father tutored her in a broad range of subjects; he often took the children on educational outings, and they had access to his library and to the many intellectuals who visited him, including the Romantic poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the former vice-president of the United States, Aaron Burr. Godwin admitted he was not educating the children according to Mary Wollstonecraft's philosophy, but under the direction of his wife, Mary Godwin nonetheless received an unusual and advanced education for a girl of the time. She had a governess, a daily tutor, and read many of her father's children's books on Roman and Greek history in manuscript. When she was fifteen, Godwin described her as "singularly bold, somewhat imperious, and active of mind. Her desire of knowledge is great, and her perseverance in everything she undertakes almost invincible".

[Moochie]

Margaret Thatcher was right: There's no such thing as society. There're only self-interested individuals. I might add, there are predominantly self-interested quasi-religious individuals, who've tortured their religion so that it bears nary a semblance of what religion could be, and some would say, should be, in their lives.

Pretenders the lot of them.

M.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Moochie

Margaret Thatcher was right: There's no such thing as society. There're only self-interested individuals. I might add, there are predominantly self-interested quasi-religious individuals, who've tortured their religion so that it bears nary a semblance of what religion could be, and some would say, should be, in their lives.

Pretenders the lot of them.

M.

\
Just as there is no such thing as money. Just a bunch of metal, plastic and paper tokens, or patterns of electrical or magnetic charge.

All the same I wouldn't say no to a pay rise.

[James Fox]

Faith, money politics and religion.. it’s all about faith baby, gotta have faith!! As I spastically clap swaying back and forth channeling George Michael.

And Robin, you can take that pay raise on faith to.

[Rufo]

Originally Posted by Stone Island

From, Is Democracy Possible Here? Principles for a New Political Debateby Ronald Dworkin:

h/t Keith Burgess-Jackson

What point are you trying to get across? Do you suggest reading the entire chapter to get a good look at the subject matter?

[Safe-Keeper]

Since Stone Island refuses to post his own opinions, may I post nothing in this thread but quotations from pro-atheists?

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by Robin

\
Just as there is no such thing as money. Just a bunch of metal, plastic and paper tokens, or patterns of electrical or magnetic charge.

All the same I wouldn't say no to a pay rise.

If people were honest with you, you probably wouldn't need a pay rise. They'd pay you a decent wage to begin with. And then you could show them how greedy you are.


M.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Moochie

If people were honest with you, you probably wouldn't need a pay rise. They'd pay you a decent wage to begin with. And then you could show them how greedy you are.


M.

It is a good thing then that our monetary system does not depend on people being honest.

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by Robin

It is a good thing then that our monetary system does not depend on people being honest.

If it were, I suppose all the woo enterprises would be gone. There'd still be woo, but not paid woo.


M.

[GreyICE]

Quote:

"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly color. I'm so glad I'm a Beta."

- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

[KingMerv00]

Quote:

[i]t is hardly plain that it would be desirable for people of religion to keep their convictions divorced from their politics even if that were possible for them. Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of faith, and he invoked his religion to condemn prejudice with great effect; Catholic priests speaking as priests have been vanguard fighters for social justice in Latin America and elsewhere. In any case, however, liberals will not succeed if they ask people of faith to set aside their religious convictions when they take up the role of citizens. That role demands sincerity and authenticity, which is impossible for such people unless they keep their religion very much in mind. The schism over religion in America shows the limitations of Rawls’s project of political liberalism, his strategy of insulating political convictions from deeper moral, ethical, and religious conviction.

Bolding mine.

Wasn't MLK a socialist? You know, a religious liberal?

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Bolding mine.

Wasn't MLK a socialist? You know, a religious liberal?

Just to expand the list:

Charles Coughlin
Thomas Haggerty
John Muntzer
Diane Drufenbrock (Former vice president of the Socialist Party of America...and a nun.)
The Diggers
Jesus Christ

[Robin]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Bolding mine.

Wasn't MLK a socialist? You know, a religious liberal?

I can remember a time when it was only conservatives that warned the religious to keep their noses out of politics.

