Comments on: The New Fundamentalists http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/ The Return! Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:40:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Elise Joseph http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/comment-page-1/#comment-6200 Elise Joseph Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:21:43 +0000 http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/#comment-6200 This one makes sence "One's first step in wisdom is to kuesstion everything - and one's last is to come to terms with everything." This one makes sence “One’s first step in wisdom is to kuesstion everything – and one’s last is to come to terms with everything.”

]]> By: Mattlog » Blog Archive » links for 2006-03-27 http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/comment-page-1/#comment-43 Mattlog » Blog Archive » links for 2006-03-27 Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:09:53 +0000 http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/#comment-43 [...] Dispatches: The New Fundamentalists Evangelical Alliance response to “the new fundamentalists” (discussed previously here (tags: christian article) [...] [...] Dispatches: The New Fundamentalists Evangelical Alliance response to “the new fundamentalists” (discussed previously here (tags: christian article) [...]

]]> By: Paul M http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/comment-page-1/#comment-34 Paul M Thu, 09 Mar 2006 23:04:09 +0000 http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/#comment-34 It's not that you shouldn't be allowed to call for censorship, it's just that the censorship itself would be a infringement of free speech. I'm all for these folk protesting for what they believe in, I just don't agree with them. It’s not that you shouldn’t be allowed to call for censorship, it’s just that the censorship itself would be a infringement of free speech. I’m all for these folk protesting for what they believe in, I just don’t agree with them.

]]> By: Matt http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/comment-page-1/#comment-33 Matt Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:18:04 +0000 http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/#comment-33 Ok yeah I pretty much agree with those points. I didn't get that those were his points from watching the program, apart from the teaching section. I pretty much agree about censorship and imposing religious views on other people, but apart from the teaching section it dealt with homosexuality - people who chose to go to living waters or whatever it was called. Abstinence - The silver ring thing was going to Christian groups as far as I could tell. The helping the homeless bit attempted to portray it as forcing their views on others but was entirely unconvincing. I understand the issues with the whole Jerry Springer things now. Protesting = ok, calling for banning = not. That makes sense, and i'm generally against censorship. Isn't it also a bit of a paradox that you're not allowed to call for something to be censored? Is that censorship? ;-) I agree with what you're saying pretty much! I think my parents would probably agree with your parents though! Ok yeah I pretty much agree with those points. I didn’t get that those were his points from watching the program, apart from the teaching section. I pretty much agree about censorship and imposing religious views on other people, but apart from the teaching section it dealt with homosexuality – people who chose to go to living waters or whatever it was called.
Abstinence – The silver ring thing was going to Christian groups as far as I could tell. The helping the homeless bit attempted to portray it as forcing their views on others but was entirely unconvincing.

I understand the issues with the whole Jerry Springer things now. Protesting = ok, calling for banning = not. That makes sense, and i’m generally against censorship. Isn’t it also a bit of a paradox that you’re not allowed to call for something to be censored? Is that censorship? ;-)

I agree with what you’re saying pretty much! I think my parents would probably agree with your parents though!

]]> By: Paul M http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Paul M Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:03:35 +0000 http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/#comment-32 I saw the end of the program, the teaching bit. I have fairly strong views about the whole issue. As do my parents, who I was watching it with... unfortunately their's are directly opposing to mine so I was trying my best to stay objective while supressing the urge to gag my dad. violently. I'm not feeling particularly coherent, so I reserve the right to talk nonsense. As far as the program goes, I agree with you. I think it was badly made. The presenter/journalist didn't help. More than once he took to ridiculing his interviewees and passing it of as intelligent discussion. Christians Protesting: I don't think the argument is that the protesting infringes on free speech but that what the protesting calls for is. Jerry Springer example: Christians find it offensive so they protest that it should be censored. The censorship they call for would be an infringement of free speech. I find McFly offensive but I have no right to censor them. A better example: I find the view of these protesting Christians offensive and demand they should be censored; protesting Christians find my views offensive and demand that I should be censored - which side should be silenced? Both? I think the overarching issue dealt with in the program was the imposition of a Christian morality on others. It's here I think many Christians cross the line. If you ask an average Christian if they think that homosexuality should be illegal (rediculous generalistion to follow...) you'll probably get a yes. But what right have we to demand that others live by our moral code? (You could make the same argument about drug use, which always raises a few eyebrows when I bring it up). Christians find it abhorent that the Taliban imposed Islamic law on Afghanistan, yet many consider it fine to impose Christian values on others. The point of Christianity is choice. It's the fundamental basis of its entire theology. God gave Adam and Eve the choice to eat fruit or not. If God wanted us all to worship him, couldn't he just make us do it? It's a choice. It's meaningless if it isn't. Imposing our values on others is wrong. To do so shows a very dodgy grasp of Christian doctrine. (IMHO) I'm really not very good at expressing all this. Please feel free to demand clarification on anything I've said. Like I say, I find it hard to stay coherent when talking about this stuff. If you watched Question Time with the ultra-right-wing beast that is my mum every week, you'd find coherence hard too. I saw the end of the program, the teaching bit. I have fairly strong views about the whole issue. As do my parents, who I was watching it with… unfortunately their’s are directly opposing to mine so I was trying my best to stay objective while supressing the urge to gag my dad. violently.

I’m not feeling particularly coherent, so I reserve the right to talk nonsense.

As far as the program goes, I agree with you. I think it was badly made. The presenter/journalist didn’t help. More than once he took to ridiculing his interviewees and passing it of as intelligent discussion.

Christians Protesting:
I don’t think the argument is that the protesting infringes on free speech but that what the protesting calls for is. Jerry Springer example: Christians find it offensive so they protest that it should be censored. The censorship they call for would be an infringement of free speech. I find McFly offensive but I have no right to censor them. A better example: I find the view of these protesting Christians offensive and demand they should be censored; protesting Christians find my views offensive and demand that I should be censored – which side should be silenced? Both?

I think the overarching issue dealt with in the program was the imposition of a Christian morality on others. It’s here I think many Christians cross the line. If you ask an average Christian if they think that homosexuality should be illegal (rediculous generalistion to follow…) you’ll probably get a yes. But what right have we to demand that others live by our moral code? (You could make the same argument about drug use, which always raises a few eyebrows when I bring it up). Christians find it abhorent that the Taliban imposed Islamic law on Afghanistan, yet many consider it fine to impose Christian values on others.

The point of Christianity is choice. It’s the fundamental basis of its entire theology. God gave Adam and Eve the choice to eat fruit or not. If God wanted us all to worship him, couldn’t he just make us do it? It’s a choice. It’s meaningless if it isn’t.

Imposing our values on others is wrong. To do so shows a very dodgy grasp of Christian doctrine. (IMHO)

I’m really not very good at expressing all this. Please feel free to demand clarification on anything I’ve said. Like I say, I find it hard to stay coherent when talking about this stuff. If you watched Question Time with the ultra-right-wing beast that is my mum every week, you’d find coherence hard too.

]]> By: Katherine http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Katherine Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:55:25 +0000 http://tanctop.co.uk/2006/03/07/the-new-fundamentalists/#comment-30 Cheers for your comment on my site, your lifeboat illustration was very useful and I can now see why there is a desire to save people. Still don't agree with it, but at least you made it a little clearer. Cheers for your comment on my site, your lifeboat illustration was very useful and I can now see why there is a desire to save people. Still don’t agree with it, but at least you made it a little clearer.

]]>