Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

Setanta wrote:

It is a playground tactic, Scrat, because of your inevitable "In other words" style of responding to my post, or any other post with which you wish to disagree.

I used "in other words" to try to illustrate what I see wrong with your statement. You are free to disagree with my assessment or explain why it is wrong. And I am pretty sure that I don't respond the same way to every post with which I disagree. (Perhaps it is a "playground tactic" for you to say I do? Just a thought...)

Setanta wrote:

You seems to always either attempt to set up a straw man (as in this case, by characterizing what i wrote in an inappropirate manner), or attempt reductio ad absurdum, restating someone's post so as to make it look ridiculous. Try responding to exactly what i've written, as opposed to a more facile statement on your part that you feel comfortable knocking down or ridiculing.

And I'm sure you never try to point out the absurdity you perceive in the arguments others make, right? Again, lighten up. The holidays are upon us! Very Happy

Quote:

I haven't devalued the opinion of the religious, simply identified it as dangerous.

You can slice it any way you want, and you are completely entitled to your opinion. Different people have different opinions on what is bigoted. I've expressed mine, and your statements qualify. I can almost guarantee that you would not make similar statements about the views of the black community.

0 Replies

Perhaps you need to re-read my last post.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Perhaps you need to re-read my last post.

I have, thanks.

0 Replies

Scrat,

If there were Jews or blacks or Muslims or white female protestants, what ever the group, if I felt their organized actions were putting our civil rights at great risk, I would certainly substitute those designations for "fundamentalist Christian.." yes I would.

And you are absolutely correct that I do consider this radical, fanatical form of religion to be dangerous and whatever else you said I said about it. In my opinion, it is their belief that they know better than others what God wants or what is best, and they they believe it absolutely is a very dangerous idea. Religion, used in this way is always dangerous, unless I'm mistaken. :wink:

0 Replies

I don't deny that there are fundamentalist Christians who would like to use the government to control the behavior of others, but to attack their religion because of the actions of individuals, is--in my mind--wrong.

By the way, I happen to believe that every charge you level against them, I could level against the far left. The primary difference is that those on the left don't attribute their goals to God's wisdom (their perception, of course) but to their own. The fact is that those on the far left want to control behavior just as much as those on the far right, which makes them equally dangerous.

lastly, and this is a point I suspect you haven't gotten yet and perhaps cannot see as I see it: There's nothing wrong with your disliking what fundamentalist Christians want, the problem comes in when your argument against what they want is that they want it because of their religion; that their religion is the problem. That's when your argument effectively becomes that those with religious beliefs should not have a voice in politics.

If an atheist wanted everything you attribute to the fundies, he'd still be wrong, right? So why claim it's the religion that's dangerous? I can't believe that you actually don't see what's wrong with that line of reasoning. But then, neither did the people clamoring to throw all Muslims out of the US after 9/11 see what was wrong with theirs.

0 Replies

Scrat, this is an example of exactly what i have charged you with in warping what people write.

Scrat wrote:

Let me ask you this: Should the fact that a person is a Christian automatically preclude that person from having the right to free speech in this country?

To which i responded:

Setanta wrote:

No, but it could be adduced as a cautionary signal with regard to the exercise of our civil liberties.

I didn't say it should be, i didn't say that i automatically would, nor did i make the least comment on someone's religion. You asked about specific individuals, i.e., " . . . the fact that a person is a Christian . . ." You weren't specifying a religion, or even a general belief in religion, you were positing, specifically, an individual identified as a Christian. My response was that it could--not that it automatically should, but simply that it could--be adduced as a cautionary signal.

You have chose to warp that into, first a statement that i minimize someone's opinion (on the contrary, i can't emphasize too much the dangers of some of the opinions of some of the religious people in this country). There is nothing in what i initially wrote to suggest that i "minimize" someone's opinion, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Now you ask: "So why claim it's the religion that's dangerous?" I, for one, have made no such claim. I have said that certain charismatic and millenarian sects have a history of wishing to control society and its institutions in order to avert divine retribution for the perceived "sins" of society. It is that desire to control which is dangerous, not necessarily the religion itself.

