Twelve “brave intellectuals” have issued an anti-Islamist manifesto. But are they part of the solution or part of the problem?
Perhaps some of you have seen the document titled, “Manifesto: Together Facing a New Totalitarianism,” which is being disseminated widely on the Web. Originally published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, of Mohammed cartoon fame, it’s a vow to resist Islamism signed by 12 individuals hailed as “brave intellectuals.” I read it, and while I have no idea whether or not the signatories are brave, their musings certainly illustrate why modern intellectuals are sorely lacking in intellectualism.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dave Nalle
Um, I think that I'm a militant secularist. I think that religion should have no role in any aspect of public life and should be kept entirely private. It should not be recognized or participated in by government or any public institution. I see it as a direct threat to freedom and social justice.
Does that make me a militant secularist?
Dave
27 - zingzing
moonraven, stalin was quite militant in his secularism for a time. he shut down the churches because of their power over the people. he executed church leaders. i don't know how you are defining "militant" or "secular" if you think they are automatically in opposition. you can be "militant" about just about anything, including secularism.
and what does the fact that he once went to seminary have to do with the fact that he later shut down churches? he also later reopened them.
does the fact that he was once religious mean it is impossible that he was at another time very anti-religion (at least for his political purposes)?
i don't think so.
28 - moonraven
Boy, you sure took the bait on that one, didn't you, zing?
And somehow you made it into a ball of yarn that makes absolutely no sense.
If you are a secularist, that means that you are tolerant of all faiths but support none of them driving governmental decisions. It doesn't mean that you are anti-religion. And it does not imply atheism, either.
Now explain to me, smartass, how you can be militantly tolerant....
29 - zingzing
um, moonraven, secularism means "a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship."
it doesn't mean you have to be tolerant of anything.
as for being "militantly tolerant," well, i guess that fits into my "just about" phrase, now doesn't it?
you're the one not making sense, old girl.
30 - zingzing
go ahead, twist it around so that you are right in your own mind. can't wait to see it.
31 - moonraven
I am always right.
32 - moonraven
And knock off the ageist/misogynist bullshit.
33 - zingzing
i only do the ageist/misogynist bs for you, dearie.
but, really, is noting your female nature really misogynistic? is the truth an insult in your eyes?
and no, you are not always right. you just never admit it when you are wrong.
ride away.
34 - moonraven
I don't ride--I fly.
Calling someone old girl is doubly misogynistic--there are no girls over 1 years old.
And since you did not put the source of your spurious definition--thought you could get by with making it up and putting quotes marks around it, huh?--I will indicate now that the following is from wikipedia:
"Secularism is generally the assertion or belief that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief. Alternatively, it is a principle of promoting secular ideas or values in either public or private settings. It may also be a synonym for "secularist movement".
In one sense, secularism may assert the freedom of religion, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact rather than religious influence.[1] (See also public reason.)
The purposes and arguments in support of secularism vary widely. In European laicism, it has been argued that secularism is a movement toward modernization, and away from traditional religious values. This type of secularism, on a social or philosophical level, has often occurred while maintaining an official state church or other state support of religion. In the United States, some argue that state secularism has served to a greater extent to protect religion from governmental interference, while secularism on a social level is less prevalent.[2][3] Within countries as well, however, differing political movements support secularism for equally varying reasons.[4]"
Hmmm--looks very much more like what I originally posted on this thread in Number 9 than what you just posted....
But then you have no stake whatsoever in this--unlike this poster who is watching the debate at close range here in Mexico--you just want to see your moniker listed and to argue with someone whois your better in all ways--including that of gender.
35 - moonraven
Should be no girls over 12 years old.
36 - zingzing
i went to dictionary.com, as it was the first to pop up in google, and took the very first definition. there are more there, and not one of them espouses any tolerance of religion as being necessary to the definition of "secularism."
most secularists, including me, are going to be tolerant of religion, i grant you that. but some, as in the case of stalin (remember him?), are not.
i guess you must not be defining stalin's government as "secular." i see secular and religious as opposites, as that is what "secular" is generally used to describe.
you can define "secular" or "secularism" in many different ways, (as noted in your wikipedia quote,) as it has been used in many different ways. one of those ways is simply to define a political system that rejects religion, like that of the soviet union.
so, how exactly am i wrong? would you not describe stalin as "militant" in his actions and beliefs? i mean, he did destroy churches, imprison and execute their leaders and make outlaws of catholics. and would you not describe his philosophy and government as "secular?"
he was both "militant" and "secular." therefore...
