Comments for The Word Warrior

Comment on Homeopaths propose to fight yeast infections with yeast by becky

becky — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:25:36 +0000

Phil you are a moron…no one expects you to be smart enough to figure out why this product works,

Comment on Homeopaths propose to fight yeast infections with yeast by becky

becky — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:23:30 +0000

yeast gard works great

Comment on Holiday Depression Watch III by Santina Ashraf

Santina Ashraf — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:14:23 +0000

you can say that alternative medicine is cheaper too and usually comes from natural sources ,~”

Comment on CA diocese to pay pedophile priest $94.5 K annuity by Jason

Jason — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 04:27:59 +0000

Absolute pieces of shit! These scumbags deserve to be imprisoned and killed. FUCK THE CHURCH YOU PIECES OF LYING SHIT.

BURN IN HELL!

Comment on Wednesday Primary Source Happy Fun Hour! by Bento

Bento — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:51:24 +0000

“The context changes everything in this case…”
I remember some introduction to Santayana’s work mentioning in passing how most people who misquote “Those who do not remember…” use it in the opposite sense it was intended, without explaining what they meant by that claim. I didn’t understand their point at the time, but your comment made me revisit the claim and I think I get it now.
When most people regurgitate the quote, they are warning people against forgetting mistakes of the past. But what Santayana was actually prescribing was “retention” of memories of the conditions of past successes which served to satisfy the goals of moral actors—which makes great sense in light of his broader project of “the life of reason,” the harnessing of rationality (and especially the recognition of patterns in nature and psychic life) to serve “ideals” of goodness which are always pre-rational and conditioned by the needs of the organism.
I presented the piece “without commentary” specifically because I felt ill-prepared to address the gap between the quote’s original contextual meaning and its common misuse. So thank you for forcing me to confront the question! Currently re-reading “Reason in Common Sense” now, so it comes at a good time!

Comment on Wednesday Primary Source Happy Fun Hour! by delphicoracle

delphicoracle — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:18:15 +0000

Really interesting, Bento; I had no idea. The context changes everything in this case–wow. Thanks for posting.

Comment on New language discovered in India by Brian Barker

Brian Barker — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 23:07:14 +0000

I sincerely believe that minority languages need protection

Your readers may also be interested in the campaign to save endangered and dying languages by the World Esperanto Association. This association enjoys consultative relations with UNESCO.

The commitment to this aim was made, by the World Esperanto Association at the United Nations’ Geneva HQ in September.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eR7vD9kChBA&feature=related

If you have time please see http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_YHALnLV9XU Professor Piron was a translator with the United Nations in Geneva.

The argument for Esperanto can be seen at http://www.lernu.net

Comment on Redefining “news” by Matt Wion

Matt Wion — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 22:16:35 +0000

“Jefferson might have expressed frustrated difference with Christian orthodoxy in his letters.”

“It’s undeniable he was at least frustrated with orthodox Christianity, which he found not only unbelievable for the “Platonist” elements he believed unnaturally grafted onto it in its evolving history, but he also saw it as divisive and tending towards authoritarianism.”

To McAdams that is intolerance. You and I, understandably find that hard to believe. But McAdams holds that anyone who says a conservative belief is in any way harmful or obviously wrong is intolerant. For instance, he thinks that to merely tell Global Warming skeptics that they are dead wrong is “fascism,” and that people who want to teach kids that violence against gay people is wrong are akin to Nazis! The guy thinks Marquette orientations are the equivalent of Stalinism!

I agree with his reading of the Apocalypse. What he said is probably the view of most Christians.

Comment on Redefining “news” by Bento

Bento — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 21:46:42 +0000

“… Jefferson was, among the Founders, one of the very least tolerant toward religion. He was even less tolerant than fellow Deists.”
What about Thomas Paine? Jefferson might have expressed frustrated difference with Christian orthodoxy in his letters, but he never published a polemic on the internal contradictions of the Bible (viz. “The Age of Reason”).
Whereas Paine saw it as a duty to fight against false religions, Jefferson wrote that his neighbors’ creedal deviations “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” I wouldn’t describe him as “intolerant” of religion. I think his relationship to religion was nuanced and ambiguous. It’s undeniable he was at least frustrated with orthodox Christianity, which he found not only unbelievable for the “Platonist” elements he believed unnaturally grafted onto it in its evolving history, but he also saw it as divisive and tending towards authoritarianism.
But on the other hand, he introduced the phrase “separation of church and state” into the legal lexicon in a letter written to reassure Baptist minister that the new Constitution’s promise of religious freedom was designed to protect the rights of minority denominations. One of only three accomplishments he was proud enough to stamp on his self-authored epitaph was his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty.
Jefferson might have expressed dislike and even condescension for many religious opinions–but only then in the privacy of correspondence–but he was dedicated to protecting Christian’s freedom to openly believe, and proud of that commitment.
Jefferson did express private dislike for orthodox Christianity, but kept his complaints mostly private.
And, interestingly, though he did go through Deistic phases, Jefferson ultimately identified himself as a Christian, though his beliefs would be considered highly heterodox. He was convinced by the writings of the Unitarian Joseph Priestley that Christianity had been “corrupted” by the onset through the infusion of supernatural elements and Trinitarianism, but believed in Jesus’ supremacy as a moral teacher. He wrote his own version of the Gospels which redacted any mention of Jesus’ divine heritage and miracle stories, and toyed with the idea of publishing it for the purpose of proselytizing Native Americans, but never followed through with the plan.
From this we might derive that Jefferson not only believed in religion’s capacity to be a repository for moral truths, but recognized its moral authority was worthy of preserving and exporting. So when he predicted in 1822 “there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian,” he did so hopefully. Unlike Paine, Jefferson thought organized religion was not only salvageable but worthy of saving, if it could be reconciled with Enlightenment commitments to liberty and scientific inquiry. But in the meantime, he was fiercely committed to allowing orthodox-supernaturalist believers freedom of worship and conscience.
I think calling Jefferson “intolerant” of religion because he disagreed with mainstream opinion and said as much. Tolerance isn’t silence in the face of disagreement, but a proactive commitment to enfranchizing peacable but disagreeing parties to opportunities in public life and discourse, something Jefferson’s legislative legacy thoroughly embodies.

Comment on Redefining “news” by John McAdams

John McAdams — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 16:30:59 +0000

You should know that Jefferson was, among the Founders, one of the very least tolerant toward religion. He was even less tolerant than fellow Deists.

He refused, as president, to designate Thanksgiving a national holiday.

No doubt some people go far overboard in interpreting Biblical prophecy.

I think the best Christian interpretation of Revelation is that it’s true, but we really don’t know what it means (beyond extremely broad outlines) and that it almost certainly doesn’t explain current events.