Assumptions of Extreme Fundies

Assumptions of Extreme FundiesThere are two instances of extreme fundamentalism that I have seen recently that really irked me. The first is this hideous entry I read at fstdt.com. For reference, the fstdt post is here:
Uberbeliever #racistAnd the original post at Christian Forums is here:
Error | Christian ForumsIt may be helpful to go over the Christian Forums link to review some of the context and some other horrific things this guy was saying that simply don't seem as bad compared to the above quote.The other instance that I have in mind is part of Richard Dawkins movie The God Delusion. You can find the video on Google video or YouTube and the interview is at 40 mins in. In it he interviews a Moslem man who said: It seems to be that there is something about fundamentalism in genearal that allows people to harbor these INSANE assumptions about reality. Why is this? Is it just simply that the ignorance that gives rise to most dangerous types of fundamentalism is also inclined to serve racism or sexism where they are already present in a culture?What are some other examples of this if you have them?Soc. Issues in EvC please.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

there are two horrendous things in that one post--first, the abortion comment, second, the racist comment. I'm gonna take a guess that this guy is white.as to the second one-Dawkins didn't explain away the obvious mischaracterization of atheism that guy has. And what's great, is he thinks we're all atheists.fstdt.com is a great place to find such evil and ignorant comments.

First, the abortion comment:If the anti-abortionist is against abortion because a fetus is, I dunno, a "human" with fundamental "human" rights, then it shouldn't make any different how the fetus was conceived. A human being is a human being and is entitled to its rights. That is why I have some begrudging respect for the Catholic position of no abortion whatever the circumstances of conception (even as I oppose it): it is at least consistent with its moral teachings.And this is why I have contempt for those who are anti-abortion except "in cases of rape or incest". This betrays that these people aren't interesting in protecting "life" -- they are interested in punishing "sluts" who dare to have sex while protecting the "innocent" women.-The Muslim position:This is not fundamentalism per se. This is a traditional concept that the tribe as a whole is responsible for the actions of its individuals. We forget that "individual liberties" and "individual responsibilities" are an idiosyncrasy of contemporary Western culture. The traditional view is that the tribe takes responsibility for the actions of the individuals and the individuals are subject for the actions of the tribe (even if those actions are just those of other individuals).It is common among tribal peoples to kill random members of another tribe as punishment for the actions of certain individuals in that tribe. Collective punishment and the taking of hostages (and their killings) were the norm. In the Bible, when God kills the Egyptian first born, or Joshua has all of Achan's family killed, or when the Israelites destroy entire towns (supposedly for the sins of the Canaanites), as abhorrent as they seem to us, this is pretty normal in human history.This isn't to say that I agree with this unnamed Muslim; I like the concept of individual liberty and personal responsibility. I am also glad to see other countries adopting the idea, and I hope that traditional societies also adopt it. Certainly this particular individual's ideas about women are based on his religious beliefs; but his view that society (and, in his case, men as the main actors of society) needs to take responsibility for individuals' actions are neither inherently religious nor fundamentalist, and are, in fact, pretty normal when human history is viewed as a whole.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

