Christian Fundamentalists and the Rise of the Radical Right by Niki2

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Even still, I wouldn't consider that fundamentalist. I mean, someone yelling at me that I'm of the devil, and going to hell, that's not exactly forcing me to do anything. It doesn't affect me because I don't believe what they do.

What about when they rewrite legislation specifically aimed at eliminating low-cost healthcare alternatives for lower-income women?

What about when they picket any pharmacy which agrees to sell "Plan B" or the morning after pill, and do so until such a business caves in and removes a legal product from their shelves?

Or when they do everything in their power to hold up approval of such things in the first place?

Thing is, fundamentalists aren't MOST of any religious group; they just tend to be the LOUDEST. And their actions DO have an impact on the lives of people who don't believe what they believe.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:35 AM

Quote:
Hitler: Quicko's quotes are indeed there and Hitler did say them. One can ask why: Did he say them because that's how _he believed, or did he say them to get others to come alongside him and get them interested in his cause. I don't know. There's this show on the history channel (which I've not watched) called Hitler and the Occult, which insinuates he was doing some things that I would consider unsavory that Christians tend to steer clear of. But then again he was a horribly evil awful person so none of what he did was something that a real Christian would consider savory or even remotely okay, so the point is moot.

One can ask "Why?" all day long; one can ask if Hitler really *believed* what he was saying. Of course, one can as easily ask if Bin Laden really *believed* the stuff he spouted to get idiots to do his bidding, too.

The issue with extremists isn't so much what their LEADERS really believe; the issue is what those leaders can get their fundamentalist followers to DO by manipulating their beliefs. And it seems that pretty much any religion has the ability to be used to get fundamentalist believers to kill themselves and others.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I'm not so insecure about science that I feel I have to defend it or else it could blow away in the stiff breeze from a blowhard's mouth.

The past is done. Modern days are different from when religion held sway, I can be openly atheist, and even Christians will generally leave me alone for it, and the country is not so homogenous.

Denying people the option of believing what they want is in violation of that whole pursuit of happiness thing that we talk about so much over here. And focusing too much on the past just leads to desire for (intellectual and real physical) revenge on both sides. Whatever powers they have, they are on the decline, I think. I don't fear a return to the dark ages from religion.

But prudence is not giving them a reason to hold a grudge, if they ever do get power again. That means letting go of our own grudges.

As for them saying I'm going to hell, so they're offensive, so what. Over here you're allowed to be offensive in speech. It still doesn't matter to me because I don't believe in hell.

It's not their BELIEFS I'm concerned with, but rather their actions in pursuit and furtherance of said beliefs.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:45 AM

Frem: This is why I'm not scared of them. What're they going to do, ban microwaves? Sometimes when something gets let out of the bag, it can't be stuffed back in. Science is like that, religion IS powerless to get rid of it.

Let's just see them try. Their rocks against our space ships.

I'm not saying it out of a fear of retaliation thing, I'm saying it out of a "let's stop perpetuating this pointless feud of intolerance" thing. It already shifts back and forth, neither side is strong enough to end the other. So keeping this up only bites all of us in the ass. The only way TO end the feud is to stop the cycle of revenge.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:55 AM

Quote:
If you believe it despite the scientific evidence, then you are anti intellectual.

No, belief isn't anti-intellectual. Anti-intellectualism in America is when someone grumbles about "intellectual elites" and college grads and all their high-fangled fancy words. Maybe some of these types do this, but you're conflating two different issues.

Compare to anti-intellectualism under Pol-Pot, who believed the entire society should be brought back to agriculture based by any means possible and killed anyone with an education, INCLUDING people who wore glasses because they might have been LITERATE.

The things you guys are worried about are seriously minor.

People believed for almost TWO millenia in this, and people who didn't really believe were forced to act like they did, and YET, knowledge continued.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 4:16 AM

Quote:
What about when they rewrite legislation specifically aimed at eliminating low-cost healthcare alternatives for lower-income women?

What about when they picket any pharmacy which agrees to sell "Plan B" or the morning after pill, and do so until such a business caves in and removes a legal product from their shelves?

Or when they do everything in their power to hold up approval of such things in the first place?

You missed what I'd consider the more pertinent points about sex ed and stem cell research. Considering that most of the arguments against both are based on erroneous conclusions, I'd say religious objections against availability to the greater public are SOL.

But, as ever, I would support their ability to refuse the services they would disagree with, such as their walking out of sex-ed. You can't force people to participate.

Really, though, sex ed is probably the best long term solution TO people needing abortions, so I'd like to think they might eventually realize that they're shooting themselves in the foot.

