Part IV (The Index Fossil)
The overseas debate continues...
I just really don't think she gets it:
-----
About fundamentalism influencing politics: a few points:
What about RELIGIOUS BELIEFS affecting politics? Is THAT allowed in your rulebook of what is allowed and isn't allowed to affect decision-making on a large scale? It is purely semantic if we're going to call religious beliefs fundamentalism or just religious beliefs. And just what kind of beliefs were used to write the first American lawbooks 200 years ago?
It scares you and other liberals because you think that it will limit your freedom. The question is, freedom to do what? Of course I know the answer to that question. But my response is: at different times in history different kinds of behaviors (sexual and social) were acceptable or unacceptable. What these Xian folks believe in is making modern morals, as the pendulum swings left, more traditional. You think it's progress that gay people have rights and they think it's decadence of society. In a liberal society, either opinion is legitimate, as is the ability to vote your way in order to express that.
You associate fundamentalism with a limit of your freedom and say that that's not what America is about. Yet, if the founding fathers were to arise from the dead it is quite possible that they would say, 'hey, that's not what we meant!" This has been a debate for years, what freedom is and what defines it and who and when. "Fundamentalism" is a type of religious belief and therefore it IS constitutional since there is freedom of religion in the US.
In answer to:
Think about this, if
Fundamentalist Christians had their way, you wouldn't have your
poli-sci degree from UCLA because a woman's supposed to be in the home
making babies and cooking dinner. Fundamentalist Christians are the
I think it's great that women can now get an education. Yet, do I think it's better for society? Not really. There are many feminists who think the same: the sexual revolution has in the end screwed women though it meant to free us. I can go on and on about why.
In answer to blowing up abortion clinics: I don't believe in destroying people's personal property for whatever reason or physically hurting or verbally insulting gay people for whatever reason. Don't think that every conservative person is going to do either of the above! It's possible to oppose both abortion and homosexuality and not oppress anyone.
About the sex with children: seventy years ago homosexuality was socially unacceptable. There have been times when it was (Athens, Greece in ancient times, for ex., SF now...). The question is what is acceptable goes according to societal standards and the current societal standard is utilitarianism, id est, if it doesn't "hurt" anyone, why not? Hurt is defined as physically or psychologically. Used to be that the standards came from religious sources, which are today thought of as mystical and therefore less reliable. I don't know what Xians believe, but I know that Jews believe that if something was ordained by G-d, it's what's good for humanity, and we don't know why, though we can explain it away - it wouldn't be accurately why G-d ordained something. Nowadays liberals see religious sources of morality as primitive and antiquated while "fundamentalists" by your definition do not.
Maybe you're right about prayer in schools, but I do think that a spiritual influence is a positive one in a group atmosphere. This also may make the kids feel that they have a higher moral authority and make them feel unified in their recognition of eachother as G-dly beings. Meaning: G-d created all us humans, let's start the day by recognizing that and treating one another with respect. This feeling is sorely lacking in American schools because it is sorely lacking in American society, and the reason may very well be that time is not officially set aside to express this. When church is a joke (well can't blame 'em) a la Bart Simpson and Temple is a joke and all that matters are sneakers, cars, and electronic appliances, how are people supposed to find moral and spiritual meaning in their lives? You will say, it's a free country let them find it at home. But they don't. That's why people want prayer in schools. Not saying I am rah-rah about it, but it's logical.
You also said that a public school in America is not a place of worship. What makes someplace a place of worship? A cross? A menora? A round roof? THAT's a very xian outlook. Buddhists and Jews would say that everyplace is a place of worship, since G-d is everywhere!!
