 |
The Gamer's Quarter
A quarterly publication
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:26 am Post subject: the issue of ecstatic faith |
 |
|
after seeing "jesus camp" shaper raised the question of "what do we do with these maniacs" (meaning the charismatic strain of pentacostalism seen in the documentary)
my initial reply:
| Quote: | short answer: we don't do jack squat.
on the other hand, pentacostals give to charity in far higher numbers than their secular counterparts, and are incredibly driven in many areas of poverty outreach and missonary work, so perhaps it's not such a bad thing after all.
dealing with ecstatic religions is difficult if one doesn't take religion very seriously, because that's the nature of revealed religious experiences. liberal catholics, for example, have a hard time with the ecstatic facets of catholicism because their own religious experience is not revealed, but thought out. similarly, in my own experience only a small thread of the vast array of new age/neopagan/occult religious moments in north america are oddly quite similar to the liberal catholics, despite being (ostensibly, not historically) tied to various ecstatic traditions from europe and elsewhere (but mostly europe). it's a social bonding exercise rather - even if it's just a subcultural sense of separation from "the herd" - than a relevatory faith.
i could go on about this for hours. new thread? |
one of the things which disturbs people most about charismatic christianity is the glossolalia, the speaking in tongues, and that they encourage young children to participate in this channeling of the holy spirit. it's not nearly as insane as it seems at first glance - give it a try sometimes, for example, you may be surprised at what happens - but is again another part of this separation. it's a community bonding experience, something which sets them apart from the group. which leads one to ask if ecstatic faiths are necessarily anti-social. in one sense, they are, but as a larger body they're generally plugged into their communities in several ways - charitable giving, community outreach efforts, missionary work, etc. there are african american charismatic groups in brooklyn, for example, which differ largely from their rural counterparts in size and political alignment (which is why the jesus camp producers are, in part, so obviously shocked by the behavior and attitudes they encounter.)
so how does a society reconcile secular pluralism with religious separation. well, part of that is contact. it's unavoidable - which is why globalization is generally treated as a negative part of life, even as they welcome the spread of their particular religious faith to previously unreachable audiences. the other common thread of a fallen culture is such a universal human approach to cultural change that it's unnoticable except when the objections differ - rather than focusing on, say, crass materialism or increasing immigration and "race-mixing" the focus is on sexual immorality, abortion and the dissolution of family and marriage bonds. but the underlying theme is very similar across groups (as seen in eschatological understandings of the coming end of the world).
i am not unsympathetic to fears about politically motivated political groups, but there's also a definite lack of actual recourse for people to take, beyond political action. you cannot dissolve the bonds of your neighbors - anymore than they can pray and make homosexuality disappear - beyond brute force. cultural change is like institutional change - a collective response to ecological forces, except on a tremendous scale.
the real difficulty in dealing with ecstatic faith is that it is foreign and frightening to outsiders - not necessarily by accident - but so long as it participates by larger social rules (which is the case in the u.s.) the issue remains one of cultural conflict and not larger physical action.
influencing cultures is another story entirely, of course, but as social upheaval tends to result in strange religious currents, it also tends to create new forms - five years ago the idea of conservative protestant groups inviting members of LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition, an anti-drug war group) to speak to their congregations would have been largely unthinkable. but as things like prison reform become the object of "crusades" (for lack of a better word) we will see further dissolution of our current political assumptions and comforts, for better and for worse.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ryan
.
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 999
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I went to Catholic school from 4th to 12th grade. During that time I didn't attend mass outside of what we were required to go to during the week (every Wednesday from 4-8 and, I think, once a week 9-12), so I was really surprised when I went to a wedding or something during my highschool years and saw how Catholics changed. Now they were raising their hands and being loud, kind of humming sometimes; it was a far cry from the fairly quiet (ooooooUUuuuummmmm) sounds and somber expressions of faith that I had seen when I was younger.
Do you/have you read Clement of Alexandria's work? It's very much in the 'we live with you' vein, to where as Turtullian is a proponent of a 'we're us, leave us alone' approach. I would say a happy medium is a combination of both: do your good works and be who you want to be, be social, but don't think that the person next to you has to hear what you have to say. Unfortunately, spreading the Good News is kind of important to many, so that's not going to happen.
_________________
Come to me, Mordel. We shall depart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
clement's parents were pagans; christianity had not yet become the dominant force in that part of the world. some degree of pluralism was required for survival, which is in some ways what we're seeing on a much larger scale.
on a semi-related topic, this may be the only interesting thing david brooks has ever written:
| Quote: | Kicking the Secularist Habit
A six-step program
by David Brooks
.....
Like a lot of people these days, I'm a recovering
secularist. Until September 11 I accepted the notion
that as the world becomes richer and better educated,
it becomes less religious. Extrapolating from a tiny
and unrepresentative sample of humanity (in Western
Europe and parts of North America), this theory holds
that as history moves forward, science displaces dogma
and reason replaces unthinking obedience. A region
that has not yet had a reformation and an
enlightenment, such as the Arab world, sooner or later
will.
It's now clear that the secularization theory is
untrue. The human race does not necessarily get less
religious as it grows richer and better educated. We
are living through one of the great periods of
scientific progress and the creation of wealth. At the
same time, we are in the midst of a religious boom.
Islam is surging. Orthodox Judaism is growing among
young people, and Israel has gotten more religious as
it has become more affluent. The growth of
Christianity surpasses that of all other faiths. In
1942 this magazine published an essay called "Will the
Christian Church Survive?" Sixty years later there
are two billion Christians in the world; by 2050,
according to some estimates, there will be three
billion. As Philip Jenkins, a Distinguished Professor
of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State
University, has observed, perhaps the most successful
social movement of our age is Pentecostalism (see "The
Next Christianity," October 2001 Atlantic). Having
gotten its start in Los Angeles about a century ago,
it now embraces 400 million people—a number that,
according to Jenkins, could reach a billion or more by
the half-century mark.
