Meh, this is why philosophy and politics are two entirely different disciplines. In philosophy it is a cardinal sin to make a pretense of acceptance for someone that holds incompatible beliefs, but in politics it is absolutely required for any kind of victory. While I prefer philosophy over politics by a long way, I recognize that our current fight is in the political realm, and I'm willing to operate there -- distasteful as it is -- because it's either that or stand by helpless and watch the whole thing implode (and taking us smart people with it).
What Jack did was make a political statement that allows for enough commonality that will allow Beck to come on board IF HE EVER SHOULD decide to have a genuine conversion. I don't see what Hunter said as though it were the kind of blanket acceptance that violates philosophical debate, but more as a political structure designed in a strategic fashion that allows for future coalitions as people wake up without offending them so badly that they will hate us even if they DO wake up one day.
It becomes a lot easier to operate in the filthy corrupt and disgusting realm of politics when you can make a real dichotomy between 'philosophical,' and 'political.' What Jack said was political and strategic. Even more, it wasn't even false, it just leaves the light on and the door open if Beck should choose to step through it one day.
Bottom line is, if you want to win the political struggle, then you have to play the political game. There is a place for philosophers, of course, to refine the vision and postulate frameworks for how to implement it, but without political action we'll never be able to obtain a position where the general public can be exposed to the philosophy in a way they can accept.
You need both. Either one hating on the other is counter-productive to all of our goals.
