Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

immoderate

immoderate's Journal
immoderate's Journal
December 28, 2014

How about we all agree that we can call it a "police-ish" state?

Would that satisfy the semantical differences we are encountering?

There is little disagreement over the issues. Few are disputing that the police are militarized, tend toward brutality, are protected from prosecution, and are hypocritical of civil rights.

But we can post about it! So this can't be a police state. I propose the compromise term, "policeish" to denote a state where police can exceed their legal authority, assault and arrest peaceful assemblies, and they are covered and exonerated by the system.

--imm

December 8, 2014

I had lunch with Richard Dawkins today.

I sat right across the table from him.

Background: My atheist group, FLASH, hosted Dawkins, and toured the Everglades with him, a couple of years ago. (I couldn't make the 'glades trip. He's now on a book tour, and did a major event in Miami. He suggested we have a luncheon with some FLASH members. About thirty people attended.

He was with us about two hours. Lunched and small talked for 45 minutes, and then started a discussion. He had no prepared remarks, but addressed the issue he termed "tokenism." That is, that fighting over slogans, mottoes, and pledges is a distraction. (And he also cited, and acknowledged the opposing views.) He feels the major issue is the notion that children automatically inherit the religion of their parents. As in "these are Jewish children," rather than "these are children of Jewish parents." He pointed out that we don't address republican children, or humanist children, or logical positivist children, so why only religious indoctrination?

Our local group, and some allied groups, have been battling some installations of religious monuments around the state. One of the allied groups is the Satanic Church (an ironic name) and Dawkins expressed some curiosity. He wondered at the PR of calling themselves that, since they are atheists. He suggested we should be after religious tax exemption. And there was consensus on that. Basically, there were two main topics: questions on evolution and genetics, and on ways to improve atheist public relations.

He also reiterated the notion that he can't be absolutely sure there is no creator -- just as he cannot be absolutely sure there are no unicorns and leprechauns.

Bonus! The luncheon was held at a golf club that is literally around the corner from where I live. The food was good. Italian buffet. Weather 70F. and sunny.

--imm


Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 20,885
Latest Discussions»immoderate's Journal