Moreover, it is the denominations that refuse to adapt
to secularism that are growing the fastest, while
those that try to be "modern" and "relevant" are
withering. Ecstatic forms of Christianity and
"anti-modern" Islam are thriving. The Christian
population in Africa, which was about 10 million in
1900 and is currently about 360 million, is expected
to grow to 633 million by 2025, with conservative,
evangelical, and syncretistic groups dominating. In
Africa churches are becoming more influential than
many nations, with both good and bad effects.
Secularism is not the future; it is yesterday's
incorrect vision of the future. This realization sends
us recovering secularists to the bookstore or the
library in a desperate attempt to figure out what is
going on in the world. I suspect I am not the only one
who since September 11 has found himself reading a
paperback edition of the Koran that was bought a few
years ago in a fit of high-mindedness but was never
actually opened. I'm probably not the only one boning
up on the teachings of Ahmad ibn Taymiyya, Sayyid
Qutb, and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.
There are six steps in the recovery process. First you
have to accept the fact that you are not the norm.
Western foundations and universities send out squads
of researchers to study and explain religious
movements. But as the sociologist Peter Berger has
pointed out, the phenomenon that really needs
explaining is the habits of the American professoriat:
religious groups should be sending out researchers to
try to understand why there are pockets of people in
the world who do not feel the constant presence of God
in their lives, who do not fill their days with
rituals and prayers and garments that bring them into
contact with the divine, and who do not believe that
God's will should shape their public lives.
Once you accept this—which is like understanding that
the earth revolves around the sun, not vice-versa—you
can begin to see things in a new way.
The second step toward recovery involves confronting
fear. For a few years it seemed that we were all
heading toward a benign end of history, one in which
our biggest worry would be boredom. Liberal democracy
had won the day. Yes, we had to contend with
globalization and inequality, but these were material
and measurable concepts. Now we are looking at
fundamental clashes of belief and a truly scary
situation—at least in the Southern Hemisphere—that
brings to mind the Middle Ages, with weak governments,
missionary armies, and rampant religious conflict.
The third step is getting angry. I now get extremely
annoyed by the secular fundamentalists who are content
to remain smugly ignorant of enormous shifts occurring
all around them. They haven't learned anything about
religion, at home or abroad. They don't know who Tim
LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins are, even though those
co-authors have sold 42 million copies of their books.
They still don't know what makes a Pentecostal a
Pentecostal (you could walk through an American
newsroom and ask that question, and the only people
who might be able to answer would be the secretaries
and the janitorial staff). They still don't know about
Michel Aflaq, the mystical Arab nationalist who served
as a guru to Saddam Hussein. A great Niagara of
religious fervor is cascading down around them while
they stand obtuse and dry in the little cave of their
own parochialism—and many of them are journalists and
policy analysts, who are paid to keep up with these
things.
The fourth step toward recovery is to resist the
impulse to find a materialistic explanation for
everything. During the centuries when secularism
seemed the wave of the future, Western intellectuals
developed social-science models of extraordinary
persuasiveness. Marx explained history through class
struggle, other economists explained it through profit
maximization. Professors of international affairs used
conflict-of-interest doctrines and game theory to
predict the dynamics between nation-states.
All these models are seductive and partly true. This
country has built powerful institutions, such as the
State Department and the CIA, that use them to try to
develop sound policies. But none of the models can
adequately account for religious ideas, impulses, and
actions, because religious fervor can't be quantified
and standardized. Religious motivations can't be
explained by cost-benefit analysis.
Over the past twenty years domestic-policy analysts
have thought hard about the roles that religion and
character play in public life. Our foreign-policy
elites are at least two decades behind. They go for
months ignoring the force of religion; then, when
confronted with something inescapably religious, such
as the Iranian revolution or the Taliban, they begin
talking of religious zealotry and fanaticism, which
suddenly explains everything. After a few days of
shaking their heads over the fanatics, they revert to
their usual secular analyses. We do not yet have, and
sorely need, a mode of analysis that attempts to merge
the spiritual and the material.
The recovering secularist has to resist the temptation
to treat religion as a mere conduit for thwarted
economic impulses. For example, we often say that
young Arab men who have no decent prospects turn to
radical Islam. There's obviously some truth to this
observation. But it's not the whole story: neither
Mohammed Atta nor Osama bin Laden, for example, was
poor or oppressed. And although it's possible to
construct theories that explain their radicalism as
the result of alienation or some other secular factor,
it makes more sense to acknowledge that faith is its
own force, independent of and perhaps greater than
economic resentment.
Human beings yearn for righteous rule, for a just
world or a world that reflects God's will—in many
cases at least as strongly as they yearn for money or
success. Thinking about that yearning means moving
away from scientific analysis and into the realm of
moral judgment. The crucial question is not What
incentives does this yearning respond to? but Do
individuals pursue a moral vision of righteous rule?
And do they do so in virtuous ways, or are they, like
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, evil in their
vision and methods?
Fifth, the recovering secularist must acknowledge that
he has been too easy on religion. Because he assumed
that it was playing a diminishing role in public
affairs, he patronized it. He condescendingly decided
not to judge other creeds. They are all valid ways of
approaching God, he told himself, and ultimately they
fuse into one. After all, why stir up trouble by
judging another's beliefs? It's not polite. The better
option, when confronted by some nasty practice
performed in the name of religion, is simply to avert
one's eyes. Is Wahhabism a vicious sect that perverts
Islam? Don't talk about it.
