Vorkosigan

NoRobots, you've missed the point of that quote, which is out of context. The point is that atheists who didn't believe Jesus existed really didn't have to push the point. Why bother? But when Christianity decided to destroy the US, it became necessary to construct an opposition to that. The result was that the opposing reality that Jesus never existed, which nobody had cared to push in the past, suddenly became a useful resource.

LOL. It's easy to make fun of people who are more aware of just how easy it is for small movements to annihilate democracy by using democratic means. Small, relentless, well-funded groups have taken out democracies before -- in fact they are doing it now in Taiwan where I live.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Jiri, do you know anything concrete about the megachurch that Haggard ran? As well as his massive evangelical association? Are you aware of the tactics and staging used in modern megachurches? I just asked because the comparison between modern megachurches and the staging at the Nuremburg rallies is so common it is almost a cliche. You'd have to be pretty clueless not to see the connection.

Vorkosigan

No Robots

Yeah, Kruschev complained about being taken out of context in regard to his, "We_will_bury_you." The point is that you make several tendentious assumptions:

• That Christian fundamentalism is a threat to democracy
• That you can meet this threat by pushing mythicism

By pushing mythicism, you have antagonized all Christians and indeed anyone else who doesn't buy into mythicism. The worst of it is that you have tried to drag all atheists into this bizarre little fantasy.

Vorkosigan

Yes, of course. Everyone who makes claims you disagree with is exactly like Kruschev.

Are you really saying that Christian fundamentalism is not a threat to American democracy? On what planet do you live?

You can't meet the threat to democracy by pushing mythicism. Mythicism is an attack on an authoritarian ideology that depends on historicist views of Jesus. That political perception is held by both atheist ahistoricists and many gnostics who are ahistoricists. The threat to democracy must be met on many fronts, from activism to ideology. All I am doing is attacking the ideology. I can't do activism, I live in Taiwan. On Taiwan democracy issues, I am more activist, since I am here. Although I do actively deconvert fundy whackjobs whenever I have time and opportunity.

Gosh, I'm sorry to have antagonized all Christians. Remind me to cry about it tonight.

What bizarre little fantasy do you refer to? And how are am I dragging all atheists into it?

Also, I am curious. What on earth made you go to that quote from last year?

Vorkosigan

No Robots

"We will bury you", "We will destroy your Jesus": seems like the same kind of rhetoric to me.

I appreciate that living under the benevolent rule of the Formosan sages may give you a jaundiced view of the health of American democracy, so I will have to leave it at that.

Did you get that, Toto?

That there is no historical Jesus and that asserting such will avail against fundamentalism.

Isn't your position basically this: "Join me, fellow atheists, in proclaiming the nonexistent Jesus and will will bring down the American theocracy!"

We were discussing whether or not there are similarities between Soviet mythicism and "the new mythicism." Toto denied any similarity, but your statement came to mind as pretty similar to Soviet-style rhetoric.

Solo

Vork, as I said to Toto: take it as information. Whether I am clueless or you (Dawkins) are hysterical, does not lead to discussions which are interesting to me.

Jiri

Zeichman

Replacing one extreme, agenda-driven opinion with another. Sounds great; there is nothing better than an excluded middle.

Vorkosigan

No doubt. I was misled the other day into thinking that a bunch of nutcase lawyers from Regent University had undue influence in the Justice Department. I'm glad to know the news reports I saw were just bad dreams. Similarly, I am happy to learn that military has not been heavily evangelized, that right-wing generals have not compared US involvement in Iraq to a crusade, and that prominent right-wing religious groups are not attempting to rollback abortion rights, stop gay marriage, breach the church-state separation, and sundry other activities. You'd really put my mind at rest -- we can shut down the church-state and activism forums, thank god.

The former view is not bizarre -- as always, you are welcome to proffer an HJ supported by credible methods, but no such exists so I am sure you won't. Political judgments about what kind of activism is useful are of course debatable.

Is it? I thought my view was "through many different kinds of activism we can change the way the world works." I have never called for any fellow atheist to join me. Not once. I can't help it if you can't read, but I am going to ask that you refrain from commenting on what I say until your command of English improves.

Actually, I was just thinking on this very topic. The current independence movement in Taiwan is your wet dream. It is very middle and upper middle class. It aims to get into the WHO and the UN. Its mode of operation is petition and shame. It is currently practically impotent.....

In Taiwan in the 1960s-80s the independence and democracy movement had a very militant wing, both leftists and rightists. Reprisal killings, for government murders of Taiwanese, took place in expat communities in Japan and S America. The movement also attempted assassinations of leaders and sent a few bombs. The KMT also carried murders abroad, one of which backfired and helped trigger US support for reform here, and later, legalization of opposition parties and our current democracy. The movement represented a multifaceted movement that attacked the problem of authoritarian rule from many angles. Now, part of that loss of fire in the belly is the inevitable transition from a revolutionary movement to a party that has to rule a diverse nation. But part of it also is a gentilification of the movement. Its outside faces are only the right people....

Before you misread me again, of course I am not advocating violence. But a movement that neither recognizes nor takes advantage of its militant wing isn't going to go anywhere. We need nice people in suits who despise the militant side, and we also need our ACT UP. That has been my consistent position in every single discussion of this -- for example, when "centrists" hack on Dawkins for being offputting. I have never called for all atheists to adopt my position. Rather, I have called for a movement that embraces all positions.

It's you guys, NoRobots, not me, who want a movement restricted to "only the right people." The only people arguing for exclusion are on your side. Instead of figuring out -- how can we use Vorkosigan? as a good activist should -- you worry that he might be a bit too scruffy for your genteel middle class revolution.

LOL. Of course, only soviet-style people use rhetoric, and all rhetoric is the same. Who can argue with such clarity of insight as yours?

What? Does your side consist of entirely of people with reading comprehension problems? Here's what I wrote:

"The threat to democracy must be met on many fronts, from activism to ideology."

No excluded middle there, Zeich. On many fronts, from activism to ideology. Clear now? If not, let me repeat more slowly.

on
many
fronts

Vorkosigan

No Robots

Well, I am very thankful for Bill Moyers.

And I am debating just that, the wisdom of opposing fundamentalism by pushing a point-of-view that is marginal at best.

My movement is Global Christian Democracy. This is a non-religious, atheist, spiritually-oriented movement that traces its line of descent from Moses to Christ to Spinoza to Constantin Brunner. Debating mythicism is a good way to raise the profile of this movement. As a persistent debater for mythicism, you are actually helping out my movement. When I was a teacher, I always tried to find the one guy in the class who had the nards to debate me. We'd go at it, and the rest of the class would follow along and gradually learn to participate. This method is as old as Socrates, and in my view is the only effective way to get anything across. So, thanks.

Zeichman

Even though this attack may be done on many fronts doesn't mean that it's not a dichotomy: the Jesuses of Crossan, Borg, Allison, Patterson, etc. remains unconsidered in this paradigm.