Women

I will wait then.

(and i'd like you to explain what you meant by "In Canada, you are not face the end of your way of life as we are in the Deep South". Are you talking about the South before the Secession War?)

No, I'm talking about the end of Christendom. In the rest of the West society is farther along the road to the secularity you desire. Christian culture dies here even now in the "Bible Belt," and that is hard to live through. There will always be a Remnant of the Faith, but we were once many. (Fortunately, our Mission is not dependent upon power or numbers!)

I've often wondered if Tolkien had this in mind when he wrote of the passing of the Elves.

It's sort of like the remnants of the great Indian Nations being forced onto reservations. That's how it feels.

And many folks in other parts of the West just don't see it that way. They think of us as our forebears thought of the Indians, less than Civilized and Enlightened, not worthy of respect, and most certainly a stumbling block to Progress, and of little loss if their culture is trampled down. Every generation is blind to its own prejudices and thinks itself blameless.

Like the traditional attitudes of men towards women. (Added for Anduin as a token reference to the actual topic of the thread!)

That's how it feels to us, and there are few regions left where the majority feels this way. A lot of us hate to even turn on the television, it's grown so blatant. There are many breathing today who remember when it was not so.

***
On the topic of secession, aren't a lot of you folk (French Canadians) desirous of a little more autonomy?

================================================== =========

CATO THE ELDER
(234-149 B.C)
Roman Statesman

Suffer women once to arrive at an equality with you, and they will from that moment become your superiors.

...just a little more red meat!

THIS WAS THE OPINION THAT STARTED THIS THREAD.

And on the off-topic of Popular Feminism, it is, in my humble opinion, an outlook twisted by insecurity and pride and a need for personal vindication and made possible by prosperity.

It is not so long ago in this corner of the world, and is still the case in many places, that the roles of men and women through life are very different as a matter of necessity. Things were not always so easy, and may not always be so, or may become easier still. But we have enough cash flow and opportunity that women need not depend on men, nor men on women. Popular Feminism hung its hat on the legitimate complaints and inequalities suffered by women in a civilization rising through the Industrial Age. But it also hung a cloak that covered an agenda that was anti-masculinity and anti-patriarchy. Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well.


***
It evidently touched a rather raw nerve out there. I thought it was really a frivolous remark, in the context of explaining how Western Society could come to the point that some considered J.R.R. Tolkien to be chauvenistic in his literary treatment of women and how that viewpoint is treated seriously. To the point of arming Arwen Undomiel. And now I hear, a sword for Galadriel as well...

It is, it seems, needful that I explain this. I'm really at a loss as to how to go about doing so. My view of Reality is so far different from some of you who took exception to my opinion that I am not sure that we can bridge the gap of understanding.

But it seems important to some that I try. This post will be long as I shall attempt to be thorough.


***
...Popular Feminism... The word "Popular" in this context is used perhaps a little freely, but I think it withstands inspection. Although we tend to think of the radical extremists who head the organizations, they exert an influence throughout the institutions of media and education and government that is far and away disproportionate to their numbers. (Also, what seems extreme today, is often commonplace tomorrow...) Hence, I used the adjective to more sharply define Feminism. We are talking about a broad historic trend.

"...my humble opinion..." is just that. I would like to think it is a fairly mature and reasonable asessment of this trend based upon wide observation and deep consideration, but that is just my opinion about my opinion. It is not carved in stone by the finger of God.

"...an outlook twisted by insecurity and pride and a need for personal vindication..." is perhaps the most subjective part of this opinion. Although it is the activists who are the most extreme, they nonetheless are moved to extremities by the same motivations that affect many others stirred by any particular trend. In my opinion, these are emotions, attitudes and motivations common to any downtrodden group. Read and watch a good sampling of Feminist literature, press releases, interviews, etc. Compare it with other extremists of other movements. This is nothing special. But the movement would not exist if this outlook was not shared, and twisted, to some extent, by the same emotions resonating throughout.