No, I don't think that Wyoming people are as tolerant as Californians. But tolerance is one good virtue, and there are other good virtues besides. It's not the supreme virtue in my book even if that means that some non-Jew hates me, but if he's a good father and husband and citizen, he has merit, though he is at least psychologically threatening to me. Tolerance is needed, obviously, in heterogenous societies. In homogenous (or homogenated) Wisconsin (or Wyoming), it's not as important. This obviously does not mean that we should kill someone we can't tolerate. That is to say that on the coasts, due to large numbers of immigrants and social movements of people (ie blacks moved to Cali from the South since in the Wild West they needed settlers and cared less about race, Puerto Ricans to NY since they needed workers in factories) tolerance is NECESSARY, not so in middle America. In a way it's nothing to be proud of. This is modern rural society vs. modern urban society. Not one is INTRINSCALLY better. It's just a need filled in order to prevent mass social disorder -- and sometimes that order cracks and breaks down as in Rodney King riots, riots in Chicago in the sixties, etc. etc.
And by the way, saying that you only care about what happens in Israel
completely invalidates any point you were trying to make.
Well, I enjoy debating just for truth's sake, but it'd be a lie to say that I am concerned with internal American politics so much more than my own interest's worth. In general, I think that America is a great country and Americans are good people for the most part, but whether it's you worrrying about tolerance or some Xian born again worrying about abortion since he doesn't want people to "go to hell" or whatever, we are all interested in covering our own back.
Yet, I do truly believe that the Arabs are the new world threat as was communism in the past and before that Nazism. The reason why is that they have tons of oil money, they are nutty religious (and not the mostly harmless way of the Xian fundamentalists -- let's face it, the worst they'll do is try to convert you FOR NOW), and they want to make the whole world Muslim. Besides that they are spread all over the Middle East, north and central Africa, Pakistan, and now Europe. They like to use terrorism. Again, they have money. This is scary.
Now, I really, really, DON'T know if Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq, because it seems a drop in the bucket. But these people are soon gonna have nuclear weapons and they HATE AMERICA (jealously because the average person has no shoes and the rich sheikhs make them mad about how American rules the world -- before AND after Bush). Not a good combo. If this particular war is good, I dunno, it all seems kinda stupid, but who knows what these idiots (ex Sadaam) do that we don't know about and will never know about.
-----
Wow, what could I possibly say to that?
-----
I really don't know what to tell you anymore. Your politics just seem highly reactionary. Again you missed my point about religion. I'm not saying that people aren't allowed to be Fundamentalist Christians, I'm saying that their fundamentalism shouldn't affect the way I live my life. For example, Mr. Bush just announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee (most likely because he sees the "W" and says to himself, "Hey, I got one of them dealies in my name!"). The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval. Now the reason why this is bad is because Dr. Hager is the author of such books as "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now" and "Stress and the Woman's Body" in which he suggests that women who suffer from PMS should seek help from reading the bible and praying. This man is going to be in charge of birth control? What the fuck? Now there is a decision influenced by religion that definitely should not be. This directly affects my life. We're talking abstinence only sex education, no more public funding for places like planned parenthood or anywhere else that dispenses free condoms, teenage pregnancy, babies having babies, overpopulation, consumption of all the Earth's natural resources ending in the end of the world as we know it. Creationism my ass, more like destructionism. I just coined a word, how about that?
I completely understand that the first American law books were written with basic religious tenets built in, but the founding fathers also had the foresight to include a separation of church and state for a very specific reason: they knew not everyone was the same religion and regardless of what the majority was, they wanted EVERYONE to feel as though they actually had a say notwithstanding their religious beliefs.
Founding fathers rising from the dead? What? Are they being resurrected? Like Jesus? I see they've gotten to you as well.
It's really hard for me to believe the things that you're saying. Racism is OK as long as it's behind someone's back? If it's not really hurting anyone, it's OK to be bigot? Those sound like things I say when I'm trying to be rude and vulgar in a comedic effort.
By the way, that wasn't my definition of fundamentalism, I copied and pasted it from Merriam-Webster, you know, them folk that make them learnin' books with the words in 'em.
Wait, never mind, I just figured it out. You are a religious fundamentalist. It might not be a destructive or societally detrimental fundamentalism, but it does, in fact, make it pointless for me to argue with you. Whatever I say doesn't matter because it hasn't been ordained by God.
On that note, I will end with a joke: What did the Jewish child molester say to the little girl? "Hey little girl, wanna buy some candy?"
-----
I just can't believe this is my kin saying things like this. It truly boggles my mind.
