Premier Rock Forum

Stick it to 'em, Tom! Show that gramsci what's what!

Rick Reuben wrote:

warmowski wrote: ambiguous words are wide open to interperetation

The word Creator is not ambiguous or metaphorical.

Who cares if the Declaration is deist or theist? Either way, the authors state that a Creator ( of the physical universe ) endowed men with unalienable rights.

The document may be theist or deist, but the last thing it is is atheist.

Who cares? Smart people who can tell the difference between different things.

Here it is, worded so that even abusive retards can grasp it:

Using reason, the founders invented an important philosophy of original rights.

Their invention's document contains a tiny shred of language that cursory, shallow thinkers and theists always presume is proof the founders had faith in a creator.

In fact, the founders' own actions prove the direct opposite.

The founders' on-paper faith in a divine creator as invoked in the Declaration - as slight and ambiguous as the evidence is - is totally invalidated by the unarguable fact that the founders withheld those allegedly divinely-endowed rights from nonwhites and women.

If the founders really believed that the source of the rights was divine and they had faith in that divinity, wouldn't they act accordingly and carry out god's endowment? Stay out of his way?

Of course, they most certainly did not. They kept down the nonwhites and women, gave faith faint emphasis in their invention and went about their decidedly contratheistic business, developing a secular social construct and put all the strong places in their philosophy exclusively under the secular rubric.

It then follows that in their work, the founders valued reason more than faith.

As such, the founders are a pretty crappy group to hold up when trying to slap around uppity "bigoted" atheists. A crappy group for a crappy, stupid cause.

The founders just weren't particularly impressed by a rights-endowing "creator". They gave a tiny shout-out at best in the Declaration - and even then their enlightenment, deistic legacies kept them from taking on any specific theistic baggage. And then they treated the "Creator" just like a rhetorical / metaphorical construct as they went about their white male business.

You're done.

-r

Gramsci wrote:My opinion on "faith", and people that have it is all over this message board. I would say I try to be a little more polite now. I would not call a believer "stupid" anymore,

good




And incidentally - I'm not 'cheerleading' just retranslating for those who dislike the fella so much they are unable to understand what he is writing.
I'm still confused as to why those people even bother reading him - but there you go.

Your attempts to discredit me by association are pathetic.

School boy tactics really.

Clocker Rick doesn't comprehend the meaning of the word "evidence".

Rick Reuben wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:Rick, why are you even bringing up Galanter in this thread? He has nothing to do with Gramsci, nothing to do with this thread, and he hasn't posted here in months, if not longer.

Whatever you think of Galanter, to bring him up when he doesn't post here anymore and has nothing to do with what you are talking about is kind of ludicrous.

Are you on crack? The Galanter quote is the set up for the Gramsci quote. The Gramsci quote has no context without it.

Now I have to post the whole thing again.

galanter wrote:Insulting religious people by insisting that they are primitive and irrational is not only rude, it doesn't reflect well on the speaker's education.

Gramsci wrote:You Americans are so quant with your "respect for people of faith" as if that in itself is a "good".

And the translated versions:

galanter wrote:Insulting black Americans by insisting that they are primitive and irrational is not only rude, it doesn't reflect well on the speaker's education.

Gramsci wrote:You Americans are so quant with your "respect for people with black skin" as if that in itself is a "good".

Do you think it is right to call people who express faith 'primitive' and 'irrational', Mark? Yes or No?

I'll be looking forward to see who the first retard is to make the argument that 'it is permissible to refer to the faithful as primitive and irrational because faith is a choice'. Wrong. Prejudice has nothing to do with a choice made by the target of the prejudice. Choosing a religion is a choice. Choosing a sexual lifestyle is a choice. Both anti-semitism and homophobia are prejudices, and they are both directed at people who have made choices.

( BTW, Mark- I quoted Thomas Jefferson, too. I don't think he's posted here recently either. Don't fly off the handle when you see that. )

The reason I questioned it Rick, is because it seems a little weird for you to quote Galanter without doing it in a disparaging manner. It almost seemed like you were confusing Galanter with Gramsci, as in where you said "here's your words again" to Gramsci, only to immediately go to a Galanter quote, then to a Gramsci quote. Certainly, to someone who isn't a regular reader of this forum, or who knew who Galanter was and who Gramsci is, is would heve seemed like you were implying they are one and the same person.

Of course I don't think it is ok to disparage anyone based solely on their faith or what they believe. If, however, their actions cause harm to others, well then I will certainly judge them based on their actions. If what they believe directly led to their actions, then I will question that as well.

Take, for instance, The Westboro Baptist Church. While I believe they have every right to believe what they want to believe, when they take that belief and intentionally use it to cause pain, emotional or physical, to others, then I have just as much right to question their beliefs. I won't go and beat them up, as they haven't caused ME any direct pain, but I will certainly point them out as the fools that they are, and I will certainly question what the reasons are that causes them to believe what they believe.