So as for their other anti-abortion legislation, no, I don't really support it. Not only do I consider it different degrees from something merely discussed in a classroom, but at the same time I think the stuff that they want to put in the classroom, in some areas, is just going to be discussed anyway. I oppose the one because I think it affects non-Christian populations, I don't bother with the other because I don't think it does.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:14 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, I wrote this as I read the posts, so I can't "send" it to one person. Since I was responding as I went along, it's impossible to remember all of who I quoted or responded to. But it's to everyone, and apologies for the length. It's a very frustrating debate, and some of my points were made by others, but it's important to me that we at least try to communicate, so here goes:

Quote:
that's attacking a central tenet of Christianity

Byte (and Happy), I wonder why you're so sensitive about this. I wrote very, very clearly "ANY religion when people take it to extremes". Extremes: 99.9% of all religions are people who believe in their faith, either live by it or don't, but go on about following that faith in their everyday lives. We're discussing EXTREMISTS of various faiths; to say it attacks the central tenet of Christianity is to say that "It is comforting to have answers to life’s deepest questions and {Christianity} provides relief from angst by postulating that there is some form of continued existence in an afterlife after death." That's not what I've been led to believe about Christianity; rather, as far as I know, it's not intended to provide relief from angst, and that's not the purpose of believing in life after death. If that IS the case, then my respect for Christianity would take a dive, but I don't believe it is. It's what makes EXTREMISTS comfortable (as in, no matter what they do, they'll go to heaven, because THEY are the "best" Christians around, naturally). It's a false premise, and I thought Christianity taught people to think about what's right and wrong, and follow Jesus' teachings of compassion, etc.

I'm finding it very interesting, albeit sad, that some here are seeing this article as an attack on the entire religion. He's made it pretty clear (apparently not clear enough?) that he's talking about extremists, despite the semantics of calling them "fundamentalists", yet some here are taking it as an attack on the entire religion...or on all religion. The article has a very narrow framework, but is being widened (misconstrued?) to apply to those the author was NEVER talking about. So there's something else going on here besides simply disagreeing with him. It's become personal to some, or so it would seem.

As I see it, there's no attack on Christianity by comparing it with Islam. It happens in pretty much every discussion on these subjects. It's only natural to use Christianity (the dominant religion in the Western World) to compare to Islam (the dominant religion in the Arab world). We could look at other religions, but these are the Big Two, and the point being attempted is that the fact Christianity has been responsible for huge bloodbaths (and little ones), just as Islamist extremists have done, shows that ANY religion, taken to extremes, has been guilty of violence. We could use buddhism if you want, I won't find it offensive. Buddhism, like Christianity, TEACHES good stuff; there have been and are extremists who haven't understood the teachings and have perpetuated violence. I don't take saying so as an attack on buddhism at all, but rather proof that even the most pacifistic religion can be twisted to perpetuate violence.

Reading through this, I feel the need to say to those who think the article is attacking ALL of Christianity, indeed all religions: "I know that it's hard for you guys to see." We all have our own filters, and we view the world through them. Magons got it, as far as I'm concerned, but interestingly, what she's saying doesn't seem to get through. That's not a put-down, it's just interesting how the article affects different people differently.

Happy, if I saw what was written as stereotyping of any one religion, I would reject it too. I sincerely do not. The author may have a bias against religion, but he is ADDRESSING the very worst of ALL religions: extremists who use their religion to condone acts the religion itself finds abhorrent.

I would like to correct you insomuch as "Zen" buddhists means most buddhists, as zen is part of meditation. Now, if you wanted to use the Rinza sect of zen buddhismi as an example, that would be fine with me:

Quote:
The Rinzai (Chinese, Lin-chi) sect of Zen was introduced to Japan by the Chinese priest Ensai in 1191. Rinzai Buddhism emphasizes the use of koans, paradoxical puzzles or questions that help the practitioner to overcome the normal boundaries of logic. Koans are often accompanied by shouts or slaps from the master, intended to provoke anxiety leading to instant realization of the truth. Unlike the Ch'an schools in China, Ensai also taught that Zen should defend the state and could offer prayers and incantations. "These teachings influenced the warrior class and led to a Zen influence over the martial arts of archery and swordsmanship."

The more popular form of buddhism in the West is Soto Buddhism (Chinese, Ts'ao-tung), another Zen sect that was transmitted from China to Japan. It arrived in Japan in 1227 upon the teacher Dogen's return from China. Soto emphasizes zazen, or sitting meditation, as the means to attain enlightenment. The Soto practitioner is encouraged to clear the mind of all thoughts and concepts, without making any effort towards enlightenment, until enlightenment occurs.

Can you see the difference? Rinzai is a more "violent" form, if you will, and might be called the more extremist sect, but even then, they're not necessarily extremist. It's those WITHIN any religion who take the religion to such an extreme and either don't understand the purpose of the religion or interpret the religion to foster violence. I agree the use of the word "fundamentalist" is wrong, he should have used "extremist", but that's semantics and currently those who believe and practice fundamentalism have been lumped together with extremists within the fundamentalist "school" if you will and are the noisiest and seen as the most willing to impose their will on others. In that respect I agree the article is wrong in that it stereotypes fundamentalists as extremists, but I see that as a mistake of the current semantics more than anything else.

Quote:
branding an entire people or belief system

I don't see that at all. He's only talking about "fundamentalists" (and I'll use "activist extremists" from here on, because that's what he's writing about); to expand that to branding an entire population or religion is something I don't see. I had no problem recognizing that's what he's talking about.

Quote:
It doesn't affect me because I don't believe what they do.

There you go. You said it yourself; he's not talking about you or anyone else except those who use their belief in Christianity to condemn others and to try to force others to believe and act like them.

