 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Why Were Prophets of Atheism Wrong About Everything?... |
|
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sound of Trumpet... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://saintsuperman.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/everybody-was-wrong-about-everything/
Everybody Was Wrong About Everything
April 14, 2009 in culture, politics | by Brian Visaggio
I’m sitting here in my apartment when I should normally be in class.
Getting off the elevator on the fourth floor of Hibbs Hall, some of my
classmates passed me on their way out, saying it had been cancelled,
that Dr. Kinney was “old and sick,” by which I’m forced to assume that
they meant that whatever it was that afflicted him last Thursday has
not, in fact, let up. Pray for Dr. Kinney.
I’ve spent the past forty or so minutes, then, reading a decade-old
political article by Mark Rosenfelder, attempting to analyze why the
twentieth century was not the way the twentieth century was supposed
to be.
If an intellectual from 1900 could be bodily transported to the end of
the milennium, top-hat, monocle, and all, he would explode in
puzzlement.
Why aren’t we all communists and atheists?
Liberalism won all its battles– so why is it retreating?
Where did all these conservatives come from?
Where are the flying cars and moon bases?
If the thinker you picked was G.K. Chesterton, he might advise you
that he was right all along: “In eighty years, London will be almost
exactly as it is today,” he wrote in 1904. But he was a contrarian,
and underneath that poise, he’d be just as shocked as the rest of
them.
It’s a bizarre read in 2009, for all its focus on the political
battles of the last part of the 1990’s, and coming as it did before
the contentious and contested election that fateful November. It seeks
to understand, above all, what happened to classical liberalism,
althought it never uses that term, which it distinguishes from
progressivism or leftism as believing in equality of opportunity, and
not results. It examines much of the ideological history of the
twentieth century, from Wilsonian progressives to the New Deal
coalition, how and why it collapsed in the capital-s Sixties, and how
the Christian conservative movement came to ally itself with the
Republicans. It’s a short summary of American political history in the
Twentieth.
More of interest to this blog is his excellent analysis of “What
happened to religion?”
Nothing, really. Religion is just fine.
The 19C pundits misanalyzed the situation. They thought that religion
was disappearing. It wasn’t; it was just being toppled from its
position of social supremacy. It was no longer the acknowledged
sovereign of society; no longer a property of the government or the
culture, only of its practitioners.
Because they got the process wrong, they got the causes wrong too.
They thought that ’science’ had superseded ’superstition.’ The real
process was the dethronement of religion, and the real cause was
political, going back to the Reformation and the ensuing holy wars.
What dethroned the One Holy Church was not science, but the
multiplicity of claimants to the throne. Since their claims were
divine, they could not be negotiated or compromised; since they were
multiple, the only practical solution was to deny them all.
He goes on to explain what he believes to the process behind that and
its social implications, treating religion as simply another
ideological rival among a host of ideological rivals. What I think our
intrepid writer is missing is that religion, while having been removed
from loci of power and, to an extent, internalized rather than
externalized, is in almost every case an actual system of thought with
a program for the world beyond politics.
This is a consistent problem with much of contemporary society,
viewing things like religion and culture purely as power centers,
things that interact politically to bring about political consensus or
chaos, with no conception for either to have existence independent
from politics, and thinking that a lack of concern for politics is
itself disengagement from the world of ideas that matter. In this, the
assumption is that culture is validated by politics, only worth a damn
when connected to politics, little more than the flavor that explains
why you vote the way you vote, and maybe why you eat food grilled in
foil or fish on fridays. Neither your moral nor your cultural life,
the thinking goes, has much just bearing on politics unless they make
you blue or red.
This is violently incorrect, and ultimately misses the sort of
religious faith that could even participate in politics the way, say
King did during the Civil Rights era, which derived, not simply from a
desire to participate in the larger society, but from firm convictions
about who we are and what it means to be human, which had animated
African-American society for at least decades beforehand. Politics is
and will always be secondary to the vast animation of life behind it,
the beliefs and practices that inform and enliven and make possible
the civil society that claims precendence over it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sir Frederick... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:26:42 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote:
[quote]http://saintsuperman.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/everybody-was-wrong-about-everything/
Everybody Was Wrong About Everything
April 14, 2009 in culture, politics | by Brian Visaggio
I’m sitting here in my apartment when I should normally be in class.
Getting off the elevator on the fourth floor of Hibbs Hall, some of my
classmates passed me on their way out, saying it had been cancelled,
that Dr. Kinney was “old and sick,” by which I’m forced to assume that
they meant that whatever it was that afflicted him last Thursday has
not, in fact, let up. Pray for Dr. Kinney.
