 sj |
||
|
||
Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh!
|
|
|
Subject: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: marty D Date: 10 Jun 01 - 04:19 PM Sometimes it gets so tedious trying to see issues from all sides when there are so many narrow insular people around. How does a person reach adulthood and see things as black and white as it would appear from listening to talk radio or even reading some of the political threads here? I'm not talking just about the 'born agains' and their 'one way' blather, but those on both sides of Irish or Palestinian issues who'll happily watch a death-toll as long as it favors 'their' side. Even on this side of the ocean, having moderate views (trying to understand the other's guy's position) is seen as weakness. I'm sick of killers being 'freedom fighters' or 'terrorists', no matter what the issue. they're killers and intimidaters period. I didn't know I'd be venting today til I stupidly checked up on that 'Happy Birthday Israel' Thread. I guess I'm just tired of ALL fundamentalists. marty |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: wysiwyg Date: 10 Jun 01 - 04:26 PM Marty, If you want a place to rip a rant off your chest, Mudcat will surely oblige; others, I am sure will join you. But you know, it's no way to increase your understanding. Part of your post indicates a desire to understand, and if you really do want that, contact me in e-mail when you have the rant out of your system, because I can explain how these rigid happen. But this thread will only bring more division, IMO. You see, you have added to, and solicted more of, the rhetoric you deplore. ~Susan motormice@hotmail.com |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Sorcha Date: 10 Jun 01 - 04:31 PM Thank you, Susan. I didn't quite know what to say. That does it nicely. |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: wysiwyg Date: 10 Jun 01 - 04:37 PM Now if only I could avoid typos when I have my own rhetoric barely in check. *G* Correction: rigid views. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: DougR Date: 10 Jun 01 - 04:37 PM Thank you, Marty, I have seriously been wondering what the definition of a political "moderate" is. You feel that it is one who tries to "understand the other guys position." Sounds good to me, but then, if he/she, ever takes a position him/herself, should it be one totally opposite to the one taken by either the "guy" on the "left", or the guy on the "right," if he/she is to remain classified as a moderate? To me, it's a puzzlement. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: DougR Date: 10 Jun 01 - 04:40 PM Sorry, Sorcha and Susan, but I fail to see why you think Marty's post is so "out of line." Seems to me to be a reasonable Thread to post for discussion. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: marty D Date: 10 Jun 01 - 04:45 PM Sorry WYS...and Sorcha, but if I start trying to see 'both sides' of extremism then it means I have sympathy for extremist positions, and maybe I'm just having a bad week, or reading too much news, but when an issue is split almost fifty-fifty SURELY the moderates are closer to the truth. In a few days the internet will be flooded with tapes for sale of McVeigh's execution, simply because some people INSISTED on their 'right' to film it. Guess I should be hunting for a desert island,(or read less) B.G. marty |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Sorcha Date: 10 Jun 01 - 04:51 PM I just thought it sounded awfully close to trolling. |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Mrrzy Date: 10 Jun 01 - 05:02 PM Oh (in answer to original posting rather than the asides), I'd have to agree. Fanatics always give their cause a bad name, look at radical rabid (fill-in-the-minority) versus (any normal --in the statistical sense of average-- person speaking out strongly in favor of their views. As in, I despise what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it? Isn't one of the problems with fundamentalism the plain refusal to countenance an opposing view? Let alone try to understand it... |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: wysiwyg Date: 10 Jun 01 - 05:14 PM Doug, You said, "I fail to see why you think Marty's post is so "out of line." I did not say that. I did say what I cared to say. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Justa Picker Date: 10 Jun 01 - 05:37 PM The thing about extremism or fundamentalism, is that it takes one form of it, to quash another. Everyone believes their cause is the RIGHT one. |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: mousethief Date: 10 Jun 01 - 05:44 PM The great thing about fundamentalists is that it gives moderates somebody to feel superior to. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Clinton Hammond Date: 10 Jun 01 - 06:24 PM you'd know eh MT... LOL!! martyD... keep the anger... keep the frustration... Keep the confusion... I love 'em! I love to see society starting to come apart at the edges!!
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: GUEST Date: 10 Jun 01 - 06:26 PM And to laugh at. |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Jun 01 - 06:37 PM Moderation can mean different things.
There's "moderation" which is about in how you express yourself, and how you communicate with people who see things differently. It involves trying to understand the other person's point of view, and trying to see if maybe there is some kind of bridge to be built.
