Secular Intolerance

[Nick_A]

No you wouldn't, you would still be a boring shit posting idiot and nobody would like you.
The problem here isn't that you believe in X or Y. It is that you are a monotonous waste of oxygen.

Incidentally, that was an ad hominem attack you just did there. You will note that you made no attempt to address the point I made in the thing you quoted, and instead blamed my bias for you being observably and amazingly wrong.

Later on, I presume you will remain true to form by learning nothing from this exchange as well, and will dishonestly claim you aren't a source of ad hominem attacks but everyone else is?

I've sadly learned the answer to my question on the OP. Secular Intolerance is justified The open mind as a value is a thing of the past in secular society. Secularism will tell you what to do and what to believe freeing you from the annoyance of opening to impartial experience and reason

Well look at that. You've completed the job of learning all that you are capable of learning here. So why don't you live up to your promise of many months ago, and fuck off somewhere else to bore new people with your self pitying shit.

But you've raised so many profound and complex questions that even Nietzsche would be scratching his head in contemplation. Who wouldn't want to see how it turns out.

[Greta]

If I posted with glorification of secularism I would be the salt of the earth. I would gain popularity and become Mr. Wonderful. But since I believe that plato's cave is an excellent allegory describing the psychological prison of human psychology and asserting the potential for awakening and escape from this prison, it is insulting to all who defend this prison. Consequently my philosophical discussion will be repulsive to supporters of life in Plato's cave and defended by expression of secular intolerance. Why strive to be Mr. Wonderful? I'm not running for office. Why not hope to meet those who have become aware of the human condition and share on how to confront it.It makes philosophic sense. It just doesn't support secular intolerance.

Yet another ad hominem. You can't help yourself, can you? Accusing others of corrupt moderating is an ad hominem attack, a slight on others' integrity and character, and this is something you seem to do as a reflex.

If you promoted "secularism" the way you promote theism everyone would find you just as annoying, probably even more so, I suspect. The sanctimony and martyr syndromes are getting old too. I and others are not prejudiced against religion, we are just prejudiced against those unable to handle disagreement without going for the jugular.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If I posted with glorification of secularism I would be the salt of the earth. I would gain popularity and become Mr. Wonderful. But since I believe that plato's cave is an excellent allegory describing the psychological prison of human psychology and asserting the potential for awakening and escape from this prison, it is insulting to all who defend this prison. Consequently my philosophical discussion will be repulsive to supporters of life in Plato's cave and defended by expression of secular intolerance. Why strive to be Mr. Wonderful? I'm not running for office. Why not hope to meet those who have become aware of the human condition and share on how to confront it.It makes philosophic sense. It just doesn't support secular intolerance.

Yet another ad hominem. You can't help yourself, can you? Accusing others of corrupt moderating is an ad hominem attack, a slight on others' integrity and character, and this is something you seem to do as a reflex.

If you promoted "secularism" the way you promote theism everyone would find you just as annoying, probably even more so, I suspect. The sanctimony and martyr syndromes are getting old too. I and others are not prejudiced against religion, we are just prejudiced against those unable to handle disagreement without going for the jugular.

He's obviously quite insane and completely incapable of viewing himself with any objectivity. I think he's read too much Simone Weil.

[Nick_A]

If I posted with glorification of secularism I would be the salt of the earth. I would gain popularity and become Mr. Wonderful. But since I believe that plato's cave is an excellent allegory describing the psychological prison of human psychology and asserting the potential for awakening and escape from this prison, it is insulting to all who defend this prison. Consequently my philosophical discussion will be repulsive to supporters of life in Plato's cave and defended by expression of secular intolerance. Why strive to be Mr. Wonderful? I'm not running for office. Why not hope to meet those who have become aware of the human condition and share on how to confront it.It makes philosophic sense. It just doesn't support secular intolerance.

Yet another ad hominem. You can't help yourself, can you? Accusing others of corrupt moderating is an ad hominem attack, a slight on others' integrity and character, and this is something you seem to do as a reflex.

If you promoted "secularism" the way you promote theism everyone would find you just as annoying, probably even more so, I suspect. The sanctimony and martyr syndromes are getting old too. I and others are not prejudiced against religion, we are just prejudiced against those unable to handle disagreement without going for the jugular.

