Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,869 Year: 4,126/9,624 Month: 997/974 Week: 324/286 Day: 45/40 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Moyers' Warning About Fundamenatlists
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 80 (183559)
02-06-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Quetzal
02-06-2005 4:18 PM


Re: That's It...Kill the Fundies...They're the Real Problem!
Well, I'm afraid I failed to remain cool and detached on that previous post, eh? Not the most thoughtful stuff I've ever written.
I think you might have a fairly realistic view of environmental problems due to your profession.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 02-06-2005 4:18 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 02-06-2005 9:14 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 80 (183598)
02-06-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by TheLiteralist
02-06-2005 4:30 PM


Re: That's It...Kill the Fundies...They're the Real Problem!
Well, I'm afraid I failed to remain cool and detached on that previous post, eh? Not the most thoughtful stuff I've ever written.
Yah, my friend. You've definitely done better...
I think you might have a fairly realistic view of environmental problems due to your profession.
Heh. Ask any three ecologists a question on a conservation issue, and you're likely to get at least five mutually contradictory answers. I've received death threats from envirowackos because of some of the recommendations I've made on specific conservation issues. I also lost a $1.2m bid for the opposite reason - the developer didn't like what we were telling him. Ah well, integrity sucks sometimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 4:30 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 9:20 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 34 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 9:28 PM Quetzal has replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 80 (183600)
02-06-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Quetzal
02-06-2005 9:14 PM


Re: That's It...Kill the Fundies...They're the Real Problem!
Okay--I've cooled off...I'm gonna read the link now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 02-06-2005 9:14 PM Quetzal has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 80 (183601)
02-06-2005 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Quetzal
02-06-2005 9:14 PM


Integrity
I've received death threats from envirowackos because of some of the recommendations I've made on specific conservation issues. I also lost a $1.2m bid for the opposite reason - the developer didn't like what we were telling him. Ah well, integrity sucks sometimes.
What did you tell the developer???
IMHO, integrity can have tremendous costs, but it makes the pillow a lot softer, don't it? I have to admire such integrity!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 02-06-2005 9:14 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 02-06-2005 9:45 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 80 (183603)
02-06-2005 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
01-24-2005 11:13 PM


It Sure Helps to Read Links, Don't It?
Okay Mister Nosy,
I have to apologize (a bit)to you and to Bill Moyers (shudder), I seriously misunderstood your OP...
I thought...
"A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed -- an essential conflagration on the road to redemtion."
Was something Bill Moyers said...ooops....I thought he thought killing fundy Muslims was a good thing even though we went over there under false pretenses (you know...the whole WMD thing.
I'm not through reading, yet; I'll have more comments I'm sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 01-24-2005 11:13 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 02-06-2005 9:54 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 36 of 80 (183604)
02-06-2005 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TheLiteralist
02-06-2005 9:28 PM


Re: Integrity
Well, in a nutshell, we told him that if he wanted our assessment report to reflect well on his development idea, he had to change his plans to mitigate its negative impacts on a sensitive wildlife refuge. I mean, it could have been done our way with everyone happy, and it wouldn't have cost the guy much. Unfortunately, his buy-in was necessary before the contract could be awarded. Naturally, we didn't get it - an organization that essentially caved to what this guy wanted ended up with the contract. SOB even had a pet biologist come out and say we didn't know what we were talking about. Grrr, flippin sell-out - she spent a grand total of two days in the refuge, and was able to determine the long-term impact of this guy's development plan? Yah, right. We'd been working there for FOUR FLIPPIN YEARS, and my partner had been in and out of there for almost ten. We OBVIOUSLY didn't know what we were talking about. Sigh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 9:28 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 37 of 80 (183605)
02-06-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by TheLiteralist
02-06-2005 9:38 PM


Re: It Sure Helps to Read Links, Don't It?
It was perhaps my fault for trying to capture some of what he said but hacked it up too much.
I think we should see if we can settle one point. I don't think that all fundamentalists think like this. However, I am very sure that some do. Do you agree or not?
I would, however, tar all of you with the poor logical thinking brush. That leaves room for the really, really zany to have irrational ideas. So to that degree all bear some responsibiity for the part that are worst.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 9:38 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 10:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 80 (183608)
02-06-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NosyNed
02-06-2005 9:54 PM


Re: It Sure Helps to Read Links, Don't It?
You see, though, that I thought he wanted fundies everywhere dead...I was a little ticked off at him...I still don't think too highly of him because he is well-known in media circles (I really don't trust the mainstream media), but my opinion of him does not justify being angry with him for stuff he never said.
Man, crow tastes bad...but it's better eaten warm than cold, I think...heh .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 02-06-2005 9:54 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 02-06-2005 11:18 PM TheLiteralist has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2197 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 80 (183615)
02-06-2005 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Juhrahnimo
01-25-2005 3:21 PM


