Religion
Related: About this forumChris Hedges Has a Term for Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris: 'Secular Fundamentalists' (VIDEO)
"New Atheism's political agenda dovetails with the most retrograde elements of the Christian right."
By Adam Johnson / AlterNet
October 10, 2015
Given Abby Martin's new teleSUR show Empire Files covers American empire and its negative effects on the rest of the globe, it was only logical one of her first interviews would be with one of empire's most consistent and articulate critics, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges. In the roughly 30 minute interview (the entirety of which can be seen below) the two discuss a wide range of issues but one, the rise of New Atheism and its indifference to imperialism, is of particular note.
"These people are fundamentalists," Hedges insisted. "[Noam] Chomsky calls them 'religious fundamentalists', meaning that they are subservient to the state religion." That state religion, Hedges and Martin believe, is capitalism and its logical extreme, imperialism.
"Having debated members of the Christian Right, I ran into exactly the same mindset," Hedges said in reference to New Atheists he had debated, like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. "It's a binary view of the world, between black and white. It's a sanctification of violence against "the other" - the Christian Right sanctifies violence against Muslims because they're satanic, Hitches and Harris do because they are barbarians."
Richard Dawkins and fellow "New Atheist" Sam Harris have repeatedly expressed confusion as to this line of critique. Harris even popularized the term "Regressive Left", a term coined by noted Jeremy Corbyn-hater Maajid Nawaz, to describe what they view as fraudulent, radical Muslim-coddling liberals that are so obsessed with being P.C. they accept the most reactionary forms of religious extremism from minority religions, namely Islam. But for Hedges, the issue is fundamentally a political one.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/chris-hedges-has-term-richard-dawkins-and-sam-harris-secular-fundamentalists-video
Full 28:27 video at link.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)The solution is not to be arguing the existence of gods while we're being rounded up.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)than ISIS?
rug
(82,333 posts)And, for clarity, the question is more accurately whether those who control the U.S. government are a bigger threat than ISIS, al Qaeda and the rest.
For instance, would there even be an ISIS but for the 2003 invasion cheered by Harris?
Does the Chinese government pose a greater threat to the international working class, not to mention the environment, than does ISIS?
Does Putin and the Russian government pose a greater threat to world peace than ISIS?
Those are simply three current examples of the imperialism discussed in the video.
Congratulations on moving beyond simple mockery of religion as a political stance.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)On re-read I see you are talking about Imperialism in all it's forms.
rug
(82,333 posts)
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865620078/Judge-FLDS-leaders-brothers-can-avoid-child-labor-queries.html?pg=all
rug
(82,333 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Let me help you with the answer, according to the documentary, there are a total of 10,000 people, about half are children.
rug
(82,333 posts)Over 12,000 children in Iraq alone.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
But do let's ignore that and discuss religion ad nauseam. It poisons everything, doesn't it?
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)So it's OK for the FLDS to put 5000 children at risk if 12 000 kids died in Iraq.
rug
(82,333 posts)Not to mention politics.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)As for being 'deficient in politics', apart from being very poor English,
it's pretty precious from someone who just posted a book by Lenin as an inspiration.
You do know that it's Lenin himself who masterminded the creation of the Cheka, right?
Not to mention his brilliance at managing the economy, as demonstrated in 1921:
Russian famine of 1921 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921
rug
(82,333 posts)Even without the weasel word "apparently", it's bullshit.
And the pdf was to Lenin's pamphlet, not a "book".
I'm not surprised you're resorting to red-baiting after posting that crap. Does the pamphlet offend your libertarian sensibilities?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Strange.
Are you telling me the way Lenin exercised power should be regarded as inspiring?
Red baiting indeed. Which 'red' government do you suggest as a model, Pr. rug?
If one may ask question to the teacher of politics?
rug
(82,333 posts)Classic!
There must be a time warp in here.
When are you going to call me a godless commie?
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Maybe when you desist from believing in the RCC dogmas,
and join us atheists and/or believers in the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Come to our side, we have cookies (and pasta)
rug
(82,333 posts)Next time I get together with my friends who are atheists, I'll think of you.
As to pastafarians, I'd rather hang out in a private college fraternity. And I hate fraternities.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)How broadminded you are, I admire you.
However, you do understand that they are committing a sin greater than murder?
(theological proof upon request)
rug
(82,333 posts)Apparently you understand sin as well as you do atheism.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Remarkable.
rug
(82,333 posts)Evidence and all that.
Your antics provide lots of data for that conclusion.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Your intellect shines like a beacon in the fog where we mere mortals stray and meander.