You are talking a cultural fundamentalism rather than religious ... based on dogmatic belief in the ways things should be run rather than on rationally derived concepts based on equality, liberty, freedom and justice ... and basic human rights.These two fundamentalisms together are the real crux of the problem with those wanting the willful imposition of beliefs on others.I would bet that the muslim thinks his cultural concepts are based on his religion.Thanks for the fine line though.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I disagree, in part.I do not doubt for a moment that some who make this distinction do so for the reason you describe, but I think you paint with too broad a brush when you claim that all such people hold that view. I can think of two different reasons for making the distinction you describe without the motive you ascribe.The first is entirely pragmatic. As a political position, very few people argue abortion should not be allowed in the case of rape for the simple reason that such a position would be political suicide. While I believe that most people in this country are generally supportive of the right to abortion in general, I'm quite certain that only a small percentage oppose abortion in the case of rape. Anyone who argued for such a position politically would be dead in the water.The second is somewhat akin to what you describe, but without the judgmental overtones. In the case of a woman who gets pregnant through voluntary sexual activity, she knows, or should know, that there is a chance that conception will result. This places her on a different footing from a rape victim who has not voluntarily engaged in such an activity. An analogy can be drawn with the law. Generally, one is not obliged to assist another who is in danger. However, if the person has been put in that situation of danger by the actions of another, that other person does have a duty to assist. (Some jurisdictions have recently enacted laws requiring people to render assistance, but for purposes of this analysis I am disregarding them.)The analogy has force (whatever force you wish to give it) whether the woman is sleeping around with a lot of men and taking no chances at all, or only had sex with her husband. By voluntarily engaging in activity which she knew or should have known created a likelihood that another would be put in a position of dependence on her, the woman then has an obligation to provide for that other.Having said this, let me immediately disclaim it. It is not my position. But it is a rational basis for drawing a distinction between abortion following rape and abortion following consensual sexual activity.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This person has no need of any laws or regulations for behavior between people - this leaves pure anarchy at the helm, with anyone's decisions of "divine" behavior to argue that they are only doing what their gods tell them.Or any reason to complain about anything. Bet he does though.This also truly exposes those that think atheists have no foundation for behavior - as they have, can conceive of none.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : complaining addedEdited by RAZD, : complaining addedEdited by RAZD, : pun,tua,ion

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

The analogy has force (whatever force you wish to give it) whether the woman is sleeping around with a lot of men and taking no chances at all, or only had sex with her husband. By voluntarily engaging in activity which she knew or should have known created a likelihood that another would be put in a position of dependence on her, the woman then has an obligation to provide for that other.

---

What they are saying is:Abortion is wrong because a fetus is a human being and it is wrong to kill a human being. Unless that human being is conceived as a result of a rape. Then it is okay to kill that person. So if the mother of a 5 year old child who was conceived as a result of a rape decides that it is too painful to continue as a mother of her rapist's child she can kill it.Now one can try to make a distinction between a fetus before it is born and a child after, but that is what we on the pro-abortion side have always been doing. We have had anti-abortionists claim that we cannot logically make a distinction between a "child" before it is born and afterwards. Unless, I guess, it is conceived as a result of a rape, then the distinction can be made.I don't doubt for a minute that an anti-abortionist can come up with the most painful of logical contortions why the pro-abortion arguments that, for some reason, are not valid are suddenly valid when the conception is a result of rape.Either a fetus is the same as a 5 year old or it is not. If it is not, then most of the anti-abortion arguments (actually, the only anti-abortion argument of which I am aware) fail. If it is, then there are a number of 5 year old children in this country who suddenly are left without legal protections.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

That analysis focuses exclusively on one side of the equation, the fetus. However there is of course another side of the equation, the woman. Under the analysis that I described above, the weight to be given to the other side of the equation depends on whether the pregnancy is the result of rape or not. The rape victim is as innocent as the fetus, in terms of causing the situation to occur. As such, the fetus has no more claim to support from the woman than someone needing an organ transplant, or even a transfusion of blood, has on the person who is able but unwilling to provide it.It doesn't come down to whether one fetus is more innocent than another, clearly there is no distinction to be made there. Instead, it comes down to the degree to which the voluntary actions of the woman contributed.Even those who most ardently proclaim their support for the "right to life," would not say that I have a right to take your kidney if mine is failing. They wouldn't say that I have a right to kidnap you and take a your blood. even if I need it right now to save my life. The reason is that you have done nothing to put me in a situation where I need your kidney or your blood. While it would certainly be very nice for you to give me those things if I need them, I cannot take them from you at knifepoint. It has nothing to do with whether I am innocent or not. It has to do with the fact that you are.It's very easy to see all questions in the area as black and white. It's something that most people have given some level of thought to and have come to certain conclusions that they hold quite firmly. But if we can step back for a moment and look at things carefully, there are in fact some rather gray areas where the answers aren't all that clear.{ABE} Your analogy to a 5 year old child is faulty. If the mother decides she no longer wants a 5 year old child, there are many, many alternatives to killing that child. At our current level of technology, there is not way to terminate a pregnancy early on without killing the child.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And nothing you say here become less true if the conception occurred as a result of voluntary activity of the mother. As far as I know, I am not obligated to give someone my kidney even if their kidney was damaged as a result of my activities.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

True, but misses my point. Regardless of whether or not the law actually places that burden on you, surely you can see that the calculus of whether it should or not is different if you were a knowing causal agent.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

...surely you can see that the calculus of whether it should or not is different if you were a knowing causal agent.