That's always the right way to go about it.
And there's also the assumption that in any disagreement truth and justice is going to lie somewhere on an intermediate position.
And that is not true. A slaveowner has no property rights over a slave, for example. However, sticking with the first sort of moderation means that you avoid jumping to the assumption that, in any particular dispute, there is no intermediate position to explore. You're trying to give the other party a way out.
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Bill D Date: 10 Jun 01 - 06:56 PM "I have the courage of my convictions" "YOU are a bit rigid and uncompromising" "HE is a rabid, irrational, fundimentalist zealot" (paraphrase of columnist Sidney J. Harris from 30 years ago) |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: marty D Date: 10 Jun 01 - 07:04 PM Trolling? For heaven's sake no. Give me a break. I didn't start something specific about models of guns, (and their folksongs) or demonize one country as opposed to another, or call Republican or Democrat supporters nasty names. I pointed out how I (one person) was getting terribly frustrated at the people who push and push ONE solution (an extreme one) to very complex problems. Twenty five years ago far more people DISCUSSED issues without drawing lines in the sand. Today there are so many issues that you can't even BRING UP (obviously extremism generally, is one) without having your motives questioned. If some people were less intent on pushing THEIR solution as the only one, then the actual issues might get discussed. I've watched a television program several times (is that part of my problem these days?) where prominent people from several religions discuss some hot issues. It's fascinating, and almost makes you think that humans can exchange opinions on pretty hot topics in a rational way. Until I read that ALL the participants come from "peace movements" simply because they couldn't FIND a panel of 'Conservative' Christians, Jews, and Moslems, who were willing to let each other even get a sentence out. I just feel that if there is no compromise then there is no solution. I'm not talking about issues where one side has the clout to dismiss the other quickly with either public support or massive firepower, but ones that drag on and on because the opinion of most people is divided. marty
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Sorcha Date: 10 Jun 01 - 07:07 PM OK, then. I'll apologize for misinterpreting. |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Donuel Date: 10 Jun 01 - 07:33 PM Imagine a fundamentalist violin . All it plays would be fundamental tones similar to a $20 Casio keyboard. yuck
Imagine a ruling fundamentalist government. It may deem ancient ruins or statues sacreligious and destroy them , not because there is a fundamental teaching to do so but because they have the intimidating power to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Jun 01 - 09:33 PM In this area, we have a Catholic bishop who has called for the excommunication of a politician representing this area because he(a Catholic) said that abortion was a matter of personal conviction, and a prominent local Catholic theologian who called for the condemnation of the same politician because he said the local gay community was an important part of his constituency. This politician, married with children, was the marshall for the local Gay Pride parade, bringing more wrath down on his head. This type of extremism leads me to wonder if I vote for a Catholic candidate, will he force views on me which I will find limit my practices and options, which are legal under current laws. I could point to many other fanatics, including Ian Paisley, etc. etc. Not all fundamentalists force their views on others. Would ignorant, dictatorial oafs be a better characterization of these social fossils? |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: paddymac Date: 10 Jun 01 - 11:50 PM Dicho - sounds as if the local catholic politician you described IS a catholic you could vote for and not be concerned about him forcing his views on you. The basic issue, IMHO, is tolerance - giving the other guy the right to his/her view, whether you agree with it or not. The "edge" to that argument is when that other person's view becomes harmful to you &/or others. Sad truth is that irrational tolerance can be fatal. Acquiescence to evil is evil. We are ever forced to make value juidgments. One can only hope, and seek, to do that in an informed way. |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Jun 01 - 11:58 PM Paddymac, I agree, and I have voted for this man in the past and probably will again. What it comes down to is that we should carefully evaluate the candidates we vote for. Not all of them are open about what they really advocate. |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: DougR Date: 11 Jun 01 - 12:17 AM Tolerance is another word I've been troubled with, paddymac. What does that mean? Abortion: does that mean that one can or can't be tolerant about abortion? Is there a middle road? Which brings me back to the question I originally posed: what is a moderate? What is the moderate's position on abortion? My apologies for thread creep, but I'm really interested in hearing other views. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Peg Date: 11 Jun 01 - 01:32 AM Abortion, or abortion rights, is not really something that people tend to have "moderate" views about. You should know that, Doug.
