The constant references to “RINO” (Republican in name only) and now a recent thread that mentioned a religious group prompted this question.

The first option is about people who are identified as one thing but other members say, “No, he’s not”:
Douglas: “No true Scotsman would mix water with his whisky.”
Campbell: “McTavish mixes water with his whisky.”
Douglas: “Well, then, McTavish is no true Scotsman.”

The No true Scotsman argument is very commonly offered up when a group is characterized by the actions of part of the group. We’re seeing it most often these days when someone criticizes socialism by pointing to the examples of the Soviet Union, Communist China, Nazi Germany, or Venezuela. The response is, “Well, they’re not practicing true socialism,” or “They weren’t really socialist at all.”

More traditionally, the argument will be offered up in discussions about religions:
“Look at all the terrible things done by the XYZers.”
“No, they weren’t [aren’t] true XYZers.”

In politics today, the term “RINO” gets trotted out ad nauseum by people who don’t like what some Republican politician is doing.

So, that’s the background. I’m curious about the membership’s thoughts on the subject, and specifically whether how we identify ourselves is what makes us what we are, or whether others’ opinions and beliefs make us what we are. If I claim to be a Spaghettist, an adherent of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), does my claim make me one, or can someone else say, “Oh, no: you eat whole grain spaghetti—blasphemy!—not holy semolina, and therefore you are no true Spaghettist.”

And does it matter who is saying, “You’re no true …” or “Yes, he is”?
Now I’m thinking of people like the Pope. If he says that people who use artificial birth control aren’t Catholics, does that make them not Catholic?

Can individual members of religious groups like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Baptists proclaim who is or is not a member of the same church? As Irving Klotz pointed out about science, the Church of the FSM “has no vicar on the earth to reveal doctrine and no central committee to proclaim dogma.” Neither do most churches; so who decides?

If the Republican National Committee endorses a candidate and supports his campaign, does that make him a true Republican, or can someone who has voted for Republican candidates in the past say he’s a “Republican in name only” because he drives a Prius?

If someone like AOC says that the Soviet Union didn’t practice true socialism, does that make it so?

Thoughts?

NOTE: This question is not about things like racial or “gender” self-identifications that are determined (to the extent possible) by our DNA.
And the “No true Scotsman” argument in a debate is usually considered to be a logical fallacy because it is usually “unfalsifiable,” as Carl Popper would have described it. But that’s not what this discussion is about either.

You're dealing mostly in opinions, not facts.

Just because ANYBODY says something doesn't make it "so".

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
You're dealing mostly in opinions, not facts.

Just because ANYBODY says something doesn't make it "so".

Agreed. YOU are what YOU are.

Btw, I’m very supportive of this thread and iut’s topic. Well done sigfreund.

quote:

In politics today, the term “RINO” gets trotted out ad nauseum by people who don’t like what some Republican politician is doing.

Never like term, it does get abused much too often.

quote:

does that make him a true Republican

Republican is just a group of people, it's yes/no, in/out etc ....say a party.
Conservatism is the ideology part.
You can throw some Libertarianism in there too if you want.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund

I’m curious about the membership’s thoughts on the subject, and specifically whether how we identify ourselves is what makes us what we are, or whether others’ opinions and beliefs make us what we are.

I think what we do makes us what we are, not so much as how we identify ourselves.
As for other's opinions and/or beliefs, I don't put much stock in those.
I've found that in time of crisis or duress, you'll see who people really are.
Do they run and hide or do they stand up and face whatever is coming?
That may be a little off topic but that's what popped into my mind when I was reading.

Regarding Christianity, it is pretty simple. Following the example set by Jesus Christ, in addition to acknowledging His divinity and accepting His grace, is what makes one an outward example of Christianity. Simply calling oneself a Christian or going to church doesn't cut it.

As CS Lewis said, going to church doesn't make one a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes one an automobile.

Likewise, Christ said "a tree is known by the fruit it bears." -From Luke 6:43-45



.

quote:

Originally posted by joatmonv:
I think what we do makes us what we are, not so much as how we identify ourselves.

The value, morality, correctness, significance, etc. of what we do are subject to evaluation and judgment, either by ourselves or by others, just as much as the validity of the names attached to us. If we do something, we must obviously believe it is justified in some way, so what can differ—and therefore what matters—is how others judge what we do, just as how others’ opinions may differ from our own self-identifications—is that what you’re saying?

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
Regarding Christianity, it is pretty simple.

“Accepting,” “acknowledging,” and “following examples” would be considered by many of us to be very subjective words, i.e., subject to different interpretations by different people. If, therefore, someone himself believed that he satisfied your definition of “Christian,” but you did not because of your interpretation of his acts and attitudes, that would mean he wasn’t really a Christian—correct?

Thank you, BTW, for an excellent example of the sort of thing this topic is about, the dichotomy between, “I’m a Christian,” and “No, you’re not.”

For clarification, are you essentially asking whether majority or authority rules?

Regarding the above mentioned authority, I suppose it also depends on how the came to posess whatever title they have correct?

Have not different members of different groups always argued over who the group is and what it's about? Isn't that basically what conventions and primaries are for?

Go all the way back to de Tocqueville - it was always the intention of the founders that different people would, of necessity, come together and decide what they would collectively do and how they would collectively define themselves. The process itself is what is meant to define what it means to be an American and what America is.

Do RINOs exist? Yes. Do I tend to agree with them? No. But at what point are we standing up for fundamental principles and at what point are we no different from those who would arbitrarily claim that Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice aren't black simply because they aren't poster children for the Democrat Party?

quote:

Originally posted by apprentice:
For clarification, are you essentially asking whether majority or authority rules?

Regarding the above mentioned authority, I suppose it also depends on how the came to posess whatever title they have correct?

