I must say I’m always impressed by the way in which people who think like Claire respect and give space to, say, pro-life protesters, Republicans, supporters of the war in Iraq, and religious conservatives, and never, ever, get confused or enraged in the course of their disagreements with them.

Empirical thought is a limited tool. It can only make claims on data observed by the senses; it cannot extend to the myriad facets of human life that have yet to be described by the senses such as love and the aesthetic sense.

This thought is universal only to the extent that fellow human beings with similar senses can test the results. I tell you that this will follow that, you can follow with your own eyes.

Outside of this realm, the thought between me and you is differentiated by our respective identities. I as a white male do lead a different everyday way of life than a woman, and even after all efforts at understanding that difference will remain.

What we can share when we construct political systems is the method of logic that is common to all human beings with the senses of touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing. The experimental method was developed by Europeans, but its application is to create discourse that allows debate and verification, instead of dogmatic assertion.

I just happen to have a broader perspective on what faith encompasses. I believe like many ( not all) of our founding fathers, and for that matter many other civilizations such as the Ottomans founders believed in faith which tied into all aspects of political life. But as you argue this is not all encompassing. Some people are materialistic while others are having spiritual motives. There certainly is a divide in all societies. I just like to add that one can be spiritual and be materialistic all at the same time. No other person better personifies this than Jesus accepting the bottle of expensive perfume in which Judas had a nit-fit over its ramifications in regards to what a spiritual leader is doing hogging up all the expensive material-stuff while others go without anything.

Ultimately this is what makes me materialistic over spiritual. Materialistic goals such as property, bodily safety and freedom to associate and exchange can be regulated and measured in common argument. Spiritual goals such as freedom from sin, virtue before supernatural morality or divine leaders are only measurable to each member of the faith individually (this is what makes dogma so important, to duplicate the results).

“universalism” is a silly thought. think about the words “diversity” and “universalism”. break them down. they are in opposition. you can’t have a “diverse” and a “universe” at the same time. you’re either for one or the other. problem is, diversity is a fact, kinda like 2 + 2 = 4. people are diverse, and your wanting us to be universal will never, ever change that fact. here’s a rhetorical question: what, to you, is the difference between “universalism” and “whitewashing”?

“civil society”, on the other hand, is exactly what identity politicians, as you call us, are fighting for. a society in which civil space is free and equal for all; in which public space is not dominated by a white eurocentric point of view masquerading as a universal point of view; in which all perspectives are respected and given space and no one gets confused or enraged when someone disagrees with them.

i’m really really sorry that being privileged means that you don’t get to understand what it’s like to be marginalized. however i don’t really think that’s a first-hand understanding that you really want to share. your crippling confusion and flying rage are a result of your being denied access to something, not a result of any illogic. it’s the tantrum of a spoiled brat being told “no”. you’re used to having your every perspective validated by the mainstream, but people of color, women, and queers are starting to not do that in a big way. that makes you mad. sorry, but maybe you just need a time out.

if you’d like to correct your ignorance, here are some sources of information:

http://www.hyphenmagazine.com/blog/index.php
http://www.latinopundit.com/
http://www.negrophile.com/
http://womenofcolor.blogspot.com/
http://www.othermag.org/blog.php
http://www.ggreg.com/content.asp

If the interpreters address the data then they can use that data for good or bad. Therefore the good or bad observation as I pointed out you implied is quite right-on. Is this true or not true? Why? You made an initial comparison that I pointed out. I said wait – look at what you implied: Good ‘Empirical’; doesn’t equal Good or bad ‘faith’. Do you see why I said circular argument? The end result is what matters not the process. What one does with that empirical evidence is what a stake, not just the process of finding that evidence.

The end result for an empirical research is an ‘Agreement’, which, can be used for good or bad purposes. Therefore the comparison to faith and empirical is equal to the relative of good and bad. Therefore one cannot be better than the other.

Is there such a thing as ‘ faith’ in the Constitution of the United States of America?
I heard this phrase said many times.
Is there such a thing as ‘ empirical evidence’ in the Constitution of the United States of America?
I never heard this phrase at anytime.

Is there a difference between these two statements?
If so what is the cultural relevance?

With a faith based argument, the only thing that matters is that the person who believes the thought believes the thought. If we both made faith based economic predictions, both of us would be right because it would be impossible for either of us to argue to each other’s faiths (to look at common data would be to suggest the opinion is less than divine).