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: DougR Date: 11 Jun 01 - 01:58 AM I know that, Peg, my love, but if there is such a thing as :right, left and moderate, which certainly seems to be the acceptable nomenclature for political beliefs today, I would think it would be applicable for any issue, including abortion. Environment? Okay, where does the moderate come down on drilling for oil in the Alaskan wildlife preserve? Do they favor drilling only half the depth to find oil? I'm not being flippant. I seriously wonder, when folks deride extremes on either the right or left, of a critical subject, what they mean when they say that the best position for anyone to assume is the moderate one. What is the middle position on those issues? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Ebbie Date: 11 Jun 01 - 02:24 AM Considering all the factors, DougR, the moderate on the drilling issue would look for alternatives. That would not be an extremist's view because the moderate would not necessarily be against all drilling. And the moderate on abortion would probably say that we need to discover with finality when human consciousness begins in the fetus. JMO. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: DougR Date: 11 Jun 01 - 02:48 AM Good reply, Ebbie! But I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the moderate would not necessarily be against all drilling." Do you mean in the Alaskan wildlife preserve, or somewhere other than there? Right on, also, with the abortion question, but in the meantime, abortions are taking place while the studies continue. What, then, is the moderate's position? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Jun 01 - 09:08 AM Moderation means I will allow you to say thing I disagree with, and I will listen to what you say, and modify my own views if you convince me.
It shouldn't mean that I am ready to agree that what I believe is wrong is actually right.
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Bagpuss Date: 11 Jun 01 - 09:38 AM I think I am one of a rare breed - I'm a moderate on abortion. I was brought up as a catholic and many of my family members are members of SPUC or Life. I don't think we will ever find the point at which conciousness begins, because scientists don't yet know what constitutes consciousness or even prove it exists! We don't know if it is an all or nothing phenomenon, or whether there are gradations of consciousness/awareness. I think that we can look at abortion in a different way. When it comes down to it, I think everyone would agree that abortion is a bad thing. Nobody actually wants to be in the position where they have to choose whether or not to have an abortion. So the answer really is to try to prevent this situation occurring as much as possible. Unfortunately, the ways each side would choose to prevent the situation from arising, are incompatible with the beliefs of the "other side". With the pro-lifers, the life of the child is paramount, so they believe that the best thing is to make it illegal and usually side step the fact that making it illegal won't stop everyone, and causes the terrible situations of the back street abortions. Their stance is unacceptable to the pro choice groups because their emphasis is on the choice of the woman to decide what happens in her own body. If these groups were to focus their efforts on a way to reduce the "abortion situation" they would do it by education, contraception etc. This is unacceptable to most pro-lifers because they tend to be catholic organisations who can't be seen to condone contraception (no matter that individually, the vast majority of them use contraception!). So the two sides continue to fight tooth an nail and demonise eachother. One calls the other "baby murderers"; they return with the charge of being misogynistic, and having prehistoric attitutes to feminism and equality. My view is that it will never be resolved until people of both sides get together (in a similar way to the Gush Shalom group mentioned in the happy birthday Israel thread) and work out a way that is at least acceptable to both groups. This would probably mean a separation from the catholic church, or at least for the contraception line to be accepted. In my view, it shouldn't be made illegal, better education and contraception needs to be freely available, laws need to be passed to make it easier for women to take breaks from work without comprimising their career and poverty certainly needs to be addressed. Better care and rights for the disabled should be campaigned for and much earlier and easier screening for very severe disabilities need to be researched, as surely if an abortion is going to occur, it is better for all if it is as early as possible. So that's the view of one moderate on abortion - are there any others who agree with me? Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Peg Date: 11 Jun 01 - 10:28 AM I do not agree that a "moderate" position on abortion is to decide when human life begins. That seems to me to want a final, cut and dried answer which will spell out for good and all whether or not it is "murder." That is not moderate, but conservative and inflexible. People already believe viability begins at conception. Others (and this seems to me the most reasonable view) believe a fetus is viable when it can live independent of the mother's womb (with basic incubation technology for special cases). But the medical profession classifies pregnancy into trimesters for precisely this reason. The determination of viability is already there, and it does affect the laws on this issue. There will ALWAYS occasions when terminating the life of a fetus is necessary to save the life of a mother. A "moderate" view, it seems to me, probably takes that into account. And there will always be people who believe it is always the right of the mother, whose bodily health and propriety is in question, to decide what she wants to do about her own pregnancy. The "right to life" was not actually even an issue in this country until abortion became a SAFE procedure. Prior to Roe v. Wade, aboriton was illegal primarily because it was DANGEROUS, and to protect WOMEN from dying under the knife of some back-alley abortion doctor; NOT because to do so was somehow ending the life of an "unborn" human. When abortion became safe, around the same time as the invention of the birth control pill, suddenly women were given a great deal of control over their reproductive freedom and their bodies. This simply would not do. It is no great surprise that the majority of abortion foes are men, or women who follow a religious path which states that women are to be subjugated to men... A bit of historical perspective is quite helpful when looking at this issue.
