Skip to main content

View Diary: I am a fundamentalist (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not to mention use of "sacred" in relation to (0+ / 0-)

    a text written by, of and for the people, and intended from the start to be reviewed and changed by the people as the world changes.

    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

    by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:13:25 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  which has a procedure to change it built in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      so that if someone does not like how it is understand they can undertake the process of change as is outlined.

      That does not make it less sacred.

      As far as my use of that word, sacred, I might point out that I am following the pattern of the Founders, as you can read at the end of the Declaration:

      And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

      They had no trouble using sacred in a way very different than implying a purely religious meaning.

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:46:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you an Originalist? (0+ / 0-)

        your continued reference to the intent of the Founders (not even the Framers), your insistence on ignoring what you state is "only 100 years" of common usage to reframe commonly understood terms like "fundamentalist", your insistence on using "sacred" to refer to text, knowing how, particularly in reference to "fundamentalism", that implies inerrancy and an unquestioning approach, all seem to suggest an Originalist approach to the Constitution.

        Is that the case?

        If not, can you explain why you have difficulty acknowledging that your use of commonly understood terms in ways that commonly raise certain connotations is correct, no matter what evidence might be presented to the contrary? Such an approach suggests, in fact, a fundamentalist mindset in the way it is more commonly understood.

        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

        by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:58:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you seem to insist on misreading (0+ / 0-)

          when many thoughtful commenters understand precisely what I am doing.  I have made clear in multiple comments my intent.

          Stop obsessing on what you think the common understanding of fundamentalist is and pay attention to where I have made clear, in a number of comments, my intent to claim a different - and perhaps earlier - meaning of the word.  Why limit understanding of the word to what some of a particular religious orientation began asserting more than halfway into the history of our Constitution?

          Enough.  You have made the point you want to make.  I have responded as I have chosen to respond.  Continuing to repeat the same point over and over gains nothing.  

          do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

          by teacherken on Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:04:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I asked a question, engaging in dialog (0+ / 0-)

            Apparently, your answer is no, you are not an Originalist.

            I am not engaged in "making a point", I am attempting to engage you in the very type of discussion you claim to be interested in engendering with what you yourself have characterized as a deliberately provocative post using terms you knew would be controversial.

            I am asking questions in order to try to discern how you define things and your approach to these issues, because you are not responding directly to discussion of the concerns about the use of the provocative terms.

            I am forced to try to discern your intent through further questions, because you are not being helpful in direct response.

            If we could get past this belief that I am attacking you, rather than questioning your framing, and the assertions you make in relation to that framing, we could have  a productive and informative discussion.

            Since you are an educator, I assume you value such discussions over antagonistic polemics.

            I would like to explore the practical consequences of taking the approach you suggest, of redefining terms and taking a dogmatic approach to communication, rather than one that would engage others and seek common ground.

            It seems to me that if you say you are a fundamentalist about something, and someone else says they are a fundamentalist about something, there is little opportunity for learning from one another, let alone chance of changing anyone's mind.

            It is a fundamentally oppositional and unproductive approach to civic life, in my view.

            It also seems to me a poor model for education.

            I would sincerely like to discuss these issues with you, taking you at your word that you posted this diary in order to provoke thoughtful discussion.

            We both agree on core principles, both support the Constitution mightily, and both are equally distressed at the assault on its principles.

            I am not sure why you feel the need to pose enemies, when I have merely questioned your framing strategy.

            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

            by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:20:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site