"More Gay Stuff"

Karen DeCoster’s “More Gay Stuff. It’s worth a read.

Posted by on 02/29 at 12:10 PM

  1. I’d just point out that much of what De Coster objects to from her fellow Catholics starts from the Pope who espouses liberal statist politics.  And that’s no departure from his predecessors.

    And of course I have to reject this piece where with Rockwell she affirms “religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order” and says anyone who disagrees ani’t libertarian.

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  02/29  at  03:12 PM

  2. John -

    While religion has added to “liberty, property and the natural order,” I would be more apt to label religion as shifting sands beneath liberty’s feet.

    Posted by  on  03/01  at  05:19 AM

  3. How are you boys defining the term “Religion”?

    Are “Christians” and other “nitwits” the only ones who have a “Religion”, or does everyone have a “religion” (in one form or another)?

    Are Religion and Liberty related to each other?

    1) Two manifestations of the same (related) phenomena?
    2) Two completely different and seperate (unrelated) entities?

    Posted by  on  03/01  at  10:58 AM

  4. For the purposes of this discussion I’m using the word religion interchangably with the word theism.

    There is no necessary relationship between libertarianism and theism.

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/01  at  11:04 AM

  5. Serpent in this discussion I think you understand how the word “religion” is being used.  We are not discussing the term “Religion” along the lines of a John Dewey analysis.

    Posted by  on  03/01  at  11:35 AM

  6. John Kennedy: For the purposes of this discussion I’m using the word religion interchangably with the word theism.

    I would say that the term “Theism” implies a system of belief based on tradition and dogma moreso than on logic and empirical observation. Is that consistent with the manner in which you are presently using the term?

    John Kennedy: There is no necessary relationship between libertarianism and theism.

    I’d agree; however, I would assert that:

    Theism <> Religion (Theism is not analogous to Religion, per sae[or put another way, all Theism is a form of Religion, but not all Religions are Theistic])

    And I would further add that I do believe there is a necessary relationship between “Religion” and libertarianism.

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

    The Venlet: Serpent in this discussion I think you understand how the word “religion” is being used.

    Don’t be to sure about that Mr. Venlet. When it comes to “Religion”, precision is of the utmost importance. Or put another way, if I don’t understand you precisely on the fundamentals, then I really don’t understand you at all.

    Karen De Coster [asserts]: Religion [is] the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order” and says anyone who disagrees ain’t libertarian.

    Just for the record, I am inclined to agree with Ms. De Coster here.

    Religion = One’s fundamental (foundational) views regarding the nature and origin of existence (or “the Universe”).

    Posted by The Serpent  on  03/01  at  12:32 PM

  7. Serpent, what are you agreeing with?  That religion is the bedrock of liberty, or, if you disagree with Karen’s statement you can’t be in the libertarian club? 

    Posted by  on  03/01  at  12:43 PM

  8. John,

    I’d say that:

    - Religion is the bedrock of Liberty/Individuality/Freedom.
    - And, I wouldn’t (personally) consider anyone a true libertarian who didn’t also perceive it.

    Posted by  on  03/01  at  01:16 PM

  9. "I would say that the term “Theism” implies a system of belief based on tradition and dogma moreso than on logic and empirical observation."

    It simply does not imply that any more than it implies chicken salad sandwiches. You cannot reason by pulling supposed implications out of your ass every few sentences.

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/01  at  01:24 PM

  10. John Kennedy: It simply does not imply that any more than it implies chicken salad sandwiches. You cannot reason by pulling supposed implications out of your ass every few sentences.

    Ahh, what exactly is your definition of the term “Theism” Mr. Kennedy?

    You really have no business whining about my definition when you haven’t posted your own, especially considering you were the one who first made reference to the term “Theism”.

    Here’s what the Dictionary says:

    Theism n. Belief in the existence of God or gods.

    contrast that to:

    Deism n. Belief in the existence of God based on the evidence of reason and logic only.