While we're at it, a theological question: pride is a sin, but is conceit?
rug
(82,333 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I knew you would say something like that as an answer.
Next time, as a game, I'll PM someone my guess of your answer.
Such predictability. Like clockwork.
Such haughtiness from someone who believes he's defending a creed of brotherly love..
..precious.
rug
(82,333 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Christianity in action, I suppose..
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)beliefs.
Their beliefs are silly, to me.
Werent always, there was a time when I was also willing to believe nonsense.
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Are you able to consider two problems at the same time?
Are you able to weigh the greater problem?
Would you like to discuss Xenu now?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Or maybe not.
I'm not racist enough to think that only white anglo saxons can be atheist or even are more likely to be atheist than any other human. Atheists have learned to keep their heads down in many societies and it seems to really irk the likes of Hedges that in some societies were are actually starting to speak up.
I generally like Hedges but I feel he's an anti atheist bigot which makes him difficult to take entirely seriously.
rug
(82,333 posts)Shocking, I know.
The greater problem in Saudi Arabia is the strategically placed oligarchy that controls it and its resources, not Wahhabism, odious as it is.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I can discuss imperialism in plenty of other groups and forums and I do.
This forum is about Religion and apparently also about atheism, that's what I come in here to discuss.
From my point of view Hedges starts halfway to one side as far as religion goes rather than being strictly neutral, which I'm not sure anyone can.
rug
(82,333 posts)This is about certain atheists' warmongering in the name of combating religion.
Surely you know other ways to attempt to silence criticism.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I mention that atheists are being beheaded by Muslims and your argument is that it has nothing to do with religion.
Why even have religion group if it has nothing to do with human behavior?
rug
(82,333 posts)When the many posts are put up here gleefully announcing the latest atrocity in the name of religion, a closer look reveals there are many other sources for the atrocity evident.
That is not saying either "that religion has no effect on society" or "that it has "nothing to do with religion."
That distortion (among many others) is the bread and butter served in the A&A group.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You told me within the last few days that Saudi beheading atheists was not due to religion but to something else.
Theistsplain to me some more how it's not religion that motivated me to pass for the majority of my life. Thank God my parents had the sense to give me enough religious training to successfully disguise my apostasy or I would be like the poor woman we discussed recently who had never forgiven her parents for her miserable childhood.
rug
(82,333 posts)Not that beheading is not an effective method of social control.
For someone who rarely reads there, you've picked p the current 'splain jargon quickly. Although the preferred use is Cathosplain.
I wouldn't even attempt to explain why you've chosen to pass.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Funny how we really like things we agree with, which usually means something from our point of view.
rug
(82,333 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Rick Perlstein of the New York Times writes:
"Of course there are Christian fascists in America. How else to describe, say, the administrator of a faith-based drug treatment program who bound and beat a resident, then subjected her to 32 straight hours of recorded sermons?" Perlstein believes that this book, however, "is not a worthy attempt ... [Hedges] writes on this subject as a neophyte, and pads out his dispatches with ungrounded theorizing, unconvincing speculation and examples that fall far short of bearing out his thesis ... Hedges is worst when he makes the supposed imminence of mass violence the reason the rest of us should be fighting for the open society... The problem is that he can't point to any actual existing violence among the people he's reporting on"
rug
(82,333 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Anyway, there you go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/books/review/Perlstein.t.html
rug
(82,333 posts)Now, let's continue the argumentum ad hominem you began.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/business/media/rick-perlsteins-the-invisible-bridge-draws-criticism.html
I'll take Hegdes over Perslstein.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Besides, you appear not to understand some basic notions like ad hominem.
If I quote a journalist giving unfavorable reviews of a book by Hedges,
it seems quite myterious where you see an ad hominem anywhere.
But then
I'll take Hegdes over Perslstein.
when Hedges printed at least two articles that were debunked as false.
It later surfaced that the story was "an elaborate scam". The defector Hedges quoted, who identified himself as Lt. General Jamal al-Ghurairy, was actually a former sergeant, and the real Ghurairy had never left Iraq. (..)
Hedges would write two more stories informed by Chalabi-coached defectors that year. The second one, claiming that Iraq still held 80 Kuwaitis captured in the 1991 Gulf War in a secret underground prison, was also found to be baseless.[19]
rug
(82,333 posts)To wit,
If you want to debunk someone, don't cite a plagiarist.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)your 'you said it, you are it' about condescension is childish, but never mind.
And please, refrain from claiming Perlstein is a plagiarist or prove it.
