1
   

The Cost of Fundamentalism

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 02:35 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I respect both of you for your other posts, but the premise of your argument is that you are somehow more qualified then people you refer to as "fundamentalist christians" to make moral decisions.


e_brown, I respect you as well, but this is not the premise of my statements, which is why I am not off base at all.

Nowhere did I say that fundamentalists are not entitled to their own opinions, I only said that we (of other opinions) should start to make our wishes known as effectively.

In my opinion, what we have right now is an imbalance in aggressiveness of the presentation of views by the many parties affected by these decisions.

I hope the fundamentalists continue to fight their fight, and I hope that other people stand up for the opposing views and bowl them over, because they are wrong, and that's my opinion.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 02:58 pm
Rosborne,

Are you saying you always disagree with "fundamentalists"? You are saying you want to "bowl over" the fundamentalist without mentioning an issue. Can I take that to mean that you feel they are wrong on every issue.

When I disagree with you, it is because you are wrong. I don't care if you are "fundamentalist" (or any other "alist").

Conversly, when you are right I will agree with you regardless of your religion or whether you consult astrologers, pick your nose or any other thing about you I don't approve of.

An intellectual should look at the merits of each argument for each issue without regard to the religion of those making it. I have found myself agreeing with "fundamentalists" at times and disagreeing with them at other times.

Any further discussion will require specifics.

If you are talk about the teaching of evolution in public school, I will agree with you. If you talk about cloning, I am a bit more ambivalent.

But I don't feel there is a problem that there are fundamentalist christians who are part of our society. They have the same right to a voice and a part of the political process that anyone has.

I never mind joining a fight, but it has to be for a specific issue that I feel has merit, not a group of people.

I find Au's crusade against religious people he calls "fundamentalists" to be misguided, unwarranted and harmful in a pluralistic society such as ours.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 03:18 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Any further discussion will require specifics.


Agreed. Since we probably agree on more things here than is apparent.

However, Acq's original statement made a general point, and I was answering that with a general response.

ebrown_p wrote:
If you are talk about the teaching of evolution in public school, I will agree with you. If you talk about cloning, I am a bit more ambivalent.


Good examples where specifics are beneficial. I feel the same on both examples.

But when you try to lecture me on the equality of viewpoints expressed by fundies, I think you're off base. You seem to be reading more into my posts than is there. Just because I don't agree with most fundamentalist positions, doesn't meant that I don't think they have a right to be here or to speak their mind. I simply think that a vast majority of people who feel differently about things are not voiceing their own opinions, and it is having a bad effect on policy (and yes, that's my opinion as to what "bad" is), by allowing many fundamentalist views to corrupt our society (science education is just one area). And I think I stated this pretty clearly in the preceeding posts.

You can point out that it's "my" view that they are "corrupting" things all you want, but I think that's just stating the obvious. Of course it's "my" view, that's the whole point, I'm expressing my view and hoping to convince people that my view is the correct view (which will probably take more specific examples... oh well) just like they are doing.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 03:22 pm
Brown
When did voicing an opinion become a crusade. Is it because it does not coincide with yours?

I should note that I have been fearful of and in opposition to everything the Moral majority, religious right or whatever they choose to call themselves long before Bush came to office. They in my opinion pose a threat to this nations religious freedom. Both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 03:28 pm
Rosborne,

Sorry. You are right I was reading more into your posts than was there. I was reacting to your post based on the contents of other posts here. I think we are mostly in agreement.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 03:34 pm
Quote:

Religion and progress mix as well as oil and water.


Quote:

... religion and voodoo have no place other than in places of worship and the personal lives of people. It does not belong in the policy making apparatus of a diversely cultural, religious and secular nation.
Under Bush and people like him it can only lead to tyranny of the religious majority.


Quote:

Religion is the opiate of mankind one that we could do better without. When I say religion I am not speaking of the existence of a supreme being. But the myriad of cockamamie religions that exist in the world today along with there well documented myths.


Quote:

What a wonderful world if it were governed by laws that not distorted by religious dogma. Think we would eliminate one of the greatest causes of war, murder, massacre and all the other goodies that come with religion.


Quote:

MO the fundamental Christians are no different from the Fundamental Moslems, in that they want everyone to adhere to their beliefs.
My way is the way to salvation if you do not believe it's fire and brimstone for you or some such other nonsense. I have little doubt that if given the opportunity and the power they would turn this nation into a theocracy.


Quote:

Brown
When did voicing an opinion become a crusade. Is it because it does not coincide with yours?

I should note that I have been fearful of and in opposition to everything the Moral majority, religious right or whatever they choose to call themselves long before Bush came to office. They in my opinion pose a threat to this nations religious freedom. Both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.


