Their proposals need to be subject to argument and amenable to reason. and so on.Hat Tip: Pharyngula.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Sanity in public discourse? I’m afraid it will never catch on. Mainstream media won’t let it, and multinational corporations set the agenda for the media.
I really hate to throw the wet towel here, but not all religious persons are so disassociated from reason that they can’t participate in public discourse. Yes, there is a fringe of Americans who use their religion like a club to try and destroy that which they don’t understand, but so do a few atheists, some agnostics, and a fair number of secular humanists. I have come to the belief that it is just an innate trait in a certain percentage of the population, kind of like red heads with green eyes.So, if you don’t like what a person in politics is proposing, fine, disagree with him or her and support someone else. If you want more intelligent political discourse, elect intelligent politicians (they do exist). Just stop picking on people who follow religious traditions. its an old dodge. And we’re a little tired of it.
Phil: What are you talking about??????
Terrific video. When and where did Obama make these comments?
Greg, Phil is just voicing the standard complaint.I had heard about Obama expressing these sentiments before. I hope it will catch on.
The question then is why is this complaint standard? How does suggesting that religion needs to be translated into politics through a filter of reason mean that Greg’s whining that all religious people are kooks who should be excluded from politics? How is he “picking on people who follow religious traditions” by suggesting tradition shouldn’t be carried unexamined into the public square? Why is posting a video of a politician saying something intelligent denying the existence of intelligent politicians?In other words, what is Phil talking about? Because whatever he’s wet-towelling, it isn’t this video or this post.
Self-Martyrdom: It isn’t just for breakfast any more.
It is this part I don’t get, or maybe, just don’t like:Just stop picking on people who follow religious traditions. its an old dodge. And we’re a little tired of it.I just wanted to be sure what Phil was talking about before I whooped ’em upside da head.I’m sorry, but no, we are not done complaining about religion or picking on religious people and won’t be until the reasonable religious people take a firm stand against the yahoos and thus help make the yahoos go away. It is obvious that this sort of pressure, this sort of embarrassment, is needed. As long as a major political commenter on public radio can say, in a discussion of church/state issues and the US supreme court, “A secular society? Well, obviously, NO ONE wants that!” and not be called on it, I and others will be here to pick on the religious and religion itself. Bank on it. Bet on it. Expect it. Live with it. Love it.Or, maybe Phil meant something else. But just in case, there’s my tirade. For now.
I’m sorry, but that shoe is on the wrong damned foot.
Janie,Thanks for saying perfectly what took me several rambling paragraphs.You are southern, aren’t you?
Transplant, actually. I’m from the South up North (Southern Ohio – Jackson County, to be specific).
Funny, I felt exactly the same way about Janie’s self-martyrdom comment.
Aw, thank you both.(and just for the record, flattery will get you everywhere with me…)Kisses to you both