A prominent person of the representatives of Freethought on this site has given us an insight into his dreams, his dreams about Freethinker Utopia.
The dreams of a Freethinker, showing his wish to domineer, to "crush" the enemy, to "smash them into oblivion", and keeping them in a "perpetual state of submission".
The other part is even more enlightening: The North ....... was able to prosper into a "democratic", liberal, and secular utopia, with everyone living in a "perpetual state of intellectual enlightenment and freedom".
The ultimate dream of an intolerant mind, the ultimate dream of a cultural tyrant, the ultimate dream of a Freethinker: The other has to become like ME and then we (?) will be enlightened and free.
This dream is an example of the arrogant and intolerant attitude that is inherent to Freethought in general. The refusal to look into the mirror and to investigate their own factual attitudes and their unspoken implicite opinions and prejudices .... a lot of Freethinker posts are an illustration of that attitude and inner constitution.
Of course they will claim that this dream is only a dream and dreamt by only one person and therefore cannot be regarded as representative for Freethought in general. Of course not ..... If you take a look at how freethinkers are behaving in the realities of politics and in the forums on this site we can see that it's not "only" a dream.
I hope we can discuss this issue seriously, because Freethought is growing as a political movement very rapidly in the Western hemisphere as a consistent result of what has become the Western Culture, being the recipiant of the legacy of Renaissance and Enlightenment. This Western Culture is rapidly growing into a Culture of Death, meaning that this ideology is advocating killing as a way humans can solve their (personal) problems. Together with the internal structure of arrogance, intolerance and the wish to domineer that constitutes the heart of this ideology I think we should not ignore the dangers that spring from this seemingly new ideology. This issue should be discussed everywhere this ideology is virulent and in every country it is introduced.
.
ok just before this erupts into the inevitable, could we please establish a few definitions so that everyone is clear on what this is about?
ivanhoe,
by 'culture of death' you are meaning the factions that support euthanasia right?
and you claim that some freethinkers support this 'culture of death'?
but you are not saying freethinkers = 'culture of death', right?
so your stance isn't against freethinkers so much as it is against euthanasia.
does this accurately summarize the situation?
in friendship,
prad
I responded to Rob's dream in what I hope was jest with enough intellect to make you wonder. I don't think his "dream" was a true reflection of him or freethinkers, but more his attempt to goad people that he sees as intolerant. He feels strongly about certain issues and as a Christian (and leader of the Apostles) I find his intellect stimulating and a healthy check for people who sometimes don't think (like me, at times) very critically on some issues. I tend to stay out of religious debates on things like evolution, biblical inerrancy, abortion as I find it just degenerates into less than meaningful accusations. Kirk
Ivanhoe, I doubt Rob was serious. You are clearly intelligent enough to make a serious reply, so I think you know that he is not serious. Instead, you are dishonestly representing his joke as the views of a 'movement' of which he is not necessarily even a member (the Freethinker's Clan is an RHP clan, unaffiliated with any political movement), thus giving yourself a forum to restate the same vague paranoia about a 'Culture of Death'.
Originally posted by kirksey957Thank you brother Kirk, once again you display great depth and insight. My "dream" was nothing more than an oblique comment on the nasty turn the other thread had taken. Of course I knew Ivanhoe would be falling all over himself to churn out some horribly tedious riposte, which is why I staged it as a dream in the first place.
I responded to Rob's dream in what I hope was jest with enough intellect to make you wonder. I don't think his "dream" was a true reflection of him or freethinkers, but more his attempt to goad people that he sees as intolerant. He feels strongly about certain issues and as a Christian (and leader of the Apostles) I find his intellect stimulating an ...[text shortened]... l inerrancy, abortion as I find it just degenerates into less than meaningful accusations. Kirk
As I have said before in private, if all Christians displayed the same level of humanity as you, Kirk, then there wouldn't be much need for "freethinkers" in the world. It is people like Ivanhoe that make "freethought" a necessity. Pax vobiscum, Kirk.
Originally posted by pradtfBy "Culture of Death" I mean the culture or ideology that advocates killing as a means to solve our (personal) problems.
ok just before this erupts into the inevitable, could we please establish a few definitions so that everyone is clear on what this is about?
ivanhoe,
by 'culture of death' you are meaning the factions that support euthanasia right? ...[text shortened]... s this accurately summarize the situation?
in friendship,
prad
The "Culture of Death" embodies the stances on abortion ( included late abortion), the stances on active euthanasia, the stances on suicide being a way to "solve" problems and the stances on assisted suicide. The "Culture of Death" advocates these ways of solving problems as being rational and thus acceptable. In Western Civilisation these ideas are being avocated by political parties and organisations that for the most part, or should I say for the most important part, are manned by people who claim to be Freethinkers.
