Does this season always bring out the nutcases?

[Mooseman]

What is with all these people? Did someone piss in their wheaties?

Westboro Baptist Church
'Santa Claus Hell' Sign Latest To Join Capitol Controversy
Thursday, December 11, 2008 – updated: 8:06 am PST December 11, 2008
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- The Christmas controversy that started with an atheist sign at the state Capitol in Olympia has taken another twist, this one including Santa Claus and Hell.
The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., said they are express-mailing a sign to Olympia that says, among other things, "Santa Claus will take you to Hell."
The controversial group, which is known for their anti-gay protests around the country, is asking that their sign be put outside the Legislature.

A partial excerpt from the sign reads:

You'd better watch out, get ready to cry
You'd better go hide I'm telling you why
Cuz Santa Claus will take you to Hell

He is your favorite idol, you worship at his feet
But when you stand before your God
He won't help you take the heat
Santa Claus will take you to Hell

Get this fact straight, you're feeling God's hate
Santa's to blame for the economy's fate
Santa Claus will take you to Hell

The sign-driven controversy at the state Capitol began when atheists opposed to a Nativity scene in the Rotunda put up a sign saying there is no God. Sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, he sign reads, "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
It drew nationwide attention after conservative TV personality Bill O'Reilly called the display "political correctness gone mad" in an segment on Fox News and urged viewers to call Gov. Chris Gregoire's office to complain. Viewers did complain, and the governor's office received about 200 calls an hour.
The sign brought protests from Christians who brought their own pro-Christmas signs, which led to a request by one man for a "Festivus" pole to go along with the holiday tree, Menorah and all the signs.
A state agency is reviewing the requests.

 

[Oversoul]

Ah, I love this state. Yeah, that Capitol deal is a circus. Whatever irks Bill O'Reilly the most is cool with me, though.

 

[Killer Joe]

Far right or left (politically) just sucks eggs.

What's wrong with moderation? Why can't folks live by "Everything in moderation"? I'm not talking about being a Stepford Wife, just be polite or shut up. I totally feel that everyone is entitled to an opinion and to do those things lawfully but to be an oinkhole about something is just wrong.

Of course, I could be wrong......

 

[Prince RXI]

simply put: People who are extremely Religious need to step back and take a look at themselves from someone else's eyes... cause they're not being zealous, they're being public nuisances... Personally I think they should be locked up(or executed cause prison is worthless nowadays)... my opinions, not the board's itself

 

[Oversoul]

What's wrong with moderation?

It's boring. It seems to typically provide stability at the expense of progress.

People label themselves as moderates in order to appease an audience or part of an audience and because political thought is not a linear spectrum, there are enough intricacies and enough vague parts for this technique to be difficult to spot.

Producing a sense of moderation by taking two positions and labeling them as the extremes, then making "moderate" whatever is about halfway between them automatically leaves any position on anything that's way outside the chosen "extremes" as insanely extreme and completely out of the question, even if it's a much better solution than any "moderate" one (most of the best solutions probably do lie outside our current notion of "extreme" positions).

Moderate positions are often compromises where none should be made. For example, what's the moderate position between the extremes of having slavery and banning slavery? Slavery with restrictions? Not every argument is one where the compromise is better than the extreme positions. It's possible for one side to be right and the other side to be dead wrong. It's possible for both sides to be way off. This strikes me as significantly more likely than a situation where the compromise or the "moderate" position is better.

Moderation is for cowards. Or more probably, it's for people who are afraid to commit to a seemingly extreme position. They want to play it safe. I find myself moderate on issues where I don't know very much. On issues where I know a lot or think I know a lot, I am invariably a hardcore extremist. Putting it this way, moderation is not, I suppose, the problem. It's a symptom. Ignorance is the problem. That might be why so many people are moderates. People are dumb.

 

[Mooseman]

People label themselves as moderates in order to appease an audience or part of an audience and because political thought is not a linear spectrum, there are enough intricacies and enough vague parts for this technique to be difficult to spot.

