Date: Oct 30, 2012 12:16 PM
Author: kirby urner
Subject: Re: Speachless In New York (or, another OMG moment)
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Haim <email@example.com> wrote:
> Kirby Urner Posted: Oct 29, 2012 1:16 PM
>>What's your problem guy? I happen to be reading 'The
>>Origins of Proslavery Christrianty: White and Black
>>Evangelicals in Colonial and Antebelllum Virginia" by
>>Charles F. Irons (c) 2008, University of North Carolina
> You are committing a chomskyism. What you wrote (whatever you may have intended) is the intellectual equivalent of reading a biography of Jeffrey Dahmer and generalizing to the American population.
That's a very abstruse name for a rhetorical gaff, whereas I think you
just mean "over -generalization" or "leaping to false conclusions
based on insufficient evidence" or something we've all heard of.
Your efforts to pick on an MIT academic by turning his name into a
logical flaw of some kind: did you make that up or am I going to find
out what you've been reading? Who's spreading this one? Inquiring
minds want to know.
> Christianity is the single greatest force for freedom in human history, by far. It is also a fast evolving religion that has spanned the globe in the course of its 2,000 yr history. Have there been, therefore, some fringe groups and a few minor dead-end ramifications? Of course. But a chomskyism does not even rise to the level of generalizing from a sample of one. To commit a chomskyism is to generalize from an outlier against a moutain of evidence to the contrary.
> No representation without taxation.
Then you make a speech full of sweeping generalizations. Yawn.
Some of the fringe Christians *have* been catalysts for freedom for
sure, not so sure about the mainstream though as humans tend to be
herd animals and with all that talk of "pastors" and "flocks"
I think Xtianity in the main advertises as a herd religion. But
you're right, some Christians have been major game changers / players
(I don't count Jesus because I never think of him as "Christian" --
nor did he of himself). Descartes for example, a Catholic though he
had a lot of Protestant friends (in those days, those were the two
categories of Christian for the most part, if you lived in Europe).
Intellectuals were paranoid about the Inquisition in those days, which
you might call "fringe" or a "dead end" just as Nazism was a
bastardization of the worst in German philosophy.
Are there still greater religions yet to come? Well, of course that
depends how you define "religion" and "greater". We don't need to
speculate here. I do think we'll be having more "designer religions"
that are shorter lived, make no pretensions to being "world
religions", yet have their happy adherents in scattered global
networks. Some companies already constitute such cults, just don't
self-brand in that way.
I've been looking at how "run of the mill" Quakers before Lincoln's
Emancipation Proclamation were more like "shut up already about
everyone freeing their slaves, it ain't gonna happen any time soon and
we want to be seen as 'good Americans' who support the gummint, and
the gummint says having slaves is OK for some people, even if we
Quakers have freed all of ours by now (took awhile -- don't expect
everyone else to be as virtuous, they smoke and drink too)."
That's similar to most Quakers today on having nuclear weapons, which
most say is OK for some for the time being whereas a minority
considers it ipso facto a delegitimizing moral toxin that erodes the
sovereignty and statehood of any demonic organized gangland that holds
them, like acid on skin (hey, it's Halloween, lets play it up). This
vocal minority (including corpse-brides like Valerie Plame, who
narrated 'Countdown to Zero') is regarded as discordant, rebellious
and "punk" (drape) by many Conservative [Square] Friends, mostly based
in places like Iowa, other "states" with missile silos, whereas my
branch is "Beanite" if you look it up, good essay by Chuck Fager, one
of our historians: http://www.quaker.org/liberal-history/bean.html