Typical Secular Hypocrisy

[Nick_A]

One of the primary attributes of secularism is hypocrisy. It sustains its existence. Of course one facet of secularism easily sees the hypocrisy of another facet and takes advantage.

Even though I know this to be true I still find the following quite annoying

Claremont Graduate University Censorship

Being part Armenian I am well aware of genocide denial. I listened to the speech and was a bit taken back by the end of it even though it is obviously true. The Turkish ambassador when asked about Obama's pledge to honor the Armenian genocide said that all the Presidential candidates say that until elected and then politics sets in. He knows we say one thing and do another which is the essence of hypocrisy

He is right but it is still annoying that secularism so easily accepts and sustains this loss of character that allows genocide denial to be an obviously accepted expression of selective morality.

[Celeritas]

I find this post to be extremely insulting.

i'm disgusted to find such a blanket statement on an interfaith forum.

[China Cat Sunflower]

One should make a distinction between Turkish secularists and secularism in general. There is nothing inherently hypocritical about secularism. Turkish secularists may be scary uber-nationalist deniers of the Armenian genocide, but Turkish Islamists are using democratic tactics to ultimately undermine democracy in Turkey. That's a different kind of hypocrisy. Grey hats all around.

Chris

[heavensblade23]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

One of the primary attributes of secularism is hypocrisy. It sustains its existence. Of course one facet of secularism easily sees the hypocrisy of another facet and takes advantage.

It's not just secularism:
"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" - When the Anti-Choice Choose

[Netti-Netti]

One of the primary attributes of secularism is hypocrisy. It sustains its existence.....

Claremont Graduate University Censorship

From the article:

Once on YouTube, Claremont Graduate University hired a high-priced Santa Monica lawyer, Paul Silvio Berra, to get YouTube to pull the video, unless students' faces were "blurred."

How would blurring faces constitute "censorship" or "selective morality"?

I find this post to be extremely insulting.

True, it's "a blanket statement." A generalization would requires more than data point/example.

[Nick_A]

Insult is a normal defense mechanism to protect and defend our hypocrisy.

It wasn't a closed meeting. The student was there in plain sight with lights and cameras. It was only after that the school was intimidated.the the lawyer was hired.

It is a public event. the speaker is a public figure. Would faces have to be blurred if any known figure made a speech? How many times have you seen faces blurred when Obama or McCain makes a speech? No one objected at the time. The student was. producing a news story for Horizon Armenian TV, as well as post the story on YouTube. Musurlian did both.The bottom line is that there is no basis to the objection. The whole event just illustrates hypocrisy and the domination of politics over morality in secular society even to the absurdity of defending selective genocide denial. We preach morality and practice politics. This is what sustains secular society.

The primary attribute of all secular beliefs on the exoteric level is the defense of hypocrisy. The esoteric paths that arise from the secular are aware of it and seek in their being to grow so as to become more of their psychological potential and not remain so limited.

Welcome to the real world.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

It wasn't a closed meeting. The student was there in plain sight with lights and cameras. It was only after that the school was intimidated.the the lawyer was hired.

It is a public event. the speaker is a public figure. Would faces have to be blurred if any known figure made a speech? How many times have you seen faces blurred when Obama or McCain makes a speech? No one objected at the time.

One person may have objected after the fact (after they saw themselves on Youtube) and theatened the University with a law suit.

The student was. producing a news story for Horizon Armenian TV, as well as post the story on YouTube. Musurlian did both.The bottom line is that there is no basis to the objection.

See above.

The whole event just illustrates hypocrisy and the domination of politics over morality in secular society even to the absurdity of defending selective genocide denial. We preach morality and practice politics. This is what sustains secular society.

I don't see a basis for inferences about normative values or for establishing the scale of the contradictions you feel you have identified. Again, a generalization this broad would require more than one data point/episode/example.

[Nick_A]

Netti

One person may have objected after the fact (after they saw themselves on Youtube) and theatened the University with a law suit.

We have laws defending freedom of the press. This was a public event. A public figure was giving a lecture. There is no grounds for a suit. You cannot sue CNN if you are shown as part of a crowd at a lecture.

I don't see a basis for inferences about normative values or for establishing the scale of the contradictions you feel you have identified. Again, a generalization this broad would require more than one data point/episode/example.