Obviously, Craig Shirley who claimed it did not try to follow up on his claim:
Responding to letters from Mr. Shirley and his attorneys, Perlstein's publisher, Simon and Schuster, issued a statement that the claims of plagiarism "ignored the most basic principal of copyright law." Those same letters from Shirley's attorneys demanded that Simon and Shuster pay Shirley $25 million in damages, pulp all copies of The Invisible Bridge and take out ads of apology in various publications. If these demands weren't met, the letters promised that a lawsuit would be filed on July 30, 2014, nearly a week before the book was to be released on August 5. However, as of August 8, 2014 there was no evidence a lawsuit had ever been filed.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Is that OK or do we have to either love or hate someone's work entirely?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Chris Hedges is just condemning a small group of atheists, with fairly large followings, that promote harmful, right-wing ideas.
Chris Hedges speaks Arabic and he knows the Middle East fairly well. Chris Hedges has reported on many wars so he knows war. He has seen the worst of humanity and the harm these wars cause.
These fairly influential atheists are posing as enlightened liberals but are really promoting ignorance, tribalism, and war.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)From my perspective Hedges proceeds from the implicit view that theists are correct. When it comes to the religion aspect (what this group is about) Hedges sounds like anyone else I might be discussing with online, no special insight into the basic questions.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Why else would he have titked a book "I Don't Believe in Atheists"?
safeinOhio
(32,685 posts)I tried to bring this up, Fundamentalist Atheist, and had my post removed by a jury. I agree with Mr. Hedges. I find some Atheist as closed minded as some religious folks. Being an open minded Atheist is hard on this site. I have also brought up his view that, all is not black and white, it's all gray.
rug
(82,333 posts)Agree or not, Hedges discusses the implications and the context intelligently. The segment on Harris and Dawkins is only a couple of minutes of a 30 minute interview, yet those two minutes will be the chum for the internet.
Buzz cook
(2,472 posts)of fundamentalists, is a pretty black or white statement.
It also makes the logical error of comparing select individuals to a group; tarring with a very wide brush.
Upon closer examination their ideologies are much more nuanced and fucked up than at first glance.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Subtle differences like that do make a difference at the end of the day.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)"sanctify violence" against any group.
Harris, at worse, and it is the worst, advocates for institutional anti-Muslim bias in profiling and civil rights. He's a piece of shit because of this. If anything can be described as "Right Wing" it would be Harris' support for such profiling, along with his view that torture is an unfortunate necessity.
Dawkins, from what I can tell, hasn't done any of that, he's anti-Islam, but then again, he's also anti-Christian, both are sets of beliefs that full of bad ideas.
As far as them being neutral to imperialism, both of them were critical of the War in Iraq, Dawkins openly opposing it. Dawkins has been highly critical of the Cameron government and openly supports the Liberal Democrats, also a small "r" republican who thinks the monarchy should be abolished.
Also, I find the term "Secular Fundamentalist" to be problematic, what's the downside of keeping to the "fundamentals" of Secularism? How horrible, all religions treated equally, with freedom of worship enshrined in law and practice!
rug
(82,333 posts)Hitchens and Harris explicitly endorsed the invasion of Irag, Harris declaiming "we" are at war with Islam.
Dawkins is more of a dissembler. He has supported the state literally enforcing expressions of religious relief and practice, using the state's monopoly on violence. A person who chooses to wear a burqa or niqab in public will have it removed only by force unless she chooses to remove it.
Further, if you take him at his word, his expressed ideology, that religion is one of the worst, if not worst, plagues on humanity, how does he propose to stop it? Sipping tea in Sussex while composing tweets won't do it.
He is a dissembler because he is either willing to patiently wait while the greatest scourge of humanity rages on, or he is willing to countenance significant, inevitable violence to stop it. Or, he is simply dissembling about the whole thing.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)HRC is the odds on favorite to become the next President of the USA and virtually everyone on DU who is not a troll will vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee.
Je suis Sammy.
rug
(82,333 posts)Which is an interesting diversion from the topic.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I mean who could possibly have predicted that?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And renders their railing against Harris and hitchens being right wingers for being for it mute, less they risk broad brushing the top dem with it too.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Answer that and I'll look into Harris and the Iraq war.
rug
(82,333 posts)Unsurprising.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That's something you couldn't make up right there.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Tell me, what is my shtick? If being persistent in asking questions is a "shtick" then You just slammed the best investigative journalists in the world.
