0
   

Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

 
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2003 08:05 pm
Strategically placed and media spin. Nothing more.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2003 11:29 am
Setanta wrote:
Scrat, you must have searched long and hard to find a definition which partially, and only partially, supports your blatantly idiosyncratic usage:

Dictionary.com was the first and only place I checked, and we're done here. Why you can't simply accept that I do not see this as you do and move on as beyond me. Bleat in someone else's direction for a while, okay? I'm trying to enjoy some Holiday spirit. Cool
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 06:04 am
Bleat?

I'm sure that constitutes a major part of your enjoyment--all i've ever seen you do here is throw stink bombs at threads.

Why can't you just accept that your race/religion argument is a failed analogy and move on?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2003 10:54 pm
Quote:
Illogical. First you beg the question, then you follow with a non-sequitor. What is the skepticism you prize so well? In the universe of propositions concerning some matter, the proposition that A is true, or that B is true, and the proposition that "not A" is true, are all equally propositions, as is the proposition that "one cannot tell with the evidence at hand".

george

Humans are not mere proposition-making machines and human cognition is not well described by a skeleton of bleached Boolian bones.

The proposition, held by a Saskatchewan Neo-Nazi Ladies Auxilliary president, that "Jewish bankers rule the world while not engaging in pedophilia" is a proposition. It's 'negation' - "Well, I rather doubt it" - apparently sits shoulder to shoulder with the original in that universe of propositions.

What is the connection, george, between beliefs and what actually is so? We know, for example, that all cultures have their particular origin stories and they are each unique, and each held to be true tales by the folks who were raised in those cultures. Certainty is no measure that what is actually so is being reflected. But we can be certain that the ideas will be held with tenacity. Yet members of any of these cultures, no matter how ancient or unsophisticated, if put aboard the space shuttle, would see that the earth is actually a sphere, or if given long enough and given the proper intellectual resiliency, will understand the lengths of time necessary for geologic formations such as mountains.

Do all voices have an equal right to political advocacy, you ask rhetorically? Sure. Let's take, as an example, LASML (Lesbians Against Strip Mining, Marxist Leninist). Or the Hell's Angels, or Nambla, or Brits For Crop Circle Worship or Christian Conservatives for Theocracy in America. Let them paper the telephone poles and construction site fences. And, when they move into positions approaching real power in the polity, then what? My response will be to say 'this group has these values/ideas, and they are a danger'. After all, this is the way you commonly speak regarding 'secularists', so that ought to be permissable to you.

I'm sorry if the above is a bit disjointed...I fear it might be, but I'm too tired to judge.

Aside from all else...sincere best wishes and a merry christmas to you and your family.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 12:53 am
Blath, happy holiday to ya, again.

Ok, the Klu Klux Klan was, and we can all agree, a dangerous organization. They are no more. The Hell's Angles are not a political force in our society (although they do possess great looking motorcycles),
plus, keeping pretty much to themselves as a group, and have outgrown thier 'take over the town' faze. I have no clue about the other orgs you mention, and < am probably better off not knowing > however, if they were any sort of political force, we'd of heard something.

Any political group has a right voicing their opinions. It's the responsibility of the constituency to review all facits of political issues, then vote their concience.

A person, either christian or secular can still understand the rights of each individual in our society.

Blath, I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what you're talking about.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 01:12 am
Quote:
Ok, the Klu Klux Klan was, and we can all agree, a dangerous organization. They are no more.

So the fact that one of them was recently zapped for bomb making shows they are benevolent?KKK and explosives...all fluffy and warm?

Quote:
KKK leader accused of bomb plot

Abortion clinics target of his wrath, agents say

Friday, February 14, 2003

By Torsten Ove and Dennis B. Roddy, Post-Gazette Staff Writers

Federal agents yesterday arrested a Washington County Ku Klux Klan leader with links to the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations, charging him with plotting to bomb an abortion clinic.

David Wayne Hull, 40, of Amwell, a longtime Klansman and adherent of the racist Christian Identity religion, was arrested at his farmhouse yesterday morning and arraigned in U.S. District Court, where a magistrate ordered him held pending a detention hearing this morning.

According to an affidavit, Hull arranged for the purchase of hand grenades in November and told an FBI witness he intended to use them to blow up abortion clinics.

A federal affidavit does not say whether he named the clinics he planned to target.

