[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20061221" target="_blank">Fundie Futures</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> December 21, 2006

The President of Iran and his fundamentalist buddies were dealt a blow this week in that country\'s mid-term elections. Non-fundamentalist candidates won the majority of seats in municipal councils, as well as on the traditionally fundie-controlled \"Assembly of Experts\" that aids and advises Iran\'s supreme religious leader. <br> <br>Of course, this being Iran, the foes of Ahmadinejad are still basically religious conservatives. True reformists gained very little in the elections, but on a pragmatic level conservatives are still better than hardliners.

[Jabrwock]

Ahmadinejad should have looked to the US for inspiration.

Fundies in office can only keep the rhetoric going for so long before the public tires of it. At least the US had a war it could distract people with, which is probably partly why the US was able to pull the fundie card longer than Iran could. Iran isn't currently fighting anyone, so there's no tangible threat to dangle in front of the population. You can't milk the potential threats for too long, or people begin to realise that they're just that, potential threats. They need something concrete they can bite their teeth into.

[ramzafft1]

Well, really, how long can a government stay completely fundamentalist? Your always going to have far out Left-Wingers (or in this case less extreme Right-Wingers) looking to shake things up a bit. Perosnally, I'd like to see a ultra-Leftist Iranian rebellion. If only because right now the term "Ultra-Leftist Iranian" seems like an oxymoron. I'm such a horrible person.

[Rhoffman]

It should be interesting to see if this election has any effect on Ahmadinejad's foreign policy (and, by extension, American and European reaction to it). I kinda doubt that locality elections will play that big of a role in this regard, though.

[XianLewis]

Jabrwock,

Please refrain from demonstrating your vast, open-minded intellect by denigrating Christians, Republicans, and the American public.

Iran, or Persia, is a once-enlightened nation since crippled by the vise of Islam. Under Islam's influence, Iran's interest in technology and philosophy wilted. Regardless, a modicum of democracy has recently sprouted up. We should be happy. Hooray. It's not really news until the sprout grows into something more.

[Kjorteo]

You just chastised someone for what you perceived as an attack on "Christians, Republicans, and the American public," then devoted an entire paragraph to attacking Islam. Explain yourself.

Of course, I'm one of those godless atheist heathens who secretly hate Christmas and all that, and oppose all religions pretty much equally, so perhaps I'm not the best one to be having this discussion.

[CanadianJeff]

I'm surprised Kjorteo I would have marked you as more of a Agnostic :p

Seriously though he's right. Clarify if your going to say such things. I'm sick of hearing people toot that whistle on topics without pointing to more then a bible verse as ultimate proof of being right.

[Psudo]

When is it acceptable and when is it wrong to criticize an ideological group? Apparently belief that the group's philosophy is faulty is not enough defense to say so; I see calls for silence addressed towards such arguments. Giving an example of the percieved fault doesn't seem to be enough either, since XianLewis rejected Jabrwock's argument as an unfair attack, as did Kjorteo of XianLewis's.

To Kjorteo's credit, he pointed out a seeming logical incongruity rather than merely objecting to the mere existence of criticism. The latter is more censorship than argument.

As to XainLewis' criticism of Islam, he is correct that Persia was an incredibly powerful nation early on (the strongest in the world in the 5th century BC), but the nation never fully recovered from it's conquest by Alexander. Islam did not destroy Persia, it conquered an already weakened Persia.

It is interesting to me, however, that the similarly flawed criticism of Republican leadership in the USA received far less objection. Is it so universally accepted that Iran and the USA are morally equalivant? Bush, for all his faults, has never declared any wish for Islam to be driven from the face of the earth as Ahmadinejad has for Israel. If one declares to me that the lives of worst radicals of Islam are equalivant to the grand total of all Jewish life, I must perceive this devaluing of Jewish life to be immoral and factually wrong. Christian Fundamentalism (if that's what the current US administration is) has failed to achieve the level immorality of the Iranian leadership. XianLewis was right to address this (however incompetently), and the rest of you were wrong to ignore it.