Netti, do you really need a list of all the expressions of hypocrisy whether political or personal. Do you need a list of all the all the times men and women have said one thing to the other and done another. Do you really need a list of all the times politicians and psychologists have done the same and not being able to practice what they preach?

We underestimate it and this is precisely the power of the demagogue:

"The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so they believe they are as clever as he." KRAUS

The demagogue is bright enough to understand human hypocrisy so manipulates it for his advantage. Yes it is a generalization but as obvious a generalization as saying what goes up must come down.

[heavensblade23]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

The demagogue is bright enough to understand human hypocrisy so manipulates it for his advantage. Yes it is a generalization but as obvious a generalization as saying what goes up must come down.

I find it much less 'obvious' than you do. You haven't presented any significant data supporting your thesis statement and therefore you get an F on this exercise.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by heavensblade23

I find it much less 'obvious' than you do. You haven't presented any significant data supporting your thesis statement and therefore you get an F on this exercise.

Just wait until the first time you are deceived by a member of the opposite sex, a member of the same sex,, a politician , an advertiser, a salesman, a proseytiser, or anyone else. Once you have your first experience, you will understand.

If you think this thread is insulting, wait until the one on the "Great Beast."

[Celeritas]

I understood this forum to be a place of tolerance. I was looking forward to civilized discussion minus mudslinging and vitriol. I was looking forward to learning more about the different beliefs that exist on this earth.

i'm very disappointed.

and yes I am a secular humanist.

I would've been supportive of your stance as I happen to agree with you on several levels. but you chose the low road and started slinging mud in my face. you know nothing of me and yet with your blanket statement you label me a hypocrite and make derogatory comments like "welcome to the real world" which means absolutly NOTHING because you know nothing of me and what struggles i've been through.

for example: I could parody your attitude and say all religious people are hypocrites because a group of christians attacked me, beat me, raped me, shot me and threw me out the window of a car doing 75 for kissing another woman.

but that is a blanket statement. all religious people are not hypocrites. I could never say that because it is not something I have seen or have real evidence of. those particular people are religious hypocrites.

you can't define what you haven't seen or experienced. this would be like someone saying "God has red hair, freckles and an earring in his right ear."


you are no better than me and I am no better than you. why must you play sides?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Celeritas

I find this post to be extremely insulting.

i'm disgusted to find such a blanket statement on an interfaith forum.

Nick A's statement is indeed a blanket statement. However, the "insult" is not so easily discernable. True his is an opinion that is not shared by all, however, it is based on facts that have indeed come to pass and are witnessed and recorded for posterity sake. (The presidential hopeful did make a commitment that has been uttered before, and the Ambassador did make his observations and conclusions known to his audience).

Since Nick A has not singled out any particular individual or race, creed, color, religion, etc., but rather expressed dismay at society as he sees it (and of course which he is a part of), he is sounding an alarm on not only others, but himself as well.

His timing may be off and his delivery may be rough, but he has not violated the CR Code of Conduct.

v/r

Q

[heavensblade23]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Just wait until the first time you are deceived by a member of the opposite sex, a member of the same sex,, a politician , an advertiser, a salesman, a proseytiser, or anyone else. Once you have your first experience, you will understand.

Hypocrites exist. Yes, there are many of them. Your statement that secularism is intrinsically linked with such is thus far unsupported.

[Celeritas]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Nick A's statement is indeed a blanket statement. However, the "insult" is not so easily discernable. True his is an opinion that is not shared by all, however, it is based on facts that have indeed come to pass and are witnessed and recorded for posterity sake. (The presidential hopeful did make a commitment that has been uttered before, and the Ambassador did make his observations and conclusions known to his audience).

Since Nick A has not singled out any particular individual or race, creed, color, religion, etc., but rather expressed dismay at society as he sees it (and of course which he is a part of), he is sounding an alarm on not only others, but himself as well.

His timing may be off and his delivery may be rough, but he has not violated the CR Code of Conduct.

v/r

Q

that's fine. but I will not be returning here as a result. I feel the insult is discernable as he refers to all secular minded people as "hypocrites"

I expected better from a forum purported to tout tolerance.

good bye.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Celeritas

I expected better from a forum purported to tout tolerance.

Arguably the forum is too tolerant.