37 - zingzing
as for your "Calling someone old girl is doubly misogynistic," all i can say is, no it's not. "old" has nothing to do with the fact that you are a female, and "girl" is not an automatically misogynitic term, even when applied to someone as old as yourself. you just read into it, and decide i must hate you because you are female.
i don't hate you because you are female. fair enough?
38 - Jesse
I love this semantic Venn Diagram argument. Moonie, you cited a range of definitions in your quote (Wikipedia isn't exactly known for its technical precision, anyway), some of which basically disprove your own claim.
Wikipedia offers at least three definitions, right in that first paragraph:
1) "the assertion or belief that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief" (yes, this sounds like your definition from #9, and it's difficult to be militant about this idea)
2) "a principle of promoting secular ideas or values in either public or private settings"
3) "In another sense, it refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact rather than religious influence."
It's perfectly possible to be militant about numbers two or three, both of which define secularism as partly concerned with private individual behavior... and both of which imply an ethical priority given to non-religious thought. In fact, the whole last two paragraphs of the definition you cite could easily lead to anti-religious militancy.
You never explain why you privilege definition #1, complete with the attendant "tolerance," as the only valid definition of secularism.
39 - moonraven
I don't.
I just do not accept zing's.
40 - zingzing
my definition is just one possible definition. and it's a perfectly valid definition. and one i did not write, only relayed to you (and others). all it says is that secularism is a social or political philosophy that rejects religion. you can read what you want into the word "rejects," but it's not necessarily violent. i can reject a hamburger, but it doesn't mean i'm going to squash it underfoot. it just means i don't want it.
41 - moonraven
Why not let it go?
You tried to pull a fast one and I busted you.
42 - zingzing
you didn't bust me on anything.
you are wrong.
a person can be militant and a secularist at the same time. it's fucking obvious. and that's just the way it is.
i think you know it, too. but, you're just too stubborn to admit it.
43 - troll
humbug - zing merely responded without understanding to the claim that militant secularist is an oxymoron - which it is under at least one definition of the term
his mistake is to think that moonraven is unaware of alternative meanings and to argue a non point with her
44 - moonraven
ONE of his mistakes, you mean.
45 - Jesse
Nah, troll, zing wasn't here to tell MR what "militant secularist" means... he was just defending my use of the term.
And MR doesn't get to define a term I used FOR ME and then tell me it's an oxymoron. If she wants to know what I mean by it, she can just ask, instead of shouting it back to me in all caps and then telling me it's an oxymoron. It's not.
Militant secularist - Christopher Hitchins and Richard Dawkins, both of whom wrote vehement anti-religious books that characterize religion as inherently destructive. Stalin, who persecuted people for being religious.
So if I ever use the phrase "militant secularist" again, read it as follows:
"One who treats religion as an abstract entity and condemns it on a broad basis; one who is intolerant of religious people and ideas under the pretense of secular humanism."
I used it, so I get to define it. Next time, feel free to ask nicely.
46 - Jesse
Just to cover my ass, I don't think these authors didn't write damn good books, nor do I feel that secularism, even at its most militant, is necessarily illegitimate. I'm an agnostic and a secularist myself... I'm just moderate about it, seeing as I don't disapprove of a public religious commitment. It just doesn't deserve a place in policy or government.
And I think Dave, who actually characterizes himself as a "militant secularist," has even more of a claim on the term, and a right to give it a working definition, than I do.
47 - moonraven
Jesse, You protest so much it's quite clear you do not have a clue about anything--much less YOUR supposed topic.
And NO, just because you use a term you do NOT get to define it (more to the point, you did NOT, in fact, define it).
Language is a tacit agreement that, for example, green is not red. You are arguing--and poorly, too--for the existence of a private language.
In the 50s, Wittgenstein showed why there is no such thing as a private language. Google him. I started teaching from his Philosophical Investigations in 1969--and I continue to do so.
