Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (23481)	3/18/2012 3:33:56 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Don't you think it's hypocritical of people to invoke Locke on behalf of not tolerating the Catholic church, but not when in the same document cited, he opposed tolerating atheists? No. First of all, as I already mentioned, the enlightenment was in its early stages when Locke wrote. He is considered the Father of Classical Liberalism. The enlightenment proceeded in dribs and drabs rather than springing forth fully mature. Recognizing one's cousins as I'm-OK-You're-OK, as Locke did, is the first step in recognizing the same for the rest of humanity. He gets credit for that despite his limitations, the limitations of the time. That he didn't expand his acknowledgement further is understandable. Even now, nearly 400 years later, most people aren't yet enlightened enough to recognize the legitimacy of free thinkers. Second, the point being made in that piece was the differentiation Locke made between individuals and the religious establishment. "In Locke’s view, Catholics can worship as they wish as individuals, but their institution is a danger to the liberal order. " I know that you're not inclined toward fine analytical differentiations, but the difference between an individual, his religion, and the religious establishment is so gross that it should be able to register. And thirdly, the notion of limited government from Classical Liberalism would hardly substitute control by the Church for control by the government, one liberty-constraining institution for another. At least our government is a democracy. The Church, not even a little bit. That would be a net loss of liberty, anti-libertarian. It would seem those favoring the non-toleration of the Catholic church are willfully stepping back to those intolerant times. One can easily tolerate Catholics and Catholicism, even value them, even subscribe to Catholicism, oneself, but be wary of the Church, an institution, not a person, and the role it plays in society. That's a question of roles, not toleration of differences.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (23481)	3/18/2012 4:20:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Don't you think it's hypocritical of people to invoke Locke on behalf of not tolerating the Catholic church, but not when in the same document cited, he opposed tolerating atheists? It would be hypocritical if they are using Locke as an authority for an argument from authority, and then telling people that he isn't an authority when its found that he disagrees with them on something, but then they continue to use him as an authority when it helps them. Its not hypocritical if they quote him because they like the argument he makes, or they think he's persuasive, and so they quote him, but they don't quote him on other topics and don't agree with him on those topics. Just because you quote someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them on everything, your just presenting a good argument and giving credit for it, rather than plagiarizing it.