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: GUEST,Alex (not Mousetheif) Date: 11 Jun 01 - 10:30 AM I saw a very interesting report last night on 60 Minutes. As they reported, with confirmation from our own State Department, the terrorists of Islamic Jihad are being trained, armed and financed by the Islamic government of Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Rick Fielding Date: 11 Jun 01 - 10:49 AM I too hate a concentrated fundamentalist approach to issues, but I suspect the word "fundamentalist" was inadvertantly being used instead of "extremist", which sounds more accurate. The problem I see though is that if someone feels they're at the epicentre of a hot issue, they're more likely to act irrationally. Acquiring territory, or defending your perception of god, would never be emotional issues to me, so I'm naturally willing to listen calmly to anyone giving their opinions (no matter how emotional they are). If you want to put yourself in the shoes of a rabid extremist, take some small or even trivial issue that's important to YOU, and see to what extremes you'll go, in order to get your point across to others. I hear it all the time with people discussing sports. Hell, I DO it all the time, trying to get folks to understand that a wonderful world of music will open up to them if they "invest" in the origins of folk music rather than just what's handed to them by the mainstream. The difference is, that the scary extremist feels that "life and death" is at stake with their issues. The stakes are much higher, but the motives are the same. My feelings on things like abortion or capital punishment are tempered by knowing that these issues will always be "political footballs", and used for political gain. Middle class and upperclass women will always be able to terminate pregnancy "mistakes" in relative safety, and poor women will face the dirty knives. Has it ever been any different? Do you really think it will? High-priced lawyers will usually keep their clients off death row, so what's new? All I know is that I can communicate fine with someone like Doug R, who's obviously far more conservative than I am, because he makes his beliefs seem rational (if highly debatable!). I also think that if I presented a well-thought out arguement, he might be swayed on an issue. My experience has been that no amount of logic can make a zealot change their mind..but maybe they feel their "life depends on it". Geez, five paragraphs of blah, blah, blah. Ahh shit, go play yer geetar folks!! Rick
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Bagpuss Date: 11 Jun 01 - 10:53 AM Peg - in my experience, the right to life groups are mainly female and I have a lot of experience of these groups. But its fits in with the women's rights groups ideas to say they are mainly male. That is because they are coming from the feminist/equality viewpoint of the woman concerned. The women in question were very often well educated and not at all "subjugated" to the men in their life. For them the important issue was the life of the child. They were fairly feminist in their viewpoint in other issues, but just didn't believe that a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body takes precedence over the right to life of the foetus. Whenever there is a disagreement like this, most people take their own viewpoint, and attribute the opposite motive to others who disagree with them. Things aren't that simple, as there are lots of different ways of coming to a difficult issue like this. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Matt Woodbury/Mimosa Date: 11 Jun 01 - 11:29 AM I usually feel better about myself when I can try to understand other's point of view, but when I talk that way, I don't get much attention. People seem to react, pay attention better if I espouse extremist views, so I guess I do that when I'm feeling ignored or neglected.
Bagpuss' comment about people attributing extremist views to those who don't agree with them is enlightening. My sister-in law once referred to a politician as pro-abortion. I have a friend who has worked at a women's health clinic for 14 or 15 years, counseling pregnant women who plan to terminate their pregnancies, and I don't think most people, even in that milieu, are pro abortion, she'd much rather be handing out condoms and other contraceptives.
