Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 9994 (since 2009-12-17 04:46:00)

Showing comments 9994 - 9901
Page:

  • 'We wasted 40 years talking about nothing, doing nothing' -- Pappe demolishes peace process
    • No, the comma is not followed by a verb, so it cannot be a comma-after-subject-clause error. But it is certainly an odd sentence. There are too many commas for easy comprehension. Does Phil mean:

      "No-one will touch this question because Zionism is The Cognate for Jewish in the American political landscape."

      or

      "No-one in the American political landscape will touch this question because Zionism is The Cognate for Jewish."

      or perhaps both.

  • Romney echoes neocons: Trump will lead U.S. 'into the abyss'
    • "But he’s promised to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem!,(a well-recorded promise he can’t go back on, too! "

      It a truth universally acknowledged that, when a politician is elected to office he never welshes on any promises, recorded or otherwise, that he made when campaigning for that office.

  • Why I support a one state solution and still consider myself a Zionist
    • "Aside from that, when you say a society has no obligation to make itself more diverse I don’t understand what this actually means."

      It means that, no matter how diverse a society is, or how many or how few different cultures live in that society, there is no moral obligation to make that society more diverse, or to add more cultures.

      By "the fetishisation of multiculturalism" I mean the idea that multiculturalism is a good thing with no downsides, that diversity is always beneficial, all happy music and exciting food, and that societies have a moral obligation to promote it.

      "What you are overlooking is that culture is not attached to ethnicity. "

      Actually, this seems to have been a belief of the promoters of multiculturalism, at least in respect of immigrants. They gave me the impression that they thought the browner variety of immigrant would be incapable of cultural change. (And totally ignored the large numbers of immigrants of all shades who proved them wrong.)

    • As Gilbert pointed out, not only can ancestors be very expensive, they also bring responsibilities with them.

      GENERAL.
      Why do I sit here? To escape from the pirates'
      clutches, I described myself as an orphan; and, heaven
      help me, I am no orphan! I come here to humble myself
      before the tombs of my ancestors, and to implore their
      pardon for having brought dishonour on the family
      escutcheon.

      FREDERIC.
      But you forget, sir, you only bought the property a
      year ago, and the stucco on your baronial castle is
      scarcely dry.

      GENERAL.
      Frederic, in this chapel are ancestors: you cannot deny
      that. With the estate, I bought the chapel and its
      contents. I don't know whose ancestors they were, but
      I know whose ancestors they are, and I shudder to think
      that their descendant by purchase (if I may so describe
      myself) should have brought disgrace upon what, I have
      no doubt, was an unstained escutcheon.

    • HRK, one can reject the fashionable fetishisation of multiculturalism (as I do) without supporting ethnic nationalism.

    • I think it's anti-Britannic to say that.

    • "Thus, the theory of ethnic nationalism within a democratic contex, is plausible only in a case where there has been no ethnic expulsions or genocide, such as in Japan."

      The Ainu might object to the "no genocide" part of that sentence. Nor do I expect you would find excessive enthusiasm for Japanese ethnic nationalism among the people born in Japan of Korean ancestry. And the various people who enjoyed the benefits of the Co-Prosperity Sphere frequently express only the minimum gratitude.

      I, of course, object to the comma after the subject clause. Why do people do that?

    • What does "Jewish self-determination" mean here? It seems a far more restricted "self-determination" than that which is usually peddled by Zionists, since it seems to make Palestinians equal partners in sovereignty. And does it only apply to the Jews of Israel, or to all Jews everywhere?

  • Emerging from a 'reign of terror': Palestinians in Israel hold first BDS conference
    • Steve, learn to read. I didn't say I hated Jews. I said that some of my comments are anti-Semitic.

    • "Every Jew has a Zionist conscience,..."

      Even in my most anti-Semitic comments, the ones the moderators ban, I don't think I have said anything as nasty as that.

  • Isaac Herzog 'NYT' op-ed shows Knesset opposition indistinguishable from Netanyahu coalition
    • "A reply like: “Being female has never been a disadvantage in China, India, the Middle East, or Africa.” is just what “rugal b” wants."

      You are right. It gave him an opening to produce another dollop of tosh. But then, he does that without prompting anyway, so I'm not too bothered.

    • "I mean, these people didn’t even see their own daughters as equally human to their sons until just a few decades ago. "

      Whereas the yellow, brown, and black people of the world have always treated their daughters as equals to their sons. They never imposed any restrictions on girls that were not imposed on the the boys. Being female has never been a disadvantage in China, India, the Middle East, or Africa.