Re: The widow's cow:
quote:
And THAT is EXACTLY what the devil wants; to screw us up really bad. The devil sometimes transforms himself into an "angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14(think, hypocrites), and can lie, deceive, or just leave everyone with a bad taste in their mouths for God.
Several things...
1) Christianity does not = God.
2) Blaming all the bad things people do on some Devil or demon just passes the buck. People do crappy things because people make choices that adversely affect others, no Devil or Demon or Loki needed. Likewise, praising a "good God" like Jehova or Zeus or Krishna for the good things that people do is just failing to recognize and properly attribute the good choice that a person made which benefited others.
That's why we see little behavior difference between believers and non-beievers, except that non-believers tend to be better at avoiding divorce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-25-2005 3:21 PM Juhrahnimo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Juhrahnimo, posted 02-08-2005 11:05 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2197 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 40 of 80 (183617)
02-06-2005 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by TheLiteralist
02-06-2005 10:00 PM


Re: It Sure Helps to Read Links, Don't It?
quote:
I still don't think too highly of him because he is well-known in media circles (I really don't trust the mainstream media)
Bill Moyers is one of the most highly respected journalists on religious and social issues we've got.
...and he's not part of the mainstream media. He has mostly done his work from PBS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 10:00 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 11:26 PM nator has replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 80 (183619)
02-06-2005 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by nator
02-06-2005 11:18 PM


Mainstream Media
Scraf,
You don't consider PBS mainstream media? What's not mainstream about PBS, in your opinion? I mean, sure they're very detailed and boring, but what do they say that's some great departure from what the others say?
Just curious (not debating, I mean).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by nator, posted 02-06-2005 11:18 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Rrhain, posted 02-07-2005 1:36 AM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 47 by nator, posted 02-07-2005 8:16 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 42 of 80 (183625)
02-07-2005 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by TheLiteralist
02-06-2005 11:26 PM


Re: Mainstream Media
TheLiteralist asks:
quote:
You don't consider PBS mainstream media?
Certainly not. As we have seen, those who get their news from NPR (the radio portion of PBS) tend to be better informed about what is going on in the world compared to those who watch ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or Fox.
quote:
What's not mainstream about PBS, in your opinion?
Their refusal to resort to hype and flash in order to sell their product, for one.
quote:
I mean, sure they're very detailed and boring
"Boring"? Did you watch Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State this past week? Compare it to Discovery's travesty, Pompeii: The Last Day. Both used dramatic reenactments in order to engage the audience, but the difference in quality cannot simply be attributed to the act that Auschwitz was using actual dialogue while Pompeii had to make theirs up. That could just as easily have made Pompeii a much more watchable show but the dialogue was disgustingly bad ("We're not afraid of pebbles! We're gladiators!" (*bonk!*) And he falls to the ground from having been hit on the head with a stone.) Both used computer generated models to emphasize points, but Pompeii seemed to think that it would be a good thing to do CSI: Geology whereas Auschwitz realized that it was best to use it simply to recreate what had been lost to time and ruin so you could see the scope and details.
"Boring"? PBS shows are usually much better than anything the networks could conceivably dig up. Even networks that are dedicated to documentary and news programming can't hold a candle to PBS.
I guess if things don't blow up, it isn't interesting, eh?
quote:
what do they say that's some great departure from what the others say?
That there were no WMDs, no connection between Al Qaida and Iraq, etc., etc.
Of course, they've now decided to hire Tucker Carlson, so who knows what's going on in their heads these days.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-06-2005 11:26 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-07-2005 1:59 AM Rrhain has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 80 (183628)
02-07-2005 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
01-24-2005 11:13 PM


Moyer's Article: A Review
So, what kind of fundies is Bill Moyers talking about?
They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate.
People who believe the Bible is literally true, that’s who.
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the oval office [may I presume he means Bush] and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
So, we're bunch of delusional people blinded by our religious views that contradict reality? Not only THAT, but we’re in charge, too!
Yeah, what a joke! What proof has he got that Bush is a fundy? The fact that Bush goes around saying he is? I certainly don't believe it. I think Bush is an oil kingpin that got into a very influential position by playing the religious card.
In another article quoted by Moyer, Glenn Scherer writes:
U.S. legislators backed by the Christian right vote against these issues with near-perfect consistency. That probably doesn't surprise you, but this might: Those same legislators are equally united and unswerving in their opposition to environmental protection.

millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.
Apparently, Moyers thinks that some fundies wish to speed up the return of the Lord by speeding up the destruction of the earth; so they want to do their part by voting against laws that could benefit the environment. Well, according to Revelations 11:18, God will destroy them that destroy the earth. Such beliefs as stated above seem inconsistent for people who believe the Bible to be literally true. I guess it’s silly for me to think that maybe these U.S. legislators are being influenced somehow by major corporations in the affected industries, and that religious fundamentalism has NOTHING to do with it!
Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture?
So the Christians are responsible for natural catastrophes now? If Christians start worrying a lot, will that prevent these horrible tragedies?
And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"
So, if I start worrying about this a lot, too, will that help? Will BP decide to go solar cuz I get all concerned about it?
The Bible warns us not to tempt God, and the Bible does not promise that God will provide oil for us should we run out! God can do that, sure, but no fundamentalist I know is thinking so carelessly! The Bible also says:
Proverbs 22:3

A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.
Based on this, I would expect true fundies to try to prepare for the looming catastrophe, IF they COULD, but none I know can do a blamed thing about it! What can you do, Bill? Write articles blaming Christians for global warming? Well, a lot of us can’t even do that!
BTW, if we run out of oil AND don‘t convert to solar, pollution will come to a grinding halt! You‘ll be happier than a lark, Bill. Man, we got by for millennia without oil OR solarwe could do it again! You’re an influential man, Billstart pushing for a return to subsistence farming and outhousespeople might listen to youthey won’t care what I say.
Mr. Moyers also points out that one of President Bush’s agendas is to make things easier for oil companies. How unexpected? Is this because he is a religious fundy who wants to speed up the rapture? Or is it because he’s an oil kingpin?
IMO, Mr. Bill’s article is, in the words of our UK friends, codswallop! However, he has done a fine job of removing the blame from the true source, GREED, which will serve President Bush just fine. Umwait, Moyers is on PBS a lot, and PBS gets lots of federal moneymaybe PBS and Mr. Moyers are influenced by the gov--nah, couldn’t be!
A final Bible quote:
I Timothy 6:10

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Umcall me stupid, but I would think greed would explain environmental destruction (an evil) a whole lot better than would Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 01-24-2005 11:13 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Rrhain, posted 02-07-2005 2:13 AM TheLiteralist has replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 80 (183629)
02-07-2005 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Rrhain
02-07-2005 1:36 AM


Re: Mainstream Media
Hi Rrhain,
Well, even I find SOME of their programming interesting. I probably shouldn't have used the term, "boring." I don't have cable so I can't watch much bad programming on Discovery.
My mom watched Auschwitz. I heard a lot of it, but wasn't paying close attention. I was probably posting here or at one of the other 2 BBs I frequent.
My mom is extremely fascinated with what happened to the Jews under Hitler, so I've seen and heard quite a bit about that horrible and unimaginable period. I have gotten where I don't watch every show about that, though. I think some valuable lessons about how a nice-looking government can be planning some devious things and fool people tremendously through media can be learned from that period, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Rrhain, posted 02-07-2005 1:36 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 45 of 80 (183630)
02-07-2005 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by TheLiteralist
02-07-2005 1:40 AM


Re: Moyer's Article: A Review
TheLiteratlist writes:
quote:
So the Christians are responsible for natural catastrophes now?
Yes and no. That is, famine and pestilence can be significantly controlled by the actions of people. They don't have complete control, of course, but imagine how much better off we'd be regarding, say, HIV if the various drug companies were to release the patents on the drugs. Imagine how much better off we'd be if the Bush administration would actually release the money they claimed they were going to spend on HIV prevention in Africa and were to stop protecting the drug companies' patents. Imagine how much better off we'd be if nobody had ever said, "AIDS is god's curse on gays." Imagine how much better off we would be if gay people hadn't been persecuted and made to hide but rather accepted and celebrated the same way as everyone else.
Of course humans can't prevent floods and drought, but the actions of humans can help to minimize their impact. Imagine how much better off we would have been if there had been a detection grid for the Indian Ocean regarding tsunami the way there is in the Pacific. Imagine how much better off we'd be if nobody had ever said that we shouldn't help the victims (Michael Savage).
Imagine how much better off we would have been if James Watt had never been appointed Secretary of the Interior. You remember him...the one who told Congress, "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns." He's the one that directly said that we shouldn't worry about environmental issues because the world was going to end soon and god would remake the earth into paradise: "After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
quote:
maybe PBS and Mr. Moyers are influenced by the gov--nah, couldn’t be!
Not really, no. At least, not until just recently. The dissolution of PBS was one of the Republicans' main goals.
And take a look at the recent brou-ha-ha over Postcards from Buster which had the audacity to show a family in Vermont headed by two women. Bush had it yanked.
So, you see, PBS is influenced by the government...to become another mouthpiece of the Republican party. Since they can't seem to be able to get rid of it, they've decided to assimilate it.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-07-2005 1:40 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-07-2005 2:37 AM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024