The church that pays me to sing in their choir has just decided (in a close vote by the board) to have "Dr. Laura" come and speak at a fund-raiser. I realized that I hadn't ever listened to her, only what I'd read about her, and that when people were going nuts about Eminem, I at least found transcriptions of his lyrics and read them to see for myself what all the fuss was about. If I consider what "Dr. Laura" is reputed to have said, it's pretty much within the bounds of traditional views of many religions, but what gets all the attention seems to be when she and Eminem use their hard line views to justify dehumanizing other people
Maybe we, as a society like it when people can find an excuse to treat others differently than our mothers taught us was proper. Mimosa |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Grab Date: 11 Jun 01 - 12:35 PM Marty, did ppl really discuss these things more 25 years ago? Or 50 years ago? Or 100 years ago? Was there ever a "Golden Age"? To take your example of 25 years:- - Vietnam had just finished, not bcos of discussion but bcos the Americans were beaten. - The Northern Irish of both sides and the British Army were busy killing each other. - The Israelis and Palestinians had just finished the October War and were busy with border conflicts. - Not too long afterwards (1979), Khomeini and co took over Iran. The bad news is that extremists have always been. The good news is that mostly they're seeing that it usually doesn't work, since the total disgust that the majority feel towards them makes them outcasts - this is as true of rogue nations (Afghanistan) as it is of individual people (Tim McVeigh). The downside is the "mostly" and "usually" qualifiers. The rogue nations that decide to go the extremist route can only be cut off from trade until they decide the game isn't worth the candle; this seems to work long-term, but short-term this is not much help. And some extremist individuals (eg. Ian Paisley) can manage to get a coterie of other extremists to stop themselves feeling lonely. Graham. Graham.
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Ebbie Date: 11 Jun 01 - 12:40 PM I have no difficulty in seeing the necessity of terminating an early pregnancy for the sake of the mother. This is true, whether it's the physical safety of the mother-host or her mental or emotional stability. I'm fairly pragmatic. (If the ability to conceive were given to both sexes, I suspect this discussion wouldn't occur.) In an ideal world, each pregnancy would result in a wanted child. (Duh!) What I have a problem with is the stance that each of us knows what is best for the rest of us and that we have the right to enforce it. And it infuriates me that the same people who insist on overseeing and regulating other people's options are often the same people who are not willing to provide options for the same children once they are born. Where I really stand is on the belief that there should be no question of legality. To me, this is an issue between each woman and her medical doctor and her god. Obviously, the father should also have a voice but imo, it is subject to being over-ridden by that of the mother. That view too is pragmatic: the father can have dozens of children; the mother is physically and emotionally impacted by each pregnancy. For me, as a mother, whether and when the fetus has human consciousness (not just the viability of sustaining life outside the womb)is going to influence my choice of what to do regarding the pregnancy. There was a time when no one had any sure knowledge of electricity and the argument could have been made that no one will ever know how it is formed, guided, controlled, even just what it is. I believe the time will come when the mental, emotional life of a fetus will be charted. In the meantime, the courts should keep their hands off. Elva Bontrager
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: DougR Date: 11 Jun 01 - 01:11 PM I agree with Rick (surprise!) that a more appropriate word in the title of the thread would be "extremist," rather than fundamentalist. I usually associate the latter word with religion for some reason, and we haven't been discussing religion at all (except peripherally). So. I would assume that the majority of us would agree that extremism does exist, and that there is extremism to the left and to the right. If so, then a moderate is one who is in the middle, right? Definitions of a moderate have been given in this thread as one who listens to the other side, or both sides. My question, then is, if the person who listens to both sides decides to "come down" on the side of the liberal, does that make him one? Perhaps on the next issue he/she might come down on the side of the conservative, that would mean, I assume that he/she would be considered conservative. Would a moderate be one, then, that might side with conservatives on some issues and with liberals on others? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Peg Date: 11 Jun 01 - 01:21 PM Bagpuss; my impression that most pro-lifers are men is not based on my feminist stance; it is based on my direct experience of these groups. I find it strange that you think my perception of something is only based on making sure it conforms to some ideology, rather than what I have seen with my own eyes. I used to live on Beacon Street in Brookline, Massachusetts. Nearly every Saturday I walked by the Planned Parenthood Clinic to do my laundry, go to the grocery store, or other errands. In my experience of the protesters who stood in front of that clinic every Saturday for four years, the majority of them were men. As a matter of fact, most of the volunteer escorts who helped women into the clinics and protected them from being harassed by anti-abortion protests, were also men. Guess there goes your theory. Even after John Salvi walked into this clinic with a sawed-off shotgun, and the protesters backed off for a while, when they returned in full force, most of them were men. I saw it, every week, for four years, as long as I lived there. What I see with my own eyes has NOTHING to do with whether or not I am feminist, or pro-choice, or whatever. I also do not attribute motives to people based on their having an opinion that is opposite from mine. For you to assume this makes you guilty of the same oversimplification (not to mention presumptuousness) you accuse me of. Your experience of the pro-life movement has apparently been different from mine. But that does not devalue my experience, does it? Even if I do think a woman's right to decide what she does with her own body does take precendent over what happens to a fetus.