But in a world in which religion plays an ever larger
role, this approach is no longer acceptable. One has
to try to separate right from wrong. The problem is
that once we start doing that, it's hard to say where
we will end up. Consider Pim Fortuyn, a left-leaning
Dutch politician and gay-rights advocate who
criticized Muslim immigrants for their attitudes
toward women and gays. When he was assassinated, last
year, the press described him, on the basis of those
criticisms, as a rightist in the manner of Jean-Marie
Le Pen, which was far from the truth. In the
post-secular world today's categories of left and
right will become inapt and obsolete.
The sixth and final step for recovering secularists is
to understand that this country was never very secular
anyway. We Americans long for righteous rule as
fervently as anybody else. We are inculcated with the
notion that, in Abraham Lincoln's words, we represent
the "last, best hope of earth." Many Americans have
always sensed that we have a transcendent mission,
although, fortunately, it is not a theological one. We
instinctively feel, in ways that people from other
places do not, that history is unfulfilled as long as
there are nations in which people are not free. It is
this instinctive belief that has led George W. Bush to
respond so ambitiously to the events of September 11,
and that has led most Americans to support him.
Americans are as active as anyone else in the clash of
eschatologies. Saddam Hussein sees history as ending
with a united Arab nation globally dominant and with
himself revered as the creator of a just world order.
Osama bin Laden sees history as ending with the global
imposition of sharia. Many Europeans see history as
ending with the establishment of secular global
institutions under which nationalism and religious
passions will be quieted and nation-states will give
way to international law and multilateral cooperation.
Many Americans see history as ending in the triumph of
freedom and constitutionalism, with religion not
abandoned or suppressed but enriching democratic life.
We are inescapably caught in a world of conflicting
visions of historical destiny. This is not the same as
saying that we are caught in a world of conflicting
religions. But understanding this world means beating
the secularist prejudices out of our minds every day. |
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ryan
.
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 999
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It made him a far more agreeable church father, I think. I'd give the man a high-five is what I'm saying.
I recently saw something called Battlecry on TV (and here we are) that was somewhat unnerving in its presentation but fairly harmless in its goals. I can understand why others would be put off by this. Though organized and determined focused towards something positive - assisting the homeless, carrying the banner of stewards of the Earth, etc. - would be pretty fantastic. But I think many of them might be too busy screaming at giant concerts.
_________________
Come to me, Mordel. We shall depart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the connection between religious activity and charitable activity is incredibly strong. not for profit fundraisers are acutely aware of it, for example, and have been for years.
the battlecry stuff is interesting theatre. i think i'd feel comfortable attaching it to a kind of public demonstration of ecstatic faith.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GSL
.
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 725
Location: Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject: Re: the issue of ecstatic faith |
|
|
| dhex wrote: | | one of the things which disturbs people most about charismatic christianity is the glossolalia, the speaking in tongues, and that they encourage young children to participate in this channeling of the holy spirit. it's not nearly as insane as it seems at first glance - give it a try sometimes, for example, you may be surprised at what happens - but is again another part of this separation. it's a community bonding experience, something which sets them apart from the group. |
The concept sounds good on paper, but the execution is a bit creepier. Sometimes the practicing of glossolalia on such a large scale ceases to be a religious experience and starts feeling more like some kind of twisted display of unity where everyone's just out to prove they're part of the group, too. It's quite a panic-inducing feeling, really, to be the only person at one of those gatherings not 'touched by the Spirit' and to be surrounded by (well-meaning, I'm sure) folks determined to PRAY the damned spirit into you until all you can do is babble a few incoherant phrases and drop to the ground to just get it all over with. It really makes me wonder how much of it is authentic and how much is not wanting to be the person standing there saying, "Yeah sorry guys, the Spirit just isn't talking to me and I'm not feeling anything."
I was going to mention some other reasons why pentecostal/charismatic Christianity is sometimes an awkward thing for other Christians and secular people alike, but I'm not entirely sure which direction this thread is heading and therefore not sure if it's even relevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it's totally relevant. rock on.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ryan
.
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 999
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dhex wrote: | the connection between religious activity and charitable activity is incredibly strong. not for profit fundraisers are acutely aware of it, for example, and have been for years.
the battlecry stuff is interesting theatre. i think i'd feel comfortable attaching it to a kind of public demonstration of ecstatic faith. |
40,000+ people wailing and screaming and pumping fists to really bad music and some fairly cocky speakers ... well, not totally abdnormal today, but a sight I could go without seeing.
To go through with and complete confirmation I had to do so many hours of charity work. One of the local food shelters, only tenuously connected with religion (pretty much by name and placard only), receives a steady stream of volunteers that way. It was all well and good until that one guy got really pissed that he didn't get the heart-shaped cookie and felt it was an intentional slight.
My mother's side is full of devout Catholics and even they have stopped going to church. Aside from the child abuse not being handled (at all), they just don't fee comfortable going because of how it's so much more over-the-top now. Some churches still have the more traditional masses, but, like I think what's about to be discussed, going the other route pushes out long-standing members.
_________________
Come to me, Mordel. We shall depart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wourme
.
Joined: 01 Jul 2005
Posts: 362
Location: Maridia
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Kicking the Secularist Habit |
I don't specifically remember reading anything by David Brooks before, but I thoght that article was interesting.
It reminded me a little of something else I read some years ago about how religion is depicted in a lot of science fiction--in fictional future worlds it's often irrelevant or nonexistent. Wishful thinking on the part of the authors? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, first, I would like to state that the initial quote by me isn’t exactly true.