Hull also gave the informant components for a pipe bomb he built in his basement and indicated he had two other bombs buried on state game lands which he would later bring to Lancaster, where the informant apparently lives.

Hull appeared in shackles yesterday afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Ervin Swearingen, who said he would appoint a lawyer to represent him. Hull said he is unemployed, lives on Social Security disability payments and has three children as dependents.

Hull is the self-declared Imperial Wizard of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which civil rights investigators described as a seven-member unit that grew out of the now-defunct Invisible Empire Klan. Unlike many other Klan leaders in Pennsylvania, Hull avoided public appearances.

"Our Klan is a super-secret Klan," he wrote on his Web site. "All of our activities are shrouded in a mist of secrecy. ... Our officers never speak to the press about anything."

In July, Hull was a guest at the world congress of the Aryan Nations faction led by Charles John Juba of suburban Philadelphia.

Juba and Hull were members of the same Klan faction a decade ago and Hull later invited Juba to his farm in Washington County for a cross-burning ceremony.

A researcher for the Southern Poverty Law Center said yesterday Hull is believed to have tested bombs on his property in Washington County.

"There was a lot of gunfire and explosions heard up on the property," said Joe Roy, an SPLC investigator.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Margaret Picking would not discuss details of the case, but prosecutors did unseal an affidavit supporting the arrest by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, a team of federal, state and local law enforcement officers.

According to the affidavit:

A confidential witness recruited by FBI agents in Philadelphia drove to meet Hull at a Washington County truck stop in November to discuss a deal involving hand grenades and pipe bombs.

Over lunch, Hull said he wanted to buy 10 hand grenades, but when he was told they cost $200 each, he said he could only afford to buy five. Hull said he expected delivery in February.

He also said that he had sent two men that day to retrieve two bombs he had buried, and that all of them would meet at his property after lunch.

While driving after lunch, the informant asked Hull what he intended to do with the grenades.

Hull said he was going to blow up abortion clinics. At first, he said he intended only to cause property damage, but when discussing the possibility of people being in the buildings, he said "if they're there, they are killers or a woman killing a fetus; either way, [profanity] 'em."

During the drive, Hull also spoke to a woman by cell phone who said she was trying to acquire blasting caps from miners for him.

After arriving at his home, Hull learned that the men he sent to dig up his bombs had failed to retrieve them.

He then gathered the components to complete one bomb and told the witness how to assemble the pieces. The informant left with the unassembled bomb and some explosive powder, and Hull explained that he would bring the other two bombs to Lancaster "in a week or two."

The informant later turned over the unassembled bomb to FBI agents.

On Jan. 14, the witness received a package in the mail from Hull that contained a fuse the witness had mistakenly left at Hull's house, along with a copy of Hull's "Knight Watch" newsletter.

The March 2001 edition of the newsletter urged readers to write to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh "to tell this great man goodbye and give him a well-deserved pat on the back for a job well done."

Sounds perfectly harmless to me. Rolling Eyes Gee...what a nice man. Just the sort of person who should be watching the kiddies!
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 01:13 am
Setanta wrote:
Bleat?

I'm sure that constitutes a major part of your enjoyment--all i've ever seen you do here is throw stink bombs at threads.

Why can't you just accept that your race/religion argument is a failed analogy and move on?

Yes, "bleat". That's the sound I hear when I read your responses, each of which seems more strident and petulant than the last. Why is that? What's got your goat about this particular disagreement? We've disagreed plenty of times before, and you are usually far more civil and rational in your writings.

If my opinion is so ill-advised, why does it vex you so? It isn't a game or a tactic or anything else, it is my opinion, and is based on your statements. Your comments about fundamentalist Christians remind me of how most people talk--even today--about homosexuals; it's still quite acceptable to hate them in most towns in America, you know. Doesn't make it right of course, and neither does the grain of truth upon which your "the fundies are dangerous and we'd better watch 'em" rhetoric is poised.

Used to be people said it was "the Jews" we had to watch. (I despised hearing that, too.)
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 02:01 am
Hotibob, I did not say the Klan was "nice". I did say, as a political group, they are no more.

Their 'secret' society and members well known to the FBI and local police.

Klan mentality exists, along with their right as citizens to voice an opinion. We don't have to subscribe to their views Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 02:22 am
Stradee wrote:
Hotibob, I did not say the Klan was "nice". I did say, as a political group, they are no more.

