Christian Fundamentalists!

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think FUNDAMENTALIST means SOUTHERN BAPTISTS and MORMON to most people. It once applied to METHODISTS, but they lost the stigma when they made women clergy.

 

[driphoney]

I or we, if you prefer, don't ignore academe at all, as most of us, believe it or not, did our time in Liberal Arts schools here, there and everywhere.

When one chooses to communicate, one seldom exercises the full extent of one's education unless one wishes to impress others.

I was trying for a term that matched the title of the thread, 'Atheists!' and Fundamental seemed better suited than Red Necked, Gun Toting, Pickup truck driving....ahm, well, you should see my point.

Perhaps you could suggest a 'catch all' term by which I might properly address the left wing liberal, progressive pinko, enviro, animal loving freaks in a thread?



ami

I don't have an education at all and was not putting down anyone's booklearnin'. I don't think many are going to learn of the schism that occurred inside mainline Protestant denominations at the turn of the last (how odd it still seems to say that!) century in any public institution liberal arts program. But I could be wrong there.

It's just when I got done with my lil late night contemplation I realized how silly it seemed! Currently doing a piss-poor job of catching up on my class reading, I have a daily debate with myself over just how important those sidebars will be for the test and if I have time to read them or if they are necessary. Struck me that my comment was of sidebar quality! It was not targetted at anyone but myself.

Nothing personal towards anyone was intended and I had hoped it would be taken that way.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DRIPHONEY

The sidebars can illuminate.

What we tend to do is extract features from historical events, then reconstruct the historical event with imagined filler pieces. The old event gets a new spin.

Take religious denominations as an example. According to modern textbooks, 19th Century Americans were intolerant and antagonistic to the Mormons. And this is true. But what the textbooks ignore is; Presbyterians and Methodists and Baptists slaughtered each other in plenty of communities back then. I discovered this in the autobiography of Peter Cartwright, a Methodist circuit-rider of the 1800s. Mormons werent treated differently.

William Quantrill, the notorious Confederate terrorist, was a Kansas Abolitionist terrorist before the war. Go figure. Then I discovered that Abe Lincoln helped the Northern railroads fund Missouri Slavery militants in Kansas. Bloody Kansas was staged by the railroads to foment strife between the North & South. Lincoln was a rascal.

 

[Boxlicker101]

DRIPHONEY

The sidebars can illuminate.

What we tend to do is extract features from historical events, then reconstruct the historical event with imagined filler pieces. The old event gets a new spin.

Take religious denominations as an example. According to modern textbooks, 19th Century Americans were intolerant and antagonistic to the Mormons. And this is true. But what the textbooks ignore is; Presbyterians and Methodists and Baptists slaughtered each other in plenty of communities back then. I discovered this in the autobiography of Peter Cartwright, a Methodist circuit-rider of the 1800s. Mormons werent treated differently.

William Quantrill, the notorious Confederate terrorist, was a Kansas Abolitionist terrorist before the war. Go figure. Then I discovered that Abe Lincoln helped the Northern railroads fund Missouri Slavery militants in Kansas. Bloody Kansas was staged by the railroads to foment strife between the North & South. Lincoln was a rascal.

There was a strong anti-Mormon sentiment but that was because of their belief in polygamy, which was generally illegal. They were seen as a cult, like the Moonies later. They settled in Utah, where they were enough in nmumber to enforce their beliefs on others.

I think you are confusing Quantrill with John Brown of Harper's Ferry notoriety. They were both terrorists but Brown operated in Kansas and Missouri during the the period known as Bleeding Kansas or Bloody Kansas. He had a goal, outlawing slavery, and he committed his atrocities in that name. Quantrill was just a guy who enjoyed killing and raping and destroying, and he threw in with the Confederacy, who alowed him to do what he wanted. Some of his operations were against Union forces, but most of them were against civilians in Kansas and Mo during the Civil War.

Both of them were among the foulest scum in American history.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOX

No. I read about Quantrill in a book about the Civil War. Apparently both sides recruited troublemakers to create strife in Kansas, and the riff-raff played for whomever had the money to pay them the most.

Other authorities claim he came from a pro-Union abolitionist family and participated in raids to free slaves in Missouri. BUT!!!! They also claim he had no convictions either way, was a violent psychopath, and played for either team if it afforded him an opportunity to kill and destroy and make money.