Not at all... Moderate does not mean always in the middle and it is not necessarily an appeasement....

Producing a sense of moderation by taking two positions and labeling them as the extremes, then making "moderate" whatever is about halfway between them automatically leaves any position on anything that's way outside the chosen "extremes" as insanely extreme and completely out of the question, even if it's a much better solution than any "moderate" one (most of the best solutions probably do lie outside our current notion of "extreme" positions).

Can't agree with this at all. That is what radio talk show hosts do and what political hacks do.... That does not make it moderate.

For example, what's the moderate position between the extremes of having slavery and banning slavery? Slavery with restrictions?

These are not extreme opposing positions.... The extreme opposite of slavery is or to voluntarily become a slave yourself..... the banning of slavery is not soley for those who are extremists.
Moderates can and do have positions that are not always in the middle of some perceived extremes.... But mostly, they are likely to tell the extremists to just shut up. These two idiots in the Washington state example somehow think that the rest of us care about their stupid beliefs...... we don't.

People are dumb.

I quite agree with you on this one....

 

[Killer Joe]

I'm sure "Moderation" irks Bill O.

 

[Oversoul]

Not at all... Moderate does not mean always in the middle and it is not necessarily an appeasement....

You started with "not at all" but instead of arguing with what I said, you argued with what I did not say. I made a statement about people who call themselves moderate. Hence "People who label themselves as moderates..." I was not defining "moderate."

Can't agree with this at all. That is what radio talk show hosts do and what political hacks do.... That does not make it moderate.

It is indeed what radio talk show hosts and political hacks do. It's what other people do. But of the people who self-identify as "moderate," I have yet to encounter a single one who doesn't do it. That's not to say that everyone who does it self-identifies as "moderate." But everyone who self-identifies as "moderate" sure seems to do it.

These are not extreme opposing positions.... The extreme opposite of slavery is or to voluntarily become a slave yourself..... the banning of slavery is not soley for those who are extremists.

What? My whole point with this was that people take two positions that are different and arbitrarily label them as the extremes, with whatever is halfway between them being "moderate" and therefore the sensible position. What you did was take my example and arbitrarily move one of the "extreme" points to where you thought it should be. I'm still not quite sure how doing this made sense to you, but my point was that this is a bad method for deciding how to run things. It wouldn't matter if there actually were a beautiful, systematic way of determining "extremes" that we could all agree on. Just because something is a compromise between two other positions (no matter how you choose them) doesn't make it good.

Moderates can and do have positions that are not always in the middle of some perceived extremes....

And that's the problem with labels. No one is actually "moderate" about everything. No one is "extremist" about everything. No one is "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive" or "libertarian" or "fundamentalist" or any of those silly labels about everything. It's not only possible but probably inevitable that someone who is supposedly "moderate" will be an extremist about something.

But in the event that you are using "moderate" to specifically describe someone's position when it really isn't between perceived extremes, I challenge the meaningfulness of the word in that context at all. If it's at what's called an extreme, why call it moderate? I mean, you'd be calling it the opposite of what it is.

But mostly, they are likely to tell the extremists to just shut up. These two idiots in the Washington state example somehow think that the rest of us care about their stupid beliefs...... we don't.

You know, I'm not sure that's the problem here. If you're publicly attacking your own brother because he left your church, if you're picketing funerals with signs denigrating the deceased, if you're holding up signs saying "pray for more dead soldiers," if you're issuing a press release in praise of an earthquake because it killed a lot of "ungrateful Chinese," I doubt that the problem is obliviousness toward disregard for your beliefs. The actions of the WBC have always reeked of shock value and attention seeking. Yeah, you may not care about them, but that hasn't stopped them yet and isn't likely to in the future. Those people will keep begging for attention in whatever way they can, probably until they die off.

I'm sure "Moderation" irks Bill O.