In the 60s, a group by then called Ordinary Language Philosophers (check wikipedia for a brief rundown on some of them) such as John Searle (also available on wikipedia)--who was teaching at UC Berkely in 1964 when I was able to get him for a seminar at Univ. of Washington because of the Free Speech Strike--wrote extensively on the reasons why a private language could not exist (and also why trying to create one was undesirable).
You can tell me that red is actually green all day long, but neither I nor the traffic cop who gives you the ticket for running the stoplight nor the little old lady (in this case, not me) that you ran over in the crosswalk and smeared all over the pavement is in any humor to buy it.
Better luck pulling somebody else's wing.
48 - Jesse
Wittgenstein also noted, in the same work, that language is defined by the context of its use. It's a tool whose usage is always fluctuating, and there is no monolithic, overriding definition.
Saying that "red" is "green" is a far cry from saying that someone can be militant about their secularism. Your problem is that you define secularism as inherently tolerant and/or pluralist, which, as far as I've seen, none of the definitions offered specify.
Oh, and if you're arguing that language is dependent on socially constructed usage (which I would agree with), and that this democratic determination rules out the term "militant secularist," let's take a survey... so far, Dave, zing, and I all have a workable understanding of the term. troll supports your point, but he accepts other definitions, as well, so I wouldn't put him squarely in your camp, either. That means out of the five people directly involved in this conversation, three-and-a-half of us are able to use the term "militant secularist" and understand it as having a meaning.
This private language tangent is interesting, but irrelevant. We've got a public language here, and it's fairly futile to reject it out of hand.
49 - moonraven
Wrong again.
And you have not read the PI, you just googled and put down the first line of the entry on Wittgenstein--WITHOUT citing your source--violating one of my 5 basic writing criteria.
If a dozen ignorant people all agree that red is green, that doesn't make it true. One of the aims of the Ordinary Language Philosophers was to define truth.
Your claim was that if you wrote the piece, you get to define the words.
Sorry, Benito...er George The Decider...er, Jesse. It just doesn't play that way.
I suggest that you write a piece on Miliant Secularism, and see what kind of group would be willing to publish it.
Wittgenstein also said: If a lion could talk, we wouldn't understand him.
Apparently, he could have applied that to a raven, as well.
50 - moonraven
PS: Dogpacking has never been a logical proof of anything. (It's simply trying to bully by saying "everybody else says....", and I couldn't give a fuck what a pack of semiliterate boobs claims to know about the use of language.)
And sometimes you get found out doing it--like Nalle when he invented the cheering section Vox Populi....
51 - Jesse
My goodness, Moon, you're an angry troll! My source is Rom Harre, an Oxford professor, from whom I took a course called "Wittgenstein's Later Work." I've only ever read sections of the Investigations and the Tractatus, so you're right... late modern philosophers aren't my primary specialty. Sorry. Didn't cite the little old man from England.
You're right, I made a lovely philosophical blunder when I tried to claim authority over the definition of "militant secularist." The point, however, was to show that any word has a meaning when used in a functional way.
Your objections are still breaking down on that point. A word is not a fact, and the word's claim to a meaning is not the same as a fact's claim to truth. A word has a meaning whenever a group can use it meaningfully in a discourse. Mention "militant secularism" in this thread and at least two people know what I'm talking about. Type it into Google, contained in quotes, and 13,600 people have used it in one form or another.
Your absolute-truth argument doesn't hold in a discussion of language. Facts are not democratic, because they correspond to the physical world. Meanings, however, are 100% democratic, because they're only constructed within the space of public discourse.
52 - moonraven
I am never angry. Just having a bit of fun with you because you take the bait.
Ordinary Language Philosophy WAS my undergraduate specialty (BA degree in English and Philosophy 1966), and I can tell you that although Wittgenstein claimed that he retracted a lot of his early work (closely associated with Russel) he did not retract what he wrote in the Tractatus about the world being what it seemed to be--composed only of facts, as he repeated that very strongly in the PI. (I wrote two essays about just that in the 60s.)
Your error was claiming ownership of something--a fact, in fact--that is in the public domain.
And meanings are not democratic either. Those of us who speak and read and write in Spanish, for example, have had to struggle with that reality because the arbiter is the Spanish Royal Academy--which does periodically update its dictionary and its handbook of grammar as the language (slowly) evolves, but it does so only when a usage becomes obsolete or when a word from another language enters the language or when a regionalism takes on wider usage.
