Posted on 08/08/2002 1:04:36 PM PDT by tpaine
Liberals use the word fundamentalist to mean fanatic. Since most fundamentalists are also conservative. So they can attack conservatives and exempt themselves from the same standards of behavior at the same time.
A better writer would have not used the term fundamentalist, but used fanatic instead.
Any insight into the Godless?
*Yawn*
Beat me to it. :)
Look in the mirror. You'll see a fine example.
Your explanation of "literal interpretation" seems very different than the author's. You explain "literal" positively, whereas he was using "literal interpretation" as a negative aspect of Fundamentalism.
Okay, I'll address your specifics if you'll address mine.
You say that the 'conservative' fundamentalists defense of a states 'right' [Ca.] to prohibit 'assault weapons'is an "extreme reaction."
This discussion can rapidly become verbose. To attempt to maintain clarity, I will use a bit of notation. If you have trouble with it, let me know and I will try again with words instead. So...
Let A stand for the proposition: States have a right to prohibit assault weapons.
I trust that you aren't expecting me to defend proposition A. My sympathies lie in the other direction, generally.
Let B stand for the event: Conservative fundamentalists make posts defending proposition A.
Nor will I defend event B. Instead, I am questioning your assertion...
You assert the following: B is an "extreme reaction" by the fundamentalists. Now if event B is in fact a reaction, it must be a reaction to some other event or phenomenon. I am asking you to specify the event or phenomenon to which B is a presumed reaction. The author of the piece you posted claimed that fundmentalists' actions--indeed, fundmentalism itself--was a reaction to the immorality and complexity of the world.
So let C stand for the event: The world is immoral and complex.
Are you then asserting that event B is a reaction to event C, as the author of this piece might claim? Or are you suggesting that B is a reaction to some other event D that you have not specified as yet?
Once you have specified the event to which you claim B is a reaction, I am also asking you to give evidence supporting your claim that event B is a reaction to it.
For example, perhaps you would claim that B is a reaction to the events of September 11. (That is the normal process of social "science": pick a likely looking suspect and convict him without a trial.) At least in this case you might have some circumstantial evidence, if posts along the lines of event B were more common after 9-11 than they were before it. But even with that, there were many events that happened on September 11, 2001 besides the NYC disaster. The hypothetical circumstantial evidence I suggested in the sentence before last--even if the numbers were statistically significant--would have no way of distinguishing between the many coincidental events of that date to choose the one that caused the reaction you claim...
Anyway, you claim that B is a reaction to some event. Specify the event. Give evidence why you think that B is a reaction to it. While you're at it, you might do the same for your other "specific points."
Perhaps you believe that it is enough to point your finger at people you label "conservative fundamentalists" and choose some behavior you don't approve of and call it an "extreme reaction." Well, if pointing fingers and calling names is enough, all of your favorite causes and leaders must have been thoroughly discredited years ago, since I'm sure that fingers have been pointed and names called. Why not rise above that level of discourse?
Yes it is.
You then observe the "discussion can rapidly become verbose", and proceed to do exactly that with your A/B nonsense. Finally you get to the point:
Anyway, you claim that B is a reaction to some event. Specify the event.
Several 'gun events' involving so-called assault weapons have led to the CA gun control acts. Shootings in SF, Sac & LA have contributed to this climate of over-reaction. Why 'conservative' fundamentalists support these acts is the question. Got any answers?
Give evidence why you think that B is a reaction to it.
State legislators have cited these incidents publicly as their reason for the 'laws'.
While you're at it, you might do the same for your other "specific points."
They are as self evident as the gun example. - You're just playing some weird ABC game here.
Perhaps you believe that it is enough to point your finger at people you label "conservative fundamentalists" and choose some behavior you don't approve of and call it an "extreme reaction."
It may help some borderline fundamentalists to see the irrationality in their postions, - I can only hope.
-- After all, you people are fighting against the very constitutional principles that you profess to honor. Figure that one out.
I do not know if this defines fundamentalists but it sure as hell defines the trouble makers of the world.
Well, I suspect that you didn't have the time available to read it carefully. If you are truly unable to follow an argument that uses a few symbols for propositions and/or events, perhaps a more comprehensive education would be in order. But ultimately it was clear enough for you to supply a little more of the information that had been lacking instead of simply pointing again at what you had already written.
Several 'gun events' involving so-called assault weapons have led to the CA gun control acts.
This is reasonable, and seems likely, but I believe it to be unprovable.
State legislators have cited these incidents publicly as their reason for the 'laws'.
And of course if a state legislator says it, it must be a fact. I always trust what a state legislator says. That should be proof enough for anyone. Evidence? I suppose. Conclusive? Depends on how much you trust two things: a state legislator's self-understanding, and a state legislator's probity.
Many people would claim that the intent to ban assault weapons was present in the legislators long before the 'gun events,' and that these 'gun events' were only pretexts for the legislation. This would seriously dispute the claim that the legislation was a "reaction" to the "events"--except as one "reacts" to an opportunity to do what one has long desired. And certainly this would not be an "extreme" reaction.
Why 'conservative' fundamentalists support these acts is the question. Got any answers?
If I cared to take the time, I am sure that I could produce several possible "answers." But they would be nothing but conjectures that I would be unable to support with evidence. But if you read carefully, you will find that your question was in fact my question to you.
In an earlier post, you said that this fundamentalist support was an "extreme reaction." Now, are you saying that you DON'T know what it is a reaction to? You believe that the legislator's actions were a reaction to the 'gun events' simply because they say so. And you are certain that the fundmentalist FReeper's posts were also a reaction...to something. But now you aren't sure what.
Funny, I thought that the author of the article you posted WAS certain: fundmentalists react to immorality and complexity--although he gave no evidence for this.
Anyway, you have satisfied my curiosity. You are not going to provide any evidence supporting the author's claim, probably (but not provably) because you have none. In fact, you aren't even offering evidence for your own related assertion.
After all, how do you know that the fundamentalists' actions are REactions to some event? Perhaps their posts defending the assault weapon ban and the WOD have been part of their conspiracy, carefully planned decades in advance! But if you CAN provide some evidence that these posts were merely an "extreme reaction" to events and not some monstrous conspiracy, go ahead.
For clarity, let me restate my main point. When Ronald Stanley, O.P. states:
Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and immorality of today's world. The knowledge and technology explosion has left many people confused and afraid. Their understandable longing for security leads some to look for a way to cut through the complexities of modern life and reestablish fundamental truths. Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth.this is nothing but opinion stated as if it were established fact. People who fear or detest fundamentalism may decide that Stanley is "right on." They may quote him as an expert to support their own attacks on fundamentalism. But as to the questions of why people become fundamentalists and why fundamentalists behave in the way that they do: never assume that they have been definitively answered simply because you liked the sound of Stanley's answer.
-- After all, you people are fighting against the very constitutional principles that you profess to honor. Figure that one out.
Were you still talking to me? Or to the invisible crowd of fundamentalists? If to me, then please provide links to my attacks against constitutional principles. Or perhaps you are saying that because I am testing your argument as an adversary, and you are a champion of the Constitution, therefore I must be an enemy of the Constitution. Is that it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.