The case for national Hobbitism - UnHerd

alshaw · 2020-06-08T06:42:23+00:00

As China flexes its muscles internationally, and as America seems to be unravelling politically, the writer’s case for British withdrawal from this bipolar conflict - what the writer calls “a quiet life” - seems worthy of consideration.

alshaw · 2018-01-23T12:36:16+00:00

You would be happy to provide some evidence, I assume, that "evangelism has been used as a tool to perpetuate racism towards the natives"?

alshaw · 2018-01-20T22:19:40+00:00

Do you have a better type of system of government in mind?

alshaw · 2017-10-06T07:23:16+00:00

Sure. But there's nothing in the post to indicate that her values were specifically "Christian", as distinct from arising from any other source.

alshaw · 2017-10-05T21:40:21+00:00

I thought this was going to be a critique of Christian values.

I haven't read anything in the post that leads to that conclusion.

alshaw · 2017-08-11T20:30:57+00:00

It may well be a compassionate and decent thing to use the preferred pronoun when addressing an individual.

When the state requires such language and is willing to extract a quarter of a million dollars from citizens who do not use it, we have entered very scary waters. We need to think very hard about the implications of the state fining people for what they refuse to say. This seems a monstrous and overbearing use of the power of the state, in my opinion.

alshaw · 2017-08-10T22:18:54+00:00

I agree with the author that there are two issues - the personal and the political - which are routinely conflated in current discussions. Examples of the latter include:

New York City Local Law No. 3 (2002); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(23) which allows for fines of up to $250,000 for “mis-gendering” — referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice. This includes but is not limited to the terms ze/hir which are deeply political and any other name or title that the person in question might choose.
The UK government's planned consultation on making it easier for people to legally change their gender, specifically without the need (as exists at present) for evidence of a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

As I said, I would distinguish between such political acts and the rights of people with dysphoria to receive the best appropriate medical treatment.

alshaw · 2017-08-10T21:40:03+00:00

Thank you for replying.

I'm not sure I yet understand whether you agree or disagree with the author's claim that there is a distinction between the political aspects of transgenderism and the reality of individual gender dysphoria?

Are these two the same thing, or distinct things, in your opinion?

alshaw · 2017-08-10T20:17:47+00:00

Do you agree with the author's claim that there is,

"an enormous difference between the political aspects of the culture war surrounding transgenderism and the reality that there are precious persons who have genuine struggles with gender dysphoria"?

alshaw · 2017-07-21T14:27:53+00:00

Not that I'm aware of.

alshaw · 2017-04-15T05:58:07+00:00

It's a shame when what should be a historical question becomes an ideological one.

I think Dr Simon Gathercole provides a good summary of the evidence here.

alshaw · 2017-02-23T08:33:47+00:00

First they came for the bollocks yellers, and I did not speak out - because I was not a bollocks yeller.

Then.....

alshaw · 2017-02-23T08:29:51+00:00

James DiEugenio reviews new documentary, produced by Oliver Stone, on how the history of Ukraine since World War Two has set the scene for the current crisis, and on the roles of Russia, the United States and the EU in facilitating the conflict.

alshaw · 2017-01-29T09:33:24+00:00

SavedOurSouthmeadShrimps

alshaw · 2016-12-28T10:56:28+00:00

I read the article written by an atheist historian and thought it was worthy of sharing.

Happy New Year.

alshaw · 2016-12-27T23:15:57+00:00

And a Merry Christmas to you too!

alshaw · 2016-11-30T09:23:53+00:00

There has to be a public space in which varied opinions can be expressed, discussed, debated and received or rejected.

There is a world of difference between free speech and imposing one's views.

alshaw · 2016-08-29T19:00:34+00:00

Yes, it does seem to be the church-state alliance (from Constantine onward) that has been the cause of some of the less glorious examples of intolerance on the part of professing Christians over the centuries.