As far as intelligent design, I disagree. I think SOME Christians, fundamentalist or not, are against evolution because they FEAR it--it essentially denies a lot of the Bible's teachings, and if some of the Bible's teachings are disproved, then it brings into question the rest. It doesn't have to, but that's how they see it. Anger always has at its roots fear; if they didn't fear it, it would be easy for them to incorporate science into religion, recognize that the Bible isn't "history", it's man's interpretation of history, so they'd find nothing wrong with God having created the Big Bang and letting it go from there, or somesuch. An extreme reaction to something is always based in fear. There are many, maybe most, Christians who have no problem with evolution; it's only those so intensely tied to the need for religion to be right in every respect who fear anything that questions that.

Quote:
I don't see how that article can be read without taking it parts of it as condemnation of belief without evidence

There is the "I don't think you can see it", to me. It's definitely NOT condemnation of "belief", it's condemnation of belief being twisted to the point of thinking and acting in actual OPPOSITION to what the religion teaches and believes, and being willing to try and force others (even through violence) to "get in line" with that belief.

Again and again Magons and others have tried to make the points I just did, but each time it seems this cannot be accepted; the article has to be about Christianity as a whole or a particular group of Christians (the mistake he made by not using "activist extremist Christians" rather than "Christian Fundamentalists").

Quote:
Denying people the option of believing what they want

But that is specifically what he is NOT doing; he's discussing those who want to deny what OTHERS believe, and to force their own beliefs on them. Making abortion providers virtually impossible to find is a way of getting around the law and forcing people to follow their beliefs. Shooting abortion doctors is the same; it's actually "terrorism", as it's using violence to perpetuate fear. The same with same-sex marriage; making it illegal is unconstitutional, but again FORCES the population to follow extremist's beliefs; it's not about what people believe, it's about whether they want to force those beliefs onto others. THAT is the specific danger he is warning against.

Frem's got it:

Quote:
for most of the ones I have dealt with, my EXISTENCE is reason enough - remember what I said about ideologies which feel so threatened by any other alternative they need to crush it ?

Well, when that's one of the core beliefs, written directly INTO the religion itself, I take em as a threat till proved otherwise, and even then remain suspicious, cause of the perfidious nature of the belief itself.

It's not the "belief", it's the "interpretation of the belief", and that quote could just as easily refer to extremist Muslims, which is the point we've been trying to make. It's not about the religion, it's not about faith, it's about those willing to use force to make others behave at least (if not believe) a particular way.

Quote:
the rise of religious extremism is dangerous because of its enmeshment in politics and its sway over politicians.

That's it in a nutshell. That's the danger, and no, Byte, it's not waning...you have only to listen to right-wing candidates to know that. It comes down to, for me, the fact that the more extreme believers in Christianity have to an extent taken power in the Tea Party, which has given them power within the government (state and federal), which is allowing these laws to be passed, and if one of them gets elected, you better watch out. They will be JUST as willing to go after Christians who aren't like them as they will anyone else.

Magons, about the anti-intellectual thing, I tend to disagree. I think faiths and science often go different ways, and it's not about intellect. I find other things more indicative of an anti-intellectual basis among extremists. No particular belief, to me, reflects anti-intellectualism--anti-SCIENCE, perhaps, maybe even ignorance in not having looked into the facts, but not anti-intellect. Some of the things I find representative of anti-intellectualism are the use of "elitist", the "he's someone you'd want to have a beer with" and so many of the other put-downs you hear from the right.

Happy,

Quote:
If your 'forthright view' is that I am too 'blind' or cannot 'stomach' something because I happen to disagree with the statement, then I don't see the point in continuing this conversation.

It's not, at least for me. It's that arguments have been made, again and again, to clarify that what was written was ONLY about a particular small group of extremists WITHIN the Christian faith, yet you and others see it as a condemnation of the entire faith, indeed ALL faiths in some cases. We keep explaining that it's only about a small group, a group believing and behaving in ANTI-Christian things like intolerance and willing to FORCE their beliefs, through political power, on others. I don't know why we can't get past that block, but it's both frustrating and SEEMS reflective of an inability or unwillingness to even consider it otherwise.

Quote:
the issue is what those leaders can get their fundamentalist followers to DO by manipulating their beliefs

Bingo. As to whether Hitler believed what he espoused or not could be debated forever, but I hope it's a given that many politicians say what they want their base to believe of them in order to control them, and that's what's happening in America today. Laws against Sharia Law, preventing Muslim churches from being built (even to passing LAWS to prohibit it), and the things Mike mentioned, to which I would add passing a law where a woman can't have an abortion even if her life is in danger, are an indication of extremists forcing their beliefs on others. Again, that's the entire crux of the article.

Byte, it's not about ENDING one or the other, it's about one achieving the power to create legislation and such to make what the other believes and do impossible. The thing where if a pharmacist's beliefs are so "pro-life" that they have the RIGHT to refuse to sell birth control pills is an example. They can believe whatever they want, but forcing those beliefs on others by actions contrary to the occupation they've chosen is just plain wrong. If their beliefs go against the occupation they've chosen, then they shouldn't be in that occupation, simple as that. To say "I'll sell you this, but I won't sell you that, despite your doctor having prescribed it, because I don't believe in it" is wrong, but that's what they want to have the "right" to do.