Now, back to the point, what does LGBTQIA mean?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)He's explicitly said that he is offended by the burqa and what it stands for, but thinks its a matter of opinion only, with no enforcement from the state:
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]"I’m not in favour of a burqa ban, it seems to be a violation of individual liberty," Dawkins during a Newsnight interview with Evan Davis. "When I see a woman in a full burqa with just a slit [motions to eyes] I feel personally offended. But it’s an important part of what I believe that what I personally feel is irrelevant – it doesn’t matter what I feel. Nobody else should abide by what I feel, and that applies on the other side as well."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-is-personally-offended-by-burqas-10055780.html
Why wouldn't composing tweets while sipping tea be sufficient for him? He's a strong advocate for individual liberty, particularly freedom of expression and religion, what he has a huge problem with is religion wedded to politics and government, causing religious oppression.
Who is dissembling again?
rug
(82,333 posts)https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/307369895031603200
How nice of him to be tolerant of the "greatest force for evil today". He wouldn't suggest. for a moment that someone do something about it, would he?
I haven't seen such plausible deniability since the Nixon White House.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
:largeHumanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Here's my list(in order of importance), as an example, of the greatest forces for evil today:
Global Level:
Nationalism(May be combined with religion)
Global Capitalism
Chinese "Communism"/Fascism
The War on some Terror
Islamic terrorism/oppression(Include ISIS, Boko Haram, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
Animistic beliefs in mostly Sub-Saharan Africa(look what is done to children and albinos there, horrifying)
Hindu and Buddhist extremism/terrorism(fucked up shit done in the name of these religions)
Roman Catholic Church(organized advocacy against contraception, LGBT rights, etc. on international level, too much influence in much of the third world)
National level:
Nationalism(noticing a theme?)
Christian Right(Includes RCC and many other organizations)
Neo-Confederates
White Supremacists
Obviously there would be some overlap between these groups, especially at the national level.
Here's an interesting aside, Dawkins is apparently, and I didn't know this before today, slightly Pro-Palestinian.
So what is he going to do? He's not a conservative, so he isn't going Tory.
rug
(82,333 posts)According to wiki he was for Labor and now supports the Liberal Democrats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Richard_Dawkins
The axis it revolves around is his view of religion.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)He opposes state religious schools, state churches and state endorsed religions, can't fault him for any of that.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Don't find that disagreeable, though a lot of xenophobes are sarcastically saying that he should host them personally.
By the way, can I say how much I hate twitter, I cannot, for the life of me, follow conservation threads at all. Everything seems disconnected an "off" about it. Probably why I never use it.
He seems to me to be a rather typical European leftist, more left of center than is typical in the UK, far leftist compared to what is the "middle" in the US. He's just much more outspoken and strident in his opposition to religion.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)because Hedges explicitly says the imperialism that he, and it seems you, consider the "greatest scourge of humanity" is what the Democratic party has always done - support capitalism, and American armies to back it up, as wielded by Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Obama etc.
Dawkins is less of a supporter of capitalism or imperialism than the average Democratic voter.
rug
(82,333 posts)In the meantime, I'll stick to the dictionary definition and apply it to Dawkins.
v. dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling, dis·sem·bles
v.intr.
To disguise or conceal one's real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance.
v.tr.
To disguise or conceal behind a false appearance,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dissembler
It fits.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)This is a website about supporting the Democratic party, and Dawkins' political position puts him slightly, but not that much, to the left the centre of it. Thus anyone ranting about imperialism is saying the Democratic party is, by your use, dissembling (and any honest DU member), because they're not prioritising the destruction of American capitalism which Hedges desires.
You need to address this, in this thread. Hedges attitude to capitalism and imperialism is that the Democrats are evil supporters of them. If your objection to Dawkins is that he is in the same boat as the Democrats, you should be clear about why you and he object to basic Democratic policy.
rug
(82,333 posts)And you're doing it on a website that supports the Democratic party.
Anything that diverts from criticism of Dawkins, eh?
Do you also want to stifle any discussion of Hedges' criticisms of Dawkins?
Post a list of verboten topics to save both of us time.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)"Chomsky calls them 'religious fundamentalists', meaning that they are subservient to the state religion." That state religion, Hedges and Martin believe, is capitalism and its logical extreme, imperialism. "
"His point is, the greater threat is imperialism. The solution is not to be arguing the existence of gods while we're being rounded up."
"And, for clarity, the question is more accurately whether those who control the U.S. government are a bigger threat than ISIS, al Qaeda and the rest.
For instance, would there even be an ISIS but for the 2003 invasion cheered by Harris? "
"atheism is utterly irrelevant to the imperialism, an actual threat, he discusses."