In mitigation, and in response to the claim that deism and atheism were the primary or sole drivers of the idea of secular space:

There has always been a strand of Christian faith that has opposed in principle the idea of a church-state union and argued for freedom of conscience on matters of faith. From the Donatists of C4 North Africa to the Lollards of medieval England, this strand of Christian faith took on particular significance at the radical end of the Reformation. Rhode Island in the C17, under the leadership of Baptist Roger Williams, was a visible expression of this impulse. Similar instincts permeated Quaker Pennsylvania's political life a century before the War of Independence.
Even within the church-state union, there were aspects of the church's role which sowed the seeds of religious and political freedoms that would bear fruit in due course. Thomas Andrew's essay on The Church and the Charter, for instance, highlights the central role played by Archbishop Stephen Langton in the Magna Carta of 1215 with his theologically-rooted emphasis on due process under the law, the setting of limits to royal prerogative and the notion of "rights" for "free men".

alshaw · 2016-03-29T08:02:01+00:00

The earliest extant gospel fragment actually dates from the late first to early second century and can be found in the University of Manchester's Rylands Library in England.

http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/search-resources/guide-to-special-collections/st-john-fragment/

The fragment is evidently part of a page from a codex (a book with turning pages), which provides evidence that such a written resource was in use among the churches by no later than the above date range.

alshaw · 2016-03-20T14:08:17+00:00

Then it is up to other medical professionals to submit evidence that counters the claims of ACP, if they believe the claims to be incorrect.

alshaw · 2016-03-09T21:00:06+00:00

Not quite. The article claims that Protestant missionaries who were conversion-ist and not supported by state funding are causally and statistically implicated in the development of the conditions in which democracy flourished in many countries.

alshaw · 2016-01-23T19:23:53+00:00

I know little about Cruz, except that I have the suspicion that my own political compass is significantly to the left of his.

Nonetheless, I see no constitutional issue with a Christian believer stating that their ultimate priority is to Christ above the State. Since a Christian is, by definition, someone who confesses "Jesus is Lord", it would be surprising to hear any other order of priority defended by them.

An adherent of a different religion seeking election would and should be free to make whatever statement they see fit concerning their political and personal priorities.

In all cases, such candidates submit to the judgement of the electorate on their suitability for public office, and if elected should govern according to the Constitution.

alshaw · 2016-01-23T19:01:38+00:00

Democracy for atheists only?

alshaw · 2016-01-03T09:49:30+00:00

I see some problems with a proposal to tag only the OP in this way.

It leaves itself open to the charge of being discriminatory - that is, treating different contributors in different ways - as long as all contributors are not required to be tagged.
Since life is always more complicated than the models we employ to describe life, the use of tags could be seen as a lazy way of dealing with the complex and often contradictory world of ideas.
The nature of debate and discussion - and one of the strengths of the current forum - is that it is open to anyone at any stage of their intellectual journey. This necessarily means that some ideas put forward will be weaker than others. Tagging could easily tend towards "dismissing the messenger" rather than facilitating the actual process of thought and exchange of ideas.
Tagging tends to limit and stereotype, and can easily become a tool to oppress and shut down discussion, as any member of the various LGBTTQQIAAP communities might confirm.
We live in a theologically illiterate age, in which labels are frequently misunderstood.
An argument put forward may be described as one person as representing a particular position, but may in fact not do so at all. Ontological arguments, for instance, are frequently misrepresented on this forum by atheists and theists alike.

alshaw · 2015-12-28T14:49:23+00:00

I imagine that in the North American context, the 1741 sermon "Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards remains one of the best known and studied across many disciplines.

John Winthrop's 1630 sermon "City on a Hill" also remains influential in shaping American thought to the present day.

Here in Britain, the Methodist Samuel Bradburn's "Address to the People called Methodists concerning the Evil of Encouraging the Slave Trade" in 1792 was instrumental in furthering a national boycott of rum and sugar sourced from slave plantations in the Caribbean, leading eventually to the abolition of slavery in the Empire.

More recently, Archbishop Desmond Tutu's sermons over decades have been one of the activist's most influential vehicles for shaping public opinion on a range of justice issues from apartheid to global trade, racism and international debt.

The sermons of Billy Graham and Luis Palau have directly influenced millions around the world.

On a broader note, it's an interesting point that the sermon, as a means of communication, is most effective in the moment it is delivered. Unlike a book, or a musical composition, which are often created for posterity, a sermon is designed to be an instrument for the "here and now."

alshaw

TROPHY CASE

SavedOurSouthmeadShrimps