Comments on: Can progressive economists join forces with the church? A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: traducere daneza romana Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:51:41 +0000 2012 longchamps is on popular purchase now,Longchamp Eiffel Tower Travelling bag has turned into a beneficial type in the world,Imprinted at first glance in the case symbol in the Eiffel Easy, Tower and SimpleBasic and Easy and

By: timclapham Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:16:45 +0000 It seems to be that your post is a smug self referential slab of poor quality thinking and not particularly good writing. If this is what your US readers are fed I am not surprised at the level of economic and philosophical povery in the US. There is absoliutely no attempt to get to grips with the discusion nor any recognition that economics faces a serious moral crisis. Its easy to be cynical world wise but what have you ever done for the improvement of man that bears any comparison to what Stiglitz has done in the areas of development economis and the reassement of economic pririties. Your video says more about you than it does about INET and its efforts to get the economics profession to rethink. Sorry if I have been a bit shrp but frankly your piece was drivel and totally shallow

By: TFF Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:41:55 +0000 I couldn’t find the words “purely because” anywhere in what he wrote… Nor are they reasonably implied. Nor is your exaggeration necessary to support his conclusion, further evidence that he wasn’t taking it nearly that far.

By: handleym99 Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:36:53 +0000 Uhh, Curmudgeon wrote “You don’t have to be religious to respect those who are, even if you disagree with them.”

What does this mean? It means that even if you disagree with someone you should respect them PURELY BECAUSE their belief is religious. How is that to be interpreted other than what I said?

If someone’s sincerely held religious beliefs have them wanting to burn witches, that should be respected, but garden-variety misogyny gets no such pass? Leviticus-inspired gay hatred is a fine and noble thing, but politically inspired homophobia is unacceptable?

What I am saying is that a person deserves respect or not depending on the quality of their beliefs.
What Curmudgeon is saying is that certain beliefs get a pass simply because they are “religious”.

Don’t pretend that we are talking here about fuzzy “I feel spiritual” emotions and “god gives me strength” claims.
The reason this matters is precisely the types of issues I listed — women’s rights, gay rights, the teaching of science. Heck you bring dominion theory into it and we’re up to global climate change and peak oil. Throw in other countries and we have the issue of whether god “gave” Israel (maximally defined) to the jews and whether madrases are a useful way to educate (male-only, of course) students.

By: TFF Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:32:26 +0000 @handleym jumps the shark…

Curmudgeon wrote that you don’t NEED to be religious to respect those who are. He didn’t write that you MUST respect those who are religious.

In fact, I think his suggestion was precisely on target (and precisely worded). Respect for religion is pretty widespread in the US, even if the number who actively practice their faith is low. At least some religions are very much in the economic mainstream culture.

By: handleym99 Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:18:13 +0000 “You don’t have to be religious to respect those who are, even if you disagree with them.”

Uhh, the problem, Curmudgeon, is that you engage in the very act you claim to condemn: you refuse to accept the worldview of other people.

You state that the very act of being religious is something deserving of respect, regardless of the content of those beliefs. Uuh, what?
The rest of us think this starting point — respect based purely on willingness to support a cause regardless of the nature and consequences of that cause —is nonsense.
Your starting point is no different from something like “You don’t have to support The Khmer Rouge to respect those who do” or “You don’t have to believe in a flat earth to respect those who do”.

And of course, at the end of the day, you don’t even believe what you claim. You want special pleading for your (“real”) religion, but not for all the other nonsense out there that claims to be religion. Respect for scientologists? Raelians? Moonies? Aum Shinrikyo? Burning heretics? Burning witches? Stoning adulterers? Killing gays?

By: AndrewTyndall Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:06:42 +0000 “I also don’t kid myself that there’s any nobility, be it moral or otherwise, in being poor”

The idea of the nobility of poverty is a straw man. The Sermon on the Mount does not assert that the poor are noble. Instead, it refers to those who are “poor in spirit” and calls them “blessed” as opposed to cursed, I suppose.

The rich, on the other hand, are certainly ignoble, according to the gospel: even if they obey all the Commandments scrupulously, they are still like camels trying to squeeze through the eye of a needle until they divest themselves of all of their possessions. Clearly the possessions are the impediment to fitting through the eye.

By: Christopher58 Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:48:58 +0000 That baby is freakin’ me out, dudes.

By: stonewafer Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:40:15 +0000 Excellent post Felix … Top notch.

By: Curmudgeon Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:48:37 +0000 You don’t have to be religious to respect those who are, even if you disagree with them. After all, I don’t know for sure, and I’m pretty sure you don’t either. Much of the MSM simply considers those whose religion plays a significant role in their life views to be fundamentalist and therefore out of the economic mainstream, and that doesn’t seem like it’s the correct approach.