The same could be said of all religions.
Pun aside, seriously. Any group or religion that calls to bring down government, or even reign it in for something more personal or secular, is absurd. The whole smashing coffee mugs representing government and calling for the removal of homosexuals from the earth is what gets me. Then the threat from that preacher threatening (almost calling people out) that they (the Church) control 25% of the votes in the country is enough to get me up in arms. I guess that the answer of what to do with them is counteract with votes, but if they become too much and start removing what this country is founded on (such as a freedom of religion and though) then it’s no longer our country, it’s the Churches. I don’t think that even devout Christians want to see this, only the extreme right arm of them.
The whole “do you really think we came from GOO?!” view on science is something that’s just silly, much like Jesus riding on a Dinosaur. The ignoring of global warming and other such threats as exhausting natural rescources (i.e. fossil fuel) is just ignorance and idiocy. These are ignorable or even counter productive arguments that I don’t have any beef with.
I should also point out that I am a religious person, just mostly agnostic. I went to Catholic Church weekly (and more frequently some years) for 16 years. While I have renounced Catholicism, they don’t make me fear for a loss of freedoms within a county based on them.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Pun aside, seriously. Any group or religion that calls to bring down government, or even reign it in for something more personal or secular, is absurd. |
which is the issue that brooks partly addresses above. if someone genuinely believes something, how can we expect them not to act? gavel-pounding is, unfortunately, a facet of political organization. as is real or imagined marginalization.
i have a far broader view of constitutional erosion, and i doubt the charismatics can really add that much fuel to the fire. everyone fucking hates the constitution except as a speechmaking device. do people really want freedom of speech or religion? in what that literally means? of course not.
we must also keep in mind that they stayed home in larger numbers this past november, which is their recourse when the republicans aren't seen as having kept their promises. it's the recourse of every constituency in a two party system, as well. even the imperial presidency has its limitations.
edit: i will note that a fear of a papal presidency was found as late as JFK's election run-up, and turn of the century writers - largely protestant, but some prominent non-denominationalists as well - were very big on the unwashed, ignorant masses of european catholics shitting up america with their private churches and baby-having. (you see some similarities with general anti-immigration sentiment then and now)
the parochial school system is a direct result of interference in new york city, for example, because of both real and imagined fears of anti-catholic persecution of children in protestant-dominated public schools. and much of the criticism was that if not actually constituting a 4th column loyal only to the pope, catholics weren't able to be integrated and not compatible with american values. they would manipulate the legal and political systems (a la tammany hall) to de-americanize america.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dhex wrote: | | i have a far broader view of constitutional erosion, and i doubt the charismatics can really add that much fuel to the fire. everyone fucking hates the constitution except as a speechmaking device. do people really want freedom of speech or religion? in what that literally means? of course not. |
Expand on this.
Also, what is wrong with supporting the country while pushing your beliefs? Why can't they go out of their way to say "DON'T HAVE THAT ABORTION" but know that as a country we can't make it illegal?
Also, anti-stem cell people are just absolute idiots. Don't they know that if we don't use the stuff it just gets thrown away?
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GSL
.
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 725
Location: Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shapermc wrote: | | Also, anti-stem cell people are just absolute idiots. Don't they know that if we don't use the stuff it just gets thrown away? |
I think that's going a little too far. Sure, the stuff does get thrown away, but where does it come from in the first place? Miscarried and aborted fetuses (fetii?), with the latter being more commonly used. Thus the approval of stem cells gained from an aborted fetus could be taken as approval of abortions as well, however passive it may be, and that definitely won't fly in the Catholic church, and most other Christian denominations too, I'd imagine.
And on an extremely pedantic note, I doubt there are very many [educated] people entirely against stem cell research--it's just the embryonic variety that is the cause of the controversy. Though with recent findings that these cells can easily turn cancerous, I wonder if this 'miracle cure' will end up being more trouble than it's worth, and that would end all the controversy in a hurry. Though I suppose that's neither here nor there.
| Shapermc wrote: |
The whole “do you really think we came from GOO?!” view on science is something that’s just silly, much like Jesus riding on a Dinosaur. |
This is actually one of the biggest problems with charismatic Christianity: the crazy extreme groups tend to be more visible in the public eye than in most other denominations, and with general media's fondness for poking fun at those wacky Christians and their crazy ideas, things like this spead like wildfire. Only it somehow metamorphosizes from "Ultra-conservative offshoot of Southern Baptist church in Texas decries evolution as fraud" to "Christians claim evolution false," and unless Joe Public knows any better, he just shakes his head saying, "Those silly Christians. What do they have against science, anyways?" It's a classic case of the tiny yet noisy segment of a group helping to shape the popular perception, and often in a manner completely contrary to the populace they presume to represent. For example, the whole evolution/creation 'debate' is a complete nonissue in the Roman Catholic church, but with all the recent high-profile hubbub about 'Intelligent Design' it's hard to notice that one of the largest branches of Christianity has been beyond petty Jesus vs. Darwin squabbling for decades. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hasn't the Church gone on recording saying that evolution is probably true and that notions of Intelligent Design are absurd?