  • Why I’m going to DC
  • Pure rubbish
    • "Pale simulacra", if you don't mind, Mooser.

      Or even if you do.

    • Approve? Nothing so tepid!

      PGW is as close to perfection as one can get. He is the model we should all aspire to emulate.

    • "If you are unable to find a positive sense of pride in yourself, in your race and your ancestry, "

      I am thinking of pride as self-praise, and I cannot see any grounds for praising oneself for something in which one had no hand. (Regardless of the number of fingers on the hand.) If we take pride simply as self respect, again I can see no reason for respecting oneself for one's race and ancestry. Nor would these be reasons for shame or disrespecting oneself.

      Are you using some other notion of pride?

    • Leila's name is written on the clip, so I just guessed.

    • Of course I wish Froggy knew more Arabic. I would not want to deprive her of such knowledge. But my second version is more inclusive. I am sure that she and I are not the only ones with that wish.

      Leila Murad?

    • Hexadactyls could have pride in their extra digits, if they were not born hexadactylic but acquired the extras by their own efforts.

      I can't imagine what Sexadactyls could be proud of, and that is probably good for my peace of mind.

    • “If you identify as white, you are choosing to be on the wrong side of history,"

      Mooser, I am, perhaps, an even whiter shade of pale than you are, so, when I identify myself in old photos, I say, "That's me. The pasty little geek with the big glasses."

      Do you think that, if I stopped looking at the photos, I could get on the right side of history?

    • "have pride in their race”

      Having pride in one's race seems as silly as having pride in being pentadactylic.

    • Hmmm. Ambiguous again. I meant that many of us also wish that we knew more Arabic.

    • "Froggy, wishing she knew more Arabic."

      As do many of us.

  • 'When I have the opportunity to do it, I will': Likud lawmaker vows to demolish Al-Aqsa mosque
    • Mooser, admit it. You put that comma after the subject clause just to annoy me, didn't you?

    • Now you have a chance to explain to me what no-one has succeeded in explaining so far. What makes that article anti-Semitic?

  • The occupation is over, isn't it?
    • Only in some cases. Inserting commas where they do not belong* can be just as confusing as omitting them from places where they are needed.

      (* For example, inserting a comma after a subject clause. This mistake is very common among MW posters. Part of the problem seems to be failure to understand the role of commas in distinguishing defining relative clauses from non-defining relative clauses. I wish Bob the Angry Flower would produce a rant on the topic.)

    • And with two extra commas it would be even clearer.

      "... with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, or, better, Jerusalem belonging to the world as an international city.”

    • An understandable misconstruction. Rossross omitted (accidentally, no doubt) a vital comma. He should have written "with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital or, better, Jerusalem belonging to the world as an international city."

      See why I keep banging on about punctuation?

  • In Canada, BDS loses in the House of Commons but wins on university campuses (Updated)
  • US writer Kristian Davis Bailey is racially profiled, arrested, strip-searched, detained, silenced, traumatized on trip to Palestine
  • 'In every important way Israel has failed'-- leading American Zionist says No mas
    • Hophmi, please do tell us the original definition of "anti-Semitism", and explain how those evil anti-Zionists have degraded that definition in order to mask their own hateful rhetoric.

      Inquiring minds want to know.

    • Mooser, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. So it is with Yonah.

    • Yonah.
      "it developed in reference to threats to safety of Jews"

      So you are saying early Zionism did include setting up a “safe haven”. That is option 2.

      "But the impulse to organize a self reliant self defense was an urge towards life and worthy."

      The impulse was to take a land away from the native inhabitants and set up the "safe haven" there. This sort of "self reliant self defence" is not worthy. As I pointed out before, there is no right to survive at the expense of others. Not even for Jews.

      (Incidentally, my earlier comment was supposed to say "Post hoc benefits are a dubious basis..." Somehow the italics failed to appear.)

    • Yonah, you cannot justify the evil of Zionism by claiming that it enabled the survival of European Jews fleeing from the Nazis.

      1. As far as I know (and no doubt MW experts on the topic will correct or confirm me on this) the purpose of Zionism was to set up a Jewish State to "normalize" the status of Jews as a "nation", and not as "safe haven". If this is so, then Zionism is not justified, even if it later proved useful for protection of Jews. benefits are a very dubious basis for excusing an intrinsically evil act.

