Bret,
“I have the humility and wisdom to avoid imposing my faith and beliefs on others. You have neither virtue. You are an absolutist.”
John Rolfe
John,
And yet here you are trying to impose your faith that all men should have a faith that allows for all kinds of faiths in the public square and further per your faith you are saying that no faith but your faith (which has a god who demands his followers to squash the impulse of other faiths to be ascendant) be ascendant. AND you are doing so absolutely. Go figure.
You’re a confused man John.
__________
Note here in this exchange,
1.) I did not allow the conversation to be carried on, on the basis of Mr. Rolfe’s presuppositions. Mr. Rolfe presupposed that he was not imposing his faith and beliefs on others when in point of fact that is exactly what he was doing. The presuppositional methodology forbids reasoning on the ground of your opponent’s presuppositions.
2.) I demonstrated that Mr. Rolfe was guilty of the very thing he was accusing me of… being an absolutist. Of course being an absolutist is inescapable. Even if one is a relativist one is an absolutist about his relativist position.
3.) We have to understand that “freedom of religion” is a myth. All social orders organize themselves under the umbrella of a singular religion. The singular religion of America is pluralism but it is a pluralism which insists that its tenets of plurality in the public square be ascendant vis-a-vis the tenets of any other religion being ascendant. So, our singular religion has the one god who says that all gods are welcome in the public square as long as none of the gods and their commands are taken more seriously than the god of pluralism and its commands. As such we are back to Rome where any god was allowed in the public square except those gods whose adherents refused to offer up incense to Caesar. In a pluralistic arrangement, it is the god who limits the other gods who is the god of the public square and it is that god’s religion that is followed in defiance of all the other religions. That god is the State in who we live and move and have our being. This is where pluralism always ends up. Pluralism is a myth.
In the end John, all faiths and belief systems are absolutist in nature. Those which feign to be absolute in their inclusion of all other faiths and beliefs are simultaneously absolute in their exclusion of Christ and His exclusive claim of Lordship and His exclusive law-order and His demand for a faith that excludes the presence of all other faiths.
You’re just unhappy because you know that if your religion has to compete in the free market of ideas, without the state putting its thumb on the scale in support, that almost nobody will buy what you’re selling. Your only hope is a Christian theocracy, because when people have actual choices, your theology is not what they choose. And if your religion has so little to offer that it can only survive by force, then maybe it doesn’t deserve to survive.
I saw an imam from Pakistan say on TV that blasphemy laws are needed because without blasphemy laws there would be no Islam. He at least is honest. And he at least doesn’t resort to knee-slapping howlers like claiming that pluralism is a religion.
MWF
First of all, I don’t have to refute that pluralism is a religion; you’re the one asserting the logical positive — that it is — so the burden of proving that it is, is on you.
BLM,
You’re asserting the logical positive that pluralism is religious free. The burden of proof thus is on you to prove that pluralism is religious free. You can’t do it.
MWF,
Perhaps you could start by telling us how you define religion; I suspect it will be a definition that almost no one else shares.
BLM
Definition of religion which Mirriam-Webster shares
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
MWF,
It’s not putting the thumb on the scale to not take a position.
BLM,
Not taking a position is a position.
MWF,
Just as the state takes no position on whether I should have chicken or beef for supper — it simply allows grocers to sell both and allows me to make my own choice — so it takes no position for or against Christianity.
BLM
Sure it takes a position on Christianity. Its position is that Christianity is just one option of many options that people can choose. This position of the State is in direct defiance of the position of Christianity that it is the one true faith. Therefore the State takes a position contrary to the position of Christianity and as such has its thumb on the scales against the Christian position. Neutrality is a myth.
MWF
You have fallen into the trap of thinking that not giving Christianity special rights is hostility to Christianity. It isn’t; it’s simply not taking a position. No religion’s truthfulness is taught in government schools; you’re not operating under any disability not shared by any other religion that wanted to use the schools for evangelism.
BLM
You have fallen into the trap of thinking that the one position of the state being that all religions can compete only as far as the state allows them to compete is not a position. The State is the god of the Gods. The state as God determines how far any of the other gods can and can not go in the public square. This is a position and it is a position that keeps the putatively pluralistic state squarely in the seat of the one true God of the social order. So you see, the state as god is hostile to all other gods displacing it as the god of the social order. You’re just in error here though you should not feel too bad about that because it is a common error that people make. Neutrality is a myth.
And of course you are also wrong about “no religion’s truthfulness is taught in the Government schools.” The religion’s truthfulness that is taught is the truthfulness of the religion of pluralism which insists that no God can compete with the State as God or with statism as the State’s religion.
So Christianity is indeed operating under disability in Government schools as it’s truth claim that only the God of the Bible is God is swept aside for the State’s insistence that only the State as God and the religion of statist pluralism will hold the ascendancy in Government schools. Neutrality is a myth.
But this was all established in the opening post.
Clearly, pluralism is a religion.
Cheers,
First of all, I don’t have to refute that pluralism is a religion; you’re the one asserting the logical positive — that it is — so the burden of proving that it is, is on you. Perhaps you could start by telling us how you define religion; I suspect it will be a definition that almost no one else shares.
It’s not putting the thumb on the scale to not take a position. Just as the state takes no position on whether I should have chicken or beef for supper — it simply allows grocers to sell both and allows me to make my own choice — so it takes no position for or against Christianity. You have fallen into the trap of thinking that not giving Christianity special rights is hostility to Christianity. It isn’t; it’s simply not taking a position. No religion’s truthfulness is taught in government schools; you’re not operating under any disability not shared by any other religion that wanted to use the schools for evangelism.
MWF wrote,
“You’re just unhappy because you know that if your religion has to compete in the free market of ideas, without the state putting its thumb on the scale in support, that almost nobody will buy what you’re selling.”
Eddie responds,
You’re just unhappy because you know that if your religion has to compete in a world void of a governmentally subsidized and enforced “free market of ideas,” without the state putting its oppressive thumb on the scale against, that almost nobody would dare try to sell their religions antithetical to Christendom.
MWF wrote,
“Your only hope is a Christian theocracy, because when people have actual choices, your theology is not what they choose. And if your religion has so little to offer that it can only survive by force, then maybe it doesn’t deserve to survive.”
Eddie responds,
Your only hope is a pluralistic theocracy void of Christian law, because when people obey God, your theology is relegated to Kishon brook. And if your religion has so little to offer that it can only survive by forcefully removing Christendom by governmental aegis, then maybe it doesn’t deserve to survive.
MWF wrote,
“I saw an imam from Pakistan say on TV that blasphemy laws are needed because without blasphemy laws there would be no Islam. He at least is honest. And he at least doesn’t resort to knee-slapping howlers like claiming that pluralism is a religion.”
Eddie Responds,
Of course, he is honest. He understands that ALL governments are theocracies. The only variable is the G(g)od(s) upon whose laws the theocracy is founded. As such, the imam understands that the only way for Islam to survive is to extinguish the blasphemy laws from all other religions. And he at least doesn’t resort to knee-slapping howlers like claiming that pluralism is NOT a religion.
There you go, Mr. Freeman. I fixed it for you. No need to thank me.