"...made possible by prosperity..." is my assessment of how the relative affluence of Western Civilization (where even the poor may have food, shelter, clothing, and care with little effort) has taken away many of the demands of Nature, to which we are adapted.

"...women need not depend on men, nor men on women..." is further reflection on a dramatic change in society made possible by affluence. This situation is the case with increasing regularity today. It is not so, when times are hard.

"Popular Feminism hung its hat on the legitimate complaints and inequalities suffered by women in a civilization rising through the Industrial Age." This should not pose any significant problem to any reader.

"But it also hung a cloak that covered an agenda..." is where there may be trouble for some. My observation is that there is a coordination to the distinct movements of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. I don't believe anyone really has their finger on all of it, and I don't believe it doesn't exist. It is furthermore clear, as it has always been, that the Left is utterly infiltrated and aligned with Communism. I do not say this of the rank and file. This is a separate point, best dealt with in the POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THREAD. One could make, and I might agree to an extent, with the equal and opposite argument applied to the Right.

"...anti-masculinity and anti-patriarchy..." these views are rampant throughout Feminism. How many television commercials show "Father Knows Best?" Rather, it's "Father's An Idiot, Mother, and Most Especially The Children Know Best." That's just one category of examples, but if you want more, watch the LIFETIME NETWORK for any six hour period. Pick up any popular women's magazine at the supermarket checkout. Look at the imbecilic things they are doing in the schools and the military.

"Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well." Again, I point to the words of the extremists, and the agenda of the Communists, and the actions of the media, the schools, and of the government.


================================================== =========
Had I known that my opinion would have created a thread with so many words and so little accomplished, I would not have written it here. I have little hope that this is the end it.

"My view of Reality is so far different from some of you who took exception to my opinion that I am not sure that we can bridge the gap of understanding"

After reading your post, I can see why you say that.
You are right.
The gap between us will never be bridged, read on to know why.





"...Popular Feminism... "

First of all, about your "the radical extremists who head the organizations", most influential feminist organizations (if not all), ie those that really influence women and men in our societies, are far from being extremists: that you call them extremists is just your usual demonizing tactic, because they probably oppose your scriptures. The real feminist extremists, which are few, are far from being influential; just as the KKK or the neo-nutzies are far from being influential on the conservative right, even though they have affinities.

Secondly, if you are really to use "Popular" as a word in your expression "Popular Feminism", then you do acknowledge a "popularity" to this ideology, and hence shouldn't be restricted to be the idea of only a handfull of persons (men and women); otherwise, you misuse, I think, the word "popular".
Unless of course you wanted to use a pejorative meaning of the word "popular"...


"'...my humble opinion...' is just that."

Good. Then don't complain about me using arguments about your persona as well as about subject. The "Ad Hominem" issue isn't applicable here. Especially since you don't prevent yourself from doing it yourself about others ( "...twisted by insecurity and pride and a need for personal vindication..." !)


"Although it is the activists who are the most extreme..."

An activist isn't necessarily an extremist, neither is a feminist activist.
But then again, the "suffragettes" were also considered extremists, a long, long, long, long, long, long, long time ago; I guess then that the label "extremist" depends on the mindset of the one that uses it...

(but of course, 80 or so years is only a lifetime, and shouldn't be considered as "long ago"...)

As for the rest of what you said in your analysis of that part of your post:

- "insecurity": as i think i've said before, women should feel insecure, as history shows us how they can be treated if no counter-measures are taken, and as the present shows by some comments in this thread that are still ingrained in many people's mentality.
Taking our societies' progresses for granted is the last thing that should be done. This thread is a good example of why.
- "pride": as proud as one can be when one takes oneself into one's hands, rather then have one's life be ruled by another or another's scriptures or ideology. Proud to continue a work that, if stopped, would let the mindset of some of this thread to bring us to an appalling state of injustice and debasement.
Pride isn't bad, as long as it isn't mistaken for power.
"I am proud of who I am, and of what I do!" isn't something that any man or woman should be ashamed to say when what they do is for the best for the people living in their society.
- "personal vindication": there's no personal vindication, just and simply the desire to balance what has been unbalanced so unjustly for millenia. Again, those who still have an ingrained belief that "women have their places" will take this desire personally, and may call that vindication on the part of women and men who desire change.