Though Jaberwock's criticism of "fundies" was logically flawed, I am glad for the opportunity to debate and rectify the misconception. I do not wish to silence opposing views, but to hear them and respond to them. My own answer to my opening question is that it is right to criticize groups in forums of logical debate (such as politics) but wrong to force silence the opposing view through such means as censorship or violence. Suppression of views (even insufficiently logical ones) is evil, as is action based on illogical arguments. In short, you're morally free to be illogical so long as you don't act on it. In a forum like this one, wherein no one is fighting wars or passing laws based on our analysis, all arguments are morally welcome. No matter how flawed, they offer the chance to set the record straight.

[Hatter]

Wow, Great post above.

I'm a so called "Ultra-Leftist" but I think using the terms right or left to describe someones political views, if used irrationally, can lead to a horrible [I]Ad Hominen[U]. For example, I'll have to come up with a much better reason to oppose the abolition of a corporate tax in favor of a stockholder's tax than that it was proposed by the conservative Milton Friedman.

I also thank Psudo for reminding us that neither the GWB nor the republicans have established any sort of dictatorship over America. Though I do think the Democrats and the Republicans have collectively established a dictatorship over our politics.

Anyway, back on to the topic. I was kind of surprised that J.J. would be critical of a religiously conservative government, while still calling him a conservative himself. Obviously the difference between religious conservatives here and the religious conservatives there is that there are different religions being focused on. And while he may have some bias against Islam, I don't think he has fallen on the thought train of "Christianity is inherently better then Islam in all cases no matter which interpretations are used on them" that's just stupid, a liberal Islam theologian is general much more open-minded then a Christian fundamentalist. I think certain arguments can be made that the average Muslim is less open-minded then your average Christian, I think that is more the work of democracy than religion though. If you compare the fundamentalists, you find that the Christian fundamentalists are just as hateful but they just don't express it in violence. They believe everyone who doesn't follow the word of Jesus is going to hell (or at least those who were exposed to it and rejected it), and in hell they will burn for eternity, a punishment worse than the holocaust, they don't do their own holocaust because they believe the Jews and the Muslims and the Catholics will all get an eternal holocaust in the end.

I think religious conservatism leads to a paradox. The more justified it is (i.e. the more people of that religion there is) the less necessary it is (i.e. people who this law would affect). It ends up affecting the majority in no ways whatsoever, and just suppresses the minority.

This post would be a lot shorter if I had already got my hand on one of those stupid Wiis.

[Jabrwock]

I'd just like to say out that my point was not that the US government was fundamentalist, nor that it was the equivalent of Iran's. Nor was I implying that the Iraq war was some kind of feint to distract the masses, but rather a handy current event to accomplish the same goal.

My point was that the rhetoric that allows fundamentalists to influence policy is diminished if they don't have something to distract the public with. If you are scared to death that your arab neighbor is going to suicide bomb you, whether it's a real threat or not, you are more likely to overlook changes to laws that may not be in the public's best interest. But if the years go on, and no threat materializes, then you begin to take more interest in policy decisions.

In the US, an example is the threat of terrorism allowing the passing of the Patriot Act. I'm sure Ahmadinejad has used Isreal's threats of nuclear force to his own benefit as well.

The problem though, is that eventually the public sees the fundamentalist agenda for what it is, and it can no longer influence policy, and so needs a new event to help shape public opinion again. Whether it be manufactured threats, or merely over-hyping and taking advantage of current threats, the public is clearly willing to give up scrutiny of bills if they are focused on something else.

This doesn't mean that the entire US government is fundamentalist, just that the those with the loundest voices and the biggest influence, due to their taking advantage of certain events (one could imagine they have good PR ) would be a good example to Iran in keeping the fundamentalist supporters in power.

[Psudo]

Hatter wrote:

Wow, Great post above.

Thanks. =]

Hatter wrote:

I think using the terms right or left to describe someones political views, if used irrationally, can lead to a horrible Ad Hominen.

Certainly true. I've seen more detailed systems around, such as a 2-dimensional system with separate variables for fiscal (socialist vs. capitalist) and social ideology (libertarian vs. authoritarian). One system I saw had fiscal, social, and political (democracy vs. dictatorship). But any such system is a trade-off between simplicity and accuracy. Since perfect accuracy is impossible (or at least horribly complicated), people go for perfect simplicity.

