|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 01/25/2012 : 09:36:52 [Permalink]
|
To be fair, ig did use the term "fundie".
Fundie is typically a perjorative although it has more recently been grabbed onto in an attempt to reform the term to be a positive.
Fundie
This typically refers to an extremist fundamentalist of any religion whereby a set of moral codes are foisted upon non-believers.
Since this action is primarily by Prodestant Christians of the extremist fundamentalist stripe, perhaps the better term would have been "Bible Thumper". |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2012 : 09:44:27 [Permalink]
|
| The religion involved (and the vast majority of the state) is Catholic. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2012 : 10:08:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
To be fair, ig did use the term "fundie".
Fundie is typically a perjorative although it has more recently been grabbed onto in an attempt to reform the term to be a positive.
Fundie
This typically refers to an extremist fundamentalist of any religion whereby a set of moral codes are foisted upon non-believers.
Since this action is primarily by Prodestant Christians of the extremist fundamentalist stripe, perhaps the better term would have been "Bible Thumper".
|
I prefer "fundamentalist." as it's meaning is clearer. Those who use "fundy" tend to paint with a very broad brush, and it's almost always used as a pejorative. Every Christian who argues for their faith is not necessarily a fundamentalist. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2012 : 13:48:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
The religion involved (and the vast majority of the state) is Catholic.
|
They also have their own set of extremists such as the Bill Donohues.
While usually avocating peaceful protests and boycotts, the threats to life and limb are more often a Prodestant extremist type. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2012 : 19:44:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Originally posted by the_ignored
"fundamentalism" ... [is] a mindset where one is absolutely certain that they are right and won't consider any evidence to the contrary.
|
No you are clearly wrong and using a self-made definition. Fundamentalism specifically refers to doctrine as the supreme and inerrant authority.
Since you didn't appear to understand the simple dictionary definition I give you the expanded wikipedia reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture.
|
I understood; I just don't entirely agree.
Catholics and other religions, and non-religious philosophies also have extremists. Perhaps I should have used that word instead of "fundy" as instead of talking about how those people actually treated that girl, we're arguing over semantics. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 01:26:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored instead of talking about how those people actually treated that girl, we're arguing over semantics.
|
I think arguing about meaning can be important. In this case labeling such a broad swath of people as "fundies" adds no value to the discussion or what to do about it. In fact it represents a sort of closed minded attitude towards the actual problems. In short it is indicitive of the same general sort of bigotry the thread is decrying. Understanding that the evidence strongly suggests that these are much more probably just a bunch of regular people who are more irked at what they see as outside intrusion than they are about fundamental religious doctrine can aid us in trying resolve the animosity now and to avoid such conflict in future. I'm not saying we always can or should, but if we can - under the more flies with honey idiom - we ought to try.
Spiriting Jessica away from Rhode Island should not be considered a victory by us. Working within such communities without having to "rescue our people" or participate in the lasting divisiveness of name calling, might just improve everyones lot, Jessica's included.
No matter where you live, we all live with abundant vestiges of religiosity which has been part of our culture for a long time. We in this and similar groups also live amidst a vast majority, who while not fundamentalist or even particularly religious have a soft spot for all the perceived niceties of religion in their common culture.
There will be plenty more discussions, debates, court cases etc on this same issue for many years to come. We will likely never see a day when every last vestige of our religious history has been erased from the public square. Nor I think should we hope for one. There is certainly ample "religious" art that deserves special consideration. And to be honest, after reading the complete decision, I would wager that had the school board meetings not been so religious in tone, with many stating their vote was based upon their religion, but rather had discussed the fact that this was a student sponsored work of art, they may could have kept their mural on art-history grounds. Don't tell them that because I don't want to help them or other similar groups in future. I think it is a pretty ugly piece of art, and am often against preserving cultural history for its sake alone.
This decision was not as cut and dried based on fundamental constitutional separation as you may think, and it could still be overturned by a higher court. Just look into court decisions on the pledge or the currency. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And some times god is not god.
|
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 01/26/2012 01:30:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 16:46:33 [Permalink]
|
| I think arguing about meaning can be important. In this case labeling such a broad swath of people as "fundies" adds no value to the discussion or what to do about it. In fact it represents a sort of closed minded attitude towards the actual problems. In short it is indicative of the same general sort of bigotry the thread is decrying. |
Wrong. It's calling out of a group of hateful people who are attacking one of their own. This isn't because of some "outside interference" so much as they got called out on the fact that their religion was getting special, unconstitutional treatment. They didn't like that. If it was just because they were mad at "outsiders" they wouldn't be focusing so much on Jessica.
| Same general sort of bigotry |
Are you kidding? Am I making death threats against those people? Am I harassing any of those people for what they believe? No. I'm calling them out on their actions.
Not the same thing at all.
As for addressing the base problem: I figure that it's their religious beliefs that form a large part, if not the main part, of the base problem along with the fact that the xian religon in the States has been allowed to have special unconstitutional treatment for the past several decades, to the extent that people have begun to assume that it's always been that way, and should always be. That's why I figure that they're so mad at Jessica.
Heh. If you don't like how I'm "broadbrushing" those people by having called them "fundies", you'd better stay away from Fundies Say the Darndest Things
Their forums have a few choice threads as well.