I didn't refer to you in that quote but as an advocate of secular intolerance you cannot by definition be an impartial moderator. F4 can't stand Plato's cave and goes berzerk whenever it is brought up. What could be worse than discussing Plato's cave in relation to the current human condition on a philosophy site? You believe that this person actually understands what they are writing about so consider questioning him an insult to intellectual superiority. There is no sense in going for the jugular. It isn't my style. I'm a lover, not a fighter. First of all Plato's cave refers to the awakening effect of inwardly turning towards grace. Religion is not the issue. Who handles disagreement better than me? I'm surrounded by it here and still come up with one liners. You are the one imagining that I'm saying all sorts of nasty things about you and becoming a martyr. You can't give an example since it isn't true.

You are intolerant of the top down Greek philosophers whose philosophy begins with a source outside the limitations of time and space. This is a threat to secularism which insists that Man, rather than manifesting on a relatively low level within creation, is really the ultimate in cosmic evolution

Your philosophy forces you to be intolerant of these others who doubt this virtual human deity created in your own mind.

The real loser here is Scott since he must know about this. I've lost complete respect for him. I was just going to donate to the new book he has coming out since some large checks are coming in June and I could throw him $25. Now that he supports secular intolerance his book title: "We're all in it together" is meaningless. The bigotry of secular intolerance would never allow it.

[Nick_A]

Greta this is typical of your highly valued secular intolerance. From the linked article on the OP

One could go on indefinitely with similar examples. Canada has a few of its own, notably Farley Mowat who, in a recent interview, went so far as to say that if he ever had the chance, he would eliminate all traces of Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions from the earth. The point to note is this: every form of secular humanism, be it marxism, fascism, nationalism, freudianism, etc. claims to hold the key to human happiness. And each believes that the key resides, not in the way one lives ones own person life, but rather in the way social life is organized.

The historical record shows, however, that wherever it has been able to impose its social programs to produce happiness, secular humanism has caused misery. It is precisely in societies that have replaced Christianity by some secular creed that one finds the greatest cruelty and callousness. Nobody except certain intellectuals can ignore the fact that the two societies that have systematically fought Christianity root and branch Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia have also been the two most grossly inhumane. And as Western democracies do away with their Christian heritage, they become more and more cruel and inhumane. The deliberate starvation of Downs syndrome babies, unrestricted abortion, euthanasia, devaluation of life-giving and life-supporting roles such as motherhood and fatherhood, all bear testimony to the fact that ours is increasingly becoming a death culture like Nazi and Soviet culture. The incredible rise in the rate of suicide among teenagers over the past two decades should alarm us the way that the death of canaries in coal mine tunnels alerted coal miners of another age: the air we are breathing is poisoned.

The glorious victories of progressive education. Is it any wonder that secularism can feel itself fully justified to act with intolerance. The only genuine book an educated secularist should feel comfortable in writing would have the title: One Hundred Ways to Destroy the Young while Feeling Justified." It would be a best seller

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Greta this is typical of your highly valued secular intolerance. From the linked article on the OP

One could go on indefinitely with similar examples. Canada has a few of its own, notably Farley Mowat who, in a recent interview, went so far as to say that if he ever had the chance, he would eliminate all traces of Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions from the earth. The point to note is this: every form of secular humanism, be it marxism, fascism, nationalism, freudianism, etc. claims to hold the key to human happiness. And each believes that the key resides, not in the way one lives ones own person life, but rather in the way social life is organized.

The historical record shows, however, that wherever it has been able to impose its social programs to produce happiness, secular humanism has caused misery. It is precisely in societies that have replaced Christianity by some secular creed that one finds the greatest cruelty and callousness. Nobody except certain intellectuals can ignore the fact that the two societies that have systematically fought Christianity root and branch Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia have also been the two most grossly inhumane. And as Western democracies do away with their Christian heritage, they become more and more cruel and inhumane. The deliberate starvation of Downs syndrome babies, unrestricted abortion, euthanasia, devaluation of life-giving and life-supporting roles such as motherhood and fatherhood, all bear testimony to the fact that ours is increasingly becoming a death culture like Nazi and Soviet culture. The incredible rise in the rate of suicide among teenagers over the past two decades should alarm us the way that the death of canaries in coal mine tunnels alerted coal miners of another age: the air we are breathing is poisoned.