Hatter wrote:

If you compare the [Christian and Islamic] fundamentalists, you find that the Christian fundamentalists are just as hateful but they just don't express it in violence. They believe everyone who doesn't follow the word of Jesus is going to hell (or at least those who were exposed to it and rejected it), and in hell they will burn for eternity, a punishment worse than the holocaust, they don't do their own holocaust because they believe the Jews and the Muslims and the Catholics will all get an eternal holocaust in the end.

I think the Christian fundamentalist theory you offer here is morally superior to your Islamic fundamentalist theory. If Christian fundamentalist theology is wrong, it's heretics are safe from any punishment. If Islamic fundamentalist theology is wrong, people suffer and die anyway. It is morally rational to make one's punishment for heresy conditional on the truth of the theology itself, as your Christian example does.

Of course, there are Christian fundamentalists that take matters into their own hands, be it bombing abortion clinics or whatnot, and there are pacifist Islamic fundamentalists who merely cheer on the Jihad without joining in. But the distinction is the same as before: it is only acceptable to be irrational (eg, wrong) if you don't act on it.

Hatter wrote:

I think religious conservatism leads to a paradox. The more justified it is (i.e. the more people of that religion there is) the less necessary it is (i.e. people who this law would affect). It ends up affecting the majority in no ways whatsoever, and just suppresses the minority.

That makes sense, so long as religious choice is random chance. If a religious argument has a strong rational basis, it can change even a staunchly conservative religious organization. The great example of this is the life of Martin Luther and, to a lesser extent, all protestant reformation.

Has there been a Martin Luther of the Muslim world? Just curious.

Hatter wrote:

This post would be a lot shorter if I had already got my hand on one of those stupid Wiis.

Haha, I know the feeling. I bought my wife a Gameboy DS Lite for Christmas. Borrowing it helps. =]

I'm also playing my favorite game from my childhood again. The original Dragon Warrior for the original NES. Came out a year before the original Final Fantasy, so we're talkin' oldschool.

Jabrwock wrote:

My point was that the rhetoric that allows fundamentalists to influence policy is diminished if they don't have something to distract the public with.

That is a rule of all propaganda, not merely fundie advocacy. Iran could just as easily borrow rhetorical tactics from Hitler, Lenin, or Mao. Your specific choice of the USA as your example suggests you see parallels beyond those you name. If I came to the wrong conclusions about your meaning, you led me.

Further, there is not much difference between declaring the US government 'fundamentalist' and declaring "those with the loudest voices and the biggest influence" in it are. What leads a republic if not it's loudest, most influential voices? The point of a republic is to build a system wherein the most rational arguments becomes the most lasting policies. If you're in pain, a sharp cry and swift, thoughtless action is normal, even good. When the pain goes away, so does the thoughtlessness. It is healthy for it to be so.

[hr]
As a final point, i have an open question to everyone who reads it: What is the definition of "fundamentalism"? If it is merely strict adherence to the fundamental core values of a religion (or ideology), what is it's moral failing? Let them believe what they want. If there is no moral failing by definition, does the negative connotation make it ad hominem? If there is more to the definition which makes it deserving of it's connotation, what is it?

[Hatter]

Quote:

I've seen more detailed systems around, such as a 2-dimensional system with separate variables for fiscal (socialist vs. capitalist) and social ideology (libertarian vs. authoritarian). One system I saw had fiscal, social, and political (democracy vs. dictatorship). But any such system is a trade-off between simplicity and accuracy. Since perfect accuracy is impossible (or at least horribly complicated), people go for perfect simplicity.

I think the only accurate way to do it would be to have a separate dimension for every issue (i.e. having to look at 100 three dimensional graphs at once to see where someone stands), then you could judge for yourself how authoritarian that person is and so on. The faults I see with that other one is that one, the fiscal system does not go past capitalism, it probably should include feudalism, or what I think in the modern day would be considered corporatism. Also, this isn't really the fault of the graph, but some labels already imply more than the dimension it was meant for, i.e. libertarian generally implies that you are in favor of a capitalist democracy, and libertarian socialism generally implies anarchy, even though on that graph orthodox Marxists would also be considered that. Finally, I can hardly see such a thing as an authoritarian direct democracy, that is given that the majority of citizens aren't completely ruthless. Also, if it is a quiz, it will be necessarily biased depending on how the maker judges the answer to each question (for example, I would would say that support of a two party system would push you a lot closer to authoritarian, though not necessarily dictatorship, because like a one-party system, anyone can run so long as they have the right ideas).

