Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Will religious fanatics bring back witch burning?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
R. S. Refugee



Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 7:46 am    Post subject: Will religious fanatics bring back witch burning? Reply with quote

[RSR Note: Sorry for the inconvenience if you accidentally end up here twice because of my name change. The original didn't draw well, so I decided to change it.]


"Are you the kind of person who yearns for an old-fashioned world? You know, wherein we'd all obey the laws and the punishments of the old Hebrew Scriptures? Wherein all religious organizations, congregations other than strictly Fundamentalist Christianity, would be pummeled and persecuted? Wherein any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs would be tried for idolatry and executed? Wherein blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; with those found guilty also executed? How about public floggings and burnings? You down with that? Hoo-yah! Welcome to the future!

Now, I know you're thinking: how can things get any better than that! They do! Imagine women being reduced to slave status (Hey, you Hooters fans!), considered the property of their fathers and, after marriage, the property of their husbands! Dads could even sell their daughters into slavery if the SUV payments posed a problem! People who owned slaves could physically abuse them as long as the beatings didn't kill them within three days! (I mean, sometimes less is more.) Is that far-out or what? Totally."


'Damned if you don't'

By Ed Naha
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=21125&mode=nested&order=0


Last edited by R. S. Refugee on Mon May 16, 2005 6:02 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flakfizer



Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wait, "fundamentalist" Christians desire to live life under the Old Covenant of Hebrew law? Boy, those people down at "The Smirking Chimp" sure do their research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Teufelswacht



Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Location: Land Of The Not Quite Right

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 8:38 am    Post subject: Re: This one's for dogbert Reply with quote

R. S. Refugee wrote:
"Are you the kind of person who yearns for an old-fashioned world? You know, wherein we'd all obey the laws and the punishments of the old Hebrew Scriptures? Wherein all religious organizations, congregations other than strictly Fundamentalist Christianity, would be pummeled and persecuted? Wherein any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs would be tried for idolatry and executed? Wherein blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; with those found guilty also executed? How about public floggings and burnings? You down with that? Hoo-yah! Welcome to the future!

Now, I know you're thinking: how can things get any better than that! They do! Imagine women being reduced to slave status (Hey, you Hooters fans!), considered the property of their fathers and, after marriage, the property of their husbands! Dads could even sell their daughters into slavery if the SUV payments posed a problem! People who owned slaves could physically abuse them as long as the beatings didn't kill them within three days! (I mean, sometimes less is more.) Is that far-out or what? Totally."


'Damned if you don't'

By Ed Naha
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=21125&mode=nested&order=0


I've changed three words from your initial posted paragraphs to bring it from a hypothetical and highly unlikely future to the actual present in many countries.

Quote:
"Are you the kind of person who yearns for an old-fashioned world? You know, wherein we'd all obey the laws and the punishments of the old Islamic Scriptures? Wherein all religious organizations, congregations other than strictly Fundamentalist Islam, would be pummeled and persecuted? Wherein any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs would be tried for idolatry and executed? Wherein blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; with those found guilty also executed? How about public floggings and burnings? You down with that? Hoo-yah! Welcome to the present!

Now, I know you're thinking: how can things get any better than that! They do! Imagine women being reduced to slave status (Hey, you Hooters fans!), considered the property of their fathers and, after marriage, the property of their husbands! Dads could even sell their daughters into slavery if the SUV payments posed a problem! People who owned slaves could physically abuse them as long as the beatings didn't kill them within three days! (I mean, sometimes less is more.) Is that far-out or what? Totally."


If they (the spanking monkey people) are going to take delight in criticizing Christianity, at the very least they should have the intellectual integrity to call a spade a spade with regards to other religions as well. Or, are they the embodiment of the three "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" monkeys I saw in a curios shop a while back?

To answer any questions, no I didn't read the rest of the article. It would be a waste of time IMHO. The "monkeys" lost me at the first paragraph.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shakuhachi



Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flakfizer wrote:
Wait, "fundamentalist" Christians desire to live life under the Old Covenant of Hebrew law? Boy, those people down at "The Smirking Chimp" sure do their research.


