tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4360207898371541656.post4129452515418386148..comments2023-08-19T03:29:58.559-07:00Comments on Samurai Scientist: The Dirtiest Word in AmericaBenohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15037225789923156287noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4360207898371541656.post-82491327553134242032009-12-16T13:50:07.106-08:002009-12-16T13:50:07.106-08:00OTHER INTERESTING LINKS :
Stanford
Buy CialisOTHER INTERESTING LINKS :<br /><br><br /><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/" rel="nofollow">Stanford</a><br /><br><br /><a href="http://www.buy-specialist.com/cialis.html" rel="nofollow">Buy Cialis</a><br /><br>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4360207898371541656.post-24319167817279527282009-06-21T23:20:47.035-07:002009-06-21T23:20:47.035-07:00Looks like I hit the enter button too soon on my l...Looks like I hit the enter button too soon on my last comment. What I meant to say in my last paragraph was as follows:<br /><br />“A judgment that one tradition is more correct than another is by definition the endorsement of one religion over another. You don't agree?”<br />Actually, I think that it is unconstitutional for the government to endorse any religious view, including a version of Christianity or Judaism that states that no religious movement is more correct that another. So I guess that yes, I do agree.Dave Lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4360207898371541656.post-74495656953184626342009-06-21T21:37:21.388-07:002009-06-21T21:37:21.388-07:00Anonymous - I probably wasn’t clear in my use of t...Anonymous - I probably wasn’t clear in my use of the term “public square.” When I referred to religion in the public square, I meant individuals and politicians expressing their religious beliefs in public and otherwise wearing their religion on their sleeve without it being considered somehow un-American or a violation of the spirit of the Constitution. <br /><br />“A judgment that one tradition is more correct than another is by definition the endorsement of one religion over another. You don't agree?”<br />Actually, I think that it is unconstitutional for the government to endorse any religious view, including a version of Christianity or Judaism that states that no religious view is more correct that one another, is unconstitutional. So I guess that yes, I do agree.Dave Lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4360207898371541656.post-7588154635323008542009-06-21T21:03:37.833-07:002009-06-21T21:03:37.833-07:00@guestposter,
You raise interesting points. I'...@guestposter,<br />You raise interesting points. I'm not convinced, however, that fundamentalists are persecuted in this country. They just had a two-term president. I do think fundamentalists are sometimes insecure about their own beliefs and project those insecurities onto others who reject their philosophies ("You think I'm stupid!"). But it's all in their heads.<br /><br />The more interesting stuff for me was about our apathy towards our neighbors, particularly those who don't believe the same things we do. Have we lost the ability to rebuke others?<br /><br />@Dave,<br /><b>some people are trying to impose the a form of French secularism, whereby freedom of religion is interpreted as the banishment of religion from the public square... head scarves</b><br /><br />Really? No one I know wants to take away individual religious freedoms a la head scarves, abolish private schools, or restrict individual religious freedoms (whether or not that would be a good idea). Progressives in America have their hands full just trying to keep Judeo-Christian religious doctrines out of the *public* classroom and courthouse (e.g. marriage equality, creationism). I suspect it's these kinds of things our anonymous guest blogger has in mind when he talks about imposing personal fundamentalist beliefs on the populace.Samurai Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07717112266389327560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4360207898371541656.post-74990280665481959532009-06-21T13:38:17.073-07:002009-06-21T13:38:17.073-07:00"...individuals...who are hostile to any publ..."...individuals...who are hostile to any public presence of religion that suggests that one tradition or view is more correct than another."<br /><br />A judgment that one tradition is more correct than another is by definition the endorsement of one religion over another. You don't agree?<br /><br />The banning of religious clothing articles in France is pretty extreme, and in my opinion it is wrong since it clearly infringes on personal freedom of expression.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4360207898371541656.post-42927824146858532572009-06-21T11:31:53.735-07:002009-06-21T11:31:53.735-07:00I don’t think that the majority of Americans care ...I don’t think that the majority of Americans care whether someone is a religious fundamentalist – they just don’t want someone killing the doctor that is about to perform their abortion or religious leaders interfering with their local public school curriculum. However, I think that there are very vocal individuals on the left, particularly in academia and entrenched in legal advocacy groups, who are hostile to any public presence of religion that suggests that one tradition or view is more correct than another. The problem I think is that some people are trying to impose the a form of French secularism, whereby freedom of religion is interpreted as the banishment of religion from the public square, as opposed to the primary American tradition of allowing religion in the public square as long as the government does not endorse or legislate a particular religion. (I will concede that Jefferson held more of French notion of secularism and was somewhat hostile to religion in general.) You can see a difference in these views of state secularism from the French ban on hijabs (and other “prominent” religious articles – but everyone knows that the real target is Muslim attire) in educational institutions. That kind of legislation would never pass constitutional scrutiny in the USA. While no one is trying to ban wearing religious articles, we are starting to see various religious positions beginning to be classified as hate speech by some.Dave Lnoreply@blogger.com