[Robin]

From here:

Quote:

Sacred Harp singings follow a characteristic pattern established by White and maintained by such later singing masters as the Densons and McGraw.

The singers sit in a hollow square with four sections—tenor, bass, treble, and alto. Tenors face altos, and trebles face basses. In a manner reminiscent of the singing schools, a leader chooses songs, which are called a "lesson," for the singers, who are called the "class." Leaders take turns standing in the center of the square, beating time in a traditional method appropriate to the song's time signature. Singing continues all day, with a noontime break for dinner on the grounds. These singings require stamina and musical athleticism, since the group may sing as many as ninety songs in the course of one day.

[KingMerv00]

BTW, did you read the link you posted? The author seems to be a liberal trying to unify Democrats and Republicans. As a start, he suggests that liberals respect the religious views of conservatives.

I am confused because your previous threads seem to be anti-liberal or anti-anti-theism. What point, if any, are you trying to make?

[yakimicki]

Speaking of Martin Luther... take a look back at the original Martin Luther. We all remember him as the brave young man that stood up against the dogma of the Catholic church and transformed much of the christian religion. He could be called the father of protestantism.

Luther had another book that did much to prime the German's for Hitler's ideas. It does much to answer the question "How could so many have followed Hitler so willingly". I would say the fact that they were using what their religion told them to influence their politics had quite a bit to do with it.

The book I am speaking of is "On the Jews and Their Lies", by Martin Luther. Here's an excerpt:
"Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security."

[arthwollipot]

Reminds me of a book I read recently.

[six7s]

From here:

Quote:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Praesent egestas. Curabitur odio velit, scelerisque sed, sodales dictum, feugiat quis, turpis. Sed in augue. Vestibulum fringilla consectetuer pede. Sed a nisl vitae ante vestibulum viverra. Pellentesque metus. Vestibulum id neque vel metus faucibus fringilla. Fusce enim. Nunc ante. Aliquam dictum neque ac massa. Aliquam lacinia turpis ac turpis. Vestibulum sollicitudin. Nam pede pede, ultrices at, sagittis vestibulum, vestibulum non, eros. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Sed dictum, mi ut ultricies porta, diam nulla euismod urna, vitae eleifend justo urna ac urna. Donec auctor enim nec turpis.

Donec non dui nec arcu sollicitudin ullamcorper. Vestibulum hendrerit felis at neque. Nunc suscipit venenatis quam. Ut ut dolor. Sed pulvinar turpis porta odio. Fusce sit amet dui. Morbi rhoncus porttitor augue. Donec ullamcorper, urna volutpat cursus dignissim, leo eros porta mauris, in pellentesque lectus neque vitae enim. Sed vulputate elit eu sapien. Vivamus a ante. Aliquam vitae orci ac libero egestas malesuada. Mauris sit amet ante non leo bibendum laoreet. Duis consequat volutpat velit.

Phasellus dictum, augue sit amet ultrices dignissim, mi pede interdum mi, vitae pharetra justo tellus sed ipsum. Vivamus ultricies ante sit amet arcu. In nec orci. Nullam nunc nunc, commodo vel, gravida eu, porta vel, sem. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nam non leo a sem tincidunt tristique. Etiam sed nisl ac mi vulputate vulputate. Praesent ipsum. Proin eget arcu quis ante placerat consequat. Vestibulum sed velit. Donec pharetra. In hendrerit mattis ligula. In et turpis. Pellentesque viverra odio in erat. In tristique quam vitae metus. Sed elementum feugiat metus. Maecenas eget dui.

Fusce ut mi ac lorem malesuada porttitor. Donec vulputate, nulla nec aliquam porta, nulla lorem mollis ligula, eget posuere enim massa vulputate felis. Duis orci mauris, fermentum a, vestibulum eu, tempor nec, nulla. Maecenas aliquet accumsan eros. Aliquam quis orci tempor neque pellentesque interdum. Vestibulum lorem velit, venenatis non, semper vel, lacinia id, mi. Integer ut mi. Nam fermentum. Nullam purus lectus, aliquam imperdiet, semper non, mollis eget, est. Ut neque. Nunc iaculis pede sed quam. Vestibulum pretium. Suspendisse quis massa. Proin enim urna, posuere in, suscipit eu, sollicitudin a, lacus. Nullam ac ante ac diam semper placerat. Cras nisl nunc, rhoncus quis, vulputate pretium, aliquet sed, est. Sed nisi. Pellentesque ac lacus.

Maecenas nibh. Integer eget dui. Nunc mi turpis, dignissim nec, pellentesque ac, sagittis sit amet, nulla. Donec ac enim. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Morbi nec leo ac felis faucibus molestie. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Sed id felis. Donec felis tortor, dignissim at, adipiscing non, fermentum et, lectus. Maecenas sodales rhoncus felis. Nullam dapibus odio ac tellus. Duis tempus augue ac nibh mollis molestie. Nulla ut mauris et mi auctor pulvinar. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ipsum. Curabitur posuere, augue sagittis tincidunt consectetuer, nisi metus faucibus sapien, non aliquet diam felis et felis. Fusce quis nibh sit amet magna suscipit interdum. Cras fringilla. Maecenas enim eros, luctus quis, lobortis in, vehicula ut, lacus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.

[Rufo]

Originally Posted by six7s

From here:

That's not a very credible source. I have seen their arguments before - they always start out the same, and then they go nowhere. I consider this a more credible source on the subject, but I would not want to derail the thread any further by discussing it.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Rufo

I consider this a more credible source on the subject, but I would not want to derail the thread any further by discussing it.

I agree! that is superb! Thanks

Originally Posted by Rufo

..I would not want to derail the thread any further by discussing it.

It's pretty hard to derail a thread that was a total and utter train wreck before it even tried pulling out of the station...

I blame the Fat Controller

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Rufo

That's not a very credible source. I have seen their arguments before - they always start out the same, and then they go nowhere. I consider this a more credible source on the subject, but I would not want to derail the thread any further by discussing it.

In a similar vein and from the one writer who can approach a similar level of meaning is This

Quote:

The science of writing should therefore look for its object at the roots of scientificity,. The history of writing should turn back toward the origin of historicity. , A science of the possibility of science? A science of science which would no longer have the form of logic but that of grammatics? A history of the possibility of history which would no longer be an archaeology, a philosophy of history or a history of philosophy?

The positive and the classical sciences of writing are obliged to repress this sort of question. Up to a certain point, such repression is even necessary to the progress of positive investigation. Beside the fact that it would still be held within a philosophising logic, the ontophenomenological question of essence, that is to say of the origin of writing, could, by itself, only paralyse or sterilise the typological or historical research of facts.

My intention, therefore, is not to weigh that prejudicial question, that dry, necessary, and somewhat facile question of right, against the power and efficacy of the positive researches which we may witness today. The genesis and system of scripts bad never led to such profound, extended, and assured explorations. It is not really a matter of weighing the question against the importance of the discovery; since the questions are imponderable, they cannot be weighed. If the issue is not quite that, it is perhaps because its repression has real consequences in the very content of the researches that, in the present case and in a privileged way, are always arranged around problems of definition and beginning.

[Robin]

Or on a lighter note:

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by Robin

Or on a lighter note:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~herberr/stele.jpg

Hmm, from what I'm reading, Stele of Ankh-N-Khonsu thinks that theists cannot possibly be good, intelligent, smart, fun-loving, or in any way useful human beings. Fortunately I can't be challenged on that statement because it's just a quote.

[bokonon]

From Kingdom Come by Elliot S. Maggin

Quote:

"Will you shut up?"

Exasperated, a muscle bag turned and smashed the offender's face in. The loud young man spent the rest of the evening draped over the bar.

"Thank you." Superman continued as though uninterrupted. "I am here to extend an invitation to join the Justice League. Willingly I am, as you know, a founding member of that dormant organization. Its history is vivid and honorable. We are, all of us here, colorful people. Vividness and honor are two qualities that I admire and would suppose all of you do as well." He allowed a slight smile, and many here returned it.