482
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 194:
Line 194: +
Talk:Secularized Language (view source)
Revision as of 22:05, March 26, 2011
, 22:05, March 26, 2011→Patriot --> Extremist
Given that the first use of the word dates to 1577 and speaks more to love of country than to love of God, isn't it already a "secularized" word to begin with? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 17:28, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
Given that the first use of the word dates to 1577 and speaks more to love of country than to love of God, isn't it already a "secularized" word to begin with? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 17:28, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
: I didn't think about it like that. What do you think God & Country --> Extremist would do better?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:49, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
: I didn't think about it like that. What do you think God & Country --> Extremist would do better?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:49, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::I'm trying to parse out what you're thinking here: "One example would be West Palm Beach mayor Lois Frankel (D) is running against Allen West in 2012. His campaign is to label West as an extremist. Harry Reid is known to call patriots extremists." Okay, Frankel is calling West an extremist. Not knowing much about West, I have no real informed opinion on the matter, but that's entirely in the realm of the secular (ie, everyday party politics) to begin with. Where is the sacred/religious/holy aspect of West's or Frankel's position that is being elided with a secularizing discourse? And then you bring in Reid, and his use of the term "extremist" as a way to talk about his political opponents; again, this is business as usual for politicians, and I don't see any secularizing agenda here. The point of "secularizing language" is just that -- to secularize, ie, to draw our attention away from, or obscure, those elements of our history/experience/culture which speak to the domain of the sacred. Party politics is already secular by nature. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 18:05, 26 March 2011 (EDT)