I would appreciate it if Freethinkers saw the true colours of the "Culture of Death", but as far as I can see they have become the advocates of this Culture. The most part of Freethinkers have embraced the "Culture of Death" in one way or another. Of course some of them will object to late abortion, some of them will object to assisted suicide, but I've never seen or heard a factual opposition within Freethought to oppose those ideas of the "Culture of Death" as such. I regret that. The only thing they seem to be interested in is to attack and destroy their most "natural" political enemy in this, being the religions that oppose this "Culture of Death". Especially of course the Roman Catholic Church is being used as scapegoat for all the misery in the present and the past.
In short: My stance is against the "Culture of Death". I regret that Freethinkers do not oppose this "Culture of Death", but rather support and advocate these ideas and this ideology. The discussions we've had in the Forums with Freethinkers about these issues may serve as evidence of this situation.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAs I have expressed in an earlier post I cannot understand why you connect euthanasia with "The Culture of Death" (Connecting the term with Freethinkers is even stranger, but I leave that discussion to others)
By "Culture of Death" I mean the culture or ideology that advocates killing as a means to solve our (personal) problems.
The "Culture of Death" embodies the stances on abortion ( included late abortion), the stances on active euthanasia, the stances on suicide being a way to "solve" problems and the stances on assisted suicide. The "Culture of De ...[text shortened]... h Freethinkers about these issues may serve as evidence of this situation.
The way you write about this you ignore the fact that there is a kaleidoscopic pallet of views on this difficult subject. The extreme way you divide it in pro and contra turns it into a non-topic.
Most people who supportthe idea that under strict conditions euthanasia should be legal(ized) , reject euthanasia in other situations. It is a very sensitive subject that we should treat with respect for each other opinions.
If your religion teaches you that we have no right to decide about life and death I will respect that (although I cannot understand how you can combine that view with your support for war). But if it is not you, but your church that prompts you to reject euthanasia it will be hardly possible to discuss this matter with you. It is not your opinion you express but the opinion of your church and you have not the freedom to follow your own conscience.
The only thing what is left then is to ask you to respect the sincere opinions of people who develop a different view as your church holds
I like to share with you and others an experience that gave me a lot to think about euthanasia. I don't expect you to share my feelings about it, but I do hope you will respect them.
Tim was the eldest son of friends of mine. When he was 14 years old the doctors discovered a brain tumor, that was rapidly growing and threatening his life and consciousness in many ways. Operations and radiation slowed the process down but after a while it became clear there was no hope for recuperation.
When he became 18 his father invited him for a trip in their van to Marocco, a country he had visited before, with very good memories. All people involved felt that this might be his last long travel here on earth. They moved very slow and careful but after a week Tim collapsed and had to be flown back to Holland, to the hospital.
Doctors told Tim they could try to give him some more radiation, but it would only lengthen a time of suffering pain and they admitted frankly that his faculties of thinking and speaking would deteriorate. After some talks with family and friends Tim took his own decision. He wanted to go home to die in the circle of his beloved ones. Morphine made it bearable for him.
One day he called me, he was difficult to understand because his speaking got worse and worse; he asked me a favor. He wanted a special amethyst for his sister. He wanted to give her a tangible token and memory before biding farewell to her and the rest of his world. I collected some amethyst geodes and clusters and brought them to their house. Tim and his sister invited me to stay with them while they were making their choice with great care. I felt very honored. We were enveloped in tears and smiles.
When the choice was made Tim collapsed, he had used his last bit of energy. So we kissed him farewell. When I left the house the doctor was waiting in the next room. In the evening his father called me to tell that Tim had passed away. The doctor had given him an injection that helped him to leave the world where he had done what he had to do. I asked his father why they hadn't told me before. He answered that it was Tim's wish that tour last meeting wouldn't be troubled by what he saw as necessary , inevitable and his very personal choice,
With great respect for the courage of Tim I would say this belongs to "The Art of Living"
Fjord
Originally posted by ivanhoethank you for the clarificatioin.
In short: My stance is against the "Culture of Death". I regret that Freethinkers do not oppose this "Culture of Death", but rather support and advocate these ideas and this ideology.
it is understandably difficult for anyone with your commitment to deal with what appears to be a diametrically opposing view on a matter of such importance. (i share that same commitment albeit in a different arena). the freethinkers are equally committed, both in their enthusiam and sincerity.
however, it does not necessarily follow that just because they support aspects of a stand (eg euthanasia in certain situations), that they belong to the 'culture of death' leaping at every opportunity to solve problems by killing.
i am inclined to think that what has happened is that the gulf of separation has become widened more as a result of the manner in which the 'discussions' have taken place on both sides - as a result, it becomes harder and harder to find any common ground at all from which to proceed. therefore, we stand apart hurling pixel missles back and forth - neither side gaining an advantage and both losing precious ground as the gulf widened ever farther.
if the missiles stop flying from both sides, it may be possible to start building some bridges of understanding and communications. the two camps may still remain, but perhaps they will occasionally meet on those bridges.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by fjordExperiencing such situation is always very emotional and touches everybody deep down inside. That's why this subject is so important not only for everybody as a human being but also for society as a whole.
