[Buddha-l] Re: S. Pinker

[SJZiobro at cs.com]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 16:31 -0400, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:
>
>>Richard, any statement can be subjected to methodological doubt with
>>the claim that there is no reason to believe what the statement
>>articulates.
>
>I see no reason to believe that.

Bravo.

>>That said, I see no grounds for reasonably disagreeing with the
>>historical record. We know what a religious ethos is, and we know
>>what "dominant" means. To state otherwise strikes me as disingenuous.
>
>Very well, I concede the point. The United States is a Protestant nation
>in which Roman Catholics are barely tolerated, and women and native
>Americans have no right to vote, and the economy is based on slave
>labor. Thus it was for most of our history, and thus it ever more should
>be, because that is the kind of nation the Founding Fathers wished to
>have.

Did you really concede the point?  You know as well as do I that the 
historical record is not reduced to one period of that record.  

>>I shall not, however, deny the sociological reality that Christianity
>>is the dominant religion here in the States. If you take offense at
>>this, I'll not argue that you should not since we are dealing with
>>emotions, and emotions are neither true nor false.
>
>That statement makes no sense at all to me. I can't even imagine what
>you were trying to say. But never mind.

Oh, I don't mind.  I suspect the statement makes no sense now because it has 
become decontextualized, and that I haven't filled in all the seeming empty 
spaces to your reasonable satisfaction.

>If we are going to speak sociologically, then the dominant world view in
>the USA is secular humanism. Far more Americans are secular than
>Christian, and that is just plain fact. Dispute it all you wish, but
>wishing will not make this a Christian nation.

Allow me briefly to think this through.  You are right to point out that 
secular humanism has made serious inroads upon the American religious scene, 
rendering it ambiguous.  The reasons why are varied, and to discern them is to 
discern even partially the social (and philosophically grounding) mechanisms used 
to advocate and propogate this world view.  The reasons are grounded in 
systemic (read educational and academic, judicial, commercial) attacks upon the 
family; an understanding of custom and tradition as oppresive horizons rather than 
as vehicles of enculturation and socialization; the understanding of 
authority de facto as necessarily based on tyranical dominance and bureaucratic 
unaccountability; ideological and philosophical anthropologies that subordinate the 
person to the state or some one aspect of the society (the economy); 
philosophical arguments for relativism and their implementation (via the educational 
and judicial systems); the reduction of the person to a means of gratification, 
etc.  Yes, I concede your point here, Richard, inasmuch as the organs of 
government, finance, education, the judicary, the media have ceased to be based on 
Christian principles.  It is reasonable to understand that those who ally 
themselves knowingly and willingly with the ideological and philosophical 
justifications for the current ethos of these sociological organs can be termed 
non-Christian in point of fact. 

>>This is a fine rhetorical move on your part. I happen to agree with
>>you that unadulterated consumerism is antithetical to Christianity
>>(and I suspect to Buddhism, right?), and I happen to agree with you
>>that where our government has abandoned the poor (they are always a
>>handy group to bring into an argument) and we intentionally willingly
>>acquiesce in this abandonment, that is antithetical to Christianity.
>
>So we agree that the majority of those who think of themselves as
>Christians are deluded in this belief and that it would be offensive if
>they were to continue making that claim for themselves when their
>actions bely their professions.

I agree that people do and can delude themselves, and some of these people 
are Christians.  My stance is to consider good will on the part of anybody 
unless or until actual hypocricy becomes evident.  Often ignorance and/or some 
ideological or emotional blockage accounts for the discrepancy between profession 
and praxis.  I only find offensive actual hypocricy and malice.

I'll close here.  If you want to address other points I've left out (due to 
constraints of time and space), please do.

Stan Ziobro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20050702/80709dab/attachment.htm