I think you're minimizing the danger. We're already seeing the problem in action, which is what instigated the article; we're seeing laws now on the books prohibiting others from THEIR beliefs, and in some cases causing actual harm to people if they try to follow their own beliefs. Enacted laws are hard to eradicate, and in some cases laws were passed in such a way as to make undoing them all but impossible; that is a deliberate effort to force others to abide by one group's beliefs. Neither will ever "win", it's gone on for centuries and always will, it's about those who are willing to subvert our freedoms, and they're doing it right now. It can impact any one of us, given the situation, and that's something we should all be against.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:22 AM

Again, Niki, this is not taking about extremists if one of the points is about a regularly held and not just Christian belief. There was a deliberate jab in there about belief in the afterlife. It throws into question both what the author defines as extremism, and suggests he defines religious extremists as ALL religious believers.

Quote:
There you go. You said it yourself; he's not talking about you or anyone else except those who use their belief in Christianity to condemn others and to try to force others to believe and act like them.

...

I. AM. ATHEIST.

If you can't discuss this without applying ulterior motives to my posts, then I guess I'm done here. I did not finish reading the rest of what you said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:33 AM

Quote:

Frem: This is why I'm not scared of them. What're they going to do, ban microwaves? Sometimes when something gets let out of the bag, it can't be stuffed back in. Science is like that, religion IS powerless to get rid of it.

Let's just see them try. Their rocks against our space ships.

I'm not saying it out of a fear of retaliation thing, I'm saying it out of a "let's stop perpetuating this pointless feud of intolerance" thing. It already shifts back and forth, neither side is strong enough to end the other. So keeping this up only bites all of us in the ass. The only way TO end it is to let it go.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
If you believe it despite the scientific evidence, then you are anti intellectual.

No, belief isn't anti-intellectual. Anti-intellectualism in America is when someone grumbles about "intellectual elites" and college grads and all their high-fangled fancy words. Maybe some of these types do this, but you're conflating two different issues.

Compare to anti-intellectualism under Pol-Pot, who believed the entire society should be brought back to agriculture based by any means possible and killed anyone with an education, INCLUDING people who wore glasses because they might have been LITERATE.

The things you guys are worried about are seriously minor.

People believed for almost TWO millenia in this, and people who didn't really believe were forced to act like they did, and YET, knowledge continued.

Thing is, you've kinda pointed out the problem right there in two posts. "Their rocks against our space ships." Yeah, we basically tried that, in Vietnam and again in Afghanistan. We've got all the advanced weaponry in the world, and they have rocks and zealotry. And they won in 'Nam and have held us to a stalemate for nearly a decade already in Afghanistan, with no end in sight.

Pol Pot was pretty much a direct outgrowth of our Vietnam policies and actions, and his anti-intellectualism carried the day at the time.

Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile. Or a million lives.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, it's not any one big thing, more like death of a million cuts - when everywhere you turn, all day, every day, you have a belief YOU consider evil, and it's sickass "values", shoved in your face, from every possible direction...
On TOP of folks who make it really clear they want you and yours obliterated, while striving for the power to do just that...
Wouldn't that make you perpetually angry with them, and consider them a persistent, potential threat, especially when they outnumber you a thousand times over ?

I mean, shit like THIS, which just makes me wanna puke.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/nbc-pledge-under-god_n_896476
.html
And it's not even the original fucking pledge, which ran "One nation, indivisible" - it's 50's era McCarthyist bullshit which any SANE society would have learned from and tried to avoid, instead of diving headfirst back into it as deep as possible...

But consider from MY perspective what this is, an acknowledgement of government-endorsed religion.
Most folk are so steeped in it, so used to it, they don't even notice - but when every single ONE of those million little things, every way, every day, hits your nerves like a fucking cheese grater....
Oh I know I am less than reasonable about it, but can you really blame me for my hostility, given their intentions for folk like me and the fact that various attempts HAVE been made to carry them out ?

Not to mention, well, stuff like the AoG sponsored Hellcamps, grrrr.
(And on MY tax dime, no less!)

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
What about when they rewrite legislation specifically aimed at eliminating low-cost healthcare alternatives for lower-income women?

What about when they picket any pharmacy which agrees to sell "Plan B" or the morning after pill, and do so until such a business caves in and removes a legal product from their shelves?

Or when they do everything in their power to hold up approval of such things in the first place?

You missed what I'd consider the more pertinent points about sex ed and stem cell research. Considering that most of the arguments against both are based on erroneous conclusions, I'd say religious objections against availability to the greater public are SOL.

But, as ever, I would support their ability to refuse the services they would disagree with, such as their walking out of sex-ed. You can't force people to participate.

Really, though, sex ed is probably the best long term solution TO people needing abortions, so I'd like to think they might eventually realize that they're shooting themselves in the foot.

So as for their other anti-abortion legislation, no, I don't really support it. Not only do I consider it different degrees from something merely discussed in a classroom, but at the same time I think the stuff that they want to put in the classroom, in some areas, is just going to be discussed anyway. I oppose the one because I think it affects non-Christian populations, I don't bother with the other because I don't think it does.

Good point(s). Yes, people can believe what they want. They just can't FORCE me to believe what they believe, and they shouldn't be able to force me to act according to their beliefs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 9:02 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Niki, I have lost patience with this thread, but not because of you. I appreciate you being respectful and I just want to attempt to clarify my position to you.

I realize this article was not meant to apply to me or even my denomination (or more accurately lack there of). However it still intentionally stereotypes Fundamentalist, and and that bothers me. Not all Fundies are out to take over the government and force their views on others.

