How Agnosticism Could Have Prevented 9/11 and a Mormon Attack 144 Years Earlier

[cbayer]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/14828/how-agnosticism-could-have-prevented-9-11-and-a-mormon-attack-144-years-earlier

Mason HarrisoninCulture, Religion 1 day ago



-snip-


The events in Utah and New York — though separated by more than a century — are rooted in the same cause: religious extremism.

Mormons, at the outset of their religion, faced brutal persecution that chased them from the United States and led to the murder of the religion’s founder; and Muslims overseas account for just one of any number of groups vexed by U.S. foreign policy and intervention. Extremism begets extremism and the recipients of extreme injustice will often use political means, e.g., acts of terrorism, to exact revenge on their persecutors — whether real or imagined — which can at times manifest as violence.

The antidote, of course, to religious extremism is agnosticism — the moderating view that the truth about any theistic philosophy is unknown. The extreme anti-Mormon sentiment of old could have been tempered by this view and today’s animus toward all things Islam can also be dealt a measure of reason by adopting the idea that the practice of faith (also known as belief), in any particular religion, doesn’t equate to the principle of knowledge (also known as certainty).

To be agnostic about anything is to operate without knowledge about a particular subject, something that is separate and apart from belief. The moderating force of agnosticism can be seen in the political dealings of American elected officials.

more at link

[dmallind]

1. From the sublime to the ridiculous in two consecutive sentences

To be agnostic about anything is to operate without knowledge about a particular subject, something that is separate and apart from belief.

While I could quibble that really agnosticism eschews not all knowledge but knowledge that derives from mystically revealed certainty, this statement and especially the last clause is a rare nand important correct usage of the term. A believer and a nonbeliever can both be completely agnostic, and a label of agnosticism does not refer to belef in either direction. Well done.


The moderating force of agnosticism can be seen in the political dealings of American elected officials.
What the hell is this moron smoking? Unless he's missing an asterisk where he lists the vanishingly small number of elected officials who do act agnostically in a footnote, which rock is this guy under?

[cbayer]

2. He's young, idealistic and is exploring a concept.

[dmallind]

3. Oh the concept is fine - no problem with that at all. Or the ideals.

Just wish he had picked a better example to make a very good point. Maybe had he used, say, French elected officials. Even British until they started going all Dhimmi a few years back.

[trotsky]

4. He makes some good points.

However I believe those points strike a little closer to home for you and your family than you realize.

Putting an end to acts of religious and political extremism requires an agnostic approach to human governance, one that privileges certainty (better known as knowledge), or the lack thereof, over belief (more familiar to us as faith).

This is precisely what many atheists have been saying in this group for years, but certain individuals disagree and continue to assert religious dominance over social and political issues. Say hi to your dad for me.

[dimbear]

5. The Mormons weren't persecuted for their religious beliefs, they were persecuted

for flaunting the laws of the states and the country in which they resided. That's why they fled the United States. Extract out the scorn for law and the Mormons would have been just another unusual experiment, and would have been tolerated.

I don't see how a general feeling of agnosticism would have induced the populace to tolerate lawbreaking. For instance, Joseph Smith, the famed Mormon martyr was "persecuted" for arson.