Please restrict your rejoinders to my posts to what i have actually written, as opposed to the straw men you want to set up and knock down, or an exercise in reductio ad absurdum. I made a conditional statement without regard to the relative importance of anyone's opinion, and you characterized it as minimizing someone's opinion. There is no logical basis for such a statement on your part, as derived from what i wrote, other than assumptions about what i "secretly" meant, or a desire to use a forensic technique such as strawman or reduction to the absurd.

0 Replies

Just got back from christmas shopping wiht my sister. The SUV (of course. Rolling Eyes

)'s radio was tuned to KYGO,a country station (insert vomiting icon here). Anyway, a "paid announcement" appeared from the "American Family Defence Fund" decrying Abercrombie and Fitch for their advertising that promotes "perverted sexual behaviour" and encourages "group sex." WTF? The spokesman identified himself as the pastor of some church in Cherry Hills Village. I have to wonder:

a) Do the folks who listen to that station even shop at Abercombie?

b) What possible difference does it make?

This was sandwiched between two "red-bludded payteroddic 'merrcun whup them furriner's asses" songs, one by (of course) Toby Keith. Its interesting how this group ahs their target deomgraphic down pat. They ask a group that wouldn't know Abercrombie and Fitch if it bit them on their noses to write the local media demanding the store's advertising not be sold, write their elected officials demanding the store be targeted for obscenity prosection, and allow the prurient little homonculi who make up the religious right to fantasize all about "perversion" whilst ostensibly stopping it. Himmler would have been proud of these people.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

The pond-hockey thug from Michigan

I agree that the presence or absence of theism or religion is not an aceptable discriminator for participation in discourse (or in governance). Except as it relates to what I've just said. For example, I'd be quite unalarmed to see Malcolm Muggeridge or the Dalai Lama or Joseph Campbell or Desmund Tutu arriving in the presidency or onto the Supreme Court. But Billy Grapham's son is a different kettle of fish. What makes the one case different from the others is the nature of the belief system held, and the consequences of that for liberty.

Well, this is real progress. I might argue with you about Joseph Campbell (he's dead) or even Billy Graham the younger, but not too forcefully as these would be questions about the merits of individuals and, as such, part of the normal politicaL vetting process. Perhaps we would agree that a Muslim who advocated imposition of Sharia law and a Caliphate would be disqualified, but one who supported secular government, distinct from any particular religion, would be OK. I suspect we might even agree that anyone who has an excess zeal to use the power of government to reform human behavior in areas that go beyond prohibition of or the requirement for specific actions needed to preserve public order, the general physical, economic and social welfare of the popuation, is suspect. This could also include people whose excess zeal springs from non-religious sources as well.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

a) Do the folks who listen to that station even shop at Abercombie?

They possibly listen to Bill O'rielly on Fox News (the fair and balanced no spin zone). Rolling Eyes

He has been stirring the pot lately!

Partial transcript

0 Replies

Judging by their recent financial results, very few people shop at Ambercrombe.

0 Replies

Oops, focus on the family. Anyway, a few things from the link Mesquite posted:

Quote:

JAMES DOBSON, Ph.D, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: Well, Bill, I wouldn't take the credit for that. There are millions of parents irritated about this, and for very good reason. You know, for at least five years, Abercrombie & Fitch have been exploiting kids for financial gain and running to the bank with the money. And it's just getting worse and worse.

And then this year, they're over the line. I mean, they were before, but it's unbelievable what they've done now. I have the catalog here in front of me. And it promotes group sex or orgies.

I don't think this man has any real interests besides control. Can you hear the drool hitting the floor when he speaks about group sex? i know I can! Wink

Quote:

DOBSON: I think young people are titillated by sex,

I think old repressed buggers are even more tittilated by it. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

DOBSON:You know, I've been writing for parents for 30 years, and people have taken my advice on a lot of things. If you ever listen to me, listen to me now. Don't patronize this wretched company. They're out... to exploit the kids.