Of course, this is my personal opinion...


"...women need not depend on men, nor men on women..."

In a society, a civilisation, what is great is that we can do so much when we accept all to depend on each other: men on men, men on women, women on men, women on women.
What happened with time and growth in our societies is that we have learned, due to prosperity, that sexist-based dependency isn't necessary; I do hope that we have learned that if we got back to less properous times, this sexist-based dependency isn't a way to go, and that the usual inter-dependancy (regardless of sex) is sufficient and rewarding, and that we wouldn't have to revert to unjust (and unfounded) inequalities.
(Note: I have used "sexist" in "sexist-dependant" in a non-pejorative way; "sex-dependant" didn't sound the way I meant it to be! Nor would "sex-oriented dependence"!)


"It is furthermore clear, as it has always been, that the Left is utterly infiltrated and aligned with Communism"

This comment, at best, is clearly reminiscent of the McCarthy era.
Even when you say "I do not say this of the rank and file".

By this comment alone, you have effectively destroyed any foundation of any bridge that could have been built between what separates your kind to mine.


"...anti-masculinity and anti-patriarchy..."

"Anti-masculinity": just what do you mean by that exactly?

"Anti-patriarchy": As i've said in the original thread, I see nothing wrong with that. As I wouldn't see anything wrong with anti-matriarchy.
So, what's wrong for you about anti-patriarchy as such (ie independently of who's anti-patriarchal)?


"'Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well.'
Again, I point to the words of the extremists, and the agenda of the Communists, and the actions of the media, the schools, and of the government."

Well, when you put it that way...
Didn't you forget to put the Devil in the list above?

Mwwwwaaaahaahahahahaha!

McCarthy was right about the Communists. It's too bad he was a beast who sought to rise to power through a Red Scare.

Examine the Communist Manifesto and see if we are not far along that path, and if the unfulfilled part of the agenda is not the same, more or less, as much of the unfulfilled agenda of the Left today.

And if the nature of historical movements, extremist leadership, and popular followings is still unclear to you, then I do not have time or patience to instruct you.

The only reason I left Satan out was because you can't accept it. I tried to explain it in terms of history. The spiritual underpinnings of any such course of events are subtle indeed, and beyond the scope of the present argument. I only described HOW not WHY.

You have no respect or understanding of my viewpoint, and nearly every one of your posts are indicative of that.

Such is life.

I am sure that you have heard this before but "the fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Any civilization that attempts to erect itself on this premise, either philosophically or pragmatically, will fall. Inevitably. Post again if you like, but we've reached the final point at last.

Good Morning!

"we've reached the final point at last"

Indeed.

You've finally revealed yourself for what you are with your last posts.

I'll leave the Entmooters make their own conclusions.

I am not anything other than what I am and have never pretended to be anything other than that.

I do not think of women as inferior and I do not confuse my understanding of the seemy side of the Feminist movement with the rank and file adherents.

I have made no secret of my Faith, or of how I came by it.

I have made clear that, unlike you, I do not attack people personally and I am not contemptuous of the diversity of viewpoints on these threads.

You have not put forward a thesis of your own to defend and perhaps that was wise.

Unlike you, I do not deny and ignore the ugly side of some of those who generally side with me. I have spent a career in the media and know whereof I speak.

To be against Feminism is not to be against Women.

To be Faithful is not what you insinuate.

I am not sure what you think you have proven to the Entmooters about me, or why you think it important to have done so. I am no one important. But I fear you think the worst of me and expect you would have others do so as well, if you could. At every turn, you have put the most negative possible construction on my words. And you can't blame it all on the language.