      2. If I am wrong, and the purpose of Zionism included setting up a "safe haven", then it is still not justified. There is no right to survive at the expense of a third party. (I have argued this before.)

      If you do not agree, please present your counter-arguments.

    • "Zionism was ... an act of necessity."

      What necessity?

  • J Street is in denial of one-state 'consensus'
    • "We developed a marvelous code of ethics about the treatment of the other, rooted in the principle that one should never treat another people the way one didn’t want to be treated oneself. "

      And no-one else, of course, ever had any ideas even remotely resembling that. Certainly not that Chinese bloke everyone keeps misquoting. He said that we should not treat other individuals in a way we would not like to be treated ourselves, but he didn't seem to have a clear idea of "another people" or "the other".

      四海之内,皆兄弟也 was more his line.

  • Jews aren't special
    • 'a big button reading “Je Suis Generis!“ '

      Whenever I get overconfident about my own abilities, I shall remind myself that I cannot match the master.

    • "Every nation and ethnic group has the right to maintain and nurture its unique identity, its culture and traditions and values."

      Why do you think this is a right? Is this alleged right a right of the individual members of the group, or is it one of these mysterious group rights?

      " It’s quite normal to do so, as long as you’re not trying to harm others. "

      "Normal" is not the same as "permissible". And who are the others? Do you mean other members of the group, who can be harmed by some of the nastier traditions of the group, or members of other groups? Is the harm done by individual members of the group, or by the group as a whole?

    • “In every generation enemies rise up to destroy us but God saves us from them,”

      Then why do Jews need a Jewish State as a safe haven?

    • Will God write back?

  • Without international pressure, and now, Al-Qiq will die, says former hunger striker
  • Trump says he must be 'neutral' on Israel/Palestine, then slags Palestinians as anti-Semites
  • British schoolboy questioned for pro-Palestine badge and pro-BDS pamphlet
    • "“Tel Aviv University recently forbid employees"

      Haaretz is forgetting its English. The past tense is "forbade". It is sometimes spelled "forbad", which reflects the pronunciation.

      It Is one of the "i" - "a" verbs, along with "sit/sat", "sink/sank", "spit/spat", and, of course, "bid/bade".

  • Law firm pulls $250,000 gift to Harvard over Palestine event (demonstrating Zionism's pervasiveness)
    • The history may be complicated but the basic outline is quite simple. In the nineteenth century, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived more or less amicably in Palestine. Then a bunch of Europeans, the Zionists, decided to move in and take over the country. It took a bit of time, but they succeeded in stealing a large chunk of the country and killing, raping, and driving out most of the the native Muslims and Christians. And since then they have been regularly attacking the surrounding countries, and succeeded in seizing the rest of Palestine. So it is clear that the fundamental moral fault lies with the Zionists.

      "Yes, Jews have a right to our ancient and modern homeland."

      I would love to see you produce an argument to show that Polish Jews have a greater right to Palestine than Welsh Christians, let alone a greater right than Palestinian Arabs of any religion.

      But I'm pretty sure you can't.

    • "The enemies of Israel have added hatred, anti-Semitic metaphors and lies to life-saving Zionism. "

      If Israel and Zionism are so benign and beneficial, how did they make enemies?

    • Yonah, that post is totally baffling.

      What bearing do the activities of black power groups in New York have on the question of whether the 67 war was a war of aggression or not? None that I can see.

      If it was a war of aggression, it was a war of aggression regardless of how anti-Semitic the black power groups may have been.

      In that case, if those groups recognized the 67 war as a war of aggression, they were acknowledging a truth. What relevance do their "facile expressions of anti-Semitism" have?

  • Reinterpreting Truman and Israel: A review of Irene Gendzier's 'Dying to Forget'
    • The Zionists have form for killing "unhelpful" diplomats. This is not proof, but certainly grounds for suspicion.

  • Resisting anti-Semitism does not contradict resisting the Israeli state
    • Thanks, Shmuel. This double reference for "Israel" is a bit confusing.

    • 'On a campus where the heart of Jewish life is dominated by Hillel, an organization whose vision is one where “every student is inspired to make a commitment to Jewish life, learning and Israel,” and by Chabad, which wants its members to “apply the timeless Jewish principle of Ahavat [the love of] Israel” '

      I visited my cousins in Montreal many years ago. In those days, Montreal was in Canada. And as far as I can tell, it still is. Yet on a Canadian campus the dominant Jewish organizations are urging Canadian Jews to love and commit themselves to another country, Israel. But saying that Jews care more about Israel than about their own country is still forbidden.

