tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post2212667780747747567..comments2024-03-25T16:03:36.810-07:00Comments on The Existentialist Cowboy: How Right Wing Ideology Threatens Western CivilizationAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-70513843292986877082007-05-20T23:30:00.000-07:002007-05-20T23:30:00.000-07:00fra59e said...If you teach people to get up off th...fra59e said...<BR/><BR/><I>If you teach people to get up off their knees and start taking responsibility for their own choices and their consequences, then you are taking away the market for the peddlers of dependency, weakness, and submission to the will of He who always knows best for thee, thy heavenly Father.</I><BR/><BR/>Well put. As you have written from an existentialist position, you have hit upon an important reason the mass marketers of pop religion must hate "humanists" and "existentialists" of all sorts. They are threatened by the one two punch of intellect and independence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-49483685156424611842007-05-20T23:23:00.000-07:002007-05-20T23:23:00.000-07:00Your point is well-taken and thanks for posting. H...Your point is well-taken and thanks for posting. However, I was using the term "humanist" as it has been used historically and academically. Many of my objections center around the abuse this perfectly good term has suffered at the hands of, if you will pardon me, religious folk who, unlike yourself, have chosen to unfairly and fallaciously demonize the term because they consider that it is NOT religious. <BR/><BR/>With all due respect, you will have a positioning problem given the inexplicable success that right wing "religionists" have had muddling issues and, in other ways, abusing the English language.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-35825216001315550832007-05-20T20:33:00.000-07:002007-05-20T20:33:00.000-07:00Actually, there is a Humanist movement -- and it's...Actually, there is a Humanist movement -- and it's religious, not secular. If enough of us join up, maybe we'll have equal clout. Here are some links:<BR/><BR/>International Humanist and Ethical Union<BR/>http://www.iheu.org/<BR/><BR/>"The Humanist Way: An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion"<BR/>http://www.aeu.org/ericson2.html<BR/><BR/>New York Society for Ethical Culture: a humanist religious community<BR/>http://www.nysec.org/<BR/><BR/>Cowboy, there's even one in Austin:<BR/>http://www.esoa.org/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-40315299124786908322007-04-27T12:18:00.000-07:002007-04-27T12:18:00.000-07:00If you teach people to get up off their knees and ...<I>If you teach people to get up off their knees and start taking responsibility for their own choices and their consequences, then you are taking away the market for the peddlers of dependency, weakness, and submission to the will of He who always knows best for thee, thy heavenly Father.</I><BR/><BR/>Yep! The Medieval Catholic church got rich off the fears, insecurities, and anxieties of the poor and rich alike.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-67495194171985704122007-04-27T12:11:00.000-07:002007-04-27T12:11:00.000-07:00The Humanism most dreaded by the Bible-thumpers of...The Humanism most dreaded by the Bible-thumpers of the far right is actually humanistic psychology, taught by the likes of Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Thomas Szasz, Erich Fromm and others. It is a threat to the fundies, because it honors mankind and cultivates autonomous self-directed individuals, free and strong. <BR/><BR/>I saw Tim La Haye fulminating against autonomy. The fundies' God wants you perpetually dependent, thy will be done, get down on your knees, God has a wonderful plan for you, let go and let God, your human will is sin.<BR/><BR/>The fundamentalist worldview values the making of human beings dependent, obedient, submissive and weak, burdened with the illusion that you are born sinful and lost, therefore in desperate need of salvation, groveling to a Master.<BR/><BR/>If you teach people to get up off their knees and start taking responsibility for their own choices and their consequences, then you are taking away the market for the peddlers of dependency, weakness, and submission to the will of He who always knows best for thee, thy heavenly Father.<BR/><BR/>Humanists today are saying: People first. This offends the fundies who want you to grovel to a God - theirs, of course, not the God of Tillich or Spong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-934900820318859162007-04-26T09:45:00.000-07:002007-04-26T09:45:00.000-07:00Batocchio said...It's valuable to point out what b...Batocchio said...