I am content to let the record on this (and my many other posts and writings on more than just things political), as well as my treatment and regard for others in the ENTMOOT stand, if anyone else wishes to judge me.

Gil just wanted to let you know I hold you in the utmost respect. Juntel said let the other Entmooters decide, and I have and I am impressed with you. I respect both you and Juntel, but just wanted you to know (juntel seemed to want us to tell you) that you have revealed yourself, but have done it throughout, not just in ur last post, i personally saw no differences besides you tiring of this argument. You (and juntel too) seem like people I'd love to sorround myself with but alas distance seperates us. Anyway I just thought I'd let you know (MAN i hate being the newbie )
and thats it. (Sorry any admins if I did anything wrong by making this post... I do that a lot it seems )

Roving Turtle, no harm done by your post...not in the least. Don't be afraid to say what is on your mind. As long as it is within the rules of the board, you will be just fine.

I don't think that anyone is here to prove anything to Entmooter's as a whole. Nor do I believe that anyone is trying to discredit the other just to make them look bad to the other member's of this board. Remember, it is suppose to be a debate, not a popularity contest. Things often get ugly, but so far no rule of the board has been broken.

The McCarthy era isn't only about McCarthy, but also about a paranoia where people were seeing Communists all around, and were willing to terrorise any citizens with "leftist" tendencies.

Gilthalion may have distanced himself by words from the ways of McCarthy, but his last posts clearly show a paranoia not dissimilar to that of the 50's...

When one read a statement like:

"'Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well.' Again, I point to the words of the extremists, and the agenda of the Communists, and the actions of the media, the schools, and of the government",

one can only wonder how a mature and obviously intelligent mind would so easily put in the same bag the feminists, the Communists, the media, and the government in a common goal for domination...

...to which I replied asking why he didn't put the Devil in the list... to which he made clear that he would have, but that I wouldn't have accepted it.

If Gil's reference in the past of some sort of evil conspiracy was taken by me as a comic relief in a serious subject ("Vast Left Wing Conspiracy"), now I'm sure, according to his last posts, that he is quite serious about this.
It probably fits well in some sort of Apocalyptic scenario.

That social paranoia, that "the-devil-is-everywhere-and-especially-in-the-Left" attitude, is what I think was at first not so obvious about Gil, but made more clear in his last few posts.


"I have made clear that, unlike you, I do not attack people personally and I am not contemptuous of the diversity of viewpoints on these threads"

You have a clear contempt of viewpoints: the feminists that you put in an extremist bag, the left that you too easily see as aligned with Communists ( "the Left is utterly infiltrated and aligned with Communism"), and whatnot...

So, your method is to knit a Big Bad Bag of Evil, and continue to demonize anyone who would dare to find himself in there. No, of course, you point no one in this thread, but you do make it clear that anyone who would be a feminist activist, a stauch Clinton supporter, etc., would be in this Bag. Clever, clever... but people can't all be fooled by that trick, Gil.

My answers are often directed to you personally, or posters personally, because all of us, including me, are giving here our humble personal opinions, and our opinions reflect our personality, what we have lived and experienced and seen and learned. And debates like this one aren't theoretical musings just thrown in the air, they are confrontations of each of our experiences and bagages.


"You have not put forward a thesis of your own to defend and perhaps that was wise"

I have no complete global view of the situation. I have lots to live yet; so do you; so do many in Entmoot.
But from my posts in this thread, in the original thread, and in other debate threads, I ain't much of a mystery. Asking for a thesis is quite premature; ask specific questions, and maybe I'll answer you.
But before doing so, do reread my posts, for the answers may already be there (you know my position on affirmative action, on women's rights, on feminism, on voting, on evolution, on abortion,..... what do you expect exactly as a "thesis"?!!!)


