Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Separations

The idea of separation between church and state is a semantic euphemism. Why even pretend to have it a principle? If it was stated more clearly as "separation between world view and governing principles" it would come out being an almost impossible feet. Any political stance is an enactment based on how one sees the world operating. The Right has a way of obfuscating direct religious interest into secular concern. Instead of directly stating "because of my religious upbringing I feel homosexuality is an abomination," the right argues that gay marriage is unhealthy for childhood development, an upset in semantic tradition, and whatever else they can use to their advantage. Likewise, the US' support of Israel is religiously motivated, I mean America wants to be on Israel's side when Jesus comes back, why would you otherwise turn a blind eye towards their human rights violations, their humiliating occupation of Palestine? Abortion becomes a women health issue instead of a religious one, whatever the issue is a politically correct justification has to be given instead of the true feelings that inspires the political stances. It's funny how the Right is so annoyed with being politically correct and how it criticizes the secularization. This resentment stems from their own use of such tactics.

5 comments:

Chris Almond said...

this was a great post. I am going to start commenting on your blog more. I usually don't have anything to say other than, 'good post' and I guess I normally feel compelled to leave a comment when I want to add something, or argue a point. But even 'good post' comments are always nice to get, at least for me.
what does Weltanshauung mean? I guess i could google it. "comprehensive world view (or worldview) is a term calqued from the German word Weltanschauung "
also, what the fudgepackers of the world unite Sarah Fryday has a blog?!?!? how long have you known about this and kept me in the dark? First obama wins, then I learn of S. Fryday's blog? what next? A dolphin sitting on a lazy boy smoking a bong?

Chris Almond said...

also, is your blog title 'nature is a language' a rebuttal to my old title about flowers meaning nothing? and by that title i meant ultimate meaning. And by nothing, I may have meant something, like existence is meaning in and of itself, but i feel like the idea of a thing having meaning, as in, it means something that it exists instead of not exist, is the sort of idea we have because it can be stated as a grammatically correct question, despite being incoherent.
I'm feeling a little bit woozy, so who knows if this comment is even coherent. Who knows? Jared Clark, i would guess.

Sarah Friedegg said...

Should I be offended at that fudgepackers comment? And what's so crazy about me having a blog? A dolphin...seriously? You know Chris, I tried to make it where it says I'm a follower on your blog, but I couldn't figure it out. I guess you don't have yours set up that way. Sorry.
Man, don't you like how we're using Isaac's blog to communicate?

isaac isak icekick said...

Chris dog, you should read my blog. I wrote that "nature is a language" is a Morrissey quote, and that the tricky aspects of language apply to the uncertainties of empiricism in "nature" whatever Morrissey meant by that term, which is what I was investigating. OH and Sarah has a blog. it's cool get a life.

Vincent said...

Sorry Isaac Icepick but I find this post a little confusing.

Expressions can be euphemisms, not ideas. You don't make it clear what idea you are talking about because you merely use an expression, which may be a euphemism - for what?

The rest of your post is setting up a series of straw men; which may be acceptable when preaching to the converted, but not to this interloper.