I do believe violent extremism is dangerous and and that a bloody 'score card' serves no purpose. Also, extremism need not be religious in nature, and is often far from religious in true motivation.

Using the term 'extremist' is at least more appropriate than fundamentalist. I believe that 'extremism' is merely a symptom of a real human problem(s) and am wary of that label as well. I thought Frem had some very good points concerning this, not sure if I've said that yet or not.

Lastly, I think the general notion of 'these groups just can't be reasoned with' is destructive and only adds to the problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:13 PM

DREAMTROVE

Byte,

Intellectual elites hate competition. That's why Saloth Sar, (aka Pol Pot) himself an intellectual elitist, and member of the international intellectual elite (who called him "Political Potential" or "Pol Pot" for his possibility as a world leader.)

Like Mao Tse Dong, intellectual elites think they are smarter than everyone else, and so figure they have nothing to fear but other intellectuals.

We are currently ruled by an intellectual elite. They feed the college masses preprogrammed misinformation to prevent them from challenging the elite, but if they do, they are offered membership in it, which can and does happen, as you know I know.

Vietnam is not Afghanistan. It's a pretty technologically sophisticated society. They didn't take us down with rocks, as you might recall. After all, McCain was shot down by an anti-aircraft (was it 115 mm?) gun, and not a rock.

You can believe in God and science at the same time. I'm skeptical of both ;) But I take the point.

ETA: Skeptical of the superiority of a technological scientific society? See my Chemical Warfare thread.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:29 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

We are currently rules by an intellectual elite.

Heh, bit o' irony.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Niki, I have lost patience with this thread, but not because of you. I appreciate you being respectful and I just want to attempt to clarify my position to you.

I realize this article was not meant to apply to me or even my denomination (or more accurately lack there of). However it still intentionally stereotypes Fundamentalist, and and that bothers me. Not all Fundies are out to take over the government and force their views on others.

I do believe violent extremism is dangerous and and that a bloody 'score card' serves no purpose. Also, extremism need not be religious in nature, and is often far from religious in true motivation.

Using the term 'extremist' is at least more appropriate than fundamentalist. I believe that 'extremism' is merely a symptom of a real human problem(s) and am wary of that label as well. I thought Frem had some very good points concerning this, not sure if I've said that yet or not.

Lastly, I think the general notion of 'these groups just can't be reasoned with' is destructive and only adds to the problem.

This is a good point, especially the last one. You CAN reason with these people, at least sometimes. Or you can at least reason with the people that are in danger of listening to them. And in doing so, you can change the course of history.

A reasoned counter-proposal to Hitler in 1922 might have helped stave off WWII. A reasoned response to Pol Pot might have averted the killing fields. A reasoned response to the Taliban before they started blowing up statues might have avoided 9/11. At any point, we had chances to deal with these people or their followers, but they were deemed too unimportant, not enough of a threat.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

You can believe in God and science at the same time. I'm skeptical of both ;) But I take the point.

Quote:
Magons, about the anti-intellectual thing, I tend to disagree. I think faiths and science often go different ways, and it's not about intellect. I find other things more indicative of an anti-intellectual basis among extremists. No particular belief, to me, reflects anti-intellectualism--anti-SCIENCE, perhaps, maybe even ignorance in not having looked into the facts, but not anti-intellect. Some of the things I find representative of anti-intellectualism are the use of "elitist", the "he's someone you'd want to have a beer with" and so many of the other put-downs you hear from the right.

Quote:
No, belief isn't anti-intellectual. Anti-intellectualism in America is when someone grumbles about "intellectual elites" and college grads and all their high-fangled fancy words. Maybe some of these types do this, but you're conflating two different issues.

Point(s) taken. I think I mean anti scientific rather than anti-intellectual. Wrong terminology. And again, just to be clear, not saying that religion and science can't mix. Again, peeps, talking about the fundies here, extremists if you insist (although I still haven't seen how fundies don't fit that description). It's people who take the Bible literally, they believe in creationism, they don't believe that dinosaurs walked the earth because they aren't mentioned in the Bible. They believe that we sprung forth from clay, fully evolved who are anti science. And although the ID mob give a bit more lip service to science, possibly because it is hard these days to ignore it completely, they still attempt to mould evidence to fit their beliefs, rather than base their understanding on evidence. which in itself is also anti scientific.

Quote:
Compare to anti-intellectualism under Pol-Pot, who believed the entire society should be brought back to agriculture based by any means possible and killed anyone with an education, INCLUDING people who wore glasses because they might have been LITERATE.

The things you guys are worried about are seriously minor.

Geez, Byte, you remind me of my mother. If I ever complained about...well anything, I'd have to hear about all the extreme deprivation undergone by others in the world. You are comparing something to worse case scenario, and of course it can't compare. But that is the point, surely, about forewarning and seeing where extremism can get you.

Quote:
People believed for almost TWO millenia in this, and people who didn't really believe were forced to act like they did, and YET, knowledge continued.

yep, and often held up along the way. How many discoveries were hidden away, or destroyed because of fear of retribution? Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin. How many works of creativity have been banned or suppressed. And all because different points of view were felt to be so offensive that they were heretical and because beliefs were so ingrained in canon that they could not be questioned.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:45 PM

whoops

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko

This is a good point, especially the last one. You CAN reason with these people, at least sometimes. Or you can at least reason with the people that are in danger of listening to them. And in doing so, you can change the course of history.