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
while reserving the obvious interpretation of the prime mover. it's just a kind of intelligent design that doesn't actually interfere with accepting biological and geologic science.
| Quote: | | Why can't they go out of their way to say "DON'T HAVE THAT ABORTION" but know that as a country we can't make it illegal? |
because their frame of reference for the issue of abortion makes that stance impossible to hold, morally. it's pretty obvious that this is a no compromise situation for all parties involved, for the most part.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dhex wrote: | | while reserving the obvious interpretation of the prime mover. it's just a kind of intelligent design that doesn't actually interfere with accepting biological and geologic science. |
That was my understanding, yes, and makes perfect sense. That sort of position seems more reasonable as far as a religious institution could go in any case, and isn't offensively anti-progressive.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it's progressiveness is beside the point. there's a recognition that certain kinds of modes of being belong in certain places, to a reasonable degree.
i'm very struck by the notion that the duality here isn't "rationality" and "irrationality" so much as a battle of causes versus meanings. meaning is a pre-rational condition.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greatsaintlouis wrote: | | Shapermc wrote: | | Also, anti-stem cell people are just absolute idiots. Don't they know that if we don't use the stuff it just gets thrown away? |
I think that's going a little too far. Sure, the stuff does get thrown away, but where does it come from in the first place? Miscarried and aborted fetuses (fetii?), with the latter being more commonly used. Thus the approval of stem cells gained from an aborted fetus could be taken as approval of abortions as well, however passive it may be, and that definitely won't fly in the Catholic church, and most other Christian denominations too, I'd imagine. |
I'm not going to get too into this, but...
The only place that stem cells would be/are grabbed from are failed but fertalized invitro fertalization. So... while "aborted" may be technically correct, when a egg is fertalized invitro they do like 5 (I don't know it could be dozens or like 3) of them because many times they don't take. When more than one take the doctors have the option to a) throw them away, b) use a very small amount of stem cells to try to cure some uncureable disease. If they don't get used as stem cells they are slated to be destroyed. There is no other option, nothing else is ever going to happen.
"But that's cloning humans! We can't play God!!!!!" That's silly for many reasons, but most importantly we wouldn't be cloning humans with it, and most legislation which is shot down includes 'we won't clone human' clauses.
| dhex wrote: | | Quote: | | Why can't they go out of their way to say "DON'T HAVE THAT ABORTION" but know that as a country we can't make it illegal? |
because their frame of reference for the issue of abortion makes that stance impossible to hold, morally. it's pretty obvious that this is a no compromise situation for all parties involved, for the most part. |
Don't they understand the difference between local and federal? It would probably give me another reason to go to california.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Don't they understand the difference between local and federal? It would probably give me another reason to go to california. |
the issue here is actually one single issue beneath everything else - the issue of being. when does a being become a human being? i.e. something that has rights and protections. why would they move on the state level if they honestly feel that abortion is murder?
similarly, if one feels that abortion is an issue of innate female rights, then a state by state or county by county compromise is also utterly unacceptable.
i do think there's a reasonable comparison to the american version of slavery in terms of the political array, the envisioned stakes, the spread of pockets of limited violence, multimedia campaigning, the role of religious expression, the use of personal narratives, etc, but most of all because the question comes down to when a being becomes a human being. (the dredd scott comparisons, on the other hand, are stupid.)
there are, of course, inconsistencies everywhere.
ecstatic faith is somewhere beyond passionate beliefs, if only because it is a small, community or indiivdually based revelation that drives both their cohesive natures and political/social struggles.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
So basically you're not going to budge on your stance and say that all is good and acceptable because we're only human?
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperWes
Updated the banners, but not his title
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 3725
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greatsaintlouis wrote: | | This is actually one of the biggest problems with charismatic Christianity: the crazy extreme groups tend to be more visible in the public eye than in most other denominations, and with general media's fondness for poking fun at those wacky Christians and their crazy ideas, things like this spead like wildfire. Only it somehow metamorphosizes from "Ultra-conservative offshoot of Southern Baptist church in Texas decries evolution as fraud" to "Christians claim evolution false," and unless Joe Public knows any better, he just shakes his head saying, "Those silly Christians. What do they have against science, anyways?" It's a classic case of the tiny yet noisy segment of a group helping to shape the popular perception, and often in a manner completely contrary to the populace they presume to represent. For example, the whole evolution/creation 'debate' is a complete nonissue in the Roman Catholic church, but with all the recent high-profile hubbub about 'Intelligent Design' it's hard to notice that one of the largest branches of Christianity has been beyond petty Jesus vs. Darwin squabbling for decades. |
IBTN
I've been thinking about this topic ever since it was brought up and I think everyone looks at Christianity from a biased angle. Someone should have carried a videocamera behind the producers of this film and recorded them saying things like, "You know, if we can convince enough people that Christianity is just a big ploy to get people to vote conservatively we can raise the number of liberal voters by 25%! That's big enough to sway an election!" And everyone watching the documentary about documentary film-making would have been disgusted and opposed to documentaries.
-Wes
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So basically you're not going to budge on your stance and say that all is good and acceptable because we're only human? |
no, not at all. i'm more interested in systemic analysis than arguing about abortion in particular. the issue is complicated, makes people very angry very easily, etc (the very terms for each side are fraught with implied meaning about the nature of human beings). what's more interesting to me than even the what-ifs in the eventuality of an overturning of roe v. wade would be the renewed collision between a coalition of political operatives and both evangelical and ecstatic religious practitioners and their non-ecstatic religious counterparts and pro-choice political operatives.
don't mistake this for what i think is socially or politically important. that's an entirely separate discussion. but it's important to recognize that as a whole, the bile that emerges from this issue is not only that each side (generally, outside of some operatives who are no doubt getting paid in full by their respective teams) genuinely believes what they endorse. furthermore, it's complicated by the fact that each side grimly holds onto a sense of impending doom - regardless of the objective status of said doom - and believes the other to be implicitly benefiting from their stance.