Ahhh maybe you are right. "Crusade" might be a tiny bit harsh.

These are fine opinions.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 03:47 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Rosborne,

Sorry. You are right I was reading more into your posts than was there. I was reacting to your post based on the contents of other posts here. I think we are mostly in agreement.


No problem. This is a tricky area of debate because it's based on a generalization of the effects of "fundamentalism", particularly christian fundamentalism. You are right that specifics would be a more scientific way to go about breaking this down, but I still think I understand the implications of Acq's post...

I took Acq's complaint to be that in general, christian fundamentalists in this country have pushed their own view of morality into policy such that it has 'snuck into' the political system in a very undemocratic way. The result is that current policies hinder scientific progress in this country (particularly in biology as he stated), and that isn't good (in his view and mine), and that it's probably not good in most people's minds, except that most people don't understand enough of this to know how adversely it affects them and their future.

I agree with that assessment in general, and also believe there is a coordinated effort by many (though not all) fundamentalists to push their own interests into out political control systems, in a less than democratic fashion. And I think more people should recognize what is happening and express their own opinions strongly to counter this organized push.

Do you think that the current ban on the development of new stem cell lines reflects the moral imperative of most of the United States? And do you think that moral imperative would change if more people were accurately educated on the subject?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2004 04:14 pm
I agree with you politically on this issue.

My only problem with what you said is I don't believe the religion of the people who oppose stem cell research is important.

The only important fact to an intellectual discussion on this topic is that there are people who are opposed to stem cell research on moral grounds. For me to make a rational discision about this issue, I need to understand the argument the other side is making without regard to their religion or whether I think they are "fundamentalist" or not.

Since I agree with you about this issue politically, a debate is not much use. The interesting question here is how we should get our society to accept this research that we agree is very important medically and scientifically when other feel it is not moral.

The obvious answer is that we should present our argument very clearly and powerfully, and we should use all of the power we have in the political arena. You are absolutely right that we should educate people on the subject.

I believe that we will win this argument. People like Nancy Reagan (who just may qualify as a fundamentalist christian) will help us.

I think it is neither useful or good to disparage a part of our society (i.e. fundamentalist christians) because I disagree with them on this, or any other issue.

As far as this "coordinated effort" to push ones interests into our political control systems. I certainly support several such coordinate efforts including the anti-war movement and the gay marriage cause.

I don't know what you feel is less than democratic, but I don't know anything the people you are calling "fundamentalist" are doing that is different or less democratic than what any politically involved group does. (One small disclaimer: I think that Bush is a crook, but this doesn't have anything to do with his religion).

To answer your specific question...

I don't think the ban on development of new stem cell lines reflects the moral imperative of most of the United States. I do think that this is a winning issue for our side as people learn more about it, and our strategy should involve letting people know.

I am not willing to engage in general wholesale attacks on the religion of the people who disagree with me about this issue. I plan to fight them on this issue while I accept them and support their right to their opinions as a fellow citizen of our pluralistic democracy.

(edit: added the words "ban on" to the second to last paragraph. The original wording said the exact opposite of what I intended.)
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 07:57 am
rosborne979 wrote:
I took Acq's complaint to be that in general, christian fundamentalists in this country have pushed their own view of morality into policy such that it has 'snuck into' the political system in a very undemocratic way. The result is that current policies hinder scientific progress in this country (particularly in biology as he stated), and that isn't good (in his view and mine), and that it's probably not good in most people's minds, except that most people don't understand enough of this to know how adversely it affects them and their future.


Rosborne, this was exactly my point and I belive that the morel imperative would change if more people were educated on the subject. I suspect this is why Christian Fundamentalists are so insistent on removing such subject as evolution from public school science curriculums. But Farmermen can speak more to the point on that has he has been directly engaged in the controversy.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 08:27 am
Bookmarking the best discussion I have seen this year.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 08:48 am
In regard to Acq's comment about education, i would point out that there is a centuries long tradition among Protestant denominations, especially the "fundamentalist" ones, or eschewing education, predicated upon a claim that all one needs to know is to be found in Holy writ. Part of the reason that conservative religious people do not wish evolutionary theory taught in public schools, or wish to have it accompanied by the "intelligent design" scam, is because they otherwise face explaining to their children how it is that society at large does not subscribe to the creation story. Here in Ohio, a review of curricula was mandated for June. As of the latest information available at the Ohio Department of Education web site, in the life sciences benchmark curricula, teachers are not required to teach or test for "intelligent design." There has been a movement among some state legislators to mandate this, but they have been notably reluctant to bring it to the floor of the House, which suggests to me that they have made a pragmatic judgment that they cannot pass such a bill right now. Let us hope they are never able to do so.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 09:07 am
Setanta wrote:
there is a centuries long tradition among Protestant denominations, especially the "fundamentalist" ones, or eschewing education, predicated upon a claim that all one needs to know is to be found in Holy writ.