"Unlike you, I do not deny and ignore the ugly side of some of those who generally side with me"

Ugly side of who that side with me? Feminists? If so, then you never read much what I wrote, since I did point out some of their ugly parts. Not only that, I even named one of those parts (A.Dworkin), and given a specific example of some idiocy that can come from that bad part (eg. menstrual cycle as social phenomenon).

But as for you, rarely did you specifically named individual feminists and their specific acts which would permit you to show that they are searching for domination, or even that they earn your label of "extremists".

But you do go on making interesting remarks:

"But their [N.O.W.'s] influence is great in media and in educational institutions, where the overwhelming majority of workers are rather far to the Left themselves. They sympathize with these extremists, giving them great influence over the policies and practices of their professions, limiting only their most extreme views. This pulls society ever farther to the Left"

...adding in a later post...

"It is furthermore clear, as it has always been, that the Left is utterly infiltrated and aligned with Communism"

Wow! The Evil Bag has been defined more accurately now...
True, you didn't point out anybody that would enter this bag. Convenient. And again, clever, clever...

"To be against Feminism is not to be against Women"

True. I don't disagree with that.
But then again, the society of Saudi Arabia isn't against women either...
The question then isn't if your against women, but how are you for them, ie what is their proper place, according to you, in our society, and what steps are you willing to make to insure this proper place.

Feminism, what is it after all? Well, taking my (printed) dictionary of english, I read:

Feminism : the policy, practice or advocacy of political, economic and social equality for women

or from the online version of Webster's:

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

With these definitions in mind, why would one described feminism as extremist?
Well, the only way would be in the way the "organized activities" are done. And no post of Gil has addressed this question, none that would allow him to justify his accusations.

So, to be against feminism is not to be against women, but it sure ain't being for their social well-being either...
It is one thing to say one is against this or that method that some feminist use; but to be against feminism itself, this speaks for itself...

"To be Faithful is not what you insinuate."

Being surrounded by faithfull persons in my life, I know that faiths can be lived without the belief that there's a devilish conspiracy attacking society; I know that faith is much more beautiful and enriching than the atmosphere of paranoia you live in.

The "Holy" Inquisition was done by "faith"; the Crusades were nurtured by "faith".

Having "faith" doesn't make you impervious to mistakes.


"But I fear you think the worst of me and expect you would have others do so as well, if you could"

In most instances, your posts by themselves are sufficient; I merely highlight and comment them.
Thinking the worst of you? I've seen worse. The world has seen worse.
As what others may think, it's up to them. Reading Entmoot here and there, I see people that can make their own judgments.


"At every turn, you have put the most negative possible construction on my words."

They are your words, "printed" for all to see again and again at will by anyone who wants to, at the simple click of the mouse. The construction from which these words of yours emerge from is well beyond my powers to deform: if anything negative comes from it, I believe it's because it's there.


"And you can't blame it all on the language."

On one occasion, for the word "compensate", I did explain that the immediate meaning of that word implied for me only an attempt to balance an effect, and that was because in my mother tongue (french) this was the meaning, and sometimes for bilingual people some "false cousins" as we call them can play tricks on us.

As for the only other occasion, the word "defame", it had nothing to do with the french language, but with the english language itself, as I showed that two english dictionaries gave two definitions that were enough different to provoke the misunderstanding.

Only on those two occasions did the language question arise, and on those two occasions I did realize, admit and accordingly adjusted my worded position so that what I wrote would be what I meant.

I have never tried to "blame it all on the language".
I'm sure most Entmooters can see that.


=============================================


These societies of ours have made so much progress in terms of human rights and equality of citizens, and as a citizen in one of those societies, I find myself obligated to defend its progresses whenever they are attacked, ridiculized, put down, watered down, mistreated by demonizing labels, etc...

Wheter I, as one responsible individual, have made a positive defense against some attacks by nostalgics of the male-and-church-dominated past, I will never know, and I don't have to.
I can only try.