in other words, it's long been held that planned parenthood makes most of their money from abortions (they make most of them from donations and planned giving and very little, comparatively, from abortions - i used to work with one of the former development directors here in the northeast, which was quite illuminating) and that more men than women support "unlimited" access to abortion (this is nominally true) for reasons of self benefit. conversely, it is held that abortion opponents are largely misogynists who wish to control women (which fails to explain both female anti-abortion advocates - outside of the "self-hating" copout - and nonviolent acts of mortification, like long sessions of prayer and fasting, "hunger strikes" etc with no visible misogynistic component).
there are problems with every kind of advocacy - meaning that ideas are always able to be attacked - especially some of the things i advocate/give money to/volunteer for, etc. i try to be reasonable about this and not get too high up on the hobby horse, and rely on those around me to knock me down a peg when required. as such, i can understand why my rather bland take on these things is annoying, or even offensive. i've found it simply easier to keep one's personal feelings out of certain discussions, namely those that one cares very deeply about emotionally or is heavily interested in intellectually. by summing up this disagreement as an issue of when a "thing" becomes "someone" i think you strike the proper objective balance, or at least as objective as one can be, without resorting to complex (and often odd or even apparently disengenuous) thought experiments that compare abortions to various kinds of previous human institutions (like slavery) or the "imagine you're kidnapped and force to provide kidney function for a person in a coma" argument (summed up here, thanks wikipedia)
what makes ecstatic faiths worth talking about in this sense is that they are a population that is deeply involved with their communities, their social structures and each other. in one sense they're the "perfect" commmunity, except they have all the wrong opinions for at least half of the people who are generally into building (or at least wishing for) said perfect communities.
like the people who made the film, for starters. no doubt they also feel hopeless. everyone feels hopeless if one considers that at root most human beings want the world to be filled with people like us, who agree with us and generally do what we want. as such, feeling hopeless may not be such a bad thing from time to time in small doses as it helps whittle away the monstrously cartoonish god of vengence that lurks in the human heart, or at least frustrate it from time to time.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SuperWes wrote: | | Someone should have carried a videocamera behind the producers of this film and recorded them saying things like, "You know, if we can convince enough people that Christianity is just a big ploy to get people to vote conservatively we can raise the number of liberal voters by 25%! That's big enough to sway an election!" And everyone watching the documentary about documentary film-making would have been disgusted and opposed to documentaries. |
You didn't even watch it. This is about the extreme right wing. About an inch above the KKK at it's hight. Most Christians aren't anything like this. Don't be a tool.
EDIT: This film is the equivalent of a documentary on Muslim extremists. Only people without an once of self though are going to walk out and say "OMG all Muslims are terrible!"
DOUBLE EDIT: Right wing isn't the correct term above. Extremist movement group is a better term.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!"
Last edited by Shapermc on Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
i know i'm probably being annoying at this point but quantifying ecstatic faith as a right wing or left wing thing really misses the point. the issue is not their place on the imaginary political slider (or axis) we assign political values to, but rather the nature of the manifestation of their religious beliefs.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
So dhex, back to the original topic at hand. You think it's ok to let a group (particularly a religious one) talk about taking over the government which they currently don't agree with and also talk about the eradication of homosexuals (i.e. humans which are privy to equal rights and all that)?
| dhex wrote: | | what makes ecstatic faiths worth talking about in this sense is that they are a population that is deeply involved with their communities, their social structures and each other. |
If they're so involved in their community why then have so many been removed from the public school system?
EDIT: I double edited my above post.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GSL
.
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 725
Location: Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shapermc wrote: | | The only place that stem cells would be/are grabbed from are failed but fertalized invitro fertalization. So... while "aborted" may be technically correct, when a egg is fertalized invitro they do like 5 (I don't know it could be dozens or like 3) of them because many times they don't take. When more than one take the doctors have the option to a) throw them away, b) use a very small amount of stem cells to try to cure some uncureable disease. If they don't get used as stem cells they are slated to be destroyed. There is no other option, nothing else is ever going to happen. |
Sorry, my bad--I couldn't think of the term for the early stages of fertilization, so I just used 'fetus', which looking back makes it sound like a completely different issue! And while the developing embryos are 'aborted' in the sense that they're not allowed to progress, that too has a totally different connotation! So uh... whoops.
Anyways, the opposition to the issue by the Church is still the same, regardless of my blundering errors: it's the destruction of what could could develop into a human being. I'm not trying to argue the point or "when does life really start?" or anything like that, just saying where they're coming from.
But, uh, also: embryonic stem cells are not the only types. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greatsaintlouis wrote: | Anyways, the opposition to the issue by the Church is still the same, regardless of my blundering errors: it's the destruction of what could could develop into a human being. I'm not trying to argue the point or "when does life really start?" or anything like that, just saying where they're coming from.
But, uh, also: embryonic stem cells are not the only types. |
Both of those aren't from killing anything either and both aren't allowed! As far as "could develope" none of those can. Period. They are slated for destruction no matter what.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So dhex, back to the original topic at hand. You think it's ok to let a group (particularly a religious one) talk about taking over the government which they currently don't agree with and also talk about the eradication of homosexuals (i.e. humans which are privy to equal rights and all that)? |
structurally, of course. free speech is more important than good manners (in terms of laws)
do i think it's a good idea? do i agree with them? obviously not. though i will caution that no where in the documentary did i hear anything remotely approaching calls to murder or eradicate anyone (outside of the smashing of cups). "sinful" behaviors, on the other hand, are naturally included.
| Quote: | | If they're so involved in their community why then have so many been removed from the public school system? |
because they don't think the public schools enforce the values of their particular community.
remember: "community" does not mean "everyone ever" in anything but the most utopian pipe dreams - and even then all the unmutual types have conveniently been absorbed or eliminated. communities can be immediate and geographical, or they can be ethnic/racial, they can even be classed by sexual behavior or identity, and they most certainly can be religious. this is what makes ecstatic faiths into separatist communities, which seems oxymoronic on its front but ultimately makes perfect sense.
