Skip to main content

View Diary: Green Diary Rescue & Open Thread (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's natural that a Laywer would reject (0+ / 0-)

    Religion as a philosophical basis for environmentalism and insist on politics as the only legitimate basis since politics is the religion of lawyers.

    Appearently Jonathan Zasloff is ignorant about the naturalistic nature of many religious philosophies and doctrine.

    Some of the foremost environmentalistis in Asia, (particularly East Asia where Shinto, Dao and Buddhist religions are commonly practiced) find a philosophical and siritual basis for environmentalism in these religions which stress our origins in nature and the virture of living in harmony with it.

    Personally, I'll take as many boots on the ground for the cause as I can get and won't reject anyone based on their personal beliefs or motivations, even lawyers and politicians, a foolish as that may sound.

    Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

    by koNko on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 04:04:57 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Insulting and Dishonest. (0+ / 0-)

      It's natural that a Laywer would reject Religion as a philosophical basis for environmentalism and insist on politics as the only legitimate basis since politics is the religion of lawyers.

      What a ridiculous insult.

      Zasloff's comments say nothing about "legitimate" or "philosophical bas[e]s for environmentalism." You are egregiously shoving words and ideas in his mouth.

      And, of course, politics ("the process by which groups of people make decisions[,] generally applied to behaviour within civil governments") happens to be a process that is accessible to all of us, whether we happen to subscribe to your favored religions or not. Your absurd smear about "the religion of lawyers" aside, everyone can do--indeed everyone does--politics.


      Appearently Jonathan Zasloff is ignorant about the naturalistic nature of many religious philosophies and doctrine.

      You know nothing of the kind. Zasloff leveled no criticism at any religion for being insufficiently "naturalistic," whatever that's supposed to mean. Again, instead of responding to what he actually wrote, you're criticizing him for a claim that's a figment of your imagination. Shame on you.


      Some of the foremost environmentalistis in Asia ... find a philosophical and siritual basis for environmentalism in these religions which stress our origins in nature and the virture of living in harmony with it.

      So you selectively claim, yes. But that is utterly irrelevant to Zasloff's comments. What he says has nothing to do with "a philosophical and s[p]iritual basis for environmentalism" or religious conceptions of "our origins in nature and the virture of living in harmony with it." His critique is of something fundamentally different, and I suggest you read what he wrote again so that you can respond to what he actually said, rather than your insulting stereotypes of what critics of religion contend.


      I'll take as many boots on the ground for the cause as I can get and won't reject anyone based on their personal beliefs or motivations, even lawyers and politicians....

      What a crock. You lie about us (lawyers and critics of religion), you smear us, you take no interest in what we are actually saying, and you want us to believe you "won't reject anyone based on their personal beliefs or motivations"? We'd have to be pretty gullible to believe that.

      News flash: Jonathan Zasloff has not "reject[ed] anyone," whether "based on their personal beliefs or motivations" or on any other basis. If you could see past your thick layers of religious privilege and just read his actual comments, you might see that.


      Again, the level of unthinking hostility toward openly irreligious people being shown in this comment section is depressing. Zasloff has voiced an extremely mild critique of (one abstruse characteristic of) religion--and yet several commenters, reading straight from "Disgusting Atheist Stereotypes, Book 1," have all but decided he's declared his intention to burn their temple down.

      Honest intellectual discourse--which Zasloff is at least trying to conduct--doesn't look like that.

      •  How did I miss this? (0+ / 0-)

        Clue: First and last paragrpahs are SNARCs.

        I'm also a critic of religions, an objective and informed not emmotional and reflexive one. I know some birds have feathers and quack, too. Does that make me a duck?

        What a crock. You lie about us (lawyers and critics of religion), you smear us, you take no interest in what we are actually saying, and you want us to believe you "won't reject anyone based on their personal beliefs or motivations"? We'd have to be pretty gullible to believe that.

        Wretched excess. You really ought to get your bood pressure checked.

        Smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear, smear.

        OK, there is your quota for the day.  Enjoy!

        Ask me about my daughter's future - Ko

        by koNko on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 12:47:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site