That seems to be true. I have a cousin who is a fundamentalist Christian, and for all her talk about Jesus, you would think he never taught anything at all. 'Fundamentalists' ignore a lot of what Jesus said in favor of the old testament. Doesnt seem like very authenic Christianity to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
R. S. Refugee



Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

shakuhachi wrote:
flakfizer wrote:
Wait, "fundamentalist" Christians desire to live life under the Old Covenant of Hebrew law? Boy, those people down at "The Smirking Chimp" sure do their research.


That seems to be true. I have a cousin who is a fundamentalist Christian, and for all her talk about Jesus, you would think he never taught anything at all. 'Fundamentalists' ignore a lot of what Jesus said in favor of the old testament. Doesnt seem like very authenic Christianity to me.



What he said. I couldn't have said it any better. Very Happy Laughing Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
"Are you the kind of person who yearns for an old-fashioned world? You know, wherein we'd all obey the laws and the punishments of the old Islamic Scriptures? Wherein all religious organizations, congregations other than strictly Fundamentalist Islam, would be pummeled and persecuted? Wherein any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs would be tried for idolatry and executed? Wherein blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; with those found guilty also executed? How about public floggings and burnings? You down with that? Hoo-yah! Welcome to the present!



Teufelswacht, you missed the point by changing Christian to Islamic. Very few people today deny that elements of Islam are medieval in their world view. Everyone knows what the Taliban were up to in Afghanistan.

The point of the article is that elements within Christianity are up to the same thing. The mistake you made when you read the paragraph was to confuse your version of Christianity with with all of Christianity. If you had read the whole article you would have seen that the writer made a distinction between the extremists and the other types.
Quote:
A week ago, so-called secular humanists and regular Christians, gathered in New York City at the Open Center to try to understand all this religious politicism that twists the teachings of Christ into a weapon.

“This may be the darkest time in our history,” said Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches


The portion of the article that most disturbed me was:


Quote:
George Grant, author of "Bringing In The Sheaves: Replacing Government Welfare with Biblical Charity," declared in "The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles or Political Action:"

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

" But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
“It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.“It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.“It is dominion we are after.

"World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.

"We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”


Alaister Cooke once described democracy as 'Compromise. Compromise. Compromise." That is looking increasingly difficult to achieve.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dogbert



Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's unfortunate that my nym is not a draw....ah well
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Teufelswacht



Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Location: Land Of The Not Quite Right

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Ya-Ta:

Quote:
The mistake you made when you read the paragraph was to confuse your version of Christianity with with all of Christianity


(1) Could you please tell me what my version of Christianity is please?

(2) Could you please tell me how you developed the answer you did to question (1)? (Examples would be most helpful.)

Thanks.

Teufelswacht
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bigverne



Joined: 12 May 2004

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Very few people today deny that elements of Islam are medieval in their world view.


Not 'elements' of Islam, but Islam itself is medieval in outlook.

Of course all fundamentalisms are dangerous. However, Christians in the US who want to revert back to the Old Testament represent a lunatic fringe. In the Islamic world, they are part of the mainstream.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If they (the spanking monkey people) are going to take delight in criticizing Christianity, at the very least they should have the intellectual integrity to call a spade a spade with regards to other religions as well. Or, are they the embodiment of the three "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" monkeys I saw in a curios shop a while back?


The high-lighted part is what I objected to. The author of the piece was not criticizing all of Christianity. Had you bothered to read beyond the first section you would have known that. The tone of your words indicated you were offended. I don't know what your brand of Christianity is, and it isn't my concern what it is. If you are a follower of the Dominion point of view, it would be interesting to hear you explain and defend it. If you are a Christian with a view different from them, that would be interesting to hear. But it does the discussion no good for you to lump all Christians together as if they had only one view.