A reasoned counter-proposal to Hitler in 1922 might have helped stave off WWII. A reasoned response to Pol Pot might have averted the killing fields. A reasoned response to the Taliban before they started blowing up statues might have avoided 9/11. At any point, we had chances to deal with these people or their followers, but they were deemed too unimportant, not enough of a threat.

I have to disagree. I don't believe you can reason with true extremists. You can't negotiate with someone who believes that they are infallible in their convictions, and you are the anti-christ, the infidel doomed to hell. At best, you can prevent their growth in power so that they are little more than mad voices in a crowd of reasonable ones. Or you can find someone in their camp who is not so hard line. But the true believers, nah, don't waste your breath.

That being said, it's worth noting that extremists more often and not gain popularity in societies which are facing catastrophic conditions, due to economic and/or armed conflict. As long as we have pockets of the world living in dire poverty and in conflict, then we're going to see an increase in such groups.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:49 PM

Magons, note that I pointed out that if you can't reason with THEM, you can reason with the folks who might LISTEN TO THEM, and cut off their support before they ever really have any power to enact their agenda.

One of the prime tools in that fight is ridicule, because once people are laughing at you, it's really hard to convince them that you're a mighty and fear-inducing great leader.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Magons, note that I pointed out that if you can't reason with THEM, you can reason with the folks who might LISTEN TO THEM, and cut off their support before they ever really have any power to enact their agenda.

One of the prime tools in that fight is ridicule, because once people are laughing at you, it's really hard to convince them that you're a mighty and fear-inducing great leader.

Oh yes, then sorry. I agree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:09 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

We are currently rules by an intellectual elite.

Heh, bit o' irony.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Hey, I have a fifth grade education.

I concur with Happy, and Mike

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I do believe violent extremism is dangerous and and that a bloody 'score card' serves no purpose. Also, extremism need not be religious in nature, and is often far from religious in true motivation.

Yeah, I mentioned that earlier in the thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
For most of em, it has jack shit to do with religion anyway, they're just looking for an EXCUSE to hurt people, a "cause" with which to massage their conscience about the harm they want to do, and any "cause" will do.

Oh, and Mikey ?
Having seen, hell, being on the business end of the fallout and collateral social damage caused by allowing enablers to enable them, by taking their orders, by cheering them on and supporting them no-matter-what, AND seeing point blank how effective "reasoning" with them is, and you know exactly what the hell I mean...
Are you really so sure you wanna pursue a COMPLETELY FAILED STRATEGY here, further attempting to reason and negotiate as the steamroller grinds us to paste ?

Quote:
Let me ask you something. If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?
-Anton Chigurh

Somebody has to say it, might as well be me.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 6:23 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I'm definitely a creationist.

I don't hate you Frem, in fact I think I actually like you. :)

My fairytale would definitely look like the pretends Mary and I play.

There was this young woman who came to Browncoats a few times named Emily. Me and Erica (a pagan) and her were sitting on the steps and she said to me "I used to want to believe in something, then I went to college." I'm glad I don't see her at Browncoats anymore because that really was hideous of her, all hoity toity, I happen to hold a degree too you know. It would actually be funny if Emily read this post, I laugh at you and your aleteism Emily.
Magons' anti intellectual comment reminded me way too much of Emily for comfort. Perhaps Emily will mature and settle down with age.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 6:54 PM

So you don't believe that we evolved from apes and prior to that we were just bacteria and amino acids sludging around together. Or that the earth is somewhere around 4.5 billion years old, and that the universe is somewhere closer to 17 billion and that it is currently expanding outwards at an increasingly fast speed, or that multitudes of beasts, now extict have wandered this planet over the eons? Because that is some pretty wondrous stuff to my mind. Wondrous AND true. How good is that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 8:24 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

We definitely agree that wonderous beasts have roamed the earth in the past. Wonderous ones still do, though I wish we could see the ones that used to be there. Sure the graphics of mastadons and tyranasaurus rex on the discovery channel are pretty cool, I enjoy watching those specials, but I wish we could go back in time and see them for ourselves. Someone would definitely invent time travel in my faerietale, in various forms, it would be great.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:24 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, I've obviously pissed you off, and believe me, I never meant to. I don't think I applied "ulterior motives" to your words, at least I never thought you had ulterior motives, so maybe I worded things wrong. You wrote "It doesn't affect me because I don't believe what they do." I was trying to say that the author was writing about a particular subset of Christians and their willingness to utilize force in coercing those beliefs on others.

The problem is that this subset shares some beliefs with other Christians; they devolved (in my opinion) from what I guess we'd call "normal" Christianity. You can't talk about one without overlapping somewhat on the other, you can only recognize that he's talking about extreme beliefs which leave no room for doubt and which instill the desire to make the world like them. Which seems to be part of what's gotten him in trouble with some people here. But if you read what he wrote, and use "activist extremists" instead of "fundamentalists", and realize he is talking about them taking their beliefs to extremes, he's definitely not talking about anyone but this one subset of Christianity:

Quote:
Their “closed" belief system provides simple answers to complex political and social problems, but more importantly "activist extremism" provides simplistic answers to ultimate questions of meaning and existence. Simplicity helps their adherents resolve the ultimate “problem” of being human, what Existentialists call angst (or ultimate anxiety). Angst means the consciousness of death--the awareness of being human, of mortality, of non-being. It is comforting to have answers to life’s deepest questions and "activist extremism" provides relief from angst by postulating that there is some form of continued existence in an afterlife after death.

