Christian Fundamentalists and the Rise of the Radical Right

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 22:02
VIEWED: 9272
PAGE 11 of 15

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 6:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Magon's I don't know the answers to those questions. But I can ask him and maybe I'll figure out some theories someday. On a side note, if we weighed just as much as we do now, how big would wings need to be to carry us? Just curious.

If I'd chosen a faerie tale to make up it wouldn't have been this life and all it has in it. It would involve all sorts of interesting pretend things, and possibly air ship pirates. :)

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

ah, yes, airship pirates would be good. Personally, I think the capacity to turn oneself invisible might have been useful. Keep me posted, Riona

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:35 AM

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. I'm out.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:17 AM

Sure there are reasons to stay

Heels, for when looking good is all that matters, because it's damned hard to catch another airship.

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.

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:28 AM

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:35 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

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:40 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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:45 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:55 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 2:16 PM

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.

NIKI2

Wednesday, July 13, 2011 5:14 PM

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