There are specific situations in which it’s clearly established by our society that majority or authority rules. Elections are the most obvious example of the former, but there are countless examples of the rule of authority as well. I can call myself “Doctor” and anyone is free to accept and even play along with the fiction in ordinary life, but if I want to be hired by a hospital and wear an ID badge that says “MD” on it, I will most likely have to have satisfied certain objective conditions. Something similar would be true of everything from claiming to be a Colorado peace officer to having a CDL. Either I am by legal definition, or I’m not, and those are not the types of things I’m referring to here.

I am talking about things for which there are no formal legal definitions and standards to be met. Christian, atheist, Presbyterian, athlete, Republican, Libertarian, patriot, responsible citizen, careful driver, are all examples of subjective terms, but the most common examples of what this discussion is about are specific groups that are clearly recognized, even if not clearly defined—at least not by definitions that are accepted by all concerned. “Christian” is a good example.

Prospective converts are regularly and firmly told that all that’s necessary to be a Christian is to accept Jesus Christ as one’s savior from the consequences of sin. After they convert, however, most are then told, “Oh, no: Belief itself isn’t enough,” and are confronted with a long list of other things that must be done to become a true Christian who will be saved. And of course that list has changed continuously over the past couple of millenniums.

Not really. The example that Christ gave us to follow in Himself is pretty easy to understand. It is hard to follow, because we are human and have worldly, rebellious side, but it is easy to understand.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

“Accepting,” “acknowledging,” and “following examples” would be considered by many of us to be very subjective words, i.e., subject to different ....

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by joatmonv:
I think what we do makes us what we are, not so much as how we identify ourselves.

The value, morality, correctness, significance, etc. of what we do are subject to evaluation and judgment, either by ourselves or by others, just as much as the validity of the names attached to us. If we do something, we must obviously believe it is justified in some way, so what can differ—and therefore what matters—is how others judge what we do, just as how others’ opinions may differ from our own self-identifications—is that what you’re saying?

To a point, yes, that's what I'm saying.
Self evaluation is more important to me than someone else's unless what I've done or doing is immoral or illegal.
I'm my professional life, I have to judge employees. Can they do the job given to them? Things like that.
Personal life, I try not to judge because it's really not my job. That and I get enough at my business.
I have a vast differing of opinions with the people I work with. I'm lucky that everyone gets along even with different backgrounds and ethnicities.

Am I a true American? I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I believe this nation is the greatest force for good on the planet. Every day I go to work to protect and serve those who cannot protect themselves.

but

I am a naturalized citizen.

quote:

Originally posted by Pyker:
Am I a true American? I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I believe this nation is the greatest force for good on the planet. Every day I go to work to protect and serve those who cannot protect themselves.

but

I am a naturalized citizen.

Well, you got my vote. America has always been proud of our immigrants. Lately it has been spun that only one party likes immigrants, which as we all know is hogwash.

You came here, you believe in what makes this country a great place, you have signed the check to help keep it that way. Yep, that's a true American.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
Not really.

Thank you for confirming that even if a definition is not based on a vicar on the earth to reveal doctrine or central committee to proclaim dogma, there will always be self-confident volunteers to take it upon themselves to fulfill those roles.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
Not really.

Thank you for confirming that even if a definition is not based on a vicar on the earth to reveal doctrine or central committee to proclaim dogma, there will always be self-confident volunteers to take it upon themselves to fulfill those roles.

I don't know how to help. We obviously see this very differently.



.

All snideness—intentional or un-—aside, I appreciate candid comments. Regardless of my opinions about certain matters, I am getting a feel for differing views about my original question which concerned whether it’s the individual’s view of herself or the beliefs of others that define what/who she is.

I had pretty well learned previously that when the question is about religious matters, most individual religionists believe that they get to set the rules and to decide when someone is not a proper member of the sect. I have seen such conclusions expressed literally countless times.
What I haven’t pondered very much (not at all, really) is how anyone concludes with any certainty that someone else is a proper Lutheran, Mormon, Muslim, etc. The outward conspicuous signs such as attending worship services, praying out loud, tithing and other good works, etc. are of course obvious, but what about that “acknowledging,” and especially the “accepting” parts? How does anyone know another’s thoughts and true beliefs? Do we shun the honest man and embrace the merely clever? I am aware of the “do good and you will become good” claim about that question, but I also know that if it works on some people, it does not work on all the clever ones.

But I am still hoping for more discussion about the original question and things like political labels. Can, for example, someone be a Republican if he considers himself to be one and yet asks pointed questions about relationships with our foreign adversaries and allies?

I had the same line of thinking once about art and artist. If one proclaims that they have created art then who am I to say it isn't. Some performance art for example seems to defy any rational definition of art. It isn't true art to me.

But if it is presented as art then who am I to say it is not?

If anyone can declare themselves an adherent of any discipline ,especially a philosophy/theology, then I suppose I won't argue with with that.

In the case of the artist who calls pissing in the snow art then I can claim to be an art critic , and pronounce it bad art.

Somethings do have set standards with more or less exact qualities. An electrical engineer perhaps. Though if I change a light bulb, do I qualify?

As SMSCHULTZ said, Republican is easy. It's an actual political party with member lists.

I disagree with the RINO label, because I think the Republican party intends to be ineffective at their stated goals. People who truly believe in America aas found and want to return to those values are RINOs. The GOP is the best current vehicle for them, but they do not agree with the party's true, unstated positions.

Who is a true conservative or liberal is more interesting. I think the whole thing boils down to something like that insidious obscenity decision. "I know it when I see it. " Jeffrey Dahmer is not a good Christian, regardless of how he identifies himself, but there is a whole lot of room between Jesus and Dahmer to argue about where to draw the line.

Plus, a lot of us hold a variety of positions that are not consistent with one party, or often even consistent with each other.