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Bagpuss Date: 11 Jun 01 - 03:33 PM Peg - I didn't mean to imply you view wasn't based on experience. I was making a general point, but I can see that I wrote it badly and annoyed you in the process. Sorry - didn't mean to devalue your experience. It's easy to see why these issues provoke tension and hostility, when even when someone comes in with an open mind and wanting to look at both sides they can accidentally inflame the issue by clumsiness. Maybe its a UK/US difference? All I can say is that all the SPUC meetings I have been to were predominantly female. Maybe that's why we tend not to have pickets outside clinics, or violence associated with the issue in this country.....(just a bit of trolling for a man to be outraged that I would say such a thing....heheheh). Bagpuss
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Jun 01 - 05:52 PM I usually feel better about myself when I can try to understand other's point of view, but when I talk that way, I don't get much attention.
People seem to react, pay attention better if I espouse extremist views, so I guess I do that when I'm feeling ignored or neglected.
But here on the Mudcat it doesn't work that way does it?
Fundamentalist ought to mean having certain fundamental principles, and using them as a foundation for what you do in life, and that doesn't seem a bad idea. The corollary of that would be that if what you were doing based on those principles didn't feel right you'd have another look to see whether there was something wrong with the foundations.
Unfortunately a lot of fundamentalists seem to have constructed jerry-built buildings on somewhat shaky foundations.
My experience with pro-life people matches Bagpuss's - I think there are some significant differences on the two sides of the Atlantic. The main effort of many pro-lifers I know is trying to provide support to make it easier for women to avoid having abortions they really don't want. That's definitely a moderate position, and one which is held in common with many people who believe there is a "right to choose". |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: kendall Date: 11 Jun 01 - 07:56 PM I got into a heap of trouble back along about the ratio of men to women in this row. I agree with Peg, because I have seen the same thing with my own eyes. Men, women past child bearing age and, well...let's not go there. Anyway, What ia a fundamentalist? Well, what is a fundament? (Utah Phillips) |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Justa Picker Date: 11 Jun 01 - 08:00 PM Check out this concept regarding making abortion available. Clicky. (How long till some extremists from the opposite camp torpedo it?) |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: DougR Date: 11 Jun 01 - 08:43 PM Ok, Bagpuss, now you did it. I'm a man and I'm outraged! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Peg Date: 11 Jun 01 - 09:43 PM Bagpuss; I had forgotten you were in the UK and it DOES seem there are some fundamental (meaning basic) differences between those two movements on our respective countries. For one thing we have a lot more Southern Baptists here! Peg
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: DougR Date: 11 Jun 01 - 11:46 PM Now you've done it Peg. Jerry Falwell is gonna get you good! |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: DougR Date: 11 Jun 01 - 11:46 PM Oops, Peg. I forgot to add: :>) |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Peg Date: 12 Jun 01 - 12:08 AM Jerry Falwell can kiss my pro-choice ass.
|
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: DougR Date: 12 Jun 01 - 01:46 AM I love it! If I said I'd like to watch, I suppose you'd think me a voyeur. |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: kendall Date: 12 Jun 01 - 07:27 AM And, while he's kissing your ass, I'd like to kick his! |
|
Subject: RE: Fundamentalists of ANY stripe. yuchh! From: Bagpuss Date: 12 Jun 01 - 09:33 AM Before anyone gets a bee in their bonnet, I will be talking about general differences between men and women - not making any over generalisations about all men and all women. It has struck me for some time that groups involving radical and violent methods tend to have a higher male to female ratio than more peaceful groups. The discussion about abortion groups across the atlantic seem to support this somewhat. But I don't have enough experience of different kinds of groups to know whether this observation is correct. The main thing I am thinking of is animal rights groups. I know a few people in the more moderate type of these groups and they seem to be more women than men - but from my limited experience of more extremist groups (mainly from the media and reports of convictions etc) there seem to be more men in these groups. Does anyone know whether this is a true reflection of the membership or whether I have just encountered biased samples? Bagpuss |
| Share Thread: |