Really? I guess he stopped doing it at some point, but he used to refer to himself as a moderate. He was actually just the sort of fellow I had in mind while writing a lot of that last post...

 

[Killer Joe]

Lemme see if I'm got your point: These are not your words and I'm extracting what I think you're saying (just so you know).

No one is really a moderate? They just lack conviction on an issue? And that self identified Moderates may actually be extreme on any given issue?

btw - you can tell me to re-read what you said in the first place and it won't help, sorry.

I did understand these words though: "People are dumb."

 

[turgy22]

Oversoul:

I think what you're doing in your argument against moderation is defining the term based on your personal experience and/or a very small sample size of other people who define themselves as moderates. Thinking of moderation as a bad thing is exactly what creates people like the WBC. The whole "you're either with us or against us" mentality creates more diviseness in this country and leads to problems... not solutions.

For the record, I consider myself a moderate. Politically, I feel this term best describes my views because 1) There are some traditionally "liberal" stances that I agree with 2) There are some traditionally "conservative" stances I agree with and 3) There are issues where I feel both parties are wrong and a compromise is the best solution. I don't feel this way because I'm ignorant or apathetic. In fact, the issues I know and care the most about are usually the ones where I'm most in favor of moderation.

 

[Oversoul]

Lemme see if I'm got your point: These are not your words and I'm extracting what I think you're saying (just so you know).

No one is really a moderate? They just lack conviction on an issue? And that self identified Moderates may actually be extreme on any given issue?

I don't think that it's all a lack of conviction. People can have conviction for a perceived moderate position. And I do think most people wind up taking extreme positions on something, even if they're moderate about most things. What I take issue with is setting up two points as the "far right" and "far left" and then doing one or both of the following...

1. Dismissing any position on the possible spectrum of political thought that happens to lie outside those two "extreme" points merely because it's outside the "mainstream." Words used to describe it will often be "extremist," "radical," "reactionary," or even "insane." This is not a good method. If a position is a good one, it should potentially be implemented and should certainly be discussed. It shouldn't be ignored. But if a position is a bad one, it is probably bad because it is bad, not bad because it is too extreme. In summation, the problem is that potentially viable options are dismissed offhand.

2. Advocating a "moderate" position that is either somewhere between the two extreme points or is a compromise between them when part or all of the argument for doing so is the fact that this "moderate" position is moderate. What the person has essentially done is associate "moderate" with "sensible" and "extreme" with "crazy."

I think it's akin to a scare tactic, but I'm not sure. The moderate solution to any given problem isn't going to do very much. But more extreme solutions can have side effects. They can disrupt things. In that sense, it really is a lack of commitment. Rather than commit to something that would do a lot, stay safe and try to keep things more or less the way they are, preferably with incremental improvements. I find myself siding with such positions, so I'm not against it entirely. But in any area where I'm particularly well-studied, I'm probably pretty extremist. So I am worried even more about areas in which I'm moderate, because it might be a mere proxy for actually knowing enough to make a real decision.

Was that helpful? I'm getting a bit of a "vagueness" vibe while re-reading what I just wrote...

I think what you're doing in your argument against moderation is defining the term based on your personal experience and/or a very small sample size of other people who define themselves as moderates.

Yes indeed. What would you suggest? That I base it on your personal experience? I unfortunately lack that. A large sample size? How would I get that?

Thinking of moderation as a bad thing is exactly what creates people like the WBC.

I disagree. While there are a number of factors that leads people to become like that and I'm sure I don't know all of them, I'd guess that things like mob mentality, brainwashing, lack of imagination, poor education, regressiveness, etc. would play more of a role than disdain for moderation.

The whole "you're either with us or against us" mentality creates more diviseness in this country and leads to problems... not solutions.

Well, that I definitely agree with.

For the record, I consider myself a moderate. Politically, I feel this term best describes my views because 1) There are some traditionally "liberal" stances that I agree with 2) There are some traditionally "conservative" stances I agree with and 3) There are issues where I feel both parties are wrong and a compromise is the best solution.

Hey, that sounds like me, except for the first sentence...

 

[turgy22]

Yes indeed. What would you suggest?

Wiki, maybe? I don't know. What I do know is that generalizing a whole group of people based on personal experience and a small sample size has another name.

Hey, that sounds like me, except for the first sentence...

That makes you a moderate.

 

[Oversoul]

Wiki, maybe? I don't know. What I do know is that generalizing a whole group of people based on personal experience and a small sample size has another name.

What? Why? And when did I generalize?

 

[turgy22]

When did I generalize?

People label themselves as moderates in order to appease an audience

Moderation is for cowards. Or more probably, it's for people who are afraid to commit to a seemingly extreme position. They want to play it safe.

I don't want to get too off-topic here and this thread was not meant to be a debate on moderation and I'm feeling like this argument is pulling in a direction where we'll just start arguing over semantics, so I'm not going to pursue this any further. If you don't think the above statements were generalization, that's fine with me. I can only interpret your words, and sometimes a person's thoughts and beliefs get muddled during the transfer into language. I think I understand your point of view, but I disagree with your broad assessment of all self-described moderates and that's my only problem with what you wrote. I'm sure there are people who do what you describe, but I think most moderates are simply people who don't strongly identify with any particular political party.

Getting back on topic: I think KJ's original point was that two sides were both going to extremes to further their own political agendas. A sign saying that Santa Claus will take you to hell is extreme. A sign saying that religion is a myth is also extreme. Neither one has any place on government property, nor does a nativity scene. The logical (and, IMO, moderate) solution would be not allowing any special interest or religious groups to put anything on government property.

 

[EricBess]

A couple of years back, there was a debate over whether or not to put a copy of the ten commandments up in a court building. The great majority wanted it, but a few people yelled "church and state". In the end, the ruling was made that putting the ten commandments in a public building was not mandating a religion and it was allowed.

turgy - I agree with everything you have said up to "nor does a nativity scene". While I certainly agree that they shouldn't be forced to put a nativity, I don't see any problem with putting one. Now, if they put a nativity and refuse to allow someone to put up something representing Hanukkah, then that would be a problem.

People need to stop getting so offended at the presence of religion and start being more accepting of other people's religions. No days, "separation of church and state" seems to be used as an excuse to attack religion and that was certainly never the intent.

 

[turgy22]

turgy - I agree with everything you have said up to "nor does a nativity scene". While I certainly agree that they shouldn't be forced to put a nativity, I don't see any problem with putting one. Now, if they put a nativity and refuse to allow someone to put up something representing Hanukkah, then that would be a problem.

Bummer. That was definitely a very important part of the message I was trying to get across.

Putting up seemingly-harmless Christmas decorations is what leads to messes like this in the first place. You even state that Jewish people should be allowed to put up decorations representative of their beliefs. Then you have to include Muslims. Then Buddhists. Then Scientologists. Then Satanists. Then atheists and the WBC and whatever other kooky religions are officially recognized as tax-exempt institutions in this country. You can't leave anyone out or they'll feel discriminated against. And then you end up with a clusterfart of decorations and conflicting messages and they all become equally meaningless. Instead of the government endorsing no religion, it's trying to endorse them all.

Every government institution really needs to take a step back and stay out of everything. Why on earth do we need any decorations for our government buildings in the first place?

 

[Mooseman]

Every government institution really needs to take a step back and stay out of everything. Why on earth do we need any decorations for our government buildings in the first place?

Very good question. Don't the local churches erect Christmas scenes? Isn't that enough? Do government buildings need to participate? What if I wanted to put up a winter solstice Wicca diorama next to the nativity, man can I just hear the holy rollers screaming now.......
I don't see a problem with religiuos things that all ready exist in government buildings, but there is no need to erect new ones (Oh wait, am I being moderate? )
Although I do see a big difference between a nativity sceene