Feeding the Fires I helped wreck a topic that otherwise had potential, so I thought I might try to piece together the valuable portion minus the ten-mile digression. thefountainhed proposed that some apologists and other defenders of religious faith might possibly be "feeding the fires" by responding to "every silly attempt to ridicule ... religious beliefs". This is a valuable consideration. My initial response to the topic had involved a quick line about the idea of putting the burden on the detractors who engaged the silliness, and also some vague condemnations of certain trends in Western (specifically American) social behavior to support my "strategic" agreement with the proposition. Further reflection, of course, brings broader perspective. It seems that the two points I had considered separate may be wrapped up in the same idea. Originally I wrote, "I'm just curious why we don't put the burden on the detractors to buy a clue every now and then ...?" Beyond that, my agreement with the idea with thefountainhead's suggestion that the silly attempts to ridicule faiths be treated with contempt and address only the serious inquiries was based in an accusation that many of the ridiculing detractors were wrapped up in a culture that depends on conflict. Furthermore, something that occurs to me of late is that I've always had a running sensitivity to the tendency of groups of people to submit, en masse, to illusion. To extrapolate: I know Phil Donahue annoyed as many people as he pleased, but comparatively, Donahue was a serious inquiry whereas Joe Scarborough ... I can't even appreciate the attempt to "balance" MSNBC's output because in terms of "feeding the fires", I think of Scarborough as the silly attempt to ridicule what he disagrees with. And we see all manner of silly attempts to ridicule: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, &c. These people have sizable followings. And here, the targets of ridicule face a choice: - Will the relevant audience simply jump on the bandwagon and buy into the ridicule? - Will the relevant audience decry an attempted defense as "stooping"? (After all, if it's silly ridicule, why "sink to that level"?) Largely because of the diversity of people in general, either option bears immense risks. Both are perhaps equally likely, because Americans, as the theme seems to go for the moment, tend toward conflict. Certainly we all point to the virtues of restraint, but we don't trust restraint. Dignity equals cowardice, and in America that's even worse a sin than dishonesty or bigotry. So I might throw out for consideration the idea of why one is compelled to respond to ridicule: - Is it that burning personal annoyance that comes from useless and baseless hostility? - Is it a fear that other people will buy into the baseless hostility and accept it as fact? And again, "both" becomes a likely answer. Because while it is easy enough to wish to not "stoop" to any lower tactic, one risks a prospect of having to face prejudices built from that baseless hostility in the future. Wesmorris, in the original topic, raised a certain point that bears consideration here: "How might one discern serious comments from un-serious comments?" Sometimes when we argue various perspectives on a news story, advocates of one aspect do not understand why advocates of the opposing viewpoint refuse the credibility of this or that source. In fact, the advocates of the one often know exactly why the advocates of the other reject the source. On some occasions what seems like the most civilized language contains monstrous barbarity. How eloquently can one call for genocide, for instance? However, to bring it back to a more relevant scale, what of Pat Buchanan? While it's a strange day on which Pat Buchanan and I agree about anything, it may be telling that it is George W. Bush that makes it possible on more than one occasion. Of course, that's also irrelevant, but Pat Buchanan serves as a good example because I've never really liked his brand of attack. While we all may imagine nobility in our preferred worldview, and while we all may wish to package our ideas as noble and helpful, we're also aware that many people in the world are dishonest: snake-oil salesmen and wolves in sheep's clothing. Thus there are ideas put forth that are designed to deceive, designed to polish a bad idea and make it look good. The OCA in Oregon sold the idea of "protecting children" from sex deviants, but the measures themselves were simply designed to force the state to fire all of its gay employees, ban certain books that disagreed with the political group's interpretation of Christianity, and codify Biblical standards as civil law while forcing medical schools to teach bad medicine. And while we most often pick out the obvious rabble-rousers, the obvious charlatans and pushers of bad dope, so to speak, we tend to greet the civilized barbarity with some sense of credibility. In WE&P, for instance, there are some people I disagree with who make ridiculous points and cuss a lot and I have no more or less respect for them than I do someone like Scarborough or Limbaugh. In the religion forum there are some dignified posters who still spread quiet hypocrisy and subtle poison. And that's where answering Wes' issue becomes very difficult. Because at the same time there is among the less dignified those who simply have no better means of expression than the limited and seemingly offensive ideas they put forth. Identifying those is tough just like it seems to be for many whether at Sciforums or in the US or to a certain degree humanity to discern between a rational inquiry that seeks a premise that disagrees with your own and subtle barbarity. In the end I would even go so far as to agree with Wes that "it's ultimately moot". But is this merely idealism? Because, you know, we all choose to come to Sciforums, but should one really have to leave in order to escape the baseless hostility and the effects of the prejudice and superstition it can create if left unchecked? And if we extrapolate into the real world at all, I can't figure out why the solution always seems to be to give the "civilized bully" what it wants. And you know, the uncivilized bully can be popular, too. Just as long as the uncivilized bully is being uncivilized in a way that civilized people don't like to admit they like, which kind of destroys the idea of civilized people, which brings us back to moot. Apologia I wonder how many pages we could have made the original topic run were it not for the sudden barfight that ended all relevant discussion. Because the above is loaded with a number of points that would have met a few challenges in their turn. My sincere apologies to the forum for the obliteration of the prior topic, and I hope I've reasonably represented those perspectives I've undertaken to represent at all in this re-examination.