My use of secularism is in no way obsolete. And you would have the chance of a snowball in hell having a body such as the Royal Academy accept your usage--especially if your argument was that YOU are The Definer of the words you use.
Now, just to throw another topic into the mix--why not stop beating this VERY dead horse and amuse yourself with this question:
Is secular humanism a religion?
(Some say yes.)
53 - Visitor
I see what's being debated here, and you should know something. The Spanish may have an academy. The French have an academy. There is NO academy in English. Word usage is determined by convention, nothing more. This makes it completely democratic.
54 - Clavos
Actually, there IS a standard in English; the Oxford English Dictionary is the authority on English language usage.
55 - STM
Zing writes: "a person can be militant and a secularist".
That's absolutely true Zing. As evidence, I'd point to both the IRA and the UVF and their offshoots in Northern Ireland: all (murderous) militant secularists.
True because they promoted secular violence, while less radical elements on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant divide regarded them as militants with extreme views.
56 - bliffle
I do believe that Wittgenstein would have gracefully understood that modern use of "baad" is as a synonym for "good".
57 - STM
Dear Visitor, Clav is right: the Oxford English Dictionary is the authority on English usage.
It may operate like a democracy to a certain extent because of the now many branches of the English language and its regional variations, but what it decides is final in terms of what is right and wrong.
And since they're in England, it's hard to argue the toss with the people who invented the bloody thing in the first place.
58 - troll
challenged I blew the dust off the old '37 edition of the OED...sorry moonraven but I found no part of the definition that implies your tolerance idea...in fact 'secularism' has a strikingly intolerant sense about it
59 - Jesse
Saying the OED is the authority on what's "right" and "wrong" in English is like saying the Pope is the authority on what is and isn't Christian. It may have authority over the technical standards of any institution that happens to buy into it, but a "language" is more than a record of words and grammatical rules kept in a book somewheres.
Dude #1 says, "I love cat macros." Dude #2 says, "There's no such thing as a cat macro. After all, it's not in the OED." Dude #1 says, "Oh, sorry, then I've been speaking gibberish for months! So what does the OED call those things?"
60 - Jesse
PS: I love tangents! Let's keep kicking the horse.
61 - moonraven
Thanks for quoting what the OED actually SAID.
Guess you were not interested in a response from me?
[Edited]
62 - Clavos
"So what does the OED call those things?"
Slang. Or jargon.
Neither of which are Standard English.
63 - moonraven
You are going to have to kick that horse's ass--er, skelton without me.
I have better things to do.
64 - Jesse
This is becoming quite the authoritarian thread! When faced with the question of, "where does language come from?" everybody in this thread falls back on the Oxford English Dictionary.
It kind of feels like Bolshevik Communism's approach to leadership. The revolutionaries created a power vacuum (much like the power vacuum created when we interrogate the authorities of language), but once that vacuum is created, everybody gets insecure, so they're eager to fill it with a monolithic presence, like a Soviet elite. Or, when you're talking about a vacuum in language, it's the Oxford English Dictionary.
And Moonie, do you really have THAT much better to do? Yesterday you posted, by my count, 18 comments, all between noon and 6 PM. I may have missed some, though... I just did a five-minute check. But either way, surely you can spare a few more for an argument on the nature of language, since you majored in it as an undergraduate?
For instance, you say Wittgenstein emphatically stated, in the PI, that he believed the world consisted of "facts," but I haven't been able to find that claim so far. Can you cite it?
And can you connect that with your implicit claim that secularism entails tolerance "as point of fact"? Is the technical definition of a word the same thing as a "fact" (i.e. an "atomic fact") of reality and/or nature?
Curious, especially, because your use of the OED as an "authority" on language actually more or less contradicts my understanding of Wittgenstein's work. Thanks in advance.
65 - Jesse
Oooh, oooh, wait, got it!
From the OED (Compact Edition):
militant - adjective - favouring confrontational methods in support of a cause.
secular - adjective - 1 not religious, sacred, or spiritual
-ism - 3 denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement
So "militant secularism": favouring (LOVE the English spelling!) confrontational methods in support of an ideological movement against the religious, sacred, or spiritual.