But in the end, it is always for the individuals to decide by themselves, after reading and rereading the arguments, and reading arguments from elsewhere, and forming their own arguments; and along the many days or months or years, during the time when life teaches them more things, to revise their opinions constantly, daring to suppose that their beliefs may be wrong to see maybe if the opposing views may have some truth to them.
That's how it should be, in my opinion.

My biggest regret in this thread is that only a handfull have given their opinions, on a so important subject.

"demonizing"

No.

Five more.

Choose your words more carefully.

demonize : to cause somebody or something to appear evil or wicked in the eyes of others

Well chosen.
It stays.
Yes.

Thank you for your concern, J.Lurker

Gilthalion may have distanced himself by words from the ways of McCarthy, but his last posts clearly show a paranoia not dissimilar to that of the 50's...

paranoia a mental disorder characterized by sustmatized delusions, as of granduer or, especially, persecution.

I'm not sure what mental disorder compells me to respond to this sort of thing, but it is not paranoia.

McCarthy suffered from alcoholism and from defects of personality. He was not paranoid. Communism was, and is, real. The corpus delecti number in the millions. It's infiltration of the Left in the Free World is real. That does not mean that folks who usually think and vote to the Left know or understand this. I think that most folk believe what they are taught, and in regions that are quite far to the Left, it seems as natural as water to a fish and it is abhorrent for them to think that the institutions of their society may have been compromised by the outright Communists. But work has proceded diligently, and not without great success, for the better part of a century to do just that. If Hitler had survived, he might have done much the same on the Right. (Though some argue that technically, German National Socialism is also Left.)

I will take this argument to the POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THREAD where it might be developed more clearly. The heading will be COMMUNISM & THE LEFT.

When I get around to it!

This is not to say that the Left is not chock full of kind and decent and Good People! I'm not trying to slip the noose here, I am attempting a more or less comprehensive discussion.

If I write briefly, I am missunderstood, or mischaracterised.

If I write at length, I get complaints of being long winded. (And I am missunderstood, or mischaracterised!)



***
For what it is worth, I am not engaged in any sort of "clever, clever" rhetorical tactics.

As I've cited previously, what juntel sees as a confrontation between personalities (which he therefore chooses to personalize), I see as a "...battle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers of darkness in high places."

The secular form of demonization is demonization still, for the effect is the same. If I cannot share my opinions without such personal treatment, such is life. Whining about it will do no good.


***
All the same, my "language" crack was a personalization of my own. My hands are not clean. I'm sorry, juntel.


***
Anduin "Conscience of the Entmoot" is right. I shouldn't have appealed to the ENTMOOT for any sort of judgement whatsoever even by implication.

Paranoia
1. distrust: extreme and unreasonable suspicion of other people and their motives
2. PSYCHIATRY psychiatric disorder: a psychiatric disorder involving systematized delusion, usually of persecution

I wasn't using the clinical definition.


"As I've cited previously, what juntel sees as a confrontation between personalities (which he therefore chooses to personalize), I see as a '...battle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers of darkness in high places.'"

As I have said before and I'll repeat again, when one display humble personal opinions, then personalities of the debaters are involved.

But then, if you see this as a "...battle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers of darkness in high places", then I wonder on which side you think I am (wheter I do it consciously or unconsciously)...

And by the way, "powers of darkness" is a perfect example of what I call demonization of those you oppose.


"The secular form of demonization is demonization still, for the effect is the same"

True.
But demonization usually comes in the form of empty labels, unsupported by any real examples.
What I have done is highlight your words, words that are readily available to anyone reading this thread. I do sincerely find that you have an "extreme and unreasonable suspicion of other feminists and left-wingers and their motives", and therfore find that there is indeed a very real atmosphere of paranoia in your thinking, and I have supported this opinion of mine by quotes of your posts (whose context is within this thread).