The author is discussing an important public issue--the mixing of church and state. It is entirely legitimate for the writer to focus on one issue, in this case the growing influence of radical Christian fundamentalism in the US. He is not obligated to discuss Islamic or Hindu fundamentalism in the same article. His topic was not "The Rise of Fundamentalism Around the World". There are plenty of other discussions going on especially about radical Islam.

So let's get back on topic.

There was an article on Yahoo this morning on this topic.

*****

Kansas Debate Challenges Science Itself By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press Writer
Mon May 16, 6:33 PM ET

The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.

The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in their science classes.

"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.

The conservative state Board of Education plans to consider the proposed changes by August. It is expected to approve at least part of a proposal from advocates of intelligent design, which holds that the natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain it.

State and national science groups boycotted last week's public hearings, claiming they were rigged against evolution.

Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design, said changing the schools' definition of science would avoid freezing out questions about how life arose and developed on Earth.

The current definition is "not innocuous," Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides."

Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to draft recommendations for updating the standards, then accepted two rival proposals.

One, backed by a majority of those educators, continues an evolution-friendly tone from the current standards. Those standards would define science as "a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." That's close to the current definition.

The other proposal is backed by intelligent design advocates and is similar to language in Ohio's standards. It defines science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation" using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena.

The Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards in 1999, but elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservatives recaptured the board's majority in 2004.

Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute senior fellow, said the dispute won't be settled in public hearings like the ones in Kansas.

"I think it will be resolved in the scientific community," he said. "I think (intelligent design), in 10 years, will be a very respectable science program."

Evolution defenders scoff at the notion.

"In order to live in this science-dominated world, you have to be able to discriminate between science and non-science," said Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "They want to rewrite the rules of science."

____

This just boggles the mind. Science is what it is. A board of education cannot write up a new definition of it. Well, obviously they can, but whatever they come up with has to match the traditional definition, or it isn't a correct definition. It just isn't.

Quote:
Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design, said changing the schools' definition of science would avoid freezing out questions about how life arose and developed on Earth.

The current definition is "not innocuous," Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides."


Is science supposed to be neutral? I don't think it was ever meant to be neutral. It was supposed to search for 'natural' answers, as opposed to supernatural answers to phenomena.

A better solution to the issue is to leave science alone and let kids opt out of science class if that is their parents' wishes. Let them take another math class or whatever.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R. S. Refugee



Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful contributions to this discussion. Ya-ta Boy. It seems that the type of conflict in Kansas so cogently described in your post is reflected in the discussion on this thread.

That is, whether the commentator's theme must be expanded to include a critique of other religious fundamentalisms for the sake of "intellectual integrity and fairness" (along with a rush to judgement based on the equivalent of a sound bite).

I always enjoy reading your posts and learn a lot from them even when we disagree.

You are obviously a lover of the scientific method yourself. Your thoughtfulness inspires me.

Cheers.


Last edited by R. S. Refugee on Tue May 17, 2005 11:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: DC area

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bigverne wrote:
Quote:
Very few people today deny that elements of Islam are medieval in their world view.


Not 'elements' of Islam, but Islam itself is medieval in outlook.

Of course all fundamentalisms are dangerous. However, Christians in the US who want to revert back to the Old Testament represent a lunatic fringe. In the Islamic world, they are part of the mainstream.


Rolling Eyes

Ah yes, that is why the fundies got destroyed in the last elections in Malaysia and Indonesia. That must be why the Kuwaiti parliment just allowed women to vote this week.

Fundie parties do well in opressive states; not in open, democratic ones.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Teufelswacht



Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Location: Land Of The Not Quite Right

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Quote:
If they (the spanking monkey people) are going to take delight in criticizing Christianity, at the very least they should have the intellectual integrity to call a spade a spade with regards to other religions as well. Or, are they the embodiment of the three "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" monkeys I saw in a curios shop a while back?


