Classical Values :: Giving Up Religious Supremacism

May 09, 2007

Giving Up Religious Supremacism

Winds of Change is discussing a post by Ali Eteraz. His thesis is that we need to give up partisanship. That no political philosophy is better than another. Split the differences.

Ali says:

I cannot in clean conscience engage against religious supremacism and exclusion if I engage in ideological supremacism and exclusion.

Sure you can.

For the most part it is impossible to tell whether belief in God A or God B or God Ba has more merit.

However, one can measure the results of one ideology over another. Capitalism vs. Communism for instance. Or Self Government vs. Despotism.

Modern man has advanced through differentiation. You know reason. Occam's Razor and all that. We have rules for judging differences. In size. In weight. Even in opinion.

I'd hate to give all that up just so you can feel good about giving up religious supremacism.

Cross Posted at Power and Control and at The Astute Bloggers

posted by Simon on 05.09.07 at 11:01 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4998

Comments

i've responded here

please advise ur other blogs

http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/political-philosophy-of-non-partisanship/

ali eteraz · May 9, 2007 12:50 PM

In fact, there are even some weird people who *want* diversity of thought, opinion, and governing styles. In fact, these weird people referred to the "States" (as in the United States of America) as "laboratories" and "testing grounds" for new and alternate ideas of governing and lifestyles.

I can't quite recall just who these weird people are, but I think there is a document from around 1776 that has their signatures on it.

_Jon · May 9, 2007 01:40 PM

Diversity of thought is good.

There are limits. You can argue Jupiter's size or the composition of its atmosphere.

However the question of flat plane (turtles all the way) vs spherical shape is not in doubt.

There are limits to the usefulness of diversity.

M. Simon · May 9, 2007 02:05 PM

One might argue the peak of the Laffer Curve. Is it 20%, 40%, 60%? Well the question is in doubt.

However there is no doubt that at some level of taxation a rise in taxation does not produce a rise in collected taxes.

In fact if taxes are above the inflection point lowering taxation will bring in more taxes.

Another example of the limits of discourse.

M. Simon · May 9, 2007 02:12 PM

What an amazing feat of mental acrobatics.

I started a comment here, and as often happens it got out of hand.

By applying the label "theocracy", he lumps jihad and social conservatism together. It's the same old brown moral equivalency banana, wrapped in shiny yellow paper.

Socrates · May 9, 2007 04:18 PM

So, by relativism Zen Buddhism is directly equal to say the worship of Kali and breaking of bones and burying people alive?

Shinto views are directly equivalent to the blood worship of the Mayans?

You know I do have some problems with religious *practices* that get on about wanting to kill folks wantonly for the sheer fun of killing and those that actually follow teachings of peace and such. I may get a bit ticked off with the religion du jour showing up on my doorstep and asking me to join, but that is *not* the same as having an AK-47 stuck in my face and them saying: 'convert or die'.

I really just don't see the equivalencies here... but then I DO have bias! Yes, indeedy! Bias helps give perspective... really necessary in life to have perspective and bias. Allows you to discriminate on things, which means you get to make a reasoned choice and adjudge something based on that outlook. Can't survive without it.

ajacksonian · May 10, 2007 09:57 AM