The glorious victories of progressive education. Is it any wonder that secularism can feel itself fully justified to act with intolerance. The only genuine book an educated secularist should feel comfortable in writing would have the title: One Hundred Ways to Destroy the Young while Feeling Justified." It would be a best seller

You are confusing 'secular' with political leaning. Why would you assume that anyone who is 'secular' (whatever you mean by that) is a 'Progressive'? It seems to me that the only intolerant people on this site are the kristians. You should try keeping your big fat kristian snout out of others' business. Kristians have as many abortions as anyone else (probably a lot more). Kristians don't want to die suffering any more than anyone else does. No one tells you that you have to have euthanasia or abortions so stop telling others that they can't. Isn't it wonderful that kristianity is losing its powerful grip over every aspect of society? The anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia lobby is simply a last desperate grasp at the final straws for the power and control that's being taken from them, dragging kristianity kicking and screaming into the present day. Well boo hoo hoo. Get over it.

[Greta]

Thanks Nick for providing a second link to the same source in the same thread, plus a full lengthy quote. Not.

That is the point. It's not your content, it's the saturation and domination of forums with the same thing over and over.

All you need do is state your ideas, make your points, discuss them and then move on. Revisit when you have something to add that isn't basically the same thing over. You started one hundred and seven threads and had a few thousand posts, and you complain about being shut down.

Each thread you start is never satisfactory to you because you often run into disagreement. That makes you instantly passive-aggressively condescending. Then the fights start. So you figure the thread's ruined and start another in a similar vein, making clear that you ignored all prior objections.

As it's basically a continuation of an old argument played to the same crowd, the old protagonists get stuck straight in. Then you cry foul, as if the previous interactions had never happened. Hello Earth to Nick? Some of us may be "secularists" but we have memory spans longer than that of a hamster! How can you expect your transparent ploys to go unnoticed?

So you try again, and again - same concepts, same primary sources, slightly different angle. Same result, try again. The effect is similar to that of spam. Spammers aren't too popular either. Hence your lack of popularity, despite your attempts to spin your self inflicted wounds as prejudice.

So it's not your religion, Nick ...

[Nick_A]

Greta this is typical of your highly valued secular intolerance. From the linked article on the OP

One could go on indefinitely with similar examples. Canada has a few of its own, notably Farley Mowat who, in a recent interview, went so far as to say that if he ever had the chance, he would eliminate all traces of Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions from the earth. The point to note is this: every form of secular humanism, be it marxism, fascism, nationalism, freudianism, etc. claims to hold the key to human happiness. And each believes that the key resides, not in the way one lives ones own person life, but rather in the way social life is organized.

The historical record shows, however, that wherever it has been able to impose its social programs to produce happiness, secular humanism has caused misery. It is precisely in societies that have replaced Christianity by some secular creed that one finds the greatest cruelty and callousness. Nobody except certain intellectuals can ignore the fact that the two societies that have systematically fought Christianity root and branch Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia have also been the two most grossly inhumane. And as Western democracies do away with their Christian heritage, they become more and more cruel and inhumane. The deliberate starvation of Downs syndrome babies, unrestricted abortion, euthanasia, devaluation of life-giving and life-supporting roles such as motherhood and fatherhood, all bear testimony to the fact that ours is increasingly becoming a death culture like Nazi and Soviet culture. The incredible rise in the rate of suicide among teenagers over the past two decades should alarm us the way that the death of canaries in coal mine tunnels alerted coal miners of another age: the air we are breathing is poisoned.

The glorious victories of progressive education. Is it any wonder that secularism can feel itself fully justified to act with intolerance. The only genuine book an educated secularist should feel comfortable in writing would have the title: One Hundred Ways to Destroy the Young while Feeling Justified." It would be a best seller

You are confusing 'secular' with political persuasion. Why would you assume that anyone who is 'secular' (whatever you mean by that) is a 'Progressive'? It seems to me that the only intolerant people on this site are the kristians. You should try keeping your big fat kristian snout out of others' business. Kristians have as many abortions as anyone else (probably a lot more). Kristians don't want to die suffering any more than anyone else does. No one tells you that you have to have euthanasia or abortions so stop telling others that they can't. Isn't it wonderful that kristianity is losing its powerful control over every aspect of society? The anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia lobby is simply a last desperate grasp at the final straws for the power and control that's being taken from them, dragging them kicking and screaming into the present day. Well boo hoo hoo. Get over it.