I’ve spent the past forty or so minutes, then, reading a decade-old
political article by Mark Rosenfelder, attempting to analyze why the
twentieth century was not the way the twentieth century was supposed
to be.
If an intellectual from 1900 could be bodily transported to the end of
the milennium, top-hat, monocle, and all, he would explode in
puzzlement.
Why aren’t we all communists and atheists?
Liberalism won all its battles– so why is it retreating?
Where did all these conservatives come from?
Where are the flying cars and moon bases?
If the thinker you picked was G.K. Chesterton, he might advise you
that he was right all along: “In eighty years, London will be almost
exactly as it is today,” he wrote in 1904. But he was a contrarian,
and underneath that poise, he’d be just as shocked as the rest of
them.
It’s a bizarre read in 2009, for all its focus on the political
battles of the last part of the 1990’s, and coming as it did before
the contentious and contested election that fateful November. It seeks
to understand, above all, what happened to classical liberalism,
althought it never uses that term, which it distinguishes from
progressivism or leftism as believing in equality of opportunity, and
not results. It examines much of the ideological history of the
twentieth century, from Wilsonian progressives to the New Deal
coalition, how and why it collapsed in the capital-s Sixties, and how
the Christian conservative movement came to ally itself with the
Republicans. It’s a short summary of American political history in the
Twentieth.
More of interest to this blog is his excellent analysis of “What
happened to religion?”
Nothing, really. Religion is just fine.
The 19C pundits misanalyzed the situation. They thought that religion
was disappearing. It wasn’t; it was just being toppled from its
position of social supremacy. It was no longer the acknowledged
sovereign of society; no longer a property of the government or the
culture, only of its practitioners.
Because they got the process wrong, they got the causes wrong too.
They thought that ’science’ had superseded ’superstition.’ The real
process was the dethronement of religion, and the real cause was
political, going back to the Reformation and the ensuing holy wars.
What dethroned the One Holy Church was not science, but the
multiplicity of claimants to the throne. Since their claims were
divine, they could not be negotiated or compromised; since they were
multiple, the only practical solution was to deny them all.
[/quote]
The real 'cause' is how 'our' common brain structure and function is genetically
determined. Religion has become part of science, through neuroscience. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 4:12 am, Sir Frederick <mmcne... at (no spam) fuzzysys.com> wrote:
[quote]Religion has become part of science, through neuroscience.
[/quote]
Religion is and will never be anything other than a part of mystical
BS, at best its a subject / illness for psychiatry, never science.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David Johnston... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Atheism doesn't have prophets. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DouhetSukd... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I propose we dig into our pockets and sign Strumpet up for a course to
improve conciseness and clarity in written communication. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Budikka666... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fact: There are no "prophets of atheism". Atheism isn't a religion.
Atheism isn't a belief system. Atheism has no sacred books, no
churches, no priesthood. Atheism is nothing but the lack of a belief
in any gods. Other than that, atheists have nothing in common to do
with lacking a belief in gods.
Fact: Every single prophet int he Bible was wrong, including their
most precious prophet, the fictional Jesus Christ, who predicted that
he would return in his glory whilst those around him still lived.
it's now 2,000 years later, everyone who was alive in the fictional
time of Jesus is dead, and Jesus hasn't been heard of since.
This proves he was either complete fiction or a LIAR. Which is it
SoT?
Budikka |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bob young... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
[quote]http://saintsuperman.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/everybody-was-wrong-about-everything/
Everybody Was Wrong About Everything
April 14, 2009 in culture, politics | by Brian Visaggio
I£m sitting here in my apartment when I should normally be in class.
Getting off the elevator on the fourth floor of Hibbs Hall, some of my
classmates passed me on their way out, saying it had been cancelled,
that Dr. Kinney was “old and sick,” by which I£m forced to assume that
they meant that whatever it was that afflicted him last Thursday has
not, in fact, let up. Pray for Dr. Kinney.
I£ve spent the past forty or so minutes, then, reading a decade-old
political article by Mark Rosenfelder, attempting to analyze why the
twentieth century was not the way the twentieth century was supposed
to be.
If an intellectual from 1900 could be bodily transported to the end of
the milennium, top-hat, monocle, and all, he would explode in
puzzlement.
Why aren£t we all communists and atheists?
[/quote]
Communism is a political ideology.
Atheism is an intelligent challenge to man's penchant
for making up gods for himself,
. . . . . . . . . you disingenuous blinkered man
"I contend that we are both atheists.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours."
[Stephen Roberts]
Or is that too complex for you ?