Gasp! No, not kids! Shocked

Quote:

O'REILLY: ... that you might be -- I think they want to jazz you,

"jazz"

Quote:

you and me and people who see society in a traditional way.

The fine tradition of incest, shotgun weddings, and secret abortion. Mad

Quote:

We don't want children exposed to group sex when they're 12 and 13. You know, after you're 18, I don't care what you do.

Oh no...not group sex!!! Shocked

Quote:

O'Reilly:Doctor, I'm real happy to play it, you know, because what you did is absolutely American.

In the finest tradition of Salem and McCarthy. Rolling Eyes

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I was 12, group sex was not even on the top 500 list of things I thought about. I am less than comfortable with this group of busybodies running around.

0 Replies

hockey thug

In some closet or box somewhere, we have a yellowing photo of Rocket Richard sitting at the family table, sharing a bit of scotch with my dad and talking hockey with my twin and I and a couple of neighbor kids. It was very much like (you'll pardon the analogy) having the Pope over.

You mention 'zeal'. My notion is that zeal finds a proper home in but two instances - the arts and the bedroom. Also possibly as the term for the meat of a young zebra.

The argument we might have re Joesph Campbell vs Graham would be interesting and would head smack into what I like and what I don't like - an open mind vs a closed mind.

Yes we would agree that a Muslim advocating Sharia law would not be acceptable, but that a secular-minded individual in leadership who allowed full freedom of religious belief and practice and association yet who resisted the conflation of law and any single distinct religious worldview would be acceptable. Even a non-secular minded individual operating in that manner would be fine with me.

Quote:

I suspect we might even agree that anyone who has an excess zeal to use the power of government to reform human behavior in areas that go beyond prohibition of or the requirement for specific actions needed to preserve public order, the general physical, economic and social welfare of the popuation, is suspect. This could also include people whose excess zeal springs from non-religious sources as well.

I've read this a few times, and it's still unclear to me what you might be thinking of.

0 Replies

hobit

Elaine Pagels' "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent" is quite an extraordinary book in many ways, and one of those is her explication of how sexuality came to be viewed by the Western mind in the way that it is. There's a wonderful anecdote (which I've mentioned elsewhere) from Michener's "Hawaii" where an early Calvinist missionary, utterly offended by the sexual practices of the native islanders, posts a list of all the people one should not sleep with (brother with sister, all first cousins, etc, a long list), and he is advised that posting such a list is not advisable as the folks will just read it to find people they hadn't thought of sleeping with yet.

0 Replies

Ere I were in the Army, the first thing we looked at after PCS was the "off limits" list. These were usually the most fun places to go. Very Happy

0 Replies

Blatham'

Yes, Maurice the Rocket Richard - He was second only to Gordie Howe in my hall of hockey heroes. Although "Boom Boom Geffrion (sp?) was up there too.

"I suspect we might even agree that anyone who has an excess zeal to use the power of government to reform human behavior in areas that go beyond prohibition of or the requirement for specific actions needed to preserve public order, the general physical, economic and social welfare of the popuation, is suspect. This could also include people whose excess zeal springs from non-religious sources as well."

I'm referring here to my preference for restraint in government - less government is generally better. In addition I am exceedingly suspicious of governmental efforts to influence how people think, or to somehow reform non-criminal behavior, or any aspect of people's lives that doesn't require government imposed restraint to preserve the general welfare in important areas.

0 Replies

george

Yes, I had a particular affinity with Boom Boom, as we shared the same first name. I wasn't a terribly good player, known more for my unusually poetic grace in motion than for anything measurable, like goals. I actually quite lost interest in the sport as the sly Howian elbows gave way to the outright thuggery of the modern game.

I'm still a little foggy on your point above, but take it to be a protest against 'social engineering'. We'd probably disagree about stuff in here, I suspect.