    Posted by The Serpent  on  03/01  at  01:42 PM

  11. The dictionary definition you gave for theism will do fine. It doesn’t imply “a system of belief based on tradition and dogma moreso than on logic and empirical observation”.

    By the definitions you give deism is not an alternative to theism, it’s a sub-category of theism. Deists are theists by those definitions.

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/01  at  01:49 PM

  12. John Kennedy: The dictionary definition you gave for theism … doesn’t imply “a system of belief based on tradition and dogma moreso than on logic and empirical observation”.

    I would say that if BOTH Theism and Deism are the notions that “God” exists, but Deism is that belief based solely on Logic and Reason, that Theism must be a belief in “God” based on something other than Logic and reason (i.e. dogma [faith], and tradition[history])

    John Kennedy: By the definitions you give deism is not an alternative to theism, it’s a sub-category of theism. Deists are theists by those definitions.

    Technically speaking I would agree, in that both Deists and Theists believe in “God”, but to say that a Deist is also a Theists seems to contradict the precise definitions of what Theism and Deism mean.

    But I would definitely agree in terms of a Coin Toss:

    Theists/Deists = HEAD UP (“God” Exists)
    Atheist = TAILS UP (“God” does not exist)
    Agnostic = NO CALL (Unknown, or not enough info to say)

    Posted by  on  03/01  at  02:48 PM

  13. “...that Theism must be a belief in “God” based on something other than Logic and reason (i.e. dogma [faith], and tradition[history])

    How is that in any way implied in the definition you offered?

    Suppose:

    1) Women are defined as females.

    2) Wives are defined as females who are marrried.

    Dose the fact that one is a woman imply that one is not married?

    "Technically speaking I would agree, in that both Deists and Theists believe in “God”, but to say that a Deist is also a Theists seems to contradict the precise definitions of what Theism and Deism mean."

    So while my reasoning is perfectly consistent with the definitions that Serpent himself has actually offered, it “seems” to him to contradict some “precise definitions” which he has not offered.


    This is what one can expect when discussing anything with him.

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/01  at  03:35 PM

  14. You lost me Johnny.

    Are you now trying to assert that Deism and Theism are exactly the same?

    According to You there is no difference in the definition of those two terms?

    Posted by The Serpent  on  03/02  at  08:28 AM

  15. No.

    Deists are a sub-category of theists just as wives are a sub-category of women by the definitions given in this thread.

    Your assertion that theism implies “a system of belief based on tradition and dogma moreso than on logic and empirical observation” is precisely as invalid as the assertion that the fact that one is a woman implies one is not a wife.

    This could hardly have been laid out more plainly. You are either completely incompent or else pretending to be.

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/02  at  11:46 AM

  16. John Kennedy: Deists are a sub-category of theists just as wives are a sub-category of women by the definitions given in this thread.

    Theism = Belief in the existence of God or gods

    Deism = Belief in the existence of God based on the evidence of reason and logic only.

    Note that the definition of Theism implies that Theism must be including something other than Logic and Reason only otherwise the two terms would mean the same thing.

    So if Theism requires something that Deism does not require, then is Theism a subset of Deism, or is Deism a subset of Theism?

    Or are Deism and Theism unique sets that make up the Omniset of “Believers”?

    Oh, and BTW … is “Married” really a subset of “Women”? Can’t “Men” also be “Married”?

    John Kennedy: Your assertion that theism implies “a system of belief based on tradition and dogma moreso than on logic and empirical observation” is precisely as invalid as the assertion that the fact that one is a woman implies one is not a wife.

    Your analogy is flawed.

    All Deists and Theists believe in a “God” (or “gods”). That could make Deists and Theists part of a set (the set of believers in a “God”). But the reason they believe is entirely different. A deists believes based on Logic and Reason alone. And a Theists believes because of something other than Logic and Reason. At least according to the most commonly held definitions of the terms.

    John Kennedy: You are either completely incompent or else pretending to be.

    Of course there is a third possibility that its all in your imagination.

    Posted by The Serpent  on  03/02  at  12:26 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Mel, You Ain't Helping Here

Previous entry: They're So Confused

<< Back to main