You come across this phenomena with Union cavalry, too. In South Carolina, Union cavalry slaughtered slaves if their masters refused to pay ransom for them.

The thesis of the book (SECESSION RECONSIDERED)was: THE LOCATION OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILROAD WAS THE ISSUE THAT CREATED THE CIVIL WAR.

 

[amicus]

What was this thread about? Oh, Christian Fundamentalists, yup, that works. Some very informed peeps here, always have appreciated that.

ami

 

[BentSecrets]

In answer to the original question, it's because they're extemists, and extremists of virtually any flavor can be damn scary and highly dangerous.

This isn't just Christians, clearly, as people of most other religions and even lack of religion who take things to an extreme tend to be irrational, impossible to reason with, and occasionally violent.

I find an extremist Atheist to be every bit as repellent as an extremist Christian--and usually for the exact same reasons.

 

[JamesSD]

I think FUNDAMENTALIST means SOUTHERN BAPTISTS and MORMON to most people. It once applied to METHODISTS, but they lost the stigma when they made women clergy.

Generally Mormons are put in their own little box. Historically a lot of fundamentalists christians like the baptists have distrusted the Mormons more than other more "mainstream" branches of christianity, although in recent years some olive branches have been extended, as they have similar political agendas.

It's interesting how geographically segregated most branches of christianity are. The mormons aren't the only ones who have their "territory", although I believe Utah is the most extreme example of one state identifying with a religion in such a majority and in such a minority in the rest of the country. Baptists have the Southeast, Lutherans have the northern midwest, Catholics are pretty clumped in the Northeast.

Anyways, if trends continue, in 20 years people will be talking a lot more about atheists/agnostics/non-believers. America is the least religious it has ever been in history, and white america is even more so (as the vast majority of Latino immigrants are christian, and asian immigrants actually represent a large number of religious converts)

 

[amicus]

Hello, BentSecrets, saw your posts here and there, thought to welcome you, then pinch your hiney.

The late Senator Barry Goldwater, Presidential candidate in the 60's said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."

It is opinions at each end of the spectrum of ideas that create the, 'middle', somewhat a thesis, anti thesis and synthesis, scenario.

I consider those standing in the middle of the road as 'road kill', as they pick and choose that which satisfies their momentary appetite and virtually make no choices of their own.

Without the extremes, there would be no middle.

Be careful what you wish for.



amicus...

 

[cloudy]

They're hated not because of what they believe, but because they try to cram those beliefs down everyone's throat.

I don't give a rat's ass if they believe in the flying spaghetti monster, just don't legislate it so that I have to believe in it too.

 

[amicus]

I wish you felt the same about sex education in public schools.

(and several other things)

ami (hi, kid!)

 

[Stella_Omega]

I wish you felt the same about sex education in public schools.

(and several other things)

ami (hi, kid!)

EDUCATION.

You know what that word means, surely-- mister all things rational?

 

[BentSecrets]

Hello, BentSecrets, saw your posts here and there, thought to welcome you, then pinch your hiney.

The late Senator Barry Goldwater, Presidential candidate in the 60's said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."

It is opinions at each end of the spectrum of ideas that create the, 'middle', somewhat a thesis, anti thesis and synthesis, scenario.

I consider those standing in the middle of the road as 'road kill', as they pick and choose that which satisfies their momentary appetite and virtually make no choices of their own.

Without the extremes, there would be no middle.

Be careful what you wish for.



amicus...

We're talking about two VERY different examples of extreme positions here. An "extreme" view of Liberty is that which believes no compromise can be made with tyranny or slavery, and that's a good thing. It is based on an objective measure of the notion of Rights (which is to say, Natural rights, understood as an attribute of the Individual, not the collective--the collective *has no rights*).

A religious extremist, on the other hand, is one who seeks to force his viewpoint onto others in the *absence* of empirical data, the *absence* of Objectivity, the *absence* of definitive evidence. He is precisely alike to any other Collectivist and invests himself not in Logic or Reason or Scientific fact, but in the whims and emotional maelstrom of *belief*.

Very.Different.Animals.