[quote]
Liberalism won all its battles· so why is it retreating?
Where did all these conservatives come from?
Where are the flying cars and moon bases?
If the thinker you picked was G.K. Chesterton, he might advise you
that he was right all along: “In eighty years, London will be almost
exactly as it is today,” he wrote in 1904. But he was a contrarian,
and underneath that poise, he£d be just as shocked as the rest of
them.
It£s a bizarre read in 2009, for all its focus on the political
battles of the last part of the 1990£s, and coming as it did before
the contentious and contested election that fateful November. It seeks
to understand, above all, what happened to classical liberalism,
althought it never uses that term, which it distinguishes from
progressivism or leftism as believing in equality of opportunity, and
not results. It examines much of the ideological history of the
twentieth century, from Wilsonian progressives to the New Deal
coalition, how and why it collapsed in the capital-s Sixties, and how
the Christian conservative movement came to ally itself with the
Republicans. It£s a short summary of American political history in the
Twentieth.
More of interest to this blog is his excellent analysis of “What
happened to religion?”
Nothing, really. Religion is just fine.
The 19C pundits misanalyzed the situation. They thought that religion
was disappearing. It wasn£t; it was just being toppled from its
position of social supremacy. It was no longer the acknowledged
sovereign of society; no longer a property of the government or the
culture, only of its practitioners.
Because they got the process wrong, they got the causes wrong too.
They thought that £science£ had superseded £superstition.£ The real
process was the dethronement of religion, and the real cause was
political, going back to the Reformation and the ensuing holy wars.
What dethroned the One Holy Church was not science, but the
multiplicity of claimants to the throne. Since their claims were
divine, they could not be negotiated or compromised; since they were
multiple, the only practical solution was to deny them all.
He goes on to explain what he believes to the process behind that and
its social implications, treating religion as simply another
ideological rival among a host of ideological rivals. What I think our
intrepid writer is missing is that religion, while having been removed
from loci of power and, to an extent, internalized rather than
externalized, is in almost every case an actual system of thought with
a program for the world beyond politics.
This is a consistent problem with much of contemporary society,
viewing things like religion and culture purely as power centers,
things that interact politically to bring about political consensus or
chaos, with no conception for either to have existence independent
from politics, and thinking that a lack of concern for politics is
itself disengagement from the world of ideas that matter. In this, the
assumption is that culture is validated by politics, only worth a damn
when connected to politics, little more than the flavor that explains
why you vote the way you vote, and maybe why you eat food grilled in
foil or fish on fridays. Neither your moral nor your cultural life,
the thinking goes, has much just bearing on politics unless they make
you blue or red.
This is violently incorrect, and ultimately misses the sort of
religious faith that could even participate in politics the way, say
King did during the Civil Rights era, which derived, not simply from a
desire to participate in the larger society, but from firm convictions
about who we are and what it means to be human, which had animated
African-American society for at least decades beforehand. Politics is
and will always be secondary to the vast animation of life behind it,
the beliefs and practices that inform and enliven and make possible
the civil society that claims precendence over it.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bob young... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Gordge wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 4:12 am, Sir Frederick <mmcne... at (no spam) fuzzysys.com> wrote:
Religion has become part of science, through neuroscience.
Religion is and will never be anything other than a part of mystical
BS, at best its a subject / illness for psychiatry, never science.
MG
[/quote]
Over the past four hundred years Christianity has altered out of all
recognition
mainly due to the steady march of scientific progress.
Their goal posts have been moved so many times
there's hardly an grass left ! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bob young... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Johnston wrote:
[quote]Atheism doesn't have prophets.
[/quote]
It has very little apart from logic and common sense |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kadaitcha Man... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
THE BORG, ye venomed dunce, nothing but lechery, ye incontinent varlet,
ye mouthed:
[quote]"David Johnston" <david at (no spam) block.net> wrote in message
news:hnppe556fd5fe7i9peqfvmoiftgj0rdu08 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Atheism doesn't have prophets.
Of course there are prophets in Atheism. Prophets do not
have to be anything to do with religion or any God. A
prophet is merely someone who can foretell or predict the
future in some way.
Many science fiction writers were and are prophets. Some
people have "prophetic dreams" where they can foretell
disasters or similar and thus avoid them.
[/quote]
The sewing machine needle and the molecular structure of benzine being two
prime examples.
Of course, prescience, as is verified in the invention of the sewing machine
needle and the discovery of the molecular structure of benzine, is total
bullsit according to any self-respecting atheist fucktard cunt.
