[FoRK] Brownback defines science

Lion Kimbro <lionkimbro at gmail.com> on Sat Jun 2 10:38:34 PDT 2007

On 6/2/07, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> First:  for the religious to tolerate and respect the non-religious
> would entail embracing secularism.  The religious in this country
> have over the last two decades become a very powerful political force
> *against* the very secularism this country was founded upon;  they
> have, if you will, reworked our own national creation myths to
> dispense with the very idea.  Ironically that original secularism was
> rooted, partly, in a desire for universal religious tolerance on the
> part of the founders;  that very secularism and tolerance has created
> the cultural medium in which the seeds of its own downfall have been
> sown, unless we act to prevent it.

  Well--

  ...

  Are you sure that things are *so bad?*

  I mean, secularism has worked great for hundreds of years;
  I really think we're making a tempest in a teapot.

  As far as I can tell, the vast majority of Americans do not want to
  live in a Dominionist Theocracy.

  I've read your links, but I've also read balancing links,
  that argue, "Look, the Republicans have *basically* given them
  nothing.  Nothing really substantial has changed on abortion,
  (which is a relatively minor issue anyways, wrt "Theocracy,")
  not a single serious politician is arguing for forcing religion on
  people, gays still roam free, ..."

  I'm in favor of fighting the good fight, and arguing for atheism,
  or secularism, or whatever points you want to debate.  But I
  don't think impending doom is upon us;  I just don't see it.

  Perhaps it's Seattle doing this to me, but I just don't see it.

  Fox is pretty scary, but the Fox people are the Fox people.
  There is no more "one mainstream media," indoctrinating the
  masses-- I think there's just lots of mainstream media, and
  people pick and choose the ones they're sympathetic to.


> Indeed, those among
> them that truly have the courage of their convictions --- the
> evangelicals, not to mention the Dominionists --- are *required* by
> their faith, if they are honest about it, to "defect" from the course
> of secularism and mutual tolerance non-interference.

  I think most Christians in the US aren't Dominionist.

  Maybe I'm reading too much of the Christian Science Monitor,
  but- ... I just don't see it.  I've seen Dominionists, but I don't think
  they're the majority.


> Now consider Islam....

  I have high hopes for Islam.  I think that as they get into the global
  mindset, and as they start to realize that people don't agree with
  them, and as their children come to understand that there's people
  who don't think like all the other adults-- I think that things will start
  to open up in their space.

  They may spasm and kick on the way, but I think they'll come out
  alright.


  My choice to think these things is just that-- I don't **really know.**
  I don't really know what the reality of the situation is, in a balanced view.
  But I don't think anybody else knows, either. Or rather, if they do, I don't
  think they're capable of communicating it to us, because their
  truth is surrounded by the mass of speculations.  We can't figure out
  who's being honest and fair, and who's just selecting the evidence that
  fits their own perspective.

  If some group were to perform a clean-slate organized, skeptical, and
  critical inquiry over the course of five people, I could see reason to listen
  to that.  But I haven't seen such a thing, yet.  Mostly just people sifting
  for patterns, and getting energized by the patterns they find.

  So I think its fair to make a choice about what I think, and I think its
  good to make a choice that appeals to better nature.

More information about the FoRK mailing list