  • Hillary Clinton once dreamed of 'revenge' on Kissinger for Vietnam 'carnage'. Then she got over it
  • Video: Scenes from a bloody Sunday in Palestine
    • "How does a young girl pose a threat to a fully armed IDF soldier?"

      We know that Palestinian girls carry invisible knives. Can't take the risk that they might be carrying invisible AK47s as well.

    • Another demonstration of the heroism of the brave lads of the IDF as they resolutely defend freedom, democracy, and Western values from the growing menace of Islamic terrorism.

  • Prioritizing Palestine over the Presidency: Intersectional feminism's challenge to Hillary Clinton
    • Thanks, just.

    • "You have let so much slide recently I forgot myself. "

      I'm rather busy right now. I've had to arrange a funeral and I'm executor for the estate in Britain, so I have an excuse for inattention. It will take quite a while to get it all sorted out, so now is the time for you to indulge yourselves in misplaced commas and all your other favourite solecisms. There is a good chance of getting away with it.

    • And there's an ambiguous sentence. My intention was to say that the bride contributes the dowry to the marriage, but the sentence can be read as saying that the bride contributes her family to the marriage.

      Of course, some brides do.

    • Good story, Gamal. Bad translation of the Qur'an, though. (Not your translation, I assume.) "Dowry" means wealth endowed on the bride, usually by her family, which she contributes to the marriage. The correct term here is "bridewealth", a contribution from the groom's side.

  • 'Other ways of being Jewish are available' -- a poetic response to expressions of hatred on Facebook
    • Lillian, I have gained the impression that the original idea of Zionism was to make Jews into a "proper nation", and the idea of a safe haven was an excuse that was cooked up later. Am I mistaken about this?

    • It's an Oxford comma. I had a large consignment sent to me from Oxford, so I like to use them from time to time.

      link to thewritepractice.com

    • Spelling "affect" as "effect" is spelling error.
      Using "effect" where you should have used "affect" is a usage error.
      Take your pick.

      "Anglophile"

      I have no objection to correct American spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

    • "Affect non-Jews", Mooser. But everyone says "impact" these days, so I'm the only person who will notice the spelling error.

    • "Most groups have an extremist self loathing fringe… "

      Do we have any reason to suppose this is true? Some groups, perhaps, but most?

  • Obama to sign AIPAC-promoted trade bill that legitimizes Israeli occupation and fights BDS
    • "We made the desert blossom!"

      Mostly you stole fertile land and well established farms and orchards. Even if you did make a bit of the desert blossom, that does not justify the monstrous crimes Israel has committed.

      "Where would my people go? Not to mention the Christian Arabs, the Bedouin!"

      So the Christian Arabs and the Bedouin are not "your people" even though they are your fellow citizens. "Your people" can try staying where they are and learning how to get on with their neighbours. Gettting rid of this "my people" idea and thinking solely in terms of humanity and citizenship would help.

    • "even though John Keye has tried to slide it through with no explaination as to what it contains"

      How can he explain it when he doesn't know what it contains. The TPPA is supposed to be kept secret from everyone, and that includes Prime Ministers.

  • Palestinians call on Oscar nominees to reject Israel propaganda trip
    • "They’ll find the same thing in your lame ass description by taking the trip to Japan."

      Plus they will find polite people.

  • Did 'Hashomer Hatzair' shape Sanders's views on socialism and Israel?
    • Kris, you say you are not Jewish, but can you really be sure about that?

      You note that Mormons Mormonize dead people regardless of whether those dead people want to be Mormons or not, and we also know that dead ex-Jews can be re-Jewed. (Spinoza is the classic example. He was expelled from the fold when he was young, but now that he is famous and admired he has been reclaimed. His consent was not required for either operation.)

      Is it possible that these sort of powers can extend further, so that a living Non-Jew can be made into a Jew without notice or consent? It seems extreme, but I cannot see any logical reason to deny the possibility.

      So not only might you be an unwitting Israeli, you might actually be an Israeli Jew. There's a disquieting thought for you.

    • "Is Sanders a citizen of a foreign country? Any foreign country."

      Yes, as far as I can tell, he is a citizen of a foreign country, and specifically a citizen of the United States. I have never seen any suggestion that he is an Australian and not a foreigner. Indeed, if he were Australian, he would not be eligible to be President of the U.S.