Progressive education is based on furthering secular beliefs. For whatever reason over time you have developed secular intolerance against Christianity. The problem is that you don't know what Christianity is so you are intolerant of a concept you have created. Of course you aren't the only one. It is like the concept of art. People can claim they either like or dislike art but if you ask them what art is and how it is distinguished from expression, you get a blank stare. Secular intolerance is an emotional expression against conscious evolutionary potential one is still closed to. A person's self importance can justify it or their sense of conscience can provoke the experience of humility which would inspire opening to understanding. In the modern secular era justified secular intolerance is more fashionable.

[Nick_A]

Thanks Nick for providing a second link to the same source in the same thread, plus a full lengthy quote. Not.

That is the point. It's not your content, it's the saturation and domination of forums with the same thing over and over.

All you need do is state your ideas, make your points, discuss them and then move on. Revisit when you have something to add that isn't basically the same thing over. You started one hundred and seven threads and had a few thousand posts, and you complain about being shut down.

Each thread you start is never satisfactory to you because you often run into disagreement. That makes you instantly passive-aggressively condescending. Then the fights start. So you figure the thread's ruined and start another in a similar vein, making clear that you ignored all prior objections.

As it's basically a continuation of an old argument played to the same crowd, the old protagonists get stuck straight in. Then you cry foul, as if the previous interactions had never happened. Hello Earth to Nick? Some of us may be "secularists" but we have memory spans longer than that of a hamster! How can you expect your transparent ploys to go unnoticed?

So you try again, and again - same concepts, same primary sources, slightly different angle. Same result, try again. The effect is similar to that of spam. Spammers aren't too popular either. Hence your lack of popularity, despite your attempts to spin your self inflicted wounds as prejudice.

So it's not your religion, Nick ...

It is called being courteous. The OP is based on some ideas within the linked article so rather then ask a person to go back to the beginning I post the link again with the new idea being presented

We define philosophy differently. For you it refers to secular Man and for me it furthers our potential for conscious evolution. Jacob Needleman describes how I value philosophy:

From Jacob Needleman’s book: “The heart of Philosophy.”

Chapter 1

Introduction

Man cannot live without philosophy. This is not a figure of speech but a literal fact that will be demonstrated in this book. There is a yearning in the heart that is nourished only by real philosophy and without this nourishment man dies as surely as if he were deprived of food and air. But this part of the human psyche is not known or honored in our culture. When it does breakthrough to our awareness it is either ignored or treated as something else. It is given wrong names; it is not cared for; it is crushed. And eventually, it may withdraw altogether, never again to appear. When this happens man becomes a thing. No matter what he accomplishes or experiences, no matter what happiness he experiences or what service he performs, he has in fact lost his real possibility. He is dead.

……………………….The function of philosophy in human life is to help Man remember. It has no other task. And anything that calls itself philosophy which does not serve this function is simply not philosophy……………………………….

Secularism will find it meaningless so will be intolerant of it. It is not surprising that you would want to eliminate it. Any topic can be discussed from either the secular and transcendent perspective. You and F4 who are now mods and advocates of secular intolerance. This approach to philosophy is not secular so seek to eliminate it. You have gotten rid of it and believe you have won something. All you have done is eliminate another source of philosophy which is going out of style. It doesn’t bother me. I only feel for the young affected by the result of secularizing and the spirit killing it produces.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Further proof that religion is a mental illness. ↑↑↑↑

[Greta]

Thanks Nick for providing a second link to the same source in the same thread, plus a full lengthy quote. Not.

That is the point. It's not your content, it's the saturation and domination of forums with the same thing over and over.

All you need do is state your ideas, make your points, discuss them and then move on. Revisit when you have something to add that isn't basically the same thing over. You started one hundred and seven threads and had a few thousand posts, and you complain about being shut down.

Each thread you start is never satisfactory to you because you often run into disagreement. That makes you instantly passive-aggressively condescending. Then the fights start. So you figure the thread's ruined and start another in a similar vein, making clear that you ignored all prior objections.

As it's basically a continuation of an old argument played to the same crowd, the old protagonists get stuck straight in. Then you cry foul, as if the previous interactions had never happened. Hello Earth to Nick? Some of us may be "secularists" but we have memory spans longer than that of a hamster! How can you expect your transparent ploys to go unnoticed?

So you try again, and again - same concepts, same primary sources, slightly different angle. Same result, try again. The effect is similar to that of spam. Spammers aren't too popular either. Hence your lack of popularity, despite your attempts to spin your self inflicted wounds as prejudice.

So it's not your religion, Nick ...