As for you, I didn't see yet ANY real example of what would lead you to label activist feminists as extremists (with a goal for domination!), or similar opinions. You have merely mentioned too briefly schools, government, the left, and then Communism, to finally admit that you also wanted to put in that Bag the Devil of your religion itself (except that you didn't do it, explaining: "The only reason I left Satan out was because you can't accept it")



You have said in an earlier post:

"You have no respect or understanding of my viewpoint, and nearly every one of your posts are indicative of that."

I do understand you viewpoint, although I don't understand why one would have such a viewpoint.

As for respecting your viewpoint, I fail to see why I should respect a viewpoint that is so reminiscent of a paranoia-ladden past.
I can respect the honesty and determination with wich you display your viewpoint, but as I have said in an earlier post, at a certain point you single-handedly destroyed any foundation of a bridge between our viewpoints.

I can respect Gil the man, but I don't have to respect all he says.
Especially when some of those things he says revulse me.

Tu trouve pas que c'est pas mal dur, raide comme commentaire?

I'm not sure that you do understand my viewpoint. Perhaps you understand a stereotype of it (and there is truth in even this sort of understanding), and are unwilling to examine things in the light shed from my direction upon the modern movements of the Leftist West.

My opinion is held by others who do not share my Faith, by the way. Communism is real and I sometimes find it hard to believe that its inflitration of the Left is debatable to some, but that is where we are today.

Each of the categories of feminist (and other such) influence, in the schools, in the government, and in the media, practically requires a thesis of its own.

If such things are not evident to the observer, then no post of mine is likely to make them so.

The forest is hard to see from amongst the trees.

Again, the Communist infiltration of the Left is not a paranoid delusion. It is a matter of long public record, long disputed by the Left.

Once again, I will deal with the theme, as I promised, in a future post in the POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY thread. Be patient.

I cannot do all things at once and the expectation is unreasonable.

And for the sake of sensitivities revealed in the unlamented ABORTION post, I have refrained from delivering the most forceful arguments against the radical feminists and their disproportionate influence on the media, the schools, and the government.

There are matters which are now the law of this land that the vast majority of people, even on the Left, disagree with strongly, and yet, they are the law. Only the radical Feminists and the most extreme Leftists defend them. And yet, they are Law.

I do not wish to be more explicit.

As for the malevolent involvement of spirits in the course of human events, that is another matter.

Again, I was addressing HOW these changes are occurring, not WHY. And certainly not WHO I think is behind it. I thought these matters irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

I was attempting to hold the discussion down to verifiable matters of debate. Debates can, and are, held on various topics without it devolving into personal assault, whatever rationalization is used to justify such tactics.

If all of these matters of dispute between Left and Right will resolve on this board to a debate upon the merits of Christian Faith, then I submit that these debates need not go further.

Our Faith has passed from the central position it held in our country, and is now practiced by an ever smaller number. As I indicated earlier, my own indictment against the Church is far more stern than against Feminism.

But no one can disprove, or prove, through argument, the Reality that I report about my Faith.

I submit that my claim about Jesus is individually verifiable by asking God, Himself, in earnest.

The atheist can make no such claim. His faith that there is no God, is faith indeed.

I have no interest in crossing any gap of understanding if the bridge must be built from a compromise of my Faith.

But, I should not demand respect either personally (though I'm glad to receive it) or for my observations, opinions, and beliefs.

================================================== =========

Another loooooong post, probably to no avail...

Shan

La question est de savoir si mon commentaire est justifié: je crois qu'il l'est, compte tenu de la position radicalement de droite de notre ami...


Gil

"Communism is real and I sometimes find it hard to believe that its inflitration of the Left is debatable to some, but that is where we are today."

That some of Communist tendencies can be found among the Left is no more surprising than finding Neo-Nutsies and KKK members among the Right.