THAT'S what I was referring to in comment #22. Kind of like Christopher Hitchins, as I mentioned before.
66 - troll
from the '37 OED:
Secular
A. adj. I. Of or pertaining to the world.1. Eccl. Of members of the clergy: Living 'in the world', and not subject to a religious rule: dist. from 'regular' and 'religious'. b. Of or pertaining to secular clergy 1570. 2. Belonging to the world and its affairs as dist. from the church and religion ; civil, lay, temporal. Chiefly as a neg. term, with the meaning non-ecclesiastical, non-religious, or non-sacred.ME. +b.transf. Of or belonging to the 'common' or 'unlearned' people - 1629. c. Of literature, history. art (esp. music), hence of writers, artists: Not concerned with or devoted to the service of religion ; not sacred ; profane. Also of buildings, etc.: Not dedicated to religious uses. 1450. d. Of education, instruction: Relating to non-religious subjects. Of a school: That gives secular education. 1526 3. Of or pertaining to the present or visible world ; temporal, worldly 1597. b. Unspiritual (rare) late ME.
II. Of or belonging to an age or long period. 1. Occurring or celebrated once in an age, century, or very long period 1599. 2. Living or lasting for an age or ages. Also (of trees, etc., after F. seculaire), centuries old. 1629. 3. In scientific use, of processes of change : Having a period of enormous length ; continuing through long ages 1801.
B. sb. 1. One of the secular clergy, as dist. from a 'regular' or monk ME. +2. One who is engaged in the affairs of the world as dist. from the church ; a layman -1829.
Secularism 1. The doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state. 2. The view that national education should be purely secular 1872.
Secularist 1. An adherent of secularism. 2. An advocate of exclusively secular education 1872.
and that's all folks
67 - STM
Jesse writes: "favouring (LOVE the English spelling!)"
The CORRECT spelling Jesse. As you quite rightly point out, it's the English spelling and the language is English, remember, not American :)
And Troll old boy, I suggest you grab yourself a nice 2007 copy of the OED. Keep the '37 number though - it could be worth a few bob in years to come.
68 - troll
now now youngster...I've got me one of them new fangled OEDs too with the magnifying glass and all but prefer to start with the older one...
did you know that in '37 'fascist' meant nothing more to the dons than:
Fascist. One of a body of Italian nationalists organized in 1919 under Benito Mussolini to oppose Bolshevism. Hence Fascism, their principles and organization.
69 - Clavos
"Fascist. One of a body of Italian nationalists organized in 1919 under Benito Mussolini to oppose Bolshevism. Hence Fascism, their principles and organization."
But it doesn't mention that the trains ran on time???
70 - moonraven
Maybe because he DIDN'T make the trains run on time.
Just another myth, as all the major work on the railroad system was done before he came to power in 1922.
71 - Clavos
"Just another myth, as all the major work on the railroad system was done before he came to power in 1922."
Shoemaker, stick to your last...
I spent thirty years in the transportation business, mr. The best infrastructure in the world does NOT guarantee the trains (or planes) will run on time. That's a continuous and ongoing 24/7 task, which doesn't even BEGIN until AFTER everything else is in place.
In any case, my comment was ironic, but irony is wasted on someone who is humorless.
72 - moonraven
No, it was not an ironic comment, given your fascist political affiliation.
Don't try to cover your butt by saying that it was funny--your level of humor is moron jokes.
Bill Cosby did not say that I was the funniest person he had ever met...ironically.
73 - Clavos
It was my comment, and I say it WAS ironic; your opinion on whether or not it was ironic counts zero.
74 - zingzing
"Bill Cosby did not say that I was the funniest person he had ever met...ironically."
ok. this is getting silly. as far as clavos' "trains" comment, of course that is meant to be funny. it's not very successful, but that was the attempt.
but, moonie, you claim so many areas of expertise and you claim to know so many famous people. it's just getting ridiculous. bill cosby called you the "funniest person he had ever met?" and it wasn't ironic? either you just missed it, or you never met the man. who else was it? chuck jones was a personal friend?
shit... for all i know, maybe it's all true. but, even if it is, the name-dropping is rather puerile. saying bill cosby called you funny doesn't make you funny. say something funny.
75 - Clavos
Tough room.
But still, thanks zingzing...
Agreed on the name dropping.