--
Ubuntu 9.10 x64 running Windows Server 2008 in VirtualBox
16GB 1333MHz DDR3 RAM, 10 * SATA2 3GB/s HDDs as dual 3TB RAID5
8-thread Intel Extreme i7-975 at (no spam) 3.80GHz, air-cooled Thermaltake
Intel BoneTrail Motherboard
Dual nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS 1GB
Honda Sabre 1100cc V-Twin
I can wank better than you can.
PS: Jensen Interceptor in air-conditioned storage. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kadaitcha Man... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
THE BORG, ye bawdy notable contempt, beg that thou may have leave to
hang thyself, ye emitted:
[quote]Atheism is an intelligent challenge to man's penchant
for making up gods for himself,
[/quote]
Please prove that you exist.
--
Ubuntu 9.10 x64 running Windows Server 2008 in VirtualBox
16GB 1333MHz DDR3 RAM, 10 * SATA2 3GB/s HDDs as dual 3TB RAID5
8-thread Intel Extreme i7-975 at (no spam) 3.80GHz, air-cooled Thermaltake
Intel BoneTrail Motherboard
Dual nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS 1GB
Honda Sabre 1100cc V-Twin
I can wank better than you can.
PS: Jensen Interceptor in air-conditioned storage. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Kadaitcha Man... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Budikka666, ye three-chinned dog-ape, would thou were clean enough to
spit on, ye confided:
[quote]Fact: There are no "prophets of atheism".
[/quote]
Results 1 - 10 of about 415,000 for "prophets of atheism". (0.40 seconds)
*COUGH*
[quote]Atheism isn't a religion.
[/quote]
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,070,000 for Atheism is a religion. (0.26 seconds)
*COUGH* *COUGH*
[quote]Atheism isn't a belief system.
[/quote]
Results 1 - 10 of about 230,000 for Atheism is a belief system.. (0.22
seconds)
*GURGLE*
[quote]Atheism has no sacred books
[/quote]
Results 1 - 10 of about 191,000 for Atheism sacred books. (0.25 seconds)
*SPLUTTER*
[quote], no churches,
[/quote]
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,770,000 for church of Atheism. (0.34 seconds)
*CHOKE*
[quote]no priesthood.
[/quote]
Results 1 - 10 of about 164,000 for Atheist priesthood. (0.23 seconds)
[quote]Atheism is nothing
[/quote]
Ok, you got me there.
--
Ubuntu 9.10 x64 running Windows Server 2008 in VirtualBox
16GB 1333MHz DDR3 RAM, 10 * SATA2 3GB/s HDDs as dual 3TB RAID5
8-thread Intel Extreme i7-975 at (no spam) 3.80GHz, air-cooled Thermaltake
Intel BoneTrail Motherboard
Dual nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS 1GB
Honda Sabre 1100cc V-Twin
I can wank better than you can.
PS: Jensen Interceptor in air-conditioned storage. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| THE BORG... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Johnston" <david at (no spam) block.net> wrote in message
news:hnppe556fd5fe7i9peqfvmoiftgj0rdu08 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]Atheism doesn't have prophets.
[/quote]
Of course there are prophets in Atheism. Prophets do not
have to be anything to do with religion or any God. A
prophet is merely someone who can foretell or predict the
future in some way.
Many science fiction writers were and are prophets. Some
people have "prophetic dreams" where they can foretell
disasters or similar and thus avoid them.
But prophets are not necessarily always right, be they
religious, or science fiction or any mortal human. They can
only "guess" or "estimate" and then when the future occurs,
THEN they can be recognized as prophets if their guess or
estimate was correct.
There is no more truth in religious prophets than there is
in science fiction or any mortal human. Humans do not have
the ability to foretell the future. If they did. There
would be no gambling or lotteries!!!
THE BORG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| THE BORG... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"bob young" <alaspectrum at (no spam) netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:4AED4606.132589DC at (no spam) netvigator.com...
Communism is a political ideology.
Atheism is an intelligent challenge to man's penchant
for making up gods for himself,
. . . . . . . . . you disingenuous blinkered man
"I contend that we are both atheists.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours."
[Stephen Roberts]
Or is that too complex for you ?
****
This is a good quotation. A lot of people dismiss the Bible
God, and rightly so.
But dismissing a violent, prejudiced and obviously impotent
God does not equate with dismissing the possibility of ANY
powers or intelligence greater than the humanoid.
There is no requirement for religion whatsoever in
acknowledging that somewhere in the vast cosmos of life,
time and space would be beings and intelligence greater than
the humanoid.
This is pure logic and common sense.