You position goes beyond that though:

"It is furthermore clear, as it has always been, that the Left is utterly infiltrated and aligned with Communism." (emphasis mine)

Although you do go on saying: "I do not say this of the rank and file", the use of "utterly" is hard to miss.
Again, let's take the dictionary to be sure of the meaning:

utterly completely: in an extreme or complete way

"Infiltration" by itself is quite an ordinary statement that I indeed cannot contest.
"Utterly infiltrated" however demands proof by you, which you have failed to exhibit.


"If all of these matters of dispute between Left and Right will resolve on this board to a debate upon the merits of Christian Faith, then I submit that these debates need not go further."

I never said that all christians are on the Right. I personally know christians that are appalled at some of your political views.
Your statements about the Left "utterly infiltrated" by Communists and Feminists as radical extremists hungry for domination can stand by themselves, and as such are utterly absurd in my opinion. That has nothing to do with your flavor of christinaty.

I never argued against someone's faith just because that someone had that faith; those arguments of mine that included a religious comment were directed towards the persons that think their faith give them the rights to impose their views on others by law and other ways; and towards those that would think their faith makes them the moral leaders of the world; etc...

My arguments against your position, Gil, only involve religion at those moments you mention powers of darkness at work in the world, and such.
True, I can't prove nor disprove that belief of yours, but I sure can comment on it.
And I'm sure you'll agree that it is my right.
Just as it is yours to express yourself.


"But no one can disprove, or prove, through argument, the Reality that I report about my Faith."

Hey, I'm an agnostic, remember? I agree with your statement.
It is in fact, more generally, impossible to prove or disprove any Reality reported by any faith (at least, not the major religions, and I don't mean only the "BigThree").

By the way, no one has as yet disproved my Matrix scenario...


"I submit that my claim about Jesus is individually verifiable by asking God, Himself, in earnest"

This is the usual "Heads I win, Tails you lose" statement.
Those that seemingly don't receive an answer probably didn't try hard enough, or not honestly enough, or not with enough humility... Convenient, convenient...
Any religion, even those far far from judeo-christian-muslim faiths, can make such a statement, Gil. And in these other faiths, some do receive an answer about their own deity... (unless you think they have been answered by evil spirits to fool them...)


"Another loooooong post, probably to no avail... "

Indeed...
Ditto...

Le tact peut quand même être de mise...

There is nothing convenient about any of this.


***
"Utterly infiltrated" however demands proof by you, which you have failed to exhibit.

You have a point about "utterly." More of a rhetorical excess than anything else. I am not composing these posts offline.

As someone once said, "I have written you a long letter because I don't have time to write you a short one."

"Infiltrated" did not require the modifier "utterly."

"Thoroughly infiltrated" would have been better, for I think that they have been quite thorough. I do not mean to say that all Leftists are extremists, much less Communists. I am not lying when I say that I do not include the rank and file in these numbers.

The influence of these extremists (ie. Feminism, etc.) and infiltrators and fellow travelors, etc. is pervasive and its use is directed toward the fulfillment of the Communist agenda.

Were I to write a book on the subject, replete with footnotes and citations, irrefutable data, and flawless logic (and I begin to feel a book of posts has already accumulated), there are some who would not be convinced.

It may be awhile, but I will at least attempt a post on the subject in the POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY thread. I will call it "Communism & The Left."


***
And when you have experienced Jesus, and made your choice, then we will have something to discuss on that topic. A blindman might tell me much about the phenomenon we observe when the sun sets, but he will not understand it until he sees it.

That is hardly a convenience in my desire to see you in Eternity. It is so simple that even a child can find it, so profound that the wisest sage is dumbfounded, and as available as your heart.

But I have no power to convince anyone of that. At best, I might "almost persuade" someone.

"<a href="http://"http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=demonize"">demonize</a> : 1.To turn into or as if into a demon.
2.To possess by or as if by a demon.
3.To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy."

You have your definitions, I have mine.

"demon" is the core word in "demonize", as opposed to "car" in "carpet".

Why bother.