“American religious pluralism works. There are indeed those on the radical cultural left who are seeking to impose a kind of new national religion. The answer, however, is not to react by seeking to overthrow the American experiment in favor of theocracy, but rather to reargue and reassert the American principle of religious pluralism. We should resist the theocrats of the left and the right.”
Dr. R. Scott Idiot
R2K Dissembler
Bret responds,
1.) Pluralism is a myth since pluralism does not allow for a Christian religion that resolves that there should be no other God’s before the God of the Bible in the public square. So, we do not live under pluralism. We live under a religious establishment that makes the State is God since it is the State which is the supreme entity that determines how far any God can walk in the public square. The State is, because of Scott’s putative religious pluralism, the God who is God over all the Gods. THAT is NOT pluralism. That is a system where there is one God (the FEDS) and all other gods must genuflect before that God. What we have is the old pluralistic Roman system that allowed for all the gods to be present in the public square as long as each of them pinched incense to Caesar. That R2K and Scott can’t see this and insists quite to the contrary that we live in pluralism just screams that this man should not be allowed within 10 miles of a pulpit or lectern.
2.) American religious pluralism works? Scott keeps using that word “work.” I do not think it means what he thinks it means. Well, I suppose if you believe that 50 million dead babies means “working” I guess it does. I suppose if you believe Drag Queen Story Hour, gender surgery for children, and sodomites marry uranians means “working” than I guess it works.
Do you see what I mean by repeatedly saying the man is an “idiot?” Only an idiot would say “American religious pluralism works.”
3.) Theocracy is an inescapable category. See earlier entry on this point. No government is arranged so as to avoid theocracy. Clark is an idiot.
4.) Of course everyone argues for theocracy since it is never an argument of if but only of which. Scott himself is arguing for a theocratic arrangement as embraced by Hume, Rousseau, and Voltaire. He probably doesn’t even know that since he is blind to his own worldview.
5.) Religious pluralism (so called) has got us where we are at and R. Scott Idiot suggests the remedy for where we are at is more religious pluralism (so called)? The man is a towering Idiot.