<BR/><BR/><I>It's valuable to point out what being "humanist" really means, as well as the history of a "humanist" versus "theocrat" struggle. However, among American theocrats I suspect most of the rank and file don't know this history and most of the leaders might not know but also just don't give a damn.</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed, the great labor advocate, Clarence Darrow, often decried those who did not know but save his strongest invective for those who did not want to know. <BR/><BR/><I>it's not as if theocrats are making honest, factually-based arguments or are interested in the same. </I><BR/><BR/>Indeed, and many of them deliberately distort the truth. Those "theocrats" are called liars. Of my favorite qutoes, a line by Bertolt Brecht sums up this ilk nicely: <BR/><BR/><I>A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook. </I><BR/><BR/>Many "theocrats" are crooks. <BR/><BR/><I>...these are primarily political ploys, just as the whole "re-package Creationism as Intelligent Design" shtick is.</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed! Still I like to throw a little truth at them from time to time. Maybe, one day, some of it will stick. <BR/><BR/>BTW - keep up the great work on the "Scholar" and thanks for the blogroll link.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-29295364603415119332007-04-26T01:42:00.000-07:002007-04-26T01:42:00.000-07:00Um, regarding O'Reilly — that would be the Jeffers...Um, regarding O'Reilly — that would be the Jefferson the deist who didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus and rewrote the Gospels to remove the miracles and all supernatural elements?<BR/><BR/>I've always found it interesting that the "natural law" of Plato and Aristotle and the existentialism of Sartre, while strikingly different in some ways, still stress the importance of human choice and thoughtfulness. Thomas Aquinas and some other philosophers tried to reconcile Aristotle with Christian theology — but the peace between science and religion has often been shaky and sometimes shattered. <BR/><BR/>Great post, as always, but I think in some ways you're giving theocrats too much credit. It's valuable to point out what being "humanist" really means, as well as the history of a "humanist" versus "theocrat" struggle. However, among American theocrats I suspect most of the rank and file don't know this history and most of the leaders might not know but also just don't give a damn. That doesn't mean it's not valuable for <I>us</I> to discuss all this! However, it's not as if theocrats are making honest, factually-based arguments or are interested in the same. The main purpose of the labels "secular humanist" and "secularist" is to try to claim that anyone who's non-religious is part of a religion. As you note, that's ridiculous, and I'd also argue it's quite narcissistic. I have an older <A HREF="http://vagabondscholar.blogspot.com/2007/03/religion-in-society-charts.html" REL="nofollow">post</A> on some of these issues, but my main point would be that for theocrats, these are primarily political ploys, just as the whole "re-package Creationism as Intelligent Design" shtick is. James Dobson already has freedom of religion under the Constitution. What he wants is more <I>power</I>.Batocchiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02193752396025012825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-2719302643949112812007-04-26T00:11:00.000-07:002007-04-26T00:11:00.000-07:00Dave, that is a great analogy. You have hit the na...Dave, that is a great analogy. You have hit the nail on the head. All my life, I have heard the fanatics say things like "Jesus (sometimes pronounced 'Jay-suhs') knows what is in yer heart." <BR/><BR/>It is no wonder that millions fear to think at all. <BR/><BR/>Indeed, what is the point of enforcing a "faith based" law, what is the point of theocracy if choice is denied by the theocratic state? <BR/><BR/>A final shot: George Washington was absolutely correct. The US was NOT founded upon the Christian religion. Indeed, any religion at all.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-16736457641646908482007-04-25T23:58:00.000-07:002007-04-25T23:58:00.000-07:00The religious right likes to flatter itself that i...The religious right likes to flatter itself that it is saving our souls when it proposes legislating morality, but I would respond with this question: <BR/>There are two men. Both behave absolutely in accordance with religious law, and are, to all appearances, both devout. But one of the men is secretly an atheist. Because he followed religious law to the letter, does he get to go to heaven anyway?