That is an over broad generalization. In 18th century New England an adult white male who could not read and sign his name was considered mentally deficient. These Congregationalist considered Anglicans "papists" so I think we can safely say the were the fundamentalists of their day. The anti education attitude of evangelicals is more of a 19th century phenomena that came out of the revival movent that swept the nation in mid century. My impression is that it is more western and southern, and in part a reaction to expatriate New Englanders who could be incredibly arrogant and condescending to less well educated immigrants from other states.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 10:00 am
ebrown_p wrote:
My only problem with what you said is I don't believe the religion of the people who oppose stem cell research is important.


Fair enough. I understand the distinction, and I don't wish to paint any group with too broad a brush. I realize that there are dissenters to the stereotype within every group.

That having been said, aren't there certain behavior patterns associated with certain groups, even if not everyone in that group believes the same thing? Do we have the luxury of ignoring the actions of the group in deference to the dissent among the ranks? Or should we address the group based on its collective general stance?

For example, the United States is made up of people with a wide range of opinions on every topic, but aren't we all responsible to some degree for any actions which are taken in our name (as a nation)? And the same for the middle east, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan. And for other religions, Muslim, Hindi, etc. Do we all as individuals share some responsibility for the groups to which we align ourselves?

Maybe this is a topic for another discussion... it seems a bit off track. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2004 11:30 am
Acquiunk wrote:
That is an over broad generalization. In 18th century New England an adult white male who could not read and sign his name was considered mentally deficient. These Congregationalist considered Anglicans "papists" so I think we can safely say the were the fundamentalists of their day. The anti education attitude of evangelicals is more of a 19th century phenomena that came out of the revival movent that swept the nation in mid century. My impression is that it is more western and southern, and in part a reaction to expatriate New Englanders who could be incredibly arrogant and condescending to less well educated immigrants from other states.


It is not a generalization at all, it was an observation that such a tradition exists. I would consider the "fundamentalists" of the 17th and 18th centuries to have been the Moravians and other German charismatic sects, which, ironically, seem to have considered education a laudable pursuit. The tradition, to my knowledge, first surfaces in the "godly republic" of Geneva as established by John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli once publicly replied to a question to the effect that the only books a righteous man need read were the Geneva bible and Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Church. For many of the Puritans from whom the Congregationalists descend, the only book which they would add to the list would have been Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress. Arthur Schlesinger, Sr.'s work in the 1920's and -30's pretty well explodes the myths of New England Protestantism, one of which was near universal church attendance, and the other a high regard for education. Much of the town populations, and the population on the edge of the wilderness, were neither churched nor formally educated.

That being said, i was not generalizing about Protestants, but simply noting a long-standing tradition among the more extremist elements. Anecdotally, i have been told exactly this by some rather well-educated people who have been "born again."
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Aug, 2004 10:02 pm
Referring to the original argument: Just a guess, but trying to keep the science of cloning away from other countries would be as difficult as keeping the science of nuclear fusion away from other countries in 1948.

This technology will be everywhere within 15 years, regardless of any government wish...
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 06:29 am
A Lone Voice wrote:
This technology will be everywhere within 15 years, regardless of any government wish...


That may be the case, but how this technology is to be used is still in a state of flux. We have abrogated out position of leadership in this debate and that is a direct result of the head in the sand position demanded by fundamentalists on this issue.
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 07:56 am
In my opinion the best strategy for cloning, stemcell research genetic altering and some other technology is to require full public disclosure of each project and experiment. This typically discourages experiments that are bad PR, removes some of the profit potential and makes enforcement easy. You go to jail if you did not make full disclosure. Neil
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 08:08 am
This may be a digression. However, I would ask about the danger of Christian fundamentalism in the US. While US fights terrorism in great measure spurred on by Islamic fundamentalism we completely ignore or rather embrace Christian fundamentalism in the US. Isn't in the long run that fundamentalism as dangerous as that we are faced with from external sources? IMO fundamentalism from any source offers the same danger.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 08:34 am
au1929 wrote:
IMO fundamentalism from any source offers the same danger.


In that case, we're not really talking about religion any more, but a mindset, or philosophy (fundamentalism). Any philosophy which sees itself as inilaterally correct, and above all others, would seem to be dangerous (to those outside of the mindset).
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2004 08:47 am
rosborne979
True however,IMO the danger to America's institutions and freedoms internally is religious fundamentalism
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 11:04:09