The only time you weren't discussing imperialism was when Fumesucker complained in #15 that religion is the proper focus of this group, not imperialism. You objected to that, so we saw how keen you were to discuss capitalism and imperialism.
The Democratic party supports capitalism. Hedges has extensively said he blames the Democratic party for being imperialist.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9124943
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027125936
and that includes Bernie Sanders, whom he regards as a stooge:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026851188
If this is the 'greater threat' you see (and want to talk about in this thread), you are fighting the Democratic party.
rug
(82,333 posts)Better yet, watch the entire video.
Best, read his books.
My comments are just fine. If you think you actually have a case the OP, which critiques prominent antitheists who prominently critique religion, make an SoP alert alert to Renew Deal.
I place as much value of what you think does or does not harm the Democratic Party as you do of my opinion of your monarchy.
BTW, do you think Bernie favours capitalism or socialism?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,320 posts)by saying 'start another thread'.
Then you illogically claimed it was me that wanted "to stifle any discussion of Hedges' criticisms of Dawkins". When you were the one trying to stifle discussion in the thread, but claiming that I/ had "a list of verboten topics".
And it's you who had been wanting to discuss imperialism, by saying "atheism is utterly irrelevant to the imperialism, an actual threat" and "the solution is not to be arguing the existence of gods while we're being rounded up". I've been trying to discuss Hedges' ideas on capitalism and imperialism, while keeping off the 'irrelevant' atheism, but now you want to avoid them after all.
If you post comments by someone who wants the Democratic party destroyed and draw attention to his views on imperialism, then you don't get to tell people to get off your thread when they discuss that person and topic.
I think Bernie is a social-democratic capitalist, perhaps with a soft spot for socialism. He is certainly fighting hard to preserve capitalism, in lines with the policies of the Democratic party.
rug
(82,333 posts)Since you've missed the point I will reiterate it.
Hedges core criticism is that their version of antitheism gives tacit support to the religious right in their warmongering, albeit arriving their by different rotes. He also likens the West's (including the UK) policy in the MidEast to be imperialism.
Returning to the religious component of their antitheism, he sees it as a form of cultural imperialism, dispensing in one sweep their vales as inferior to those of the West. Or, as Dawkins put it, the "greatest force for evil today".
You shoud stick to curbing the socialist tendencies of the Labour Party if you object to socialism.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)There is no alternative to Capitalism as the early years of the Soviet Union demonstrated.
Ban private property and production plummets. Not to mention the police state it implies.
And Capitalism can be put to the service of all as Sweden demonstrates.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)He has a list of approved topics and you must follow them, and agree with them or face a harsh stream of verbal abuse.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and the Tories got their bag from the PQ: he's as wormy as Jindal
"secularism" can easily DECREASE separation of church and state: that's why details and definitions are so important
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Friendly_and_hostile_separation
but the internet is great for foaming rants based on half-understood and content-free academese: that's how we get Tumblr
rug
(82,333 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)that will be calling gay guys traitors by 2017 because they like men"
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)"that will be calling gay guys traitors by 2017 because they like men"
What does that mean?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)for all these accusations.
stopbush
(24,396 posts)He can take potshots at Dawkins & Harris because they're widely known.
But that's a one-way street, as Hedges doesn't have the kind of profile with the general public as do those two gentlemen.
rug
(82,333 posts)
And people complain about Popemania.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Atheism/secularism has no defined doctrines.
Hedges is deliberately confusing "holding strong opinion on any subject" with "Fundamentalist".
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The problem is that there are some atheists that seem not to realize that, though I just call them ignorant right-wing war-mongers (not Dawkins).
At 1:47:52 in video Sam Harris indicates a possible metaphysical belief in reincarnation. This is from his background as a devout Buddhist. He has a religious type mindset. Also, openly racist Bill Maher has indicated a possible belief in ghosts, in addition to being an anti-vaxxer.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)from the Eighteen Century till now.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)pretty much everything can be a doctrine of sorts, doesn't mean they shouldn't be questioned.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Everything should be questioned.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Nazism, Communism.
Racism as a totalitarian mindset: 'race' X is inferior because {fill in blank}
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)About Hedges, no contest: he's a dishonest religious utopian (see his fake Iraq 'scoops').
But your generalisation is rather difficult to sustain. Because no one is without doctrine.
Each and every one is somewhere on a scale of 0 to 10 of conflicting ideas:
total private/collective property, total liberty+anarchy/group control, total atheism/theism,..
Strangely, scarily, it seems to me people can become fundamentalist about pretty anything.
