<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A reasonable European view of religion?&#8211;alackaday!</title>
	<link>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/01/24/a-reasonable-european-view-of-religion-alackaday/</link>
	<description>A graduate student in mathematics and a modern languages major take on politics and culture with the following aspirational motto: ‘Deregulate your mind.’</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:44:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Curt</title>
		<link>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/01/24/a-reasonable-european-view-of-religion-alackaday/#comment-2144</link>
		<author>Curt</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:37:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/01/24/a-reasonable-european-view-of-religion-alackaday/#comment-2144</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I also find that being aware that your belief system is to some degree inadequate from an intellectual or rational point of view, as I think many of the more intelligent religious types in America are, does wonders for one's support for tolerance.  Many post-modernist secularists, being convinced that their beliefs are the newest and best possible, have no problem with villifying others simply for holding opinions they disagree with (which I think is the central demarcation point of fanaticism).  &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also find that being aware that your belief system is to some degree inadequate from an intellectual or rational point of view, as I think many of the more intelligent religious types in America are, does wonders for one&#8217;s support for tolerance.  Many post-modernist secularists, being convinced that their beliefs are the newest and best possible, have no problem with villifying others simply for holding opinions they disagree with (which I think is the central demarcation point of fanaticism).  </p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shonk</title>
		<link>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/01/24/a-reasonable-european-view-of-religion-alackaday/#comment-2142</link>
		<author>shonk</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:16:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/01/24/a-reasonable-european-view-of-religion-alackaday/#comment-2142</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Weirdly, the ones who adopted the sternest and most terrible Old Testament moral tone were the Modern Language Association types who believed that everything was relative and that, for example, polygamy was as valid as monogamy.  The friendliest and most sincere welcome he'd gotten was from Scott, a chemistry professor, and Laura, a pediatrician, who, after knowing Randy and Charlene for many years, had one day divulged to Randy, in strict confidence, that, unbeknownst to the academic community at large, they had been spiriting their three children off to church every Sunday morning, and even had them all baptized.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;[...]&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Randy hadn't the faintest idea what these people thought of him and what he had done, but he could sense right away that, essentially &lt;i&gt;that was not the issue&lt;/i&gt; because even if they thought he had done something evil, they at least had a framework, a sort of procedure manual, for dealing with transgressions.  To translate it into UNIX system administration terms (Randy's fundamental metaphor for just about everything), the post-modern, politically correct atheists were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz. society) with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because they wre at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they saw as the norm.  Whereas people who were wired into a church were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not understand everything, at least had some documentation, some FAQs and How-tos and README files, providing some guidance on what to do when things got out of whack.  They were, in other words, capable of displaying adaptability.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p class="rightalign"&gt;--Neal Stephenson, &lt;i&gt;Cryptonomicon&lt;/i&gt;, pp. 584-6&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Weirdly, the ones who adopted the sternest and most terrible Old Testament moral tone were the Modern Language Association types who believed that everything was relative and that, for example, polygamy was as valid as monogamy.  The friendliest and most sincere welcome he&#8217;d gotten was from Scott, a chemistry professor, and Laura, a pediatrician, who, after knowing Randy and Charlene for many years, had one day divulged to Randy, in strict confidence, that, unbeknownst to the academic community at large, they had been spiriting their three children off to church every Sunday morning, and even had them all baptized.</p>
<p>[&#8230;]</p>
<p>Randy hadn&#8217;t the faintest idea what these people thought of him and what he had done, but he could sense right away that, essentially <i>that was not the issue</i> because even if they thought he had done something evil, they at least had a framework, a sort of procedure manual, for dealing with transgressions.  To translate it into UNIX system administration terms (Randy&#8217;s fundamental metaphor for just about everything), the post-modern, politically correct atheists were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz. society) with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because they wre at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they saw as the norm.  Whereas people who were wired into a church were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not understand everything, at least had some documentation, some FAQs and How-tos and README files, providing some guidance on what to do when things got out of whack.  They were, in other words, capable of displaying adaptability.</p></blockquote>

<p class="rightalign">&#8211;Neal Stephenson, <i>Cryptonomicon</i>, pp. 584-6</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/01/24/a-reasonable-european-view-of-religion-alackaday/#comment-2140</link>
		<author>Dave</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:45:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sellingwaves.com/2006/01/24/a-reasonable-european-view-of-religion-alackaday/#comment-2140</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I too have wondered why the far left is so adamant in its attacks on religion, especially Christianity. Partly it is probably part of their program to destabilize all cultural conventions in order to prepare the way for their dreamed of people’s utopia.
The interesting thing about them is their underlying quasi- religious puritanical attitude. They constantly denounce  the enjoyment of riches, except their own.They have an exaggerated mania about equality and constantly harp on the plight of the victims of society such as women, gays and minorities who actually live in pampered conditions relative to the past.
Partly this is masked by their approval of unlimited sexual activity and drugs, but at least in the area of sex, strong prohibitions against pornography and sex between men and  women where there is a “power imbalance” represent puritanical equivalents. And don’t for get that the puritans themselves were vigorous suppressors of non- puritan religions. 
The intolerance of the puritans was justified by a belief that their behavior was obeying God and that they were helping to establish Gods kingdom. Since ultra leftists are by and largely atheists, I wonder about the etiology of their self-righteousness   and desire to control other people’s behavior.
Probably these people are like Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda who are miserable because they have no function in life. They think it is fun to be a Jesus-like prophet saving the world. But it makes them real mad when people don’t want to be saved.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I too have wondered why the far left is so adamant in its attacks on religion, especially Christianity. Partly it is probably part of their program to destabilize all cultural conventions in order to prepare the way for their dreamed of people’s utopia.
The interesting thing about them is their underlying quasi- religious puritanical attitude. They constantly denounce  the enjoyment of riches, except their own.They have an exaggerated mania about equality and constantly harp on the plight of the victims of society such as women, gays and minorities who actually live in pampered conditions relative to the past.
Partly this is masked by their approval of unlimited sexual activity and drugs, but at least in the area of sex, strong prohibitions against pornography and sex between men and  women where there is a “power imbalance” represent puritanical equivalents. And don’t for get that the puritans themselves were vigorous suppressors of non- puritan religions. 
The intolerance of the puritans was justified by a belief that their behavior was obeying God and that they were helping to establish Gods kingdom. Since ultra leftists are by and largely atheists, I wonder about the etiology of their self-righteousness   and desire to control other people’s behavior.
Probably these people are like Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda who are miserable because they have no function in life. They think it is fun to be a Jesus-like prophet saving the world. But it makes them real mad when people don’t want to be saved.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