 

[Boxlicker101]

They're hated not because of what they believe, but because they try to cram those beliefs down everyone's throat.

I don't give a rat's ass if they believe in the flying spaghetti monster, just don't legislate it so that I have to believe in it too.

I think most of us, maybe even everybody on this forum would say the same thing. People are entitled to believe what they want; there is no such thing as thought crime.

However, when they try to impose those beliefs on others, try to legislate them, try to force people to do as they say, that's when the animosity, even the hate, arises. If the Phelps lunatics want to sit in their church and rail against godless queers and praise booby traps, that is their right. However, when they interfere with other people's rights, they overstep the boundaries.

Nobody should be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on anybody else, and that means fundies of any kind, including Muslim and Christian. If you can tell me an exampe of where Aetheist Fundamentlists have impose their will on anybody, I would include them.

Before doing so, however, may I point out that preventing one group from imposing their beliefs on others is not the same as imposing yours on anybody.

 

[amicus]

BentSecrets....thank you, a very cogent reply as far as it goes....however...))

Imagine a faith the prosyletizes its beliefs on a continual basis in all forms of public communications.

This faith includes contraception being taught in schools at all levels; it also includes making abortion clinics available to high school students without advising the parent(s). They further insist on accepting same sex relationships on an equal basis as hetero and force children to accept this as 'knowledge'.

The biggest stars and the biggest movies, as a matter of course, portray business and industry as evil, "Erin Brockovich" Julia Roberts, "The Pelican Brief", it is difficult to name a motion picture that does not portray Capitalism, the free market economy and war as 'evil'. Through the ACLU, they reflect an open 'agnosticism' and a closet anti religious nature to all aspects of Christianity.

If there is a 'bad guy' in International affairs, it is always the United States that takes the fall.

I name modern, social, progressive Liberalism as the most extreme of all faiths who do indeed, 'force their faith down your throat at all levels'.

Tell me I am in error?

Amicus...

 

[JackLuis]

B

Tell me I am in error?

Amicus...

You are in Error!

 

[Safe_Bet]

BentSecrets....thank you, a very cogent reply as far as it goes....however...))

Imagine a faith the prosyletizes its beliefs on a continual basis in all forms of public communications.

This faith includes contraception being taught in schools at all levels; it also includes making abortion clinics available to high school students without advising the parent(s). They further insist on accepting same sex relationships on an equal basis as hetero and force children to accept this as 'knowledge'.

The biggest stars and the biggest movies, as a matter of course, portray business and industry as evil, "Erin Brockovich" Julia Roberts, "The Pelican Brief", it is difficult to name a motion picture that does not portray Capitalism, the free market economy and war as 'evil'. Through the ACLU, they reflect an open 'agnosticism' and a closet anti religious nature to all aspects of Christianity.

If there is a 'bad guy' in International affairs, it is always the United States that takes the fall.

I name modern, social, progressive Liberalism as the most extreme of all faiths who do indeed, 'force their faith down your throat at all levels'.

Tell me I am in error?

Amicus...

You forgot queers, niggers and single mothers...

 

[Guest]

BentSecrets....thank you, a very cogent reply as far as it goes....however...))

Imagine a faith the prosyletizes its beliefs on a continual basis in all forms of public communications.

This faith includes contraception being taught in schools at all levels; it also includes making abortion clinics available to high school students without advising the parent(s). They further insist on accepting same sex relationships on an equal basis as hetero and force children to accept this as 'knowledge'.

The biggest stars and the biggest movies, as a matter of course, portray business and industry as evil, "Erin Brockovich" Julia Roberts, "The Pelican Brief", it is difficult to name a motion picture that does not portray Capitalism, the free market economy and war as 'evil'. Through the ACLU, they reflect an open 'agnosticism' and a closet anti religious nature to all aspects of Christianity.

If there is a 'bad guy' in International affairs, it is always the United States that takes the fall.

I name modern, social, progressive Liberalism as the most extreme of all faiths who do indeed, 'force their faith down your throat at all levels'.

Tell me I am in error?

Amicus...

Ami, you ignorant slut.

You are in error.

 

[wmrs2]

I don't know your definition of "a generation" but I do know that in 1980, and before, abortions were legal in the US and other places. Homosexuality had not been considered a mental illness for a long time and there were millions of women holding full-time jobs. There were policewomen, but maybe not female firefighters. Christmas is still celebrated and there were millions of people in the US who spoke English poorly.