<BR/>Religious people will of course answer a resounding "NO". At which point I would ask, then what's the point of making the non-believer obey the law? Jealousy?daveawayfromhomehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06237313399294302353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-46278763840556373892007-04-25T21:56:00.000-07:002007-04-25T21:56:00.000-07:00Humanism vs. Theocracy, and Humanism is losing. It...<EM>Humanism vs. Theocracy, and Humanism is losing. </EM><BR/><BR/>It is refreshing to be able to agree with you this time 'round. <BR/><BR/><EM>Walter Lippmannn's 1928 A Preface to Morals already addressed this issue.</EM><BR/><BR/>I remember seeing an elderly Lippmannn on a tiny, black and white TV. But, in those days TV had not yet declared war on intellect. One also remembers an articulate <A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/murrow_e.html" REL="nofollow">Edward R. Murrow</A>. We, the viewing public, were unaware of the battles Murrow fought to keep his more challenging programs on the air. But -I digress. <BR/><BR/>It is odd and contradictory that while America wages overt war against all forms of dissent and non-conformity, it makes impossible a true or real "faith". It was in that "no man's land" that Lippmannn sought to balance the interests of the state with those of the individual. As my generation was scarred by Viet Nam, Lippmann is shaped by America's WWI experience. <BR/><BR/><EM>What most distinguishes the generation who have approached maturity since the debacle of idealism at the end of the War is not their rebellion against the religion and moral code of their parents, but their disillusionment with their own rebellion. It is common for young men and women to rebel, but that they should rebel sadly and with out faith in their own rebellion, that they should distrust the new freedom no less than the old certainties—that is something of a novelty.<BR/><BR/>-Walter Lippmann</EM><BR/><BR/>Thinking the New Deal an "...excessive state presence", Lippmann sought a middle ground that would moderate the extremes on both sides. He called this tight rope: “free collectivism. <BR/><BR/><EM>Indeed, it has regressed beyond Lippmannn's imagination. </EM><BR/><BR/>Of course, Lippmann was not speaking of "my" generation but he might have been. We did not rebel joyfully against Viet Nam. We rebelled knowing that, in the end, we would wind up in Nam or Canada or jail or dead. [See: <A HREF="http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/LEWIHEN.htm" REL="nofollow">The May 4 Shootings at Kent State University </A>] Our spirit was more akin to Dylan Thomas. We would "rage against the dying of the light." <BR/><BR/>That Bush is "President" is evidence that we failed despite Nixon's ignominious resignation in the face of impeachment. Had we won, Ronald Reagan could never have destroyed the labor movement, corporatize society, erase the middle class, crush dissent, and, in countless other ways, prune the nation of its soul. Lippmann would be appalled.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-34773368037165379492007-04-25T19:03:00.000-07:002007-04-25T19:03:00.000-07:00Walter Lippmann's 1928 A Preface to Morals already...Walter Lippmann's 1928 <I>A Preface to Morals</I> already addressed this issue. I, too, raised it in context of the same problem. Humanism vs. Theocracy, and Humanism is losing. Indeed, it has regressed beyond Lippmann's imagination. The gods of Bush have spoken, killing our people and our minds, but most of the most minds were destroyed before Bush was appointed President. The "Jesus Camps" will rehabilitate us, if we allow them. I'll die for freedom, but not for Bush, his death camps, his wars, his subsidies, his "justice," his compassion, or his deficits (in taxes and mind). Yahweh's delusionals reign, and it's called Amerika. Praise Jesus!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-30456289307509104982007-04-25T10:57:00.000-07:002007-04-25T10:57:00.000-07:00"FaLSIFIED ArMY KiLLINGS ExPOSED"WWW.ILOVEPOETRY.C..."FaLSIFIED ArMY KiLLINGS ExPOSED"<BR/>WWW.ILOVEPOETRY.COM/VIEWPOEM.ASP?ID=91947<BR/>Google: "SECRETs SPOKEn, Secrets Broken" and just follow the trail!TSUMRAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11460229054485460588noreply@blogger.com