How do you define "no more?" they certainly are still active.

Quote:
Their 'secret' society and members well known to the FBI and local police.

Even those known to the police may still be dangerous.

Quote:
Klan mentality exists, along with their right as citizens to voice an opinion. We don't have to subscribe to their views Rolling Eyes

But any groups that seek to subvert the rule of law are by definition dangerous. I find your comments disingenous.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 02:29 am
Quote:
Any political group has a right voicing their opinions. It's the responsibility of the constituency to review all facits of political issues, then vote their concience.

A person, either christian or secular can still understand the rights of each individual in our society.

However, groups that seek to change the rule of law to better conform to their interpretation of religious texts are by their very nature antithetical to the concept of democracy. This is not due to their use of current law, but due to their stated goals which often include the use of extrajudicial measures that would adapt or nullify certain aspects of constitutional protections. The "Anti-gay marriage" amendment is a wonderful example. A group of religiously motivated individuals seeks to undue a ruling made by the USSC by generating an amendment to the constitution which would define "marriage" by the parameters of a narrow interpretation of religious dogma. As a further goal, these groups would likely then set out, by similar measures, to reverse USSC decisions on sodomy, women's rights, civil rights, etc....
I really don't understand how people can fail to see the dangers inherent in these actions.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 04:33 am
Money & Power
"then vote their concience"

There is the problem. The USA is predominantly Christian therefore the Christian Right is constantly fighting to shove their agenda onto legislation. We the people don't get to vote on what the legislators or the courts create as law. Now we have a Pres. & a Gestapo Atty. General who are on their bandwagon. In my view this situation is similar to the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan, except that the fighting isn't physical.

If Muslims wanted statues of whatever all over the place and demanded to pray seven times a day in schools, at the work place, in the courts or the congress, and were devioulsy attempting to change our laws to adhere to their religion, I believe this convo here would be of a different nature.

I don't have any negatives to write about the concept of Christianity but I don't want this nation to be a Fascist Right Wing Christian one either.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 05:25 am
You're investing more in this than i, Scrat, your goat seems more "gotten" than mine.

I've never heard anyone complain about the Jews--must be the crowd you run with. I never expressed any hatred for fundamentalists. All i've said here is that they bear watching.

You are, by your own definition, bleating, Scrat.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 09:15 am
Quote:
Blath, I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what you're talking about.


LOL strad...I'm not sure I was either...terribly exhausted last evening. There is, no question, tricky stuff in here. Over the holidays, I'll see if I can think of a way to frame my argument so that it isn't quite so sloppy or so dismally confused.

Love ya and happy holidays to you and to all.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 09:28 am
Happy holidays to everyone in this thread.

My best wishes for peace and contentment in 2004.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 09:33 am
Peace
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 09:35 am
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TijUUS_cDqsC:la.indymedia.org/uploads/peacesign
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 09:39 am
http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/health/opd/violprev/manual/peace.gif
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 09:56 am
It's time, it seems for the orgasm of the year. And I'm in high gear still (this is a good thing). Happy Holidays to all and Peace.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 10:32 am
Lola wrote:
It's time, it seems for the orgasm of the year. And I'm in high gear still (this is a good thing)....


Lola, if this is something you have to discuss at length, I have very flexible office hours!

Laughing Laughing Laughing

(Actually, we need an emoticon with eyebrows that raise up and down and with a leer on its face!)
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2003 12:21 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Quote:
Any political group has a right voicing their opinions. It's the responsibility of the constituency to review all facits of political issues, then vote their concience.

A person, either christian or secular can still understand the rights of each individual in our society.

However, groups that seek to change the rule of law to better conform to their interpretation of religious texts are by their very nature antithetical to the concept of democracy.

Why? If you are so keen on Democracy, why would you be opposed to anything the majority wants for society?

Of course, our system tempers democracy with a Constitution, but so long as the will of the majority passes constitutional muster (or at least the pretense thereof) it is the law of the land. Whether those who wanted X wanted it for religious reasons or did not IS NOT IN ANY WAY IMPORTANT TO THE PROCESS OR THE OUTCOME.

Whether I am against abortion because of my religious beliefs or because little green men told me it was bad, my opinion on that issue must hold equal weight in our system, OR THAT SYSTEM IS PREJUDICED AGAINST RELIGION.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/04/2025 at 05:08:49