It is called being courteous. The OP is based on some ideas within the linked article so rather then ask a person to go back to the beginning I post the link again with the new idea being presented

Not long ago you told me to provide specific examples of your ad hominems, which by such a definition is the discourteous setting of "homework". But okay, let's say you were not nagging this time.

We define philosophy differently. For you it refers to secular Man and for me it furthers our potential for conscious evolution.

You obviously don't read my posts. My interest in philosophy is entirely existential, the nature of reality. Human culture is froth and bubble. My care factor there is low. I am interested in the directional nature of growth, development and evolution, including the emergence of new forms of consciousness, as free of our conscious limitations as our consciousness is free of other species' mental limitations. Not so different, really.

However, I am careful about making assumptions about all this. Generally speaking I consider all of reality to be alive, being either active, dormant, developing or decaying. I enjoy my own personal spirituality, just that it is infused with more interest and curiosity than certainty.

[marjoram_blues]

Yes, it seems we have been here before.
What use wisdom if it cannot be applied?

What would be the wise thing to do if concerned about a perceived killing of children's spirit in education.
Nick you said ' I only feel for the young affected by the result of secularization and the spirit killing it produces.'

What use 'feeling' - if not verified in real terms. And action taken.
That is what I mean by practical philosophy. Based on knowledge/experience. Asking questions.

What is the gap between the real world and schools. In general and in particular. How would any gap be bridged ? What should a school curriculum provide. Who gets to decide.
What is your philosophy of education?
If your concern is real, then get real.
Consider and check out any impressions, perceptions or assumptions.

[Nick_A]

Thanks Nick for providing a second link to the same source in the same thread, plus a full lengthy quote. Not.

That is the point. It's not your content, it's the saturation and domination of forums with the same thing over and over.

All you need do is state your ideas, make your points, discuss them and then move on. Revisit when you have something to add that isn't basically the same thing over. You started one hundred and seven threads and had a few thousand posts, and you complain about being shut down.

Each thread you start is never satisfactory to you because you often run into disagreement. That makes you instantly passive-aggressively condescending. Then the fights start. So you figure the thread's ruined and start another in a similar vein, making clear that you ignored all prior objections.

As it's basically a continuation of an old argument played to the same crowd, the old protagonists get stuck straight in. Then you cry foul, as if the previous interactions had never happened. Hello Earth to Nick? Some of us may be "secularists" but we have memory spans longer than that of a hamster! How can you expect your transparent ploys to go unnoticed?

So you try again, and again - same concepts, same primary sources, slightly different angle. Same result, try again. The effect is similar to that of spam. Spammers aren't too popular either. Hence your lack of popularity, despite your attempts to spin your self inflicted wounds as prejudice.

So it's not your religion, Nick ...

It is called being courteous. The OP is based on some ideas within the linked article so rather then ask a person to go back to the beginning I post the link again with the new idea being presented

Not long ago you told me to provide specific examples of your ad hominems, which by such a definition is the discourteous setting of "homework". But okay, let's say you were not nagging this time.

We define philosophy differently. For you it refers to secular Man and for me it furthers our potential for conscious evolution.

You obviously don't read my posts. My interest in philosophy is entirely existential, the nature of reality. Human culture is froth and bubble. My care factor there is low. I am interested in the directional nature of growth, development and evolution, including the emergence of new forms of consciousness, as free of our conscious limitations as our consciousness is free of other species' mental limitations. Not so different, really.

However, I am careful about making assumptions about all this. Generally speaking I consider all of reality to be alive, being either active, dormant, developing or decaying. I enjoy my own personal spirituality, just that it is infused with more interest and curiosity than certainty.

Even if what you accuse me of were completely true,it isn't against the rules. Admit it. You are repulsed by the idea of a conscious source for creation. The purpose of man is to serve creation rather than the common belief that the universe serves Man. How could any secularist tolerate that? Years back when i created threads like "The Great Beast" "Simone, Plato, and the Cave" and Jesus, Nietzsche, and Simone" for example there were members who could discuss these things. Rising secular Intolerance has driven them off. It makes you feel justified but I see it as a hollow victory.

Human adaptation isn't the same as human evolution. You equate them which is why you do not understand conscious evolution. Secular intolerance will do its very best to assure that no one else can understand it either.

[Nick_A]

Yes, it seems we have been here before.
What use wisdom if it cannot be applied?