That allows intolerant people who hold their beliefs as the "be all, end all" of reality to feel justified in condemning, persecuting and attempting to gain power to FORCE others.

He could have written about Muslim extremists the same way (and many have); that they believe killing a non-believer will get them into heaven where they get all those nubile virgins, etc. I'm sure many Muslims believe that, many don't, just like Christians, but the ones who believe it TO EXTREMES are willing to be suicide bombers and kill as many non-believers as they can. Can you see what I'm trying to say?

As an atheist, you would actually be one of their main targets. I know you think all this is minor, but I say again that when extremism gains political power, those extremists will try to get power enough to enforce their own belief system. You have only to look at the recent laws making abortion all but impossible for many to see that; whether they believe it or not, many (most?) GOP candidates and elected officials today are willing to use their power to force their beliefs on others by writing laws others have to abide by. They may well be just "playing to the base" to gain power, but once they got that power, they began giving this small subset of Christianity what they wanted.

All I can say is I honestly never thought you had any ulterior motives, just that I'm frustrated at our inability to communicate. The idea of attributing what he's written to all Christians, or even all Fundamentalists, to me misses the point of the article.

As to

Quote:
People believed for almost TWO millenia in this, and people who didn't really believe were forced to act like they did, and YET, knowledge continued.

Magons neglected to mention how many were killed as a result of not behaving the same. Just looking at the Crusades should be horrifying enough. It's a small comparison to say how many die right now because they are forced into "back-room abortions"? How many more will if they get enough power to pass a federal law(s) making abortion illegal? They would if they could, never doubt it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:29 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Happy,I'm sorry to see both you and Byte back out of the discussion. You both have very valid voices and it's important to have people who feel differently in the conversation. It's a far cry from the all-too-prevalent snarking a discussion ends up being. we'll have to agree to disagree that the author intentionally stereotyped Fundamentalists tho', I guess. For me, by reading the article I recognize the subset of Christianity of which he is speaking, and I don't expand it to mean all Fundamentalists, or all anything. His descriptions are enough for me to realize right off that he's talking about "activist extremists", people willing to impose their beliefs on others, by law if possible, and to persecute those who don't believe exactly like them, and to use their power to that end. We're already seeing some of that within the Republican party; hard-liners going after members of their own party who are less extreme.

There's no question that extremism is a human problem and that many things can cause it besides religion. Religion however, from my observations, is the one which has more power to move people and create extremism than anything else. It also, in my opinion, is virtually impossible to change. I agree with Mike in that

Quote:
you can at least reason with the people that are in danger of listening to them. And in doing so, you can change the course of history.

The author isn't addressing the extremists themselves. He's addressing people who might not see the danger (yet), or who might believe, as Byte does, that it's not a danger. The fact is that by being complacent and thinking "oh, it's no biggie", we've already allowed them power enough to potentially affect any one of us. If their power increases, sooner or later their actions, the laws they write, might well affect us.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:29 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magons, that's just what the article is about: Opening people's eyes so

Quote:
you can prevent their growth in power so that they are little more than mad voices in a crowd of reasonable ones

Their growth in power currently is on the rise; if enough of the population realized where it's going, the danger can be minimized. By dismissing what the author (and I) perceive as a very real threat, we essentially enable them to gain further power.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:31 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike, I think more is needed than ridicule. Currently some of the candidates have latched onto the (very useful) concept that any time they're ridiculed, they say it's because we fear them. That makes them feel more powerful. I think denying them the political power to enforce their ideology is needed; anyone can believe anything they choose, but (as Frem would say, or did he already?) something along the lines of "your right to believe what you want ends at my nose". The article is trying to educate people on how these kinds of extremists believe and the dangers of dismissing them or allowing them to gain power over others.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Riona, was that "explanation" a sly attempt to avoid the question? I get the feeling it was. So I'll ask it again; if, as you say, you're a creationist, do you really believe man existed at the same time as dinosaurs, that God created man and woman out of clay, and that the world is only a few thousand years old? None of the reasonable people here will think less of you if you do, or at least most of the civil people here won't hold it against you. I'd really like to know.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2011 1:40 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I do indeed. Though a few thousand is an understatement. Seven, eight, ten, twelve, I think there's some wiggle room there, I'm not going to pick an exact date. I don't rightly care what people think of me either way, I don't need reassurance. You can believe the way you do and I can believe the way I do. It is our right in the world.

Has anyone figured out the wing question yet?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2011 2:56 PM

Yeah, like this is anything we need to ever worry about. How very dare anyone complain about the Radical Christian Right....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Yeah, like this is anything we need to ever worry about. How very dare anyone complain about the Radical Christian Right....

Looks like Rappy gets his "news" from the same sources as Billo the Clown does...

