92
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 494:
Line 494: + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 22:29, October 2, 2007
, 22:29, October 2, 2007→Answer to TerryH, re universal applicability of the Bible
There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
There--now you really didn't have to wait long, did you?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 16:07, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
----
You still didn't answer all the points. I assume them either conceded or unimportant, so I'm confident I win out in the long run.
But I'd like to direct everyone reading to Terry's concession - the logical stopping point of literalism is a fundamentalist, theocratic state, as you suggest that it wouldn't be "so bad." I think we can just about stop here. This idea - which I actually thought to be my "straw man," or slippery slope argument, because no-one could seriously be advocating that - is so patently ludicrous as to not need rebuttal. If that's your honest belief, I'll just say three last things:
#What makes a Christian fundamentalist theocracy better than an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy?
#The very idea of biblical law, medicine, etcetera, is wholly antithetical to American culture, democracy, and our founding principles. This nation has become great through the work of progressive thinking, and above all, science, technology, and respect for the pure pursuit of truth. Fundamentalism, and the stagnation of thought that it requires, has no place in such a society, except for the private beliefs of the individual, which are of course his or her own exclusively. Which leads me to the next point...
#Does your fundamentalist ideal society have provision for non-fundamentalist persons?
I realize this is not my best effort, but I honestly don't feel like my best effort is needed to reply you. A doctor who's forgotten so much of his training as to advocate Biblical medicine... well, ''res ipsa loquitor''.-[[User:MichaelS|MichaelS]] 18:29, 2 October 2007 (EDT)