While they deal with mostly non-catholics on that site, you will find quotes from Catholics on their search pages. That Bryan Fischer guy among others. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 01/26/2012 16:56:13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 18:02:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Wrong. It's calling out of a group of hateful people who are attacking one of their own. This isn't because of some "outside interference" so much as they got called out on the fact that their religion was getting special, unconstitutional treatment. They didn't like that. If it was just because they were mad at "outsiders" they wouldn't be focusing so much on Jessica. |
Jessica is the worst kind of outsider: one who has been living among them for years, without them knowing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 19:33:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by the_ignored
Wrong. It's calling out of a group of hateful people who are attacking one of their own. This isn't because of some "outside interference" so much as they got called out on the fact that their religion was getting special, unconstitutional treatment. They didn't like that. If it was just because they were mad at "outsiders" they wouldn't be focusing so much on Jessica. |
Jessica is the worst kind of outsider: one who has been living among them for years, without them knowing.
|
Exactly - she is an extremist. And I repeat being an extremist is not necessarily bad or wrong. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 19:50:02 [Permalink]
|
This is not bad, though I disagree with the fundamentalist argument it fronts regarding the decision. It gets their by what is a partially faulty premise. The premise is that the constitution and subsequent case law prohibits promotion of religion alone. It does not. It prohibits government from either promoting or prohibiting the free expression of religion.
So while the school can not sponsor religion it must equally allow students to be practice their religion without interference. And this was in part (as was recognized in the decision) a piece of student (not state) created and funded art. That it has religious themes would not necessarily have made it school sponsored religion, the comments of the board meetings did that.
As a counter example I offer the following hypothetical. A group of students work together on an art fair project. They create a piece of religious art that is presented at the school art fair along with all the other student art. This is not school sponsorship of religion and the school would be erring if it prohibited these students from displaying their art along with other students if they based that decision on grounds of religious content.
Say the students win the first price as their art is of the highest quality of craftsmanship. And say that the school custom is to display art fair winners art for a year. If the school refused to display this art on the grounds of its religious content would be to act against the prohibition in constitution and case law reading separation of church and state.
Same with some of the religious art of history. Refusing to play classical religious music in music class or falling to show classical religious art in art class or history class on religious grounds would be for the state to act on the other side of the law rather than promoting religion, prohibiting it. The law requires the state and it's institutions to remain neutral.
So again the real crux of the decision was the very bad behavior of the board meetings. They shot themselves in the foot. Had they been clever they would never have objected on religious grounds, but rather would have simply (and correctly) noted it was a student created and sponsored piece of art that has become a historical heirloom of the school. To ignore this very plausible defense is to ignore much of the casework on past decisions. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2012 : 20:10:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Wrong. It's calling out of a group of hateful people who are attacking one of their own. This isn't because of some "outside interference" so much as they got called out on the fact that their religion was getting special, unconstitutional treatment. They didn't like that. If it was just because they were mad at "outsiders" they wouldn't be focusing so much on Jessica. |
You misunderstand people I think. Jessica is the "turn cloak" who brought in the outsiders including the media, the ACLU and the courts. So as Dave says she became an outsider from within when she stepped outside of their kangaroo court board meetings. I'm not saying it is right or just, I am just saying it is how primates act.
| Same general sort of bigotry |
Are you kidding? Am I making death threats against those people? Am I harassing any of those people for what they believe? No. I'm calling them out on their actions.
Not the same thing at all. |
I'm not kidding but I did say general. It is childish, primate, name calling, and chest thumping, the rest is just a matter of degree.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 10:02:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
So as Dave says she became an outsider from within when she stepped outside of their kangaroo court board meetings. |
No, I meant that as an atheist, she was always an outsider. The majority of the citizens in the area just didn't know she wasn't one of their own.
Some religious people are calling for tolerance, now.
But the tribalism continues in the comments of a Providence Journal article about T-shirts being sold to build a scholarship fund for Ahlquist. Including what I was talking about:Wolves in sheeps clothing. Along with conspiratorial idiots claiming that this scholarship fund must have been Ahlquist's goal from the start.
Oh, and at least one constitutional scholar jackass who thinks the court decision prohibits the free exercise of religion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 11:01:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
This is not bad, though I disagree with the fundamentalist argument it fronts regarding the decision. It gets their by what is a partially faulty premise. The premise is that the constitution and subsequent case law prohibits promotion of religion alone. It does not. It prohibits government from either promoting or prohibiting the free expression of religion. |
Since this case wasn't about prohibition of religion, I fail to see how this is a relevant criticism of Christina's piece.| So while the school can not sponsor religion it must equally allow students to be practice their religion without interference. And this was in part (as was recognized in the decision) a piece of student (not state) created and funded art. That it has religious themes would not necessarily have made it school sponsored religion, the comments of the board meetings did that. |
Also this, found on page 4 of the ruling:Although the plans for the murals had been approved by the school administration at every phase... And on page 34:While the Prayer was authored by a student, and the Mural was paid for by a group of graduates, the School would never have permitted the exhibition of a message of which it did not approve. And who has paid for any cleaning of the mural in the last 45 years?| As a counter example I offer the following hypothetical. A group of students work together on an art fair project. They create a piece of religious art that is presented at the school art fair along with all the other student art. This is not school sponsorship of religion and the school would be erring if it prohibited these students from displaying their art along with other students if they based that decision on grounds of religious content. |
And indeed, the ACLU has filed lawsuits on behalf of such students, against their overzealous school administrators.| So again the real crux of the decision was the very bad behavior of the board meetings. They shot themselves in the foot. |
Much the same thing happened in Kitzmiller v. DASD. As has been said a lot, the best way to fight an establishment case is simply to let the religious defendants keep on talking. They convict themselves every time. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2012 : 14:34:15 [Permalink]
|
| "Well, yes, I did say what you said I said, but I didn't really mean it when I said what you said I said" [/snark] |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
 |
|
How fundies react when they don't get their way