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/oreilly-no-one-believing-in-
jesus-commits-mass-murder/

Hey, you can't really PROVE that any of those alleged Muslim terrorists were really Muslim, can you? I mean, obviously you can't go by the things they said or wrote, or what they claim.

Right?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:36 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

You can believe in God and science at the same time. I'm skeptical of both ;) But I take the point.

A man that is skeptical of faith, does not have it.

A man that is skeptical of science, is called a scientist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:54 PM

^ Nice

LAST week's bloodbath in Norway is a wake-up call for Australia's counterterrorist agencies to confront the threat from right-wing extremists.

The Norwegian attacks have sparked debate among security analysts over whether the focus on Islamist terrorism has overshadowed risks from racist Christian fundamentalists.

The attacks could trigger a rethink by bodies such as ASIO, which received a massive boost in funds to counter terrorism after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

ASIO head David Irvine has acknowledged Australia faces a potential threat from ''lone wolf'' terrorists such as Anders Behring Breivik, who carried out the July 22 bombing and mass shooting in Norway.

''What happened in Norway should remind our community that threats to our security may come not from one or two sources, but many,'' he said in a speech last week.

Mr Irvine warned: ''We must recognise that intelligence agencies cannot cover absolutely all latent threats, and are required to make careful judgments and choices on priorities.''

According to some sources, police and intelligence bodies have given right-wing extremists a low priority. As a result they could have underestimated the threat.

The Norwegian attack, and the potential for similar acts by white supremacists, appeared to catch Australian agencies off guard, according to the sources, who have with links to the intelligence community.

''It amazes me that they are seeing as new issues things that had obviously been issues for years,'' said one source, who asked not to be named.

Another source said agencies had been reluctant to confront the diversity of terrorist threats. ''It has become a mindset,'' the source said, referring to the focus on Islamists.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland insists government agencies are aware the threat could come from many sources.

''The reality is terrorist activity motivated by beliefs other than the jihadist cause has affected Australia in the past and could well occur again,'' he said. ''The fact that Norway is a modern progressive country not dissimilar to Australia does serve as a reminder of the need for constant vigilance in countering terrorist threats - whatever the motivation.''

Australian agencies had recognised the risk of lone-wolf attacks before the Norway massacre.

The 2010 counterterrorist white paper warned of potential attacks by independent terrorists inspired by al-Qaeda.

But it made no mention of racist extremists, referring only to the potential risk from ''the disaffected and disempowered''.

A statement on ASIO's website on the ''threat environment'' focuses on Islamists, but also refers to the ''potential for violent protest, nationalist/racist extremism and communal violence''.

Ramon Spaaij, a researcher at La Trobe University and an expert on lone-wolf terrorism, said Australian agencies had focused on radical Islamists for good reason. But he said: ''There is the danger of losing sight of the threat of right-wing extremism. This is a good time to ask the question: 'what is the threat in Australia?' ''

The answer could not be divorced from the political and social setting, Dr Spaaij said. The emergence of the anti-Muslim right in Europe came amid intense debate over multiculturalism, immigration and national identity. Similar debates, not as intense, happened here, he said.

''It wouldn't surprise me if there's a degree of social polarisation happening here as well over issues of multiculturalism and Muslim migrants. Looking forward, it is something that has to be closely monitored.''

Paul Monk, a consultant and former intelligence analyst, sees no evidence Australian agencies have turned a blind eye to right-wing extremists. The focus had rightly been on Islamists - ''the guys who have repeatedly enacted large-scale terrorism''.

But in concentrating on that threat, Dr Monk said it was possible to miss other dangers, especially as ASIO also had to deal with espionage by foreign governments.

''My guess is they probably aren't paying [racist extremists] a lot of attention because they have other, major, real challenges … and limited resources, and they've always got to choose.''

Even so, Dr Monk predicted security agencies would cast a fresh eye on non-jihadi threats. ''It's a wake-up call,'' he said, referring to the Norway attack.

He added: ''Unfortunately, there are always individuals in society who are essentially psychopathic, who are looking for an outlet. There is no formula for inoculating a society against it never happening.''

Peter Lentini, director of the Global Terrorism Research Centre at Monash University, said agencies were well aware Islamists were not the only terrorist threat.

''Of course the biggest threat is neo-jihadists, but law enforcement agencies are definitely not unaware of threats from other sources,'' he said.

Experts agree lone-wolf terrorists pose particular challenges for security agencies.

While Australian agencies have been successful in exposing Islamist networks and groups, lone wolves ''don't give off the same indicators'', said Clive Williams, a former army intelligence officer now at the Centre for Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism at Macquarie University.

Lone wolves might not attend meetings or join online discussions, and if they did they might keep their plans to themselves. Nor is there a money trail to trace.

''It's pretty hard to pick these people and it's a significant challenge,'' Professor Williams said. ''For that reason it's going to be very difficult to prevent a lone wolf attack in the future.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/wolves-at-our-door-what-we-can-learn
-from-norways-horror-20110730-1i5p7.html#ixzz1Tdycpmjn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 12:45 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

You can believe in God and science at the same time. I'm skeptical of both ;) But I take the point.

A man that is skeptical of faith, does not have it.

A man that is skeptical of science, is called a scientist.

Skepticism and disbelief do not mean the same thing. A more accurate statement would be 'A man who is skeptical of faith, is called Agnostic.'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 1, 2011 1:05 PM