As I have expressed in an earlier post I cannot understand why you connect euthanasia with "The Culture of Death" (Connecting the term with Freethinkers is even stranger, but I leave that discussion to others)
The way you write about this you ignore the fact that there is a kaleidoscopic pallet of views on this difficult subject. The extreme way you divi ...[text shortened]... reat respect for the courage of Tim I would say this belongs to "The Art of Living"
Fjord
The Church does approve of passive euthanasia, that means that it is morally acceptable to stop treatment and "go home". Even if the remaining treatment of releaving pain leads inevitably to a more rapid death. Many people do not know this and claim that the Church is against passive euthanasia.
Fjord: "But if it is not you, but your church that prompts you to reject euthanasia it will be hardly possible to discuss this matter with you. It is not your opinion you express but the opinion of your church and you have not the freedom to follow your own conscience."
I used to be a Freethinker myself. After Freethought started accepting issues such as free abortion, active euthanasia, etc I decided that I could not be a Freethinker anymore in the "modern" sense. A long time after this decision I (re) joined the Roman Catholic Church, which I left when I was about fourteen years old. So my decision to oppose the "Culture of Death" was a decision I made as a Freethinker. Since my decision to leave Freethought behind me, this ideology developed even further into the direction of the "Culture of Death" by advocating late abortion, suicide and assisted suicide. Freethought wants to give the impression to the public that you have to support this vision otherwise they will label you as being "religious medieval"," irrational", "fear-mongering", "hand-waving", "ignorant" and last but not least "dogmatic".
Fjord: "It is not your opinion you express but the opinion of your church and you have not the freedom to follow your own conscience."
This may come as a surprise to you but in the same way as a Freethinker, a Roman Catholic has his own conscience to obey as last moral instance.
The Christian Faith is about being free, however not being free in the way it is looked upon in liberal Western Culture.
.
Hey Joe...
Rob was making what could be called a saurcastic attempt. He isn't very good with the language... so to him be the failure. His attempt and failure of language is exactly what will cost Howard Dean the election here next November. So be it. They don't have a clue anyway.
A concise thought only has meaning if it penetrates areas of human action that have fought off all attempts at reason and emotion.
Mike
Originally posted by ivanhoeThanks for your friendly reaction.
Experiencing such situation is always very emotional and touches everybody deep down inside. That's why this subject is so important not only for everybody as a human being but also for society as a whole.
The Church does approve of pa ...[text shortened]... this and claim that the Church is against passive euthanasia.
I know that your Church allows passive euthanasia. You have written that earlier So we seem to be able to agree that there are more than two views possible.
I agree with you that it is a very important subject for our society. But was it not the Church itself that has blocked an open exchange of thoughts? That is not meant as an attack on your Church. For a society it is sometimes good to have conservative voices.
But I am more curious how you, as member of such a Church can deal with that. How does it feel to be forced to give up your conscience and to surrender to an institute that tells you how to think and how to act?
I cannot believe that you are not aware of some of the terrible mistakes that your Church made in the past. I think of the weird quarrels about the place of sun and earth, when Galileo Gallilei was forced to talk nonsense. The burning of 'witches', The peculiar lifestyles of some popes like the Borgia Alexander VI who had four illegitimate children and called his own son Cesare to the job of cardinal.
And if you admit that they have made such serious mistakes with severe consequences, is that not a reason to be very careful in situations like this?
I find it hard to believe that after all these terrible mistakes now a days there are still people that put so much trust in such an institute. Specially, because these mistakes are still repeated. I refer to the recent Vatican statement that condoms should be banned in our fight against aids. Such statements would make me worry about their other "truths".
Fjord
PS 1. Just read your second answer which answers some of my questions here. I understand you are in agreement with the Church not because the Church is forcing you but because the Church is in tune with your own ideas. I respect that. It still leaves the interesting question open how you deal with situations where your own conscience is in disagreement with the teachings of your Church.
PS 2. If the ideas about euthanasia are fully your own vision, I think it would clear the air if you can put the opinion of the Church aside. Your opinion is much more interesting to me than that of the Roman Church. At the same time I wonder if you feel free to develop your thoughts in discussions like these, especially when they deviate from your Church.
Originally posted by fjordFjord,
Thanks for your friendly reaction.
I know that your Church allows passive euthanasia. You have written that earlier So we seem to be able to agree that there are more than two views possible.
I agree with you that it is a very important s ...[text shortened]... sions like these, especially when they deviate from your Church.
I will anser your post later, but in the meanwhile you can read my posts in the "Gadhaffi gives up his programs for WMD" thread: My post written 25 Dec '03 20:00 and my post written on 27 dec. '03 01:24 . These posts deal with my stance on the war against the Saddam Hussein regime and the difficult question on the infallibility of the Pope and especially when he makes infallible statements and when not. I hope, after reading the parts dealing with the war, you can see that there is more to this problem than the one-dimensional conclusion, always nice in a superficial political debate, that I was in favour of the war and against peace ... I also wanted peace, not only for the US/UK, but also for the Iraki people ...
You can also read my post written 27 Dec '03 03:44 in the "Is the Pope out of control" thread, dealing with the same problem of the Saddam Hussein war.