3) Surely that's like the way the (UWA) UCC used to reckon — because their constitution, based on the Charter of the VOC, claimed the right to make laws about anyone with official status under it — they could make laws governing non-members simply by according them the "Official Status of Non-Member".
There are no "metaphysical claims"; there are only claims about the Universe (which only metaphysics, somewhat perversely, seeks to subdivide into "the natural world" and something else). All claims are claims about the Universe, and atheists as a group make no claims relating to things other than the Universe.
I note you don't call the French "property fundamentalists" because they have laws against theft or "fundamentalist pacifists" because they outlaw gladiatorial contests in the streets. I'd suggest it's entirely unreasonable to label them "atheist fundamentalists" (clearly a belligerent terminology, given the way "fundamentalist" has come to mean "extremist nutter") because they seek to promote commonality over distinction. Most people call that "nationalism".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Quibblings or quislings?
Date: 2005-10-03 04:55 am (UTC)There are no "metaphysical claims"; there are only claims about the Universe (which only metaphysics, somewhat perversely, seeks to subdivide into "the natural world" and something else). All claims are claims about the Universe, and atheists as a group make no claims relating to things other than the Universe.
I note you don't call the French "property fundamentalists" because they have laws against theft or "fundamentalist pacifists" because they outlaw gladiatorial contests in the streets. I'd suggest it's entirely unreasonable to label them "atheist fundamentalists" (clearly a belligerent terminology, given the way "fundamentalist" has come to mean "extremist nutter") because they seek to promote commonality over distinction. Most people call that "nationalism".