[Vision2020] Historic Precedence

[Art Deco aka W. Fox]

Rose, et al,

Briefly:

The main fallacy in Dale's argument given below in Rose's post (and is in most 
of his arguments) is over-simplification.  The universe is much more complex 
than is presumed in his views and arguments.

However, the main point to be argued as Rose points out is not whether religious 
professionals sermonized about political matters in the past (they clearly did) 
but  how much credence should be placed in their superstition/religion based 
arguments today and in the future.

There are many different religions which say vastly different things on ethical, 
political, and behavioral matters.  Even among those sects/cults/businesses 
called Christianity, there are a myriad of different, conflicting views on what 
is ethical.  There is currently no way to tell which of these different views, 
if any, is correct.

We do not know now, nor probably will we ever know, all the facts germane to 
making a particular ethical decision.  However, the testable, verifiable 
facts/probabilities that we do know seem to be a much better basis for making 
ethical/political choices than mere unverifiable superstition/religion no matter 
how many people are duped into believing such superstition/religion.

Dale and his master, Douglas Wilson, seek to impose on us a complex 
superstitious world view dictating our actions, castrating our aspirations, and 
limiting our freedom of choice and action.  In other places, others seek to 
impose similar or dissimilar superstitious views.

Contrary to Dale's and other CCCers beliefs, ethical systems have existed at 
least from the beginning of recorded philosophy that do not rely on the alleged 
existence and the alleged word of any superstitious 
being/object/thing/force/etc.

Since neither Dale nor his analogues of various persuasions all over the world 
(and maybe elsewhere in the universe) can produce any verifiable proof of the 
correctness of their superstitions, many of us will not accept the imposition of 
the values dictated solely by those superstitious beliefs but will continue to 
rely on observation and testing.  [And some of us less shy people will continue 
to argue against and poke fun at the asininity of many superstitious/religious 
claims/myths/scams/flimflams.]

Adding another point to consider:  Of the Ten Commandments, the first four are 
clearly not applicable to a secular society -- they are prescriptions about 
worshipping some one alleged god, one of tens of thousands worshipped in the 
world today.  It is interesting to note that some of the heroes of the god of 
the bible flout many of the last six commandments with impunity, e.g David, but 
are lavishly rewarded by this same alleged god.

Wayne

Wayne A. Fox
waf at moscow.com
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID 83843
208 882-7975





  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: DonaldH675 at aol.com
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com
  Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:32 AM
  Subject: [Vision2020] Historic Precedence


  Visionaries:

  Dale C. argues:

  "...there was no sense that preaching about political matters from the pulpit 
was a violation of church and state. Second, they had the belief that "all human 
activities fall under the jurisdiction of God's Word". The pietists would have 
us believe that only what happens between our two ears is what should be 
influencing us from the pulpit. Finally, the most politically and socially 
important members of the community processed to church and listened carefully to 
what the preacher said.  Now, lest someone accuse me of trying to have all of 
Moscow's City Counsel march to a local congregation, that's not my point at all. 
My point is -- there's a historical precedent in American history for churches 
to have election day sermons; and to have political input and influence. 
Anything less is historical revisionism -- which our Intolerants are oh-so good 
at." http://right-mind.us/

   I (dimly) recall that a logical construction which relies on intellectual 
precedence may be a fallacy of authority (help me out here, Wayne) i.e. because 
someone thought or did something a certain way in the past does not necessarily 
justify presence actions or thoughts. It is hardly necessary to point out that 
during the same time period that Dale refers to, other activities in America 
were taking place that would probably not be invoked to justify continued 
application: slavery, debtor's prison, witch trials, genocide of Native 
Americans. All these unhappy activities, and frankly, in my opinion, sinful 
behaviors, were endorsed from the pulpit by the same folks who gave election day 
sermons.

  No trained historian would deny that these sermons (and other behaviors I 
listed) occurred.  So where does the revisionism come in?

  Sorry, Dale.  Poor argument, false conclusions, and gratuitous insults.

  Rose

  "One cannot level one's moral lance at every evil in the universe. There are 
just too many of them. But you can do something, and the difference between 
doing something and doing nothing is everything." Daniel Berrigan




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet,
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                 http://www.fsr.net
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20041119/b31c7f18/attachment-0001.htm