As far as what the founding fathers of our country believe, obviously, it was a different world back then, and I think a lot of them were on the cusp of, and at the leading edge at the time, of a more accepting attitude towards their fellow man, even if they weren't shining examples of every good word that they uttered or put to paper. They were certainly, in their day, at the leading edge of an idea on how to better treat their fellow man. And, they are part of a dialogue on this that still continues to this day.

I don't think I was flying off the handle here Rick. If I do, it will be OBVIOUS.

Regarding choices, sexuality, race and religion and faith; I think the lines are always blurred on what is a choice and what is a a given due to the circumstances of your birth and your genetic code.

Certainly, if you are born into a religion, that is less a choice and more a circumstance of birth and your heritage as passed down from generation to generation. You certainly have some choice as to whether to continue that lineage, but it can be difficult to have the strength to not continue on that path, as it may weaken your familial bonds you have to your ancestors.

Regarding sexuality, genetics is being thought, more and more, to play a big part in that. I myself know a few families where the children are all gay, for instance. So that, to, is less a choice and more a fact of life for a person. Choice may enter into somewhat, but it may be more of a choice on how open you want to be about it, rather than whether you ARE gay or straight, or whatever in between.

Obviously, race is genetic.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:The reason I questioned it Rick, is because it seems a little weird for you to quote Galanter without doing it in a disparaging manner. It almost seemed like you were confusing Galanter with Gramsci, as in where you said "here's your words again" to Gramsci, only to immediately go to a Galanter quote, then to a Gramsci quote.

But now you understand, right? Gramsci's quote was a response to a Galanter quote. It is a portion of a dialogue.

You are still way out to lunch with your bizarre contention that people who are not active posters should not have their old posts quoted. Do you want dead authors removed from the library, too?

I really kind of understood it in the first place, but I knew that anyone who started going to this forum after Galanter left would possibly be puzzled. That's all. I do find it bizarre myself that you would quote Galanter, since you almost always were at odds with him, but whatever, no big deal.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:Regarding choices

You haven't answered the question.

Do you agree that prejudice is often directed at people who have made choices about what they are- people who have chosen a religion or chosen a sexual lifestyle?

If the answer is yes, then do you agree that referring to people who express faith in God as 'primitive', 'mentally ill' or 'stupid' is a form of prejudice, or do you believe that it is acceptable behavior to make that broadbrush smear on an entire class of people?

I thought I made it clear that that pre-judging people, based solely on faith, religion, race, sexuality,or whatever, is wrong. I personally try not to do so. Am I perfect at it? No, I'm human like everyone else. I think it could also be said that you sometimes do the same, perhaps out of defensiveness, perhaps for other reasons. You're human too. It is forgivable, provided anyone is willing to give and take, and not completely demonize someone, and is willing to admit when they are wrong (in their actions, not necessarily their thoughts).

Do I think it happens all the time? Yes, of course, I see and hear examples of it every day. It's not acceptable, but it certainly happens from all sides of an issue. It's one of those shortcuts people take in their thinking, which usually ends up clouding issues and backing people into corners and getting defensive, rather than clearing them up.

Personally, I don't think faith in god, even though I don't share it, is primitive, it is certainly not a symptom of mental illness, and it is not a sign of stupidity. It is, to me anyway, symbolic of deeper needs within the human psyche, which everyone shares to a certain extent. Things do not need to be taken literally to have rich significance and symbolism in the human mind.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote: I do find it bizarre myself that you would quote Galanter

MARK! It's called 'context'! What the hell is mystifying you about this? Gramsci's quote needs to follow the Galanter quote to be seen in proper context.

But yet, you take my words out of the context I put them in. I specifically said I thought it seemed odd, because you never, at least that I recalled, agreed with Galanter on anything.

I also suspect, since I've actually spoken to Phil outside this board, (although not in a while), that he would take exception to you using his words, and would most likely argue with you (since he seemed to enjoy it ) about at least some of the things you have brought up in this thread.

Rick Reuben wrote:Not true. This is the first time you have made that point in this thread. Go back and read your posts in this thread from the beginning and point out to me an earlier example, if you don't think I'm right about that.

Also, I think you're still talking about religous faith. I am talking about faith, period. Do you agree with referring to people who considers the possibility of a higher power as 'irrational', 'primitive' or 'stupid'? Do you consider it to be an example of prejudice?

I said it on my post on page 6 of this thread, the last post on that page: "Of course I don't think it is ok to disparage anyone based solely on their faith or what they believe." Maybe not using the exact same words as you, but it basically means the same thing.

And no, I am not talking about only religious faith. It could mean faith in just about anything, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Marxism, Zoroastrianism, Magick (of which I've know quite a few people who practice that), Asatru (same thing), etc., whatever someone finds spiritually and or symbolically fulfilling. Faith in science is certainly included, since it involves a belief in a certain sense of order in the universe, even if you don't, at this time, think all the questions about the universe are answered, or even completely answerable.