  • BDS movement faces attack in six state legislatures
    • I'm not going to ignore it even if should, because it's interesting.

      "if they find themselves believing in that good old arc of justice aren’t they resorting to belief in some force for good unknown to science, in short to a god?"

      1. A force for good is not necessarily a god. The idea of karma, in its various interpretations, can be regarded as something very similar to the arc of justice, and yet it is not regarded as being in any way dependent on Gods. The Gods themselves are bound by karma.

      2. A force for good may be unknown to current science, but that goes for an awful lot of things. No real scientist has ever declared that science is complete. Heck, not even climate "scientists" go quite that far.

      3. The arc of justice may not be a single force similar to the four fundamental forces, but rather an emergent force. Evolution is a not a single, simple force, but the result of a number of simpler processes. The arc of justice may be something similar, and be the result of processes already known to science. (If anything is.)

      So I think the humanist has plenty of wriggle room to invoke the arc of justice without invoking any God of any description.

      None of the above should be taken as an argument that the arc of justice is in any way real.

  • Maya Angelou stood with Palestinians, but Israeli military uses her for Black History Month hasbara
    • 'but to me the IDF also stands for Jews taking a stand in the history of the world and saying, “no more powerlessness.” '

      Most Jews have been powerless throughout history. But then, so have most other people. Having very little power to influence the few people who run the world is the normal state of most of mankind.

      But, well before the IDF was formed, there were plenty of Jews among those who run the world. There were Jews in high positions in governments, in the military, in finance, industry, media, academia, and other fields. John Monash, Isaac Isaacs, the Rothschilds, and many more. Those Jews had much greater influence on the great affairs of the world than any of my ancestors.

      Perhaps I should establish a RoHaDF, so that I can say, with truth, "no more powerlessness".

  • 'Barbarism by an educated and cultured people' -- Dawayima massacre was worse than Deir Yassin
    • "I wonder what this conversation would be like if the Arabs states had defeated Israel in 1948?"

      We would not be having this conversation. The evil of Zionism would have been defeated.

      "Hatred of Jews is something not in short supply among Palestinians"

      And Zionist Jews have worked hard to earn that hatred.

      "Would the conversation be directed against Palestinian atrocities?"

      If there had been any, I would certainly condemn them.

  • Oscar swag bag includes ten-day VIP trip to Israel worth $55,000 (Updated)
  • The irreconcilable differences of liberal Zionism
  • 'New York Times' picks up Bernie Sanders's 'socialist' kibbutz but leaves out the ethnic cleansing
    • 1. By "valid" I assume you mean "morally acceptable". Yes, survival is a morally acceptable goal, but that does not mean that any and every action taken to achieve survival is itself morally acceptable.

      2. I will agree that, sometimes, it is morally acceptable to impose some injustice on an innocent third party, even without that party's consent, in order to survive. I will further agree that it is not easy to determine how much injustice can be imposed, but I will insist on at least the following conditions.

      (A) The injustice must be necessary, in that there is no alternative route to survival.

      (B) The injustice cannot be such that the survival of the third party is itself endangered. (Jumping the queue at the bus stop is permissible if necessary for survival. Pushing someone else under the bus is not.)

      (C) If possible, apology and restitution be made.

      Now it is by no means clear to me that either evicting longtime tenants after a purchase from absentee owners or pre-war Zionism in general fulfils any of those conditions. Certainly the third condition has not been met.

      But there is a further problem. As far as I can tell (and I expect others more familiar with the history will comment on this), the motive of the pre-War Zionists was to establish as much control over the land as possible for themselves. Saving European Jews from the coming slaughter was not their aim.

      So even if their actions did contribute to saving some European Jews, I am reluctant to accept this as a justification for their actions. This sort of post hoc moral justification seems highly dubious to me. I would not justify the Afican Slave trade on the grounds that it resulted in many of the descendants of the slaves being citizens of the rich USA rather than impoverished Upper Volta.

      As far as I am concerned, then, your attempted justification for the earlier Zionists is a total failure.

      Do you have anything better to offer?

    • Could you clarify that clarification for me, please, Yonah?

      You seem to be suggesting that a strong Jewish community in Palestine was a way of helping European Jews to survive. How was that supposed to work? How was building a kibbutz going to help Jews in Europe?

      I will add that the results showed that it did not work very well. Millions of European Jews did not survive.