THE BORG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| THE BORG... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nostradamus was an interesting prophet, but his prophecies
were certainly not always religious in nature.
What is interesting was his prophecy of a cure for cancer
and he writes in detail of the cure.
Why is no research being done into his prophecies?
His cure for cancer matches the principles of string theory,
and scientists go a lot on string theory, so why is there
not more research being done into his method of curing
cancer?
THE BORG
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote in
message
news:ee1e1362-7eb9-4f5e-9472-36f6c72fc987 at (no spam) p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
http://saintsuperman.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/everybody-was-wrong-about-everything/
Everybody Was Wrong About Everything
April 14, 2009 in culture, politics | by Brian Visaggio
I’m sitting here in my apartment when I should normally be
in class.
Getting off the elevator on the fourth floor of Hibbs Hall,
some of my
classmates passed me on their way out, saying it had been
cancelled,
that Dr. Kinney was “old and sick,” by which I’m forced to
assume that
they meant that whatever it was that afflicted him last
Thursday has
not, in fact, let up. Pray for Dr. Kinney.
I’ve spent the past forty or so minutes, then, reading a
decade-old
political article by Mark Rosenfelder, attempting to analyze
why the
twentieth century was not the way the twentieth century was
supposed
to be.
If an intellectual from 1900 could be bodily transported to
the end of
the milennium, top-hat, monocle, and all, he would explode
in
puzzlement.
Why aren’t we all communists and atheists?
Liberalism won all its battles– so why is it retreating?
Where did all these conservatives come from?
Where are the flying cars and moon bases?
If the thinker you picked was G.K. Chesterton, he might
advise you
that he was right all along: “In eighty years, London will
be almost
exactly as it is today,” he wrote in 1904. But he was a
contrarian,
and underneath that poise, he’d be just as shocked as the
rest of
them.
It’s a bizarre read in 2009, for all its focus on the
political
battles of the last part of the 1990’s, and coming as it did
before
the contentious and contested election that fateful
November. It seeks
to understand, above all, what happened to classical
liberalism,
althought it never uses that term, which it distinguishes
from
progressivism or leftism as believing in equality of
opportunity, and
not results. It examines much of the ideological history of
the
twentieth century, from Wilsonian progressives to the New
Deal
coalition, how and why it collapsed in the capital-s
Sixties, and how
the Christian conservative movement came to ally itself with
the
Republicans. It’s a short summary of American political
history in the
Twentieth.
More of interest to this blog is his excellent analysis of
“What
happened to religion?”
Nothing, really. Religion is just fine.
The 19C pundits misanalyzed the situation. They thought
that religion
was disappearing. It wasn’t; it was just being toppled from
its
position of social supremacy. It was no longer the
acknowledged
sovereign of society; no longer a property of the government
or the
culture, only of its practitioners.
Because they got the process wrong, they got the causes
wrong too.
They thought that ’science’ had superseded ’superstition.’
The real
process was the dethronement of religion, and the real cause
was
political, going back to the Reformation and the ensuing
holy wars.
What dethroned the One Holy Church was not science, but the
multiplicity of claimants to the throne. Since their claims
were
divine, they could not be negotiated or compromised; since
they were
multiple, the only practical solution was to deny them all.
He goes on to explain what he believes to the process behind
that and
its social implications, treating religion as simply another
ideological rival among a host of ideological rivals. What I
think our
intrepid writer is missing is that religion, while having
been removed
from loci of power and, to an extent, internalized rather
than
externalized, is in almost every case an actual system of
thought with
a program for the world beyond politics.
This is a consistent problem with much of contemporary
society,
viewing things like religion and culture purely as power
centers,
things that interact politically to bring about political
consensus or
chaos, with no conception for either to have existence
independent
from politics, and thinking that a lack of concern for
politics is
itself disengagement from the world of ideas that matter. In
this, the
assumption is that culture is validated by politics, only
worth a damn
when connected to politics, little more than the flavor that
explains
why you vote the way you vote, and maybe why you eat food
grilled in
foil or fish on fridays. Neither your moral nor your
cultural life,
the thinking goes, has much just bearing on politics unless
they make
you blue or red.
This is violently incorrect, and ultimately misses the sort
of
religious faith that could even participate in politics the
way, say
King did during the Civil Rights era, which derived, not
simply from a
desire to participate in the larger society, but from firm
convictions
about who we are and what it means to be human, which had
animated
African-American society for at least decades beforehand.
Politics is
and will always be secondary to the vast animation of life
behind it,
the beliefs and practices that inform and enliven and make
possible
the civil society that claims precendence over it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:47 pm
|
|