IAP Political Forum

Michael Brendan Dougherty, writing in The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's fortnightly journal of opinion, looks into secular "fundamentalists". Interesting take on the topic. Intolerance cuts both ways.

OswaldTheOsprey

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_11_05/print/articleprint.html

I didn't see much about intolerance, unless you consider it intolerant to point out that 9/11 was a faith based initiative.

Yeah I didn't see much intolerance either - except those of the writer for an opposing viewpoint.

These so-called 'secular fundamentalists' seem much more benign than there religious cousins. Of course atheism attracts it's share of idiot - those who sway the Bible for the God Delusion. Those who hate religion. Some who are overly zealous because they are newly converted.

All atheists are not like that: I'm not like that (I even listen to some Christian rock). But I'd be pretty excited to meet Hitchens or Dawkins (esp. Dawkins). I'd love to argue with them over their work. I'd tell Hitchens that his book doesn't adequately defeat the metaphysical claims of religion and is often rather lose with the facts and I'd tell Dawkins that his Boeing 747 Gambit makes no logical sense.

There are some atheists who can't think for themselves and need a Dawkins, a Hitchens or a Dennett to tell them what to think. I'd like to think most don't.

Good God, why?

Michael Brendan Dougherty... would like so much atheism to be just another religion that in that article he wants to make you believe that atheism is just another religion and then he attacks atheism as he attacks any other religion but the one he believes in. Too bad for him that atheism is not a religion or cult.  ;D

Every viewpoint has its share of idiots. Every viewpoint also has adherents who either can not or will not think for themselves and rely on gurus (for lack of a better term) to think for them.

OswaldTheOsprey

I agree that 'secular fundamentalists' do exist.

But they are apparently quite few in number. 

The strategy here appears to be to argue that 'secular fundamentalists' do exist, and that 'secular fundamentalists' are just as bad as 'religious fundamentalists'.  Then they will just assign the label of 'secular fundamentalist' to all atheists and claim that 'atheism' is just another religion.

The theists will never give up in their attacks on atheism.

In my opinion, most 'real' atheists just don't care about religion enough to bother hating it.

   

I believe this is the first thing you have said that I can agree with.

I've got to agree with Dormouse there.

I think D9 is the only atheist here who actually hates Christians.

And truth be told, I doubt that he actually hates Christians. I always got the impression he just wanted something, anything, to complain about.

Secular Fundamentalists?

What exactly does that mean?  It sounds like an oxymoron.

Yup, typical attention-seeking troll.

http://www.itsallpolitics.com/forum/index.php?topic=406.msg19409#msg19409

For a second, I thought you were linking to the thread where he said I was as bad as Michael Vick for feeding my dog beef.

Kind of a shame though. Every now and then he came up with a really sarcastic post that would make some good points. Entertaining to read. Shame he couldn't be a little more civil.

Yeah, he had the potential to be a decent poster. But time and again he chose to be a wanker. He got what he deserved.

I bet he'll be back under another name.

He will try. 

gee, secular fundi's. I know fundimentalism in religion is evil, but there is no reason to suspect that fundimentalism in other areas is bad.
I guess i'll start worrying when secularists make up more than 1% of the population!
:roll:

Frankfurt School cultural marxists are secularists and they control academia, the mainstream media, Hollywood and the Democratic Party. Somewhat larger and far more powerful than you you make it out to be.

OswaldTheOsprey

Just to make everyone understand what Oswald means by "Frankfurt School Cultural Marxists",, these are the atheist Jews ...

Most of the founders were Jewish. Many of their adherents today are not and there are persons of Jewish origin opposed to cultural marxism. My arguments against it are ideological and not theological.

OswaldTheOsprey

oh yeah,,, run aways from it,,, Nazwald,,,

Just stating facts 14 month old brain.

OswaldTheOsprey

not tasty ah?

The word silly comes to mind.

OswaldTheOsprey

Frankly I don't care what Oswald means by it. I think everyone on this forum has been called one at one time or another. It's what Oswald uses instead of logic.

I only accuse those who exhibit the tendencies. You want logic? Try this article-if you are open minded.

OswaldTheOsprey

http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

I would just like to point out Oswald that within mainstream America it is not socially acceptable to be a Marxist, or even Socialist.

thank you

I would just like to point out Factinista that it depends on which circles one runs in. Marxism is quite popular in the grooves of academe, Hollywood and the mainstream media. My socialism, Social Fascism, on the other hand, is scorned by elites-not that it matters to me.

OswaldTheOsprey

What exactly does Social Fascism mean?

It means everyone except rich white people are steralised. To make a more civilised society apparently.

In a Social Fascist country wealth would be nationalized along with the economy itself. Mammonistic greed has no place in one's Motherland.

OswaldTheOsprey

Like in Brave New World?

No class stratification  like in Brave New World. A superb book by the way.

OswaldTheOsprey

So how else are you going to brainwash the 'differently abled' and unterclasses?  We are all going to engage our carefully bred intellects one day and our ability to sort excrement the next?