Liar Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Fundamentalists of any kind are seen as fanatics who want to mind everybody's business, and are unpopular because of that. Aetheists basically mind their own business, and don't care if some gay men get married of if somebody reads a dirty story or unmarried men and women fuck each other or anything else happens that doesn't affect them.

I'd guess I'd have a problem with fundamental atheists too. As in people who agressively attack and try to eradicate all superstitious beliefs. Fundamental atheism was what Soviet attempted for a while, until they gave up.
Today 05:27 PM

Generally speaking, in the USA, aetheists mind their own business and don't care what others do or believe. At the same time, sometimes things happen, such as prayer in school and similar things. Aetheists would consider things like thus to be their business, and would fight against them. I would agree, because I don't like the idea of people's opinions being rammed down other peopl's throats.

Consider this, the vast majority of the people in the USA and the world are not homosexuals. Most people view the homosexual is trying to ram their lifestyle down other peoples' throats. Can you not understand this and see that they have as valid point of view to resent you as much as you resent normal people?

Don't you agree that fundamentalist (fanatics) of any kind are really minorities even in their own groups? But normal people have opinions that seem extreme to people that differ with people that do not live by the norm.

 

[wmrs2]

Seems to me I read somewhere that Catholics are the largest religion in America? Could be wrong, I guess.

I think it is but a flip of the coin as to whether fundamentalist left wingers or fundamentalist christians are the greatest threat to freedom and liberty; both are obnoxious.



amicus...

Yet, it is the ability to tolerate the obnoxious that is the test to our freedom and liberty. From this point of view, the obnoxious is of great value to us.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Consider this, the vast majority of the people in the USA and the world are not homosexuals. Most people view the homosexual is trying to ram their lifestyle down other peoples' throats. Can you not understand this and see that they have as valid point of view to resent you as much as you resent normal people?

Don't you agree that fundamentalist (fanatics) of any kind are really minorities even in their own groups? But normal people have opinions that seem extreme to people that differ with people that do not live by the norm.

Normal people have moderate opinions, this much is true. But only the crackpots and idiots and the brainwashed think that homosexuals are trying to force their lifestyles on anyone else.

Sadly, there are a lot of brainwashed idiots out there. I don't think you can call them a vast majority.

 

[wmrs2]

What interests me most about this topic is the term 'fundamentalist', and how it's been hijacked over the decades.

The term 'fundamentalist', if my history is right, was a self applied term first appearing in an outspoken way by theologian J.G. Machen for those, who during the shift in theology within the mainline Protestant denominations, (Princeton Theological Seminary, and the Presbyterian church, specifically,) used the terms 'fundamentals' and 'fundamentalists' to differentiate between themselves and 'modernists'. Meaning they were adhering to the 'fundamentals' of the faith, ie. the Westminster Confession, Calvinism, etc.

Which brings us to today where the term has come to mean religious fanatic.

Okay, sorry, probably should keep my musings to myself. Pretend this is the color coded sidebar in the textbook that you always ignore ...

Your point is well taken. I think most religious people think of the term fundamentalist as a way of identifying what they believe and not a lifestyle. The liberal thinks of fundamentalist as a lifestyle. This difference leads to even more conflict between the groups. Neither group is really hearing what the other is saying.

 

[wmrs2]

Normal people have moderate opinions, this much is true. But only the crackpots and idiots and the brainwashed think that homosexuals are trying to force their lifestyles on anyone else.

Sadly, there are a lot of brainwashed idiots out there. I don't think you can call them a vast majority.

Of course, they are a vast majority. I worked with and supervised many homosexuals in my lifetime and there was never a problem and most of them I really loved and appreciated; but never did I hear such words as crackpots, idiots, brainwashed, etc., which demonstrates to me that differences in view points and lifestyles can be tolerated and compatible if wisdom and decorum is part of the process.

If I were to attack homosexuality, even though I disagree with the lifestyle, the homosexual would attack back. In return, the homosexual whose lifestyle you agree with, would be very unwise to attack Christians who you know do not believe in your lifestyle. How many normal people do you turn off when your language shows that you have contempt for them?