What would be the wise thing to do if concerned about a perceived killing of children's spirit in education.
Nick you said ' I only feel for the young affected by the result of secularization and the spirit killing it produces.'

What use 'feeling' - if not verified in real terms. And action taken.
That is what I mean by practical philosophy. Based on knowledge/experience. Asking questions.

What is the gap between the real world and schools. In general and in particular. How would any gap be bridged ? What should a school curriculum provide. Who gets to decide.
What is your philosophy of education?
If your concern is real, then get real.
Consider and check out any impressions, perceptions or assumptions.

I can help in two ways. First I try when possible to further the cause of Transdiciplinarity. Spirit killing is escalated by the glorification of fragmentation at the expense of opening to the big picture. this will kill any kid. So if I can aid the struggle against glorified fragmentation in schools I consider it worthwhile. Dominant secular intolerance will defend indoctrinated fragmentation so the struggle isn't easy. But if a few kids smell the coffee, it is worth it. I know you don't know what transdiciplinarity is. Most don't since its public acceptance will take place in 100 years if we survive that long. I'll provide some food for thought so you know I'm not making this up.

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Reviews/NicolescuReview.htm

...............Transdisciplinarity “concerns that which is at once between the disciplines, across the different disciplines, and beyond all discipline,” and its aim is the unity of knowledge together with the unity of our being: “Its goal is the understanding of the present world, of which one of the imperatives is the unity of knowledge.” (44) Nicolescu points out the danger of self-destruction caused by modernism and increased technologization and offers alternative ways of approaching them, using a transdisciplinary approach that propels us beyond the either/or thinking that gave rise to the antagonisms that produced the problems in the first place. The logic of the included middle permits “this duality [to be] transgressed by the open unity that encompasses both the universe and the human being.” (56). Thus, approaching problems in a transdisciplinary way enables one to move beyond dichotomized thinking, into the space that lies beyond.

Nicolescu calls on us to rethink everything in terms of what quantum physics has shown us about the nature of the universe. Besides offering an alternative to thinking exclusively in terms of binary logic, and showing how the idea of the logic of the included middle can afford hitherto unimagined possibilities, he also introduces us to the idea that Reality is not something that exists on only one level, but on many, and maintains that only transdisciplinarity can deal with the dynamics engendered by the action of several levels of Reality at once. It is for this reason that transdisciplinarity is radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, although it is often confused with both. Moreover, because of the fact that reality has more than a single level, binary logic, the logic that one uses to cross a street and avoid being hit by a truck, cannot possibly be applied to all of the levels. It simply does not work. Nicolescu explains it is only the logic of the included middle that can be adequate for complex situations, like those we must confront in the educational, political, social, religious and cultural arenas. As he writes, “The transdisciplinary viewpoint allows us to consider a multidimensional Reality, structured by multiple levels replacing the single-level, one-dimensional reality of classical thought.” (49)

The second is by using the art of my talented 19c ancestor to help the young remember the experience of awe which offers the antidote to spirit killing glorified fragmentation. I don't use his name on the Net since why allow the spirit killers to tear apart what they don't understand. Since he had few peers in his ability to depict the interactions of elemental forces and recognition of the big picture, his art will help the young to experience that there is more to art than flower pots and more to life than glorified fragmentation. That IMO is real education.

[Nick_A]

Further proof that religion is a mental illness. ↑↑↑↑

You will fight this tooth and nail but the result of your attitude has cause the loss of your sense of humor. I see this in the world today. Secular intolerants are always growling about something. They equate nastiness with humor. They cannot see that self justified nastiness deprives a person of the beneficial human experience of humor. Clint Eastwood understands:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... today.html

A lot of people thought it was politically incorrect,' Eastwood said of 'Dirty Harry.' 'That was at the beginning of the era that we're in now, where everybody thinks everyone's politically correct. We're killing ourselves by doing that. We've lost our sense of humour.'

The enforcer for secular intolerance is political correctness and its chief claim to fame is its intended destruction of the ability to see ourselves for what we are and experience the humor in it.

I remember years back when very young and experiencing Jean shepherd for the first time. He said there are two kinds of people; the punctuators and the rest of us. I knew right away that I was one of the "rest of us" and it would be a life long struggle avoiding the negativity of the punctuators. I was right. That is why philosophy and secular intolerance are mutually exclusive. Secular intolerance has become the domain of the dreaded punctuators whose growth requires the elimination of the mind and heart opening purpose of philosophy and replacing it with mind closing superficiality.