[Reprint from my rant on Facebook]

Ideas are things that can and should be subject to inspection, criticism and ridicule. If an ideology is reflective of the truth, it will stand on its own merit no matter how much it is "mocked". Criticism should be welcomed by adherents as an opportunity to prove how resilient the ideas are. If an ideology is faulty, it should be discarded without either sentiment or hesitation.

Censorship is the last resort of people who know they are lying. Violence is the last resort of people who know they have no case.

Don't tell me to "respect" anyone's ideas. People who ask for "respect" for their beliefs will never be satisfied. Such people will be offended even if they only discover you don't share them. The more respectful you are for bad ideas, the more respectful you will have to be.

Don't tell me I only need to fear the "radicals". Show me the radicals of any ideology and I'll show you what that ideology teaches. "Moderates" by definition, are people who water down their respective ideology, who accept alternative perspectives or who allow that they might be wrong. By definition, radicals are people who believe wholeheartedly and with certainty, with no concessions to anything else. Radicals aren't perversions of their ideology. Radicals are expressions of their ideology.

Ideology isn't a race. People aren't born with an ideology. People are taught to believe an ideology. I can be against an ideology without being hateful to those who hold the ideology to be true. Show me that I am wrong about what I believe and I will not be offended. I've been wrong many times and about many things. It's called "being human". It's called "learning". It's called "being modest enough to admit you don't know everything." People can be taught to abandon a faulty ideology. And unlike with homosexuality, the ex of an ideology usually remains an ex.

Your definitions of radical and moderate could be accurate in some cases, but it's also possible that a moderate is a person who embraces the whole of an ideology, while the radical only accepts a subset of the ideology.

Apropos in light of much of the dialogue about free speech in the wake of the Texas shootings associated with the Draw Mohammed event. I heard radio commentators this morning saying they believe in free speech, but the event was only serving to incite those that react violently. Factually this may very well be correct, but their conclusion is what baffled me. The commentators suggested that the event organizers should have voluntarily censored themselves knowing that they risked a violent reaction that put people in harms way. One even tried to equate holding the event to the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' limitation on free speech. 

"Moderates" try to pretend that the messy parts are not there.

(May 5, 2015 at 11:46 am)Cato Wrote: One even tried to equate holding the event to the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' limitation on free speech. 

This exact line is what I ran into on Facebook, prompting my rant. My rant should be common sense instead of controversial but we live in times when many of my fellow liberals seem to want to treat Islam like a sacred cow. 

(May 5, 2015 at 10:46 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: 1. People who ask for "respect" for their beliefs will never be satisfied.
2. Don't tell me I only need to fear the "radicals".
3. "Moderates" by definition, are people who water down their respective ideology, who accept alternative perspectives or who allow that they might be wrong. 

Well put on 1 and 3.

I totally agree with 2 as well. People in the major religions are given a doctrine that they are supposed to fully obey. These people can pick and choose anything they want out of them, and use god to justify any action they do. The government must stop its pussyfooting around religion.

According to your definition of moderate, I would have to say that there are no "real" moderates in religion. If people considered the possibility that their religion may be wrong, did some critical research of their religion and all others, and gave it some serious scrutiny, there wouldn't be people in these religions. In other words, that moderate definition could mean open-minded, which everyone, including myself, needs to try to be aware of at all times. I gave my religion a very serious look, at the same time, considered the legitimacy of many others, and fell out of it immediately.

I share your outrage in your entire rant.

I don't think it makes any sense to expect your beliefs to be "respected" just because you say so. What does this even mean? If your beliefs are stupid, I don't respect them. Respect is earned. Of course you have the right not to have to discuss them if you don't want to, and not to be hassled because of them. Maybe this is what "respect my beliefs" means? That's more like "don't hassle me" really though. Which is fair enough.

But sometimes you have to override people's beliefs for their own good. Say someone is crossing the road and clearly believes there are no cars around. Or he can see the cars, but is saying, "Jesus will save me." I can see there are cars around, and he's going to get hit. So I scream at him to move, or if need be I push him out of the way. If instead I "respect his beliefs" I would watch him get killed. That's an extreme example, but I hope it makes a general point.

(May 5, 2015 at 2:21 pm)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: According to your definition of moderate, I would have to say that there are no "real" moderates in religion. If people considered the possibility that their religion may be wrong, did some critical research of their religion and all others, and gave it some serious scrutiny, there wouldn't be people in these religions. In other words, that moderate definition could mean open-minded, which everyone, including myself, needs to try to be aware of at all times. I gave my religion a very serious look, at the same time, considered the legitimacy of many others, and fell out of it immediately.

Point well taken. Another point is that if someone tells me they are a "moderate Libertarian" to use a non-religious (?) example, it tells me nothing of what they even tentatively believe. Such a person might be fine with social security or medicare. They might think that some government oversight of business production might be a good thing, just not too much, whatever qualifies as excessive in their minds. Maybe they think some social safety net is a good thing? Who knows? Until I hear more from that person, there's no telling what they believe. 

If someone tells me they are a "hard core libertarian", that tells me a great deal more. 

I don't get it either DeistPaladin. When people tend to say, I'm a "moderate christian", to me, that tends to indicate that, "I'm the good type (wink wink)." Moderate doesn't mean moderate, it's now slang for, "You can't judge me, I'm on the good side."

Same thing goes for politics. People like to throw moderate out there. Using your example, "I'm a moderate libertarian", is code for, "I'm afraid of what you might think, so I'll throw that 'moderate' word in there, so they don't rip into me as hard if they disagree with me." The term moderate, is a cop-out, because you're embarrassed what others might think. If, deep down, people know their beliefs are ridiculous, or they can't defend their position with regards to politics or religion, throwing that moderate word out there is like a security blanket that covers them from criticism.

Quote:I don't think it makes any sense to expect your beliefs to be "respected" just because you say so. What does this even mean?

It means "my shit doesn't stink so don't say it does."

Fuck them.  It all stinks.