Sonia #36, if what I was saying is obvious, maybe the implications are not so obvious. I tried to make it to the conclusion, that since there is no logical position in the sky from which to judge all our different certainties/fanaticisms, the liberal solution would be to find a way to accommodate different people living under different systems as they choose, and persuading each other in any way, as long as they accept others being able to use the same methods on themselves.

(Yes, Ravi, convoluted language again)

Equality under the law does not offer that. Unless the law becomes far more minimal than it currently is.

So either we accept that we aren’t really liberals but want to impose our particular brand of fanaticism on others, or we try to maximise the freedom of different social groups to live under their own systems of law.

And even if we did that, it does not solve the clash of fanaticisms issue – that the reason believers give for why communism/fascism/neoliberalism/liberal or social democracy/theocratic rule fail is that other people did not adopt it: that it is all or nothing. Blaming terrorism for the loss of civil liberties is an example of how liberal democrats can also fall prey to this mindset.

So, secular or not, we all need to change our mindsets into a kind of postmodern humility, or we fight. And since I can’t make people change their mindsets, fight it is.

Good post, sums up what I think for the most part – but preaching to the converted on the whole, I think.

And yes please to bringing back weekend open threads.

Hmm, the best summation of that in Sanskrit might be ‘veda-vivara’.

how do we know for example that Mohammed PBUH wasn’t just another one of those mouthy apostates rejecting shock horror his family’s beliefs and all that non-tradidtional stuff ?:-) obviously we don’t. the meccans and his tribe said he was…this could be really confusing for some people.

you can believe in the idea of aliens without thinking they’ve been communicating with you, right?

arif of course is right as always. but i dont suppose anyone was denying the point which you are making – simply I would say, absolutely, everyone wants and thinks different things. the question is obviously we have to try and make clear to our fellow human beings why we think x y or z is better,as you say everyone has an ethical framework. (not just people who believe in god) the difference is simply then in using arguments other people, who don’t believe in a fairy or a pixie or a god, to not expect references to that fairy in our debates/discussions about our ethical frameworks/lives. I mean i could believe in global warming because a fairy told me and that’s why i want you to reduce your carbon consumption for example, but if i say to you, well you’ve got to do it because the fairy told me to tell you to do it, its not going to be the best line of argument is it, if you don’t believe in the fairy?

depends on whether my end goal is to have you believe in the fairy, or reduce your carbon consumption. some might argue that actually Prophets wanted what corporations do – to expand, nothing more. of course that is a point of view.

if i want to believe in the fairy, that’s my business. but common sense dictates that unless you too believe in the fairy, i might have to come up with some other reasons for why you should think about carbon reduction. assuming i want them to make sense to you. again, if i only want to demand you listen to the fairy, and im not REALLY interested in your ethical behaviour, then obviously im going to keep re-iterating what the fairy said and will do you to you if you don’t listen. Now this form of forceful reasoning is obviously used by all sorts of people and institutions – usually when they simply want to command blind obedience (e.g. to family , state ) etc.

Love you man.

Zzzzz….

Bloody Yankee Presidential Candidates

So you don’t want to make it a post. Worried that it’d pull the standard down, or some such? Well, that’d be a joke…..Ha, bloody ha!

you staying up for the debate? We’re living blogging man!

Dunno if I can.

I’m drinking ‘Hobgoblin’ In some sort of unlikely solidarity with the brewery that may have ‘Skullspliter’ banned for being politically incorrect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7622658.stm

Hat tip, Mr Eugenides.

I have always loved you, really. Your link to that video:

http://tinyurl.com/3go7m9

Suggests you won’t jump the shark.

(whatever the fuck that means)

Don’t jump the shark.

(whatever the fuck that means)