I just really don't think she gets it:
-----
About fundamentalism influencing politics: a few points:
What about RELIGIOUS BELIEFS affecting politics? Is THAT allowed in your rulebook of what is allowed and isn't allowed to affect decision-making on a large scale? It is purely semantic if we're going to call religious beliefs fundamentalism or just religious beliefs. And just what kind of beliefs were used to write the first American lawbooks 200 years ago?
It scares you and other liberals because you think that it will limit your freedom. The question is, freedom to do what? Of course I know the answer to that question. But my response is: at different times in history different kinds of behaviors (sexual and social) were acceptable or unacceptable. What these Xian folks believe in is making modern morals, as the pendulum swings left, more traditional. You think it's progress that gay people have rights and they think it's decadence of society. In a liberal society, either opinion is legitimate, as is the ability to vote your way in order to express that.
You associate fundamentalism with a limit of your freedom and say that that's not what America is about. Yet, if the founding fathers were to arise from the dead it is quite possible that they would say, 'hey, that's not what we meant!" This has been a debate for years, what freedom is and what defines it and who and when. "Fundamentalism" is a type of religious belief and therefore it IS constitutional since there is freedom of religion in the US.
In answer to:
Think about this, if
Fundamentalist Christians had their way, you wouldn't have your
poli-sci degree from UCLA because a woman's supposed to be in the home
making babies and cooking dinner. Fundamentalist Christians are the
I think it's great that women can now get an education. Yet, do I think it's better for society? Not really. There are many feminists who think the same: the sexual revolution has in the end screwed women though it meant to free us. I can go on and on about why.
In answer to blowing up abortion clinics: I don't believe in destroying people's personal property for whatever reason or physically hurting or verbally insulting gay people for whatever reason. Don't think that every conservative person is going to do either of the above! It's possible to oppose both abortion and homosexuality and not oppress anyone.
About the sex with children: seventy years ago homosexuality was socially unacceptable. There have been times when it was (Athens, Greece in ancient times, for ex., SF now...). The question is what is acceptable goes according to societal standards and the current societal standard is utilitarianism, id est, if it doesn't "hurt" anyone, why not? Hurt is defined as physically or psychologically. Used to be that the standards came from religious sources, which are today thought of as mystical and therefore less reliable. I don't know what Xians believe, but I know that Jews believe that if something was ordained by G-d, it's what's good for humanity, and we don't know why, though we can explain it away - it wouldn't be accurately why G-d ordained something. Nowadays liberals see religious sources of morality as primitive and antiquated while "fundamentalists" by your definition do not.
Maybe you're right about prayer in schools, but I do think that a spiritual influence is a positive one in a group atmosphere. This also may make the kids feel that they have a higher moral authority and make them feel unified in their recognition of eachother as G-dly beings. Meaning: G-d created all us humans, let's start the day by recognizing that and treating one another with respect. This feeling is sorely lacking in American schools because it is sorely lacking in American society, and the reason may very well be that time is not officially set aside to express this. When church is a joke (well can't blame 'em) a la Bart Simpson and Temple is a joke and all that matters are sneakers, cars, and electronic appliances, how are people supposed to find moral and spiritual meaning in their lives? You will say, it's a free country let them find it at home. But they don't. That's why people want prayer in schools. Not saying I am rah-rah about it, but it's logical.
You also said that a public school in America is not a place of worship. What makes someplace a place of worship? A cross? A menora? A round roof? THAT's a very xian outlook. Buddhists and Jews would say that everyplace is a place of worship, since G-d is everywhere!!
No, I don't think that Wyoming people are as tolerant as Californians. But tolerance is one good virtue, and there are other good virtues besides. It's not the supreme virtue in my book even if that means that some non-Jew hates me, but if he's a good father and husband and citizen, he has merit, though he is at least psychologically threatening to me. Tolerance is needed, obviously, in heterogenous societies. In homogenous (or homogenated) Wisconsin (or Wyoming), it's not as important. This obviously does not mean that we should kill someone we can't tolerate. That is to say that on the coasts, due to large numbers of immigrants and social movements of people (ie blacks moved to Cali from the South since in the Wild West they needed settlers and cared less about race, Puerto Ricans to NY since they needed workers in factories) tolerance is NECESSARY, not so in middle America. In a way it's nothing to be proud of. This is modern rural society vs. modern urban society. Not one is INTRINSCALLY better. It's just a need filled in order to prevent mass social disorder -- and sometimes that order cracks and breaks down as in Rodney King riots, riots in Chicago in the sixties, etc. etc.