The tone of your words indicated you were offended. I don't know what your brand of Christianity is, and it isn't my concern what it is. If you are a follower of the Dominion point of view, it would be interesting to hear you explain and defend it. If you are a Christian with a view different from them, that would be interesting to hear. But it does the discussion no good for you to lump all Christians together as if they had only one view.



1. About my "tone," Wrong.

2. About my "brand" of Christianity, you are correct, sir. It is none of your business. I feel it is a waste of time to broach subjects on this board where people (Christians, atheists and agnostics alike) are, for the most part, ill-equipped to discuss them in-depth. When discussing Christianity and related issues I usually go to other members-only boards where there is a certain level of background knowledge and, dare I say, sophistication in Christianity already present. This alleviates the need to "educate" posters or otherwise spend time in rather useless discussions in order to identify the important issues.

3. True. Ya got me. I didn't read the rest of the article. I honestly don't see the need. If there is a vaulable nugget in the article well I guess that it's my loss. Although, it appears to be just another in a long line of articles contributed that basically allows the same group to gather around for the usual 3M exercise. I rarely read the articles and "screeds" (a word I learned to use recently) about subjects such as the one in this article. The reason, IMHO, is that it appears, from the first two paragraphs, to be just another example of the need for some to label something as the latest "boogeyman." There are many criticisms about the latest American administration's need to use a "boogeyman." I happen to agree with these observations/criticisms. I feel the same is happening in other areas of public discourse, as evidenced by the OP's article. In this case, it is the increasing need by some to label and villify the Christian fundamentalist "boogeyman."

4. True. There isn't a requirement to present both sides in a story/opinion piece. However, I find articles and publications that at least identfy other aspects, examples, or views and positions worth a read. The articles, that I have bothered to read, that seem to get posted a lot around here are usually devoid of such balance and are, IMHO, best suited for high school newspapers.

5. It would serve many others on this board well to apply the advice you gave about not lumping people together.

RSR:

Quote:
...It seems that the type of conflict in Kansas so cogently described in your post is reflected in the discussion on this thread.

That is, whether the commentator's theme must be expanded to include a critique of other religious fundamentalisms for the sake of "intellectual integrity and fairness" (along with a rush to judgement based on the equivalent of a sound bite).


Although I enjoyed Ya-Ta's article contribution, it is the same as many I have read before referencing the issues surrounding the ID debate. As far as the connection between what Ya-Ta and I are discussing and the ID debate, I fail to see a strong connection. I understand what you are trying to say, I just don't see the same strength of connection as you (and I seriously doubt I would have used the word "cogent" to describe the article's content, BTW). I don't see the problem in asking for balance and consideration of all view points and maybe highlight other examples to put the problem/issue discussed in its proper perspective.. In your comments you use the word ..."must be expanded"... "intellectual integrity and fairness." I would counter with the word "should be expanded...." Even in Ya-ta's short contribution there was identification of both sides of the issue. By the way, can you point me to links where you have provided articles about the other "fundies." I'm sure in the approximately 100+ articles you have posted in the last several months there is at least one that addresses the dangers of fundamentalism in other religions, in-depth. I am serious. I would be interested in reading the article.

As far as your comment about rushing to judgement - Well, you and I have been over this before, haven't we. IMHO you are the last person I would think that would/could criticize others for rushing to judgement. Wink

By the way, RSR, weren't you coming to Korea in May? I thought I read something about you coming to Seoul to work in an institute.

Well, I off to another board to discuss the viability Craig's rather confusing statements regarding the existence of "Middle knowledge."

Take care.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Teufelswacht



Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Location: Land Of The Not Quite Right

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ooops, I almost forgot.

Ya-Ta, if you are interested in the ID debate in Kansas you might be interested in the following link:

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestdexptest.html

Take care

Teufelswacht
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Teufelswacht



Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Location: Land Of The Not Quite Right

PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2005 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow. I just looked at my two previous posts. I noticed several spelling and usage mistakes. I guess that's what happens when you "type on the fly." Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International