Quote:

But the distinction is the same as before: it is only acceptable to be irrational (eg, wrong) if you don't act on it.

Well, this is interesting, in a democracy, you are encouraged to act upon your beliefs, granted, not in a violent way, but still in a way that could hinder others. I think any restrictions on homosexuals is irrational (except for having children, I think they should be able to, but there are rational non-bigoted arguments against it) and a result of the democratic institution. Hey, maybe this is how you can be an authoritarian democrat! Obviously, you would have to have a lot more restrictions than that, but its on the right path, but then again, if you are a democrat (as in believing in democracy) you can't put those things under your control.

Quote:

That makes sense, so long as religious choice is random chance. If a religious argument has a strong rational basis, it can change even a staunchly conservative religious organization. The great example of this is the life of Martin Luther and, to a lesser extent, all protestant reformation.

I guess I overlooked that pushing your religious belief can do the right things, even if they were there for the wrong reasons (Murder should be against the law because God commanded us not to murder according to this book). But you also brought up MLK who, if you read his "I have a dream" speech, he seemed to be strongly influenced by Christianity, but he wanted his message to come off as universal, so he justified his beliefs in reasoning beyond the bible.

Quote:

Has there been a Martin Luther of the Muslim world? Just curious.

If you mean a pacifist reformer, I don't know. If you mean a black freedom fighter, theres Malcolm X, who became friends with MLK much later in his life, and Malcolm X for a long time was a leading voice in the Nation of Islam, which used the Koran to justify black nationalism. Then he got shot because he became less of a black nationalist and more like Martin Luther King, though if you read his autobiography, he seems to still have some nationalist thought in his head.

If any of you had been following the old forum, its biggest problem was its extreme islamophobic tone to it, don't make the same mistake here peoples.

[Jabrwock]

Psudo wrote:

Jabrwock wrote:

My point was that the rhetoric that allows fundamentalists to influence policy is diminished if they don't have something to distract the public with.

That is a rule of all propaganda, not merely fundie advocacy. Iran could just as easily borrow rhetorical tactics from Hitler, Lenin, or Mao. Your specific choice of the USA as your example suggests you see parallels beyond those you name. If I came to the wrong conclusions about your meaning, you led me.

Further, there is not much difference between declaring the US government 'fundamentalist' and declaring "those with the loudest voices and the biggest influence" in it are. What leads a republic if not it's loudest, most influential voices? The point of a republic is to build a system wherein the most rational arguments becomes the most lasting policies. If you're in pain, a sharp cry and swift, thoughtless action is normal, even good. When the pain goes away, so does the thoughtlessness. It is healthy for it to be so.

While Hitler, Lenin, and Mao all used PR and took advantage of current situations to further their agenda, all also used force against their own citizens. Iran has yet to do that, so I didn't consider them as valid comparisons, yet. So I believe my use of the US, as a country that in recent decades has been leaning towards the fundamentalist agenda, and which, honestly, has been bringing religion back into government rather heavily, as a legitimate comparison.

Also my point about propaganda was that if Iran wanted to use it to further their fundie agenda, they should look to the US as to how to use it well. The US for the last decade has broken down every major issue into "you're either with us, or against us". If you try to enforce the seperation of church and state, you're trying to destroy christmas. If you want to advance science, you're a godless heathen. If you believe in following the constitution, you support the terrorists. Such a strategy has clearly worked well.

As for my definition of fundamentalism, I see it as when someone is so firm and absolute in their beliefs (and in the belief that everyone else is wrong), that they are willing to do everything in their power to enforce that belief on everyone else, even to the point of ignoring or belittling countering beliefs. Even breaking the rules is ok, because in the end, "it was for the better good". I don't consider religion as being necessary to fundamentalism (any strong belief will do), but it is a common theme.

[Jabrwock]

Hatter wrote:

Quote:

Has there been a Martin Luther of the Muslim world? Just curious.

If you mean a pacifist reformer, I don't know.

I believe the last president of Iran was working towards some reforms, although when extremists claim that criticizm of the faith is worthy of murder it gets tricky. The other problem with Iran is that you have two ruling groups, the President, and the clerics. In theory one is supposed to be secular, one religious, but some reforms, just because they were commented on by Mohammed, inherently become a clash between law and faith.