---

No, I can't. That's my point, remember?Okay, let's try something else. Suppose it can be shown that a woman who is not using contraception and who walks the city street alone at night is more likely to become pregnant (through a rape) than a woman who voluntarily engages in sex while using an effective contraceptive. And suppose that this fact is widely known and everyone knows about it. Alice decides that she want to meet her friend in a local bar, and on the way is raped and becomes pregnant. Beth voluntarily engages with sex with her boyfriend and becomes pregnant despite the use of an effective contraceptive.So both women in this case engaged in behavior that was at risk of pregnancy. In fact, Alice knowingly engaged in behavior that was at higher risk of pregnancy than Beth did. So, does the anti-abortion law have an exemption for rape, incest, and the use of contraception? Or does it have an exemption for rape or incest unless the rape or incest was the result of the carelessness of the victim?

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

I feel like I may need to clarify the discussion a little bit.This is not a topic about abortion or about decency.I was more concerned with the racism and sexism imbedded in those quotes.My last statement concerning the environment of fundamentalism and the behaviors it endows is what I am more interested. I already know that these people are apologetic for their various causes (anti-abortion, decency laws) becaues of their religion. But what I want to know is how much the extreme fundamentalism plays with regards to their other traits.In the first quote for example. Does the extreme fundyism and racism stem from the same external cultural cause or does one cause the other? In my op I mentioned ignorance but certainly other causes may be discussed.Also, do you all have other examples of this pairing of extreme fundamentalism with other overt anti-social behavior.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Hi, Jazzns.I kind of realized that I was going off topic with the conversation with subbie. However, reading your post, I realize that I had the wrong idea of what the topic is. And, even after reading your post, I'm still not sure what you want to discuss.-As far as the Muslim gentleman is concerned, I don't think you need to be fundamentalist to hold those kind of views. When we were in the Peace Corps, the official euphemism for such views was "traditional". It doesn't necessarily stem directly from the religious views as much as it "has always been the way we did things, it was good enough for my father and mother, and, by Allah, it is good enough for my children" type of thing.Of course, this particular example of the tolerance and open-mindedness of Islam is also trying to tell us in the West what we should be doing. But it is a fact that most people are ethnocentric -- people tend to naturally view their own cultures as superior or the most natural way to live (which is why I tend to view proponents of American exceptionalism as just another example of a common delusion). Also, from the excerpt in the OP: this paragon of ecumenical harmony is reacting as much to the unreasonable interference of our country in his. In fact, since we do tend to view our society as superior, and we do try to get other countries to adopt our notions of Enlightenment liberal democratic values, maybe we could be called "liberal democratic fundamentalists"?But then, I would not be surprised if this particular person is a fundamentalist. If he is, then his religious views would reinforce these beliefs that he is expressing.-As far as the abortion comment goes, it does take a certain amount of the kind of goofiness found in fundamentalism to say something like, "a fetus is exactly like a baby." But once you say that, then, since women get pregnant and men do not, a certain amount of sexism is going to show up, at least in practice. And anti-abortion is usually associated with a very "traditional" subculture (there's that euphemism again!) which, even besides the views on abortion, will be associated a view of women is a more restricted role in society.I'm sure that once you view childbirth and motherhood the essential part of being a woman and that the sole purpose of sex is procreation, then you are going to be less sympathetic to the predicament of a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant.In this case, I would say that the anti-abortion goofiness and the unavoidable sexism is probably very much tied to these particular fundamentalist beliefs.-Is this closer to what you were looking for?Edited by Chiroptera, : darn typos

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)