Fundamentalists (of all stripes) at it again (Re: Textbook Wars: Religion in History)

Technically this is just semantics and if you want to call it that then I have no real problem with debating using it. However it seems to me that fundamentalism and secular are not the issues here. And frankly I've been nonplussed at your constant use of multiculturalism.Your assessment that the hindus involved were not really fundamentalists seemed dead on to me. These people were clearly trying to rewrite their own vision or lets say reinterpret what hinduism is... ironically to match western and Xian tenets.But that is exactly why it isn't about multiculturalism. Multiculturalism involves acceptance of other cultures even if they are strange to others. If that was what was going on then hindus would not feel it was necessary to pretend to be like everyone else. This was about uniculturalism, a movement to make everyone feel good by making everyone look the same. It has both internal and external components.Multiculturalists would simply base their definitions on historical fact and then suggest people accept them as they are.Secularists would not have a problem discussing events within religious communities.If you find people arguing for an atheist position, or a religious position of any kind then you are likely (imo) discussing extremists or advocates. They may be fundamentalists, but as in the case of these hindus, clearly they don't have to be.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Yes, I understood that as well. I considered them ALL uniculturalists.Multiculturalism is not "giving credence to the minority position". It is simply acknowledging different cultures. At best multiculturalists would have looked at these modern hindus and perhaps altered the books to read "some modern strains of hinduism reject polytheistic labels as well as a connection between religion and sexual inequality, and argue that their's is a more accurate view of historical hinduism but there is little evidence to support that position.Multiculturalism has to be a warts and all approach, as the word itself means diversity which may include disconnects and disputes. Uniculturalism is looking for the magic blend of harmony between all where we can agree to one viewpoint that doesn't overtly offend anyone.This was wholly about uniculturalism. To your credit my guess is the people involved would identify themselves as multiculturalists because they want to feel good about themselves and sound like they are supporting diversity. Their actions say otherwise.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Whew, good thing no mods saw this. I mean that's what I was doing when I got censored (as in prevented from doing so), and when I asked questions about it YOU told me to let it go and suggested it was a personal problem.Maybe YOU should let it go? Maybe you should get a thicker skin?Heheheh... just to let you know, I'm not angry or anything. Just laughing at the fact that I knew it was a real issue and you just wanted to pretend like it wasn't.But back on topic... In a way I do. Remember my thread on the rind study? That was a movement by secular and religious groups to alter not just textbooks, but journals by legal fiat, to create an image of human behavior consistent with a single moral viewpoint.I think its safe to say that secularists will resort to legal action, when they feel any of their viewpoints (of any nature) are being misrepresented, or facts which will deny their beliefs are presented.Maybe a fair question is how many textbooks are printed by nonsecular sources in the first place, and put into school curricula in the second. Given that secularists did reverse the nature of school curricula (bibles used to be part of it in some areas) to favor secular only products, perhaps it just makes sense that most challenges come from nonsecular sources?That's not to say we should give in to factual distortion and revisionism in texts, just why it is the way it is.This message has been edited by holmes, 02-07-2006 12:54 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Some of it is appropriate. In fact most of it is. I'm not about to cut n paste it all here. Here's the synopsis: A series of studies and then one large scale study regarding the child sexuality did not sit well with religious and secular groups because it stood in contrast to moral beliefs of all of them.The study(ies) were peer reviewed and accepted by the APsychologicalA, and defended by them for some time. The APsychiatricA stood against it the entire time, with no evidence other than moral condemnation. Eventually this went to the congress and under pressure the first APA gave in. At this point both of the top psych orgs as well as the congress have agreed to censor all research (which they control) on child sexuality, and that would include textbooks on the subject, so that it represents and supports public and legal opinion on the subject.This is in spite of the fact that the AAS went back and reviewed the studies and said all critics were engaging in demagoguery, and that there was no problems with them.Total political pressure by secular and religious groups to rewrite science scholarship to support moral "facts". You need a thicker skin. snicker snicker.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

You are correct that as far as textbooks are concerned it would be indirect as it hadn't hit textbooks yet. The point is secularists are willing to move through legal channels to hamper and change scholarship, including info that would end up in textbooks.That's why I added the piece questioning if the behavior you are pointing to is an artifact of how schools and their textbooks are put together, rather than the communities engaging in the behavior. Since schools and books are put together by secular sources, those that are likely to want changes will be nonsecular. Damn! I wasn't trying to goad, and I'm not sure if I was hectoring, but I was certainly needling. Meant it humorously but I was definitely needling. Won't happen again.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Yes. Findings and discussions of a topic must be tailored to fit popular moral and legal OPINION. That would include textbooks on the subject, though obviously not for most primary school students.I think it would be odd to demand that it be 100% identical to the current situation. I realize Randman will have to in order to defend his assertion that a precedent of this was set by secularists. I'm just saying that yes, resorting to gov't control to change information and rebutt factual scholarship has been done by secularists when it upsets their irrational opinions.That is why I then went on to suggest why we mainly see religious types doing it is because most texts are made by secular sources. It was a combination of religious and secular components. Both sides enjoy large populations uninterested in what science has to say on sexuality, unless it is supporting sex negative assumptions. I already said the APA was against the studies from the beginning and helped lead the charge. Unless you are going to argue that the APA is a religious organization, I don't understand why you made the argument you did.The point of that thread was to show that science is not safe from both secular and religious sources. That morality is enforced by law even today, and a dangerous precedent which stands to effect the EvC debate occured at the joint hands of both secular and nonsecular community.You might find the thread interesting as it was a very scary event. I had not heard of until researching what someone had mentioned about the study here at EvC. Its suppression is real, and the importance goes way beyond sex. The precedent is set for science to follow important views by society, and not to inform society so that it can form proper conclusions.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)