Sure we can do that to our minds....  and you want such a society?

Do you mean it doesn't require class stratification or it requires the lack of class stratification? And other than the class issue how well does Huxley's global dystopia line up with your national utopia? Sorry to pester you and all, but I want to understand your ideas.

No class stratification means no "unterclasses". One can have a society that is both intelligent and devoid of classes based on income. Social Fascism differs from standard fascism in that people can leave freely-thus no "differently abled".

OswaldTheOsprey

I mean there would be no class stratification and no capitalism to promote such unhealthy situations. Social Fascism will gladly allow any to leave who wish to do so. It will be anti-imperialist. Thus very different from the fascism of the 1930s.

OswaldTheOsprey

You are just swapping unterclasses based on capital for unterclasses based on some other arbitrary criterion. And of course you'll be in the uber(?)class.

All societies are based on arbitrary criterion of one form or another. Those that try to avoid fail-witness France in 1789 and Russia in 1917.

OswaldTheOsprey

I don't agree that they need necessarily fail. But please don't pretend to be a socialist when you don't believe in equality.

Well, I am certainly not a capitalist in any sense. I consider myself a non-marxist socialist. Name one attempt at a totally egalitarian state that succeeded.

OswaldTheOsprey

Oz, maybe you... never mind.

daed:

OK. Never mind.

OswaldTheOsprey

 :D  I was going to suggest that you write a nice long post on your reasons for your views, the historic background, empirical evidence, etc. since I really have trouble following you when you use specialized terms that only you and your cadre understand.

You keep using labels and I really have no idea what you mean.

Then, I thought, I don't know if I can wade through a tract.

However, I will reconsider, if I may be so bold.

If you write, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, a few paragraphs of your political and social philosophy, maybe people would understand your point of view a bit better - or define your terms when you post.

What I favor is Social Fascism. Under this system, nationalization would replace capitalism. The Motherland would furnish its citizenry with basic necessities in return for work and security. There would be massive programs of public works (hospitals, schools, roads, parks etc.). The foreign policy would be strictly non-interventionist and isolationist. Persons not loyal to the Motherland would be forced to leave-no concentration camps. There would be eugenics from which would come future leadership. There would be religious freedom, but no religious interference with the running of the Motherland. How is that?

OswaldTheOsprey

Are we talking centralized control or decentralized control?

Different sectors would be different, but generally what do you have in mind.



My view is that ideally workers should have control on a local level over production. The current situation is not ideal, IMO, but I think state centralization of control is a step in the wrong direction.

Perhaps for some. However, others may choose such a course to prevent the abuses inherent in multinationals and international high finance.

OswaldTheOsprey

So the government of the state can deport it's political opponents?

I would agree that abuse is inherent in business. Anything that will help the bottom line is inherent in business. Still, what reason do we have to believe that more centralized control will be any more effective at combating the abuses? We already have a lot of regulations that are largely ignored when it comes to enforcement. Regulation tends to come under the influence of those being regulated, IMO, further centralization of control does not answer how this would be prevented.

Your idea is interesting, but how do you know that the same fools pulling strings currently wouldn't find a way to convert their power to the new system?

Of course.

OswaldTheOsprey

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

I'm curious how you answer Mr. Madison's concerns. Who watches the watchers?

All of the Motherland watches the watchers.

OswaldTheOsprey

This is fascism we're talking about not democracy. It doesn't matter how much 'the motherland'  ::) watches the watchers - if they don't like what's happening there's fuck all they can do about it.

I am a Social Fascist and I detest democracy.

OswaldTheOsprey

I understand that. Now could you address the question?

What's the point in "watching the watchers" if there's fuck all you can do about any of it?

And you don't see why that is a bad thing?

What's the point of continuing in corrupt capitalism and democracy? So we can have more senseless and evil wars, more Clintons and Bushes?

OswaldTheOsprey

So, we don't have to live in a Fascist State?

Ironically, it sounds like we are in a Fascist State, so why would you complain? You have what you want!

We do not live in a fascist state. We live in a land of selfishness and nihilism.

OswaldTheOsprey

don't forget globalism.

Concentrated power for the gratification of the power hungry is very different than a people pulling together for the good of their motherland.

Absolutely.

OswaldTheOsprey

As opposed to the wonderful world of despotism?  ::)

As opposed to a nation with a purpose and a dedicated citizenry.

OswaldTheOsprey

It has been proven time and again that a person with absolute power, no matter their original intent, ends up abusing that power.

One person would not have absolute power in my concept of Social Fascism. I certainly do not want another Hitler.

OswaldTheOsprey

It works the same way with groups.

Yeah? How big of groups? 9 100 435 300000000?

you know precisely what I mean.

All systems of (unchecked) concentrated power are essentially corrupt, social/situational psychology makes this as obvious as history.

The state itself is a violent institution so when this power is focused on things like Nationalism they become detrimental to its own population, not to mention other populations.