And by the way, saying that you only care about what happens in Israel
completely invalidates any point you were trying to make.
Well, I enjoy debating just for truth's sake, but it'd be a lie to say that I am concerned with internal American politics so much more than my own interest's worth. In general, I think that America is a great country and Americans are good people for the most part, but whether it's you worrrying about tolerance or some Xian born again worrying about abortion since he doesn't want people to "go to hell" or whatever, we are all interested in covering our own back.
Yet, I do truly believe that the Arabs are the new world threat as was communism in the past and before that Nazism. The reason why is that they have tons of oil money, they are nutty religious (and not the mostly harmless way of the Xian fundamentalists -- let's face it, the worst they'll do is try to convert you FOR NOW), and they want to make the whole world Muslim. Besides that they are spread all over the Middle East, north and central Africa, Pakistan, and now Europe. They like to use terrorism. Again, they have money. This is scary.
Now, I really, really, DON'T know if Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq, because it seems a drop in the bucket. But these people are soon gonna have nuclear weapons and they HATE AMERICA (jealously because the average person has no shoes and the rich sheikhs make them mad about how American rules the world -- before AND after Bush). Not a good combo. If this particular war is good, I dunno, it all seems kinda stupid, but who knows what these idiots (ex Sadaam) do that we don't know about and will never know about.
-----
Wow, what could I possibly say to that?
-----
I really don't know what to tell you anymore. Your politics just seem highly reactionary. Again you missed my point about religion. I'm not saying that people aren't allowed to be Fundamentalist Christians, I'm saying that their fundamentalism shouldn't affect the way I live my life. For example, Mr. Bush just announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee (most likely because he sees the "W" and says to himself, "Hey, I got one of them dealies in my name!"). The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval. Now the reason why this is bad is because Dr. Hager is the author of such books as "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now" and "Stress and the Woman's Body" in which he suggests that women who suffer from PMS should seek help from reading the bible and praying. This man is going to be in charge of birth control? What the fuck? Now there is a decision influenced by religion that definitely should not be. This directly affects my life. We're talking abstinence only sex education, no more public funding for places like planned parenthood or anywhere else that dispenses free condoms, teenage pregnancy, babies having babies, overpopulation, consumption of all the Earth's natural resources ending in the end of the world as we know it. Creationism my ass, more like destructionism. I just coined a word, how about that?
I completely understand that the first American law books were written with basic religious tenets built in, but the founding fathers also had the foresight to include a separation of church and state for a very specific reason: they knew not everyone was the same religion and regardless of what the majority was, they wanted EVERYONE to feel as though they actually had a say notwithstanding their religious beliefs.
Founding fathers rising from the dead? What? Are they being resurrected? Like Jesus? I see they've gotten to you as well.
It's really hard for me to believe the things that you're saying. Racism is OK as long as it's behind someone's back? If it's not really hurting anyone, it's OK to be bigot? Those sound like things I say when I'm trying to be rude and vulgar in a comedic effort.
By the way, that wasn't my definition of fundamentalism, I copied and pasted it from Merriam-Webster, you know, them folk that make them learnin' books with the words in 'em.
Wait, never mind, I just figured it out. You are a religious fundamentalist. It might not be a destructive or societally detrimental fundamentalism, but it does, in fact, make it pointless for me to argue with you. Whatever I say doesn't matter because it hasn't been ordained by God.
On that note, I will end with a joke: What did the Jewish child molester say to the little girl? "Hey little girl, wanna buy some candy?"
-----
I just can't believe this is my kin saying things like this. It truly boggles my mind.
posted by marc at 1:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home