Because they do not believe that your lifestyle is proper, they are not brainwashed idiots. You simply harden their opinion of you when you use such terms. Fundamentalist as a group are not brainwashed because they disagree with your opinion. They have their conviction and they view your opinion as brainwashed. That does not make anybody correct.

I do not carry my fundamentalist convictions around on my shoulders but I understand if I were to try to make others accept my ideas as good for everybody, this would only make enemies for me. There is a price to pay to maintain our freedom and this cannot be ignored. The lady who openly says she is a gay mother does not only receive the judgment of other mothers but her children are also judged. Although this may not be fair, it is a consideration that gay mothers must consider. I am not telling gay mothers how to live but society will voice its disapproval of a belligerent lifestyle. If the gay mother is belligerent, not caring what others think, she punishes her group and her children. Her belligerent attitude does not mark her as a wise mother.

On this forum the best way to make friends is to speak softly to others. They are more likely to tolerate your point of view. I agree that it would be best for all of us to follow this advice but to dance correctly, it takes two to dance. But I will try to dance and hope that you will also.

 

[Stella_Omega]

On this forum the best way to make friends is to speak softly to others. They are more likely to tolerate your point of view. I agree that it would be best for all of us to follow this advice but to dance correctly, it takes two to dance. But I will try to dance and hope that you will also.

I'm sorry, perhaps you think you weren't a didactic, belligerent, and ignorant asshole when you first showed up here only a day or so ago-- or are there two of you, maybe? You've been screaming about trolls, and what is it-- RABD, so who the fuck do you think you're kidding, bubba?

What forum do you think you're posting on? can you tell us what year is this? How many fingers am I holding up? Do you rhumba? Pick a rhumba from one to ten.

How many normal people do you turn off when your language shows that you have contempt for them?

You want to talk about contempt? You dance like hemorrhoids on a prolapsed asshole.

 

[BentSecrets]

BentSecrets....thank you, a very cogent reply as far as it goes....however...))

Imagine a faith the prosyletizes its beliefs on a continual basis in all forms of public communications.

This faith includes contraception being taught in schools at all levels; it also includes making abortion clinics available to high school students without advising the parent(s). They further insist on accepting same sex relationships on an equal basis as hetero and force children to accept this as 'knowledge'.

The biggest stars and the biggest movies, as a matter of course, portray business and industry as evil, "Erin Brockovich" Julia Roberts, "The Pelican Brief", it is difficult to name a motion picture that does not portray Capitalism, the free market economy and war as 'evil'. Through the ACLU, they reflect an open 'agnosticism' and a closet anti religious nature to all aspects of Christianity.

If there is a 'bad guy' in International affairs, it is always the United States that takes the fall.

I name modern, social, progressive Liberalism as the most extreme of all faiths who do indeed, 'force their faith down your throat at all levels'.

Tell me I am in error?

Amicus...

Without question, the Progressivism that passes for modern Liberalism is in fact a *faith*. Hence we hear phrases like "I believe in Science"--Science is not meant to be "Believed in", it is meant to be *understood*. Science is *not* faith, and yet there are those who lay claim to its enlightenment without understanding it in the least, and in fact rejecting its methodology outright in their daily lives.

Equally, the concepts of Capitalism and Socialism (forward let's just say Collectivism, as Socialism, Communism, Fascism and virtually any religious system you can name are all variants of that same coin) are horribly misunderstood and misblamed for events that are often not even related. Case in point, Capitalism currently takes the blame for events such as AIG's execs receiving huge bonuses while the company can barely stay alive. This is not the fault of Capitalism, this is the fault of political maneuvering and graft, and these bonuses were written into law by men who received substantial monetary payoffs from AIG, namely Senator Chris Dodd (D) and President Barack Obama.

What's rarely understood is that a system like Communism is a system written and developed by men who understood little to nothing about the nature of a Human being. On the other side, Capitalism was not created by anyone--it merely arose naturally as a consequence of Liberty. As such, it's very poorly understood, and even more poorly taught even in highly ranked educational institutions. That being the case, what hope can the average person who made it through high school and perhaps Community college have to understand it? In all likelihood he's only ever heard its mention as the scapegoat for any major problem that arises.