Earlier, I made a brief comment that humans don't evolve much. If a homo sap from 100,000 years ago was dropped into a modern womb, there would be no way to tell that fellow apart, physically or almost certainly, by any other yardstick.

It is our culture, and it's institutions, which are responsible for progress. Like your constitution and Bill of Rights, of which I am a very big fan, or the Geneva convention, or labor and environmental laws and more, our institutions act as bulwark against the worst parts of our natures - selfishness, cruelty, the urge to dominate, etc.

Each such step is an instance of social engineering.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Each such step is an instance of social engineering.

I quite agree.

You have listed items and categories including some of the best of them. However there have also been number of misteps along the way, many now forgotten. Moreover some of the categories, labor and environmental laws, and others, contain elements that are either no longer needed or which have yielded negative side effects that far outweigh their benefits. It is important that government doesn't merely accumulate such stuff like a snowball rolling down a hill. Some creative destruction or periodic whinnowing is also required. The UK will always need a Thatcher to emerge every 50 years or so.

0 Replies

God Almighty! Thatchers! An infinite line of them marching into eternity.... AIEYYYYYYYYYYY

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Scrat, this is an example of exactly what i have charged you with in warping what people write.

Scrat wrote:
Let me ask you this: Should the fact that a person is a Christian automatically preclude that person from having the right to free speech in this country?

To which i responded:

Setanta wrote:
No, but it could be adduced as a cautionary signal with regard to the exercise of our civil liberties.

I didn't say it should be, i didn't say that i automatically would, nor did i make the least comment on someone's religion. You asked about specific individuals, i.e., " . . . the fact that a person is a Christian . . ." You weren't specifying a religion, or even a general belief in religion, you were positing, specifically, an individual identified as a Christian. My response was that it could--not that it automatically should, but simply that it could--be adduced as a cautionary signal.

You have chose to warp that into, first a statement that i minimize someone's opinion ...

I don't think I "warped" it at all, though perhaps "minimize" doesn't state it quite well enough. What I mean is that you have indicated that you are willing to treat a person's opinion DIFFERENTLY based on that person's religion. I think that is bigoted of you. Now, if that isn't what you mean when you write that the mere fact of their religious affiliation "could be adduced as a cautionary signal with regard to the exercise of our civil liberties", then we may not be speaking the same language. Once again, I've got to offer race as a parallel and ask whether most people would think it bigoted of me to suggest that a person's race "could be adduced as a cautionary signal...".

Focusing on the religion is lazy, and removes the need to actually outline what it is you dislike about the proposed policy. In most cases, people here seem to argue that because the persons pushing such-and-such are fundies, such-and-such is bad. It's lazy, it's of no value to the debate, and it is bigotry. You are of course free to call it what you like.

Now, I'm going to get back to that swingset. You have a great Holidays! Cool

0 Replies

Once again, it is not bigotry, it might be described as prejudice, however. I don't consider that i am the member of a superior group with regard to the religious, which means that i am not bigoted toward them. Look the word up, you throw it around a lot, but don't seem to know the definition. It is not really prejudice either. I advocated no action against anyone, just that someone who can be identified as a member of a charismatic or millenarian sect bears watching. That is not prejudice, but simply an estimation based upon a history centuries long of attempting to impose their religiously derived agenda upon society.

Were someone able to demonstrate satisfactorily that members of a particular race can be considered a risk to my personal saftety, or my civil liberties, then i would refer that way to the race. You are positing an equivalency where there is none. "Fundamentalists" (an all too vague categorization) frequently and publicly express a desire to alter the laws of the nation to suit their agenda. Therefore, i consider that such individuals bear watching. Were it a case that all Japanese, just to randomly pick a group, were prone to publicly and loudly advocate altering the laws of the nation in a manner which i would consider dangerous to my civil liberties, then i would say they bear watching.

You've really got no argument here, although you deserve credit for working hard to create the illusion of having one.

0 Replies

Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know