(i.e. TGQ is a kind of community which finds and defines itself as being at odds with what is seen as the dominant mindset and behavior patterns. a nonviolent but still in some ways anti-social community.)
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperWes
Updated the banners, but not his title
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 3725
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shapermc wrote: | | You didn't even watch it. This is about the extreme right wing. About an inch above the KKK at it's hight. Most Christians aren't anything like this. Don't be a tool. |
I flipped through the movie here and there and most of what I saw was kids singing church songs with a montage of people talking about how the church can be used to influence government.
That's what I was commenting on.
I think the point of the film is certainly valid. It makes me angry that people use religion as a vehicle for other purposes, but I don't like how blatantly manipulative this movie is to get that point across. I get that that's sort of the point of the movie, but a movie about a church with an agenda that very clearly has its own agenda just seems kind of fucked up.
-Wes
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shapermc wrote: | | So dhex, back to the original topic at hand. You think it's ok to let a group (particularly a religious one) talk about taking over the government which they currently don't agree with and also talk about the eradication of homosexuals (i.e. humans which are privy to equal rights and all that)? |
If they were to be the (silent) majority, wouldn't it be within the parametres of a democratic society?
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dhex wrote: | | though i will caution that no where in the documentary did i hear anything remotely approaching calls to murder or eradicate anyone (outside of the smashing of cups). "sinful" behaviors, on the other hand, are naturally included. |
I've gone beyond just the film. There are many television and radio preachers who are calling the christian community to eradicate homosexuals. I will cite American Facist for that one.
| SuperWes wrote: | | I get that that's sort of the point of the movie, but a movie about a church with an agenda that very clearly has its own agenda just seems kind of fucked up. |
I already stated that there was a bit too much agenda pushing in the film.
| Dracko wrote: | | Shapermc wrote: | | So dhex, back to the original topic at hand. You think it's ok to let a group (particularly a religious one) talk about taking over the government which they currently don't agree with and also talk about the eradication of homosexuals (i.e. humans which are privy to equal rights and all that)? |
If they were to be the (silent) majority, wouldn't it be within the parametres of a democratic society? |
Perhaps a different democratic society. I don't know, I just figured we had made some progress since promoting women and blacks to a level of "equal" where we could also just accept humans.
Perhaps I'm not understanding the comment.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I've gone beyond just the film. There are many television and radio preachers who are calling the christian community to eradicate homosexuals. I will cite American Facist for that one. |
and i will strongly suggest that american fascist is cherry picking to a great degree to prove a point that doesn't really exist because dominionists are far less common than he portrays (at least judging from the npr interview i heard).
i.e.
| Quote: | | Most Christians aren't anything like this. |
"fascism" is not a synonym for "bad" (though it is most certainly bad from my point of view). now that's nitpicking, but at the same time hedges' criticism is the traditional liberal christian one - that the "true meaning" of christianity is, oddly enough, one that they agree with and that wars on different kinds of "sinful" behavior (intolerance, lilteralism, etc) than their more hard-core bretheren.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
.
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 2613
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shapermc wrote: | | Dracko wrote: | | Shapermc wrote: | | So dhex, back to the original topic at hand. You think it's ok to let a group (particularly a religious one) talk about taking over the government which they currently don't agree with and also talk about the eradication of homosexuals (i.e. humans which are privy to equal rights and all that)? |
If they were to be the (silent) majority, wouldn't it be within the parametres of a democratic society? |
Perhaps a different democratic society. I don't know, I just figured we had made some progress since promoting women and blacks to a level of "equal" where we could also just accept humans.
Perhaps I'm not understanding the comment. |
I'm simply saying: If they turn out to be the majority, and as a result the country is swayed by their opinion, that's still democratic. Progressiveness has nothing to do with it.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scratchmonkey
.
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 1439
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, that's when you get into the conflict between the democratic majority and "inherent" rights. We're actually going through something like this with the whole Patriot Act thing -- I'm sure a large majority of Americans view violation of habeas corpus as a-OK, for example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scratchmonkey
.
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 1439
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Holy crap that article is full of semantic landmines.
It does raise some interesting stuff though. The generation of a third party based on what I would think of as a Catholic-based cosmology is intriguing, if probably unlikely (and very similar to what's happening in Eastern Europe, where Conservative-Green alliances are increasingly common). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At this point I may as well just stop. I'm probably in over my head and it would just get into personal beliefs after this.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
phooey on that.
there are ways to explore beliefs that don't involve anyone yelling at anyone else. it just has to be done...carefully.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nana Komatsu
weak sauce
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 1293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
i have this image of richard dawkins staring at ted haggart like a deer in headlights. his poor british mind was totally blown by the methstorm that followed (on the "root of all evil" doc, which itself was probably the worst showcase for dawkins ever produced).
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_01_28-2007_02_03.shtml#1170100844
| Quote: | JIM (Caller): Yes. Yes, I am. I needed to ask the author -- I mean, I myself am a Christian, but I wouldn't even somewhat agree with Pat Roberts. But the author stating that you need to restrict someone's free speech just for mere words, he's advocating -- I mean, what he's advocating is fascism, is he (unintelligible)? ...
Mr. HEDGES: I think that, you know, in a democratic society, people don't have a right to preach the extermination of others, which has been a part of this movement of - certainly in terms of what should be done with homosexuals. You know, Rushdoony and others have talked about 18 moral crimes for which people should be executed, including apostasy, blasphemy, sodomy, and all - in order for an open society to function, it must function with a mutual respect, with a respect...
JIM: Sure.
Mr. HEDGES: ...for other ways to be and other ways to believe. And I think that the fringes of this movement have denied people that respect, which is why they fight so hard against hate crimes legislation -- such as exist in Canada -- being made law in the United States.
[NEAL] CONAN: But Chris, to be fair, aren't you talking about violating their right to free speech, their right to religion as laid out in the First Amendment?
Mr. HEDGES: Well, I think that when you preach -- or when you call for the physical extermination of other people within the society, you know, you've crossed the bounds of free speech. I mean, we're not going to turn a cable channel over to the Ku Klux Klan. Yet the kinds of things that are allowed to be spewed out over much of Christian radio and television essentially preaches sedition. It preaches civil war. It's not a difference of opinion. With that kind of rhetoric, it becomes a fight for survival....
|
you'd think for someone who used to work for the new york times, there'd be an understanding of what incitement is in this context. or that the sedition act is no longer in effect and can't be used to criminalize speech. that's head-smackingly stupid.
again, this isn't fascism, or anything remotely like it; it only vaguely smacks of it because of the desire for some kind of national unity - an appeal to "respect" isn't even close to cutting the mustard - and because fascism has been devolved to mean "bad" rather than what it actually means.
i'm not a "truth will out" kinda guy, but rather a "the less laws regarding expression, the better, because such power doesn't sit well in the hands of government." i don't think truth outs historically, even if this is a kind of noble lie that gets people to tolerate otherwise intolerable expression.
edit: the simplest example of incitement i can think of is of someone addressing a crowd, saying:
"we must destroy the evildoers!" that's speech.
"we must destroy the evildoers who live at 4321 fake street and happen to be home right now!" that's incitement.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swimmy
.
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 990
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I mean, we're not going to turn a cable channel over to the Ku Klux Klan. |
Because it would be widely boycotted, would get no ratings, any company affiliated with it would be ruined, etc. Not because it's illegal.
_________________
"Ayn Rand fans are the old school version of Xenogears fanboys."
-seryogin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i think i should mention that i feel quite badly for anyone raised within an ecstatic faith that doesn't share these kinds of experiences and inclinations, or is otherwise posessed of deviant traits (sexual, political or otherwise), because that is a hard beginning to a hard life.
on the other hand, it may be better to learn these lessons early than late, presuming one gets out alive.
edit: shaper, have you seen hell house?
double edit: a dawkins clip that's a bit more hardcore than the actual documentary above, which i quite liked a lot.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Redeye
.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 986
Location: filth
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Man, you took my angle... I looked through this whole thread thinking *I* would be the one to mention Hell House.
Did anyone notice how willing, *eager* even, the "good christians" were to play the "sex victims".
Those fresh teen girls were practically licking their chops at the prospect. It was like a choice role to play.
Maybe I just read that in. (Of course, technically, even if it was true I still read it in...)
_________________
I felt sheer anarchic joy when I ran over my first pedestrian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't, but I should
That clip... that evil abortion doctor kind of... looks like you dhex. Anyways, I love it when people use the bible against itself. I mean, its so ripe for that kind of shit. I love how the bible says that all women shouldn't come within 50ft of your house while on their peroid and that all clothes worn durring that time should be burned.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I noticed that Google Video has a “download for your iPod or PSP” option and remembered that my wife’s Zune played videos. I checked and, yes, it is the same format. So I had her download Jesus Camp so she could watch it on her train ride from Chicago to St. Louis.
She called me this morning saying that she has no words for how scary it was. “It makes me want to go to church.” Something to the effect just to make sure that these people are prayed for, or something like that.
“If we ever have kids we’re going to make sure that they know not to talk to people who approach them about Jesus.”
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | “If we ever have kids we’re going to make sure that they know not to talk to people who approach them about Jesus.” |
ha!
actually, this puts me in mind of something - the reaction that "outsiders" have to a particular ecstatic sect helps cement their group belonging and sense of being an elect. it confirms their biases and increases feelings of togetherness.
sort of like a gang of nerds in high school for whom getting picked on is a confirmation that that popularity and intelligence are negatively related.
or any other group for that matter.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dhex wrote: | actually, this puts me in mind of something - the reaction that "outsiders" have to a particular ecstatic sect helps cement their group belonging and sense of being an elect. it confirms their biases and increases feelings of togetherness.
sort of like a gang of nerds in high school for whom getting picked on is a confirmation that that popularity and intelligence are negatively related.
or any other group for that matter. |
That's a good point. Perhaps if we keep letting them know their outsiders their percentage of the population will go down from that nice round 25% as quoted from the film.
I hate to say it, but 25% is hardly an outsider.
Also, what do you mean by "an elect"?
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the elect - those who know - the enlightened - the saved - the illuminati - the chosen
etc.
but religion will continue to be hot in the 21st century, as we see a bit of cooling in membership in liberal churches and a return to orthodox religious outlets (structure and all that) though the charismatics have been around long enough as a distinct kind of movement that i'd say they're basically an orthodox sect of unorthodox displays. we'll also see, i think, an increase in outre atheism.
but no, 25% is not a minority in terms of religion.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dhex
Breeder
Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dhex wrote: | | but no, 25% is not a minority in terms of religion. |
Well, they made it sound like 25% of the population, not of the religion.
Anyways, here is the NPR interview I have refered to a few times.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932
"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