      And, of course, this was survival at the expense of the Palestinians. What makes Jews so important that others must suffer to enable Jews to survive?

    • I was thinking of the Highland clearances and the enclosure of common land in England when I wrote that post.

      And you are correct. No legal technicality can excuse Zionists.

    • Not a misuse.

      "Ethnic cleansing", as you have defined it, is a moral term. Application of legal pressure is a way of forcing removal even if law officers do not physically remove the tenants, and that is not excluded by your definition.

      The fact that it is legal in no way makes it moral. The law can be made by the powerful group that desires the ethnic cleansing, but even if it is not, that is no guarantee that the law is morally acceptable.

  • Double standard seen as Israel sentences minors involved in Abu Khdeir murder to prison but no punitive measures
    • Thank you, Zofia. Your knowledge of the history is impressive, and is a wonderful counter to the Hasbara.

  • Bernie Sanders' spirituality is resonating with young religious 'None's
    • "Having given my definition along with another definition, what can I say?"

      You don't need to say anything more about spirituality. I wanted to know what the term meant. I now have a pretty good idea of the sort of thing it refers too. I think you might be confusing ignorance of the meaning of a term (that is, what it refers to) with lack of experience of the thing referred to.

      " Have you never experienced a sense of wonder?"

      I might have, but since I don't know what the term "sense of wonder" means, I can't say for certain.

      "From all I have read, spirituality is limited to a well developed sense of self which, in turn, requires a more advanced intellectual capability. "

      We do not know what the mental Iives of other animals are like, but only what we can guess about them. (Yes, psychologists try to make better guesses, but their guesses are still hardly reliable.) For that reason, I prefer to leave it an open question.

      "show me even one Chimp who can punctuate worth a crap."

      A weakness shared with many denizens of the Internet, but punctuation is not the only path to enlightenment.

    • No, I'm still not clear about this. I can see that one might need to "identify" in order to gain access to (e.g.) retricted tribal grounds, or some similar benefit, but aside from such cases I fond it difficult to imagine an objective need to hang some sort of "identity" label on oneself.

      Taking a cue from Mooser, it might be reasonable to take such a label as a defence against having some other label imposed.

    • "you’d have to ask them. different strokes for different folks."

      So you can't suggest any reason why a person would need to "identify", as distinct from want to "identify" or believe they had some obligation to "identify"?

    • "i could just as easily claim no one needs to identify themselves period."

      Does anyone need to "identify" themselves?

    • "Spirituality is a concept that has been around for a long time, hardly a buzzword."

      The word has only recently* come into frequent popular usage. I wanted to know what concept it referred to.

      "In general, it refers to the unique-to-human (chimps, too?) sense of self and of consciousness,"

      Why do you think it is so limited?

      "The words wonder and awe frequently occur because that is what most feel when contemplating human conscious awareness and the ability to perceive beauty."

      I don't know what "wonder" means in that context.

      "I am a little surprised that Buddhist philosophy which you mention lacks the concept of spirituality."

      I never said it did. In general, though, Buddhist philosophy uses very precise concepts.

      Now, back to enlightenment through punctuation.

      "Take special care not to do such things as writing a tsheg
      Between a final letter and a shad, unless the letter is a nga."

      (*In the last twenty years.)

    • Interesting little essay, Yonah. Deserves a few comments.
      Phil's wife isn't assuming better norms emerge. She is saying that if they do, she will not mind the end of Protestantism.

      2. "But lackadaisical endorsement of the disappearance of organized religion is an unproven path for a diverse society such as this world and the United States."

      It does sometimes seem that the United States is not part of this world, doesn't it? But I will point out that some societies manage reasonably well with fairly disorganized religions, such as Shinto and Chinese folk religion. (I actually think those are better for people than the rigid monotheist religions.)

      3. And that leads me to agree with Siberiak. There does seem to be a false dichotomy.

      4. "Advocating the dissolution of faith communities is praying for the impoverishment of the human spirit."

      Incongruous use of "praying". And what does "impoverishment of the human spirit" mean? It's an impressive phrase, but it needs a bit of expanding to become a useful concept.
      And if those faith communities are themselves impoverishing the human spirit, shall we not call for their dissolution?

      5. "But rationality alone does not begin to describe the human condition."

      Be that as it may, since "rationality is the most important feature that we need to face the future", it would be wise to maintain as much rationality as possible rather than make excuses for those religions which are an offence against rationality.

    • Too much Heidegger.

Showing comments 9994 - 9901
Page: