Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fromtheright · 04-07-2002, 08:49 PM

An interesting <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0203/articles/carter.html" target="_blank">article</a> from First Things a magazine I referred to in another thread. I thought you infidels might like to read and chew on it for a while or perhaps have a feeding frenzy.

Krieger · 04-07-2002, 10:23 PM

Nothing new in that article.

Just another Xian-fundie moron.

lpetrich · 04-07-2002, 10:24 PM

I wonder what this guy wants -- a theocracy? That is the natural consequence of religion above everything else. And we've seen how well that has worked in Iran and Afghanistan.

The Resistance · 04-07-2002, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
<strong>I wonder what this guy wants -- a theocracy? That is the natural consequence of religion above everything else. And we've seen how well that has worked in Iran and Afghanistan.</strong>

Don't forget Israel and Palestine.

Seeker196 · 04-08-2002, 01:59 AM

LOL I loved it when he tried to argue that the move away from men's only colleges was anti-diversity...

And I loved how his abstractions, if applied to practical cases, would justify beating your children into submission.

fromtheright · 04-08-2002, 06:17 AM

Seeker,

So are women's only colleges an example of diversity or homogeneity (if that's the right word)? Or is it more diverse that all colleges be co-ed?

Quote:

Quoted from the article:

There are in the United States of America a number of private colleges that accept only women as students. As of this writing, there is but one that accepts only men. A few decades ago there were significant numbers of both. The change in numbers is an artifact of the liberal idea that private organizations should follow the lead of public ones. (The democracy that the theorists of pluralism celebrated in the fifties and sixties believed exactly the opposite, but that is a rather moot point.) If it is wrong for public organizations to discriminate on the basis of sex (specifically, against women), then it is wrong for private organizations to do so. This idea is often dressed up in plausible theoretical garb—private male–only organizations may be conceptualized, for example, as supporting bulwarks for women’s oppression—but no matter how it is dressed, it remains the same animal. That animal is hegemony. Its enemy is diversity.

But it is the tendency of liberalism, as for all successful theories of the state, to find danger in competing systems of meaning, and so to strive to eliminate them. Consequently, male–only colleges, male–only private clubs, and (on many campuses, including my own) male–only bathrooms have all died, or are on the way to dying, sacrificed to the public virtue of sexual equality. One may celebrate the public virtue and, at the same time, mourn the death of private diversity.

Quote:

Originally posted by Krieger:

Just another Xian-fundie moron.

Originally posted by lpetrich:

I wonder what this guy wants -- a theocracy?

I guess for some people name-calling and the broad brush are substitutes for discussion of ideas.

Seeker196 · 04-08-2002, 02:08 PM

Co-ed colleges are more diverse than single sex.

Is there a diversity of sexes at a single sex college? No.

Is there at a co-ed college? Yes.

Now if he was talking about diversity of types of college, well of course having all three is 'more diverse'...

but the first is socially desirable diversity because it exposes students to new ideas and people they might not otherwise regularly meet,

the second is the product of a of a xenophobic, patriarchal society of privelege that wants to isolate groups from each other because of an anti-cosmopolitan agenda.

Krieger · 04-08-2002, 02:50 PM

"I guess for some people name-calling and the broad brush are substitutes for discussion of ideas."

Actually, when I was referring to that fundie-author as being a "Xian-fundie moron" it was not meant to be "name-calling. That guy is a Christian fundamentalist, and he is a moron (a person regarded as very stupid). Most people here would think of that author as being stupid (slow to learn or understand; obtuse; pointless; worthless).

fromtheright · 04-08-2002, 04:16 PM

Seeker,

Thank you, I think you helped to make the author's point,

Quote:

Quoted from the article:

]There are in the United States of America a number of private colleges that accept only women as students. As of this writing, there is but one that accepts only men. A few decades ago there were significant numbers of both. The change in numbers is an artifact of the liberal idea that private organizations should follow the lead of public ones. (The democracy that the theorists of pluralism celebrated in the fifties and sixties believed exactly the opposite, but that is a rather moot point.) If it is wrong for public organizations to discriminate on the basis of sex (specifically, against women), then it is wrong for private organizations to do so. This idea is often dressed up in plausible theoretical garb—private male–only organizations may be conceptualized, for example, as supporting bulwarks for women’s oppression—but no matter how it is dressed, it remains the same animal. That animal is hegemony. Its enemy is diversity.

Some diversity is acceptable, others are not? Diversity A is OK as it fits within your agenda, Diversity B is not because it doesn't? Are women's colleges an acceptable type of diversity? If womens colleges are acceptable and mens are not, why would you deprive men of that choice, that diversity?

Kreiger,

What did he say to make you think he is a Christian fundamentalist and what did he say to make you think he is a moron? And are you not prepared to engage on anything that he said in the article, or do you just prefer to sit in the gallery and call names (even if your statements are true, you still haven't addressed what he has said)?

Toto · 04-08-2002, 05:41 PM

He is clearly not a fundamentalist or a moron - he's too sophisticated for that, and he explicitly dissents from evangelicals who think they can find the answer to all political issues in the scriptures. But he may be worse - a religious conservative who slings post-modern jargon as a smoke screen. Dense references to "hegemony", "the creation of meaning", etc. The fundamental illogical nature of religious belief finds refuge from secular logic with the help of Derrida.

What does this mean?

Quote:

. Liberalism as a theory cannot help but take on a triumphal character, for the ideals of liberalism have largely triumphed in the political world; the state is nowadays a liberal state.

Or

Quote:

Often, especially in today’s mass–produced world, characterized by the intrusion into every household of the materialist interpretation of reality, religions are just overwhelmed, which leads most of them to change and many of them to die.

Would that that were true!

And what about:

Quote:

Every theory of the state—at least when put into practice—tends toward hegemony.

He expects a theory of the state to devolve into anarchy?

Quote:

At other times, the lonely dissenter, along with the resisting faith, drowns in the sea of hegemonic meaning...

Block that metaphor!

All that said, there are some interesting ideas, but I would challenge his view of the facts. It would take more time than I have right now to sift through this for the facts, but in brief I think his view of the civil rights movement of the 60's as essentially religious is not a good explanation of that movement - religion was used where it was useful politically, that's all.

And I disagree with this:

Quote:

And although it is possible to raise moral children without the aid of religion, few Americans are interested in making the attempt.

While I agree with this (but not the author):

Quote:

Rather, I simply wish to note that the educational approach preferred by liberal theory, with its emphasis on critical skills that enable the child to choose what to believe, flies in the face of the traditional Christian understanding of family responsibility: the Christian child is trained to follow God’s commands, not to question them

And it would be interesting to go through the article and replace the Christian references with Islamist references, if only to counter his idea that religion is always good.

04-07-2002, 08:49 PM	#1
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	"Liberalism's Religion Problem" An interesting <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0203/articles/carter.html" target="_blank">article</a> from First Things a magazine I referred to in another thread. I thought you infidels might like to read and chew on it for a while or perhaps have a feeding frenzy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-07-2002, 10:23 PM	#2
Krieger Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: ... Posts: 2,191	Nothing new in that article. Just another Xian-fundie moron.

04-07-2002, 10:24 PM	#3
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I wonder what this guy wants -- a theocracy? That is the natural consequence of religion above everything else. And we've seen how well that has worked in Iran and Afghanistan.

04-08-2002, 01:59 AM	#5
Seeker196 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 278	LOL I loved it when he tried to argue that the move away from men's only colleges was anti-diversity... And I loved how his abstractions, if applied to practical cases, would justify beating your children into submission.

04-08-2002, 02:08 PM	#7
Seeker196 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 278	Co-ed colleges are more diverse than single sex. Is there a diversity of sexes at a single sex college? No. Is there at a co-ed college? Yes. Now if he was talking about diversity of types of college, well of course having all three is 'more diverse'... but the first is socially desirable diversity because it exposes students to new ideas and people they might not otherwise regularly meet, the second is the product of a of a xenophobic, patriarchal society of privelege that wants to isolate groups from each other because of an anti-cosmopolitan agenda.

04-08-2002, 02:50 PM	#8
Krieger Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: ... Posts: 2,191	"I guess for some people name-calling and the broad brush are substitutes for discussion of ideas." Actually, when I was referring to that fundie-author as being a "Xian-fundie moron" it was not meant to be "name-calling. That guy is a Christian fundamentalist, and he is a moron (a person regarded as very stupid). Most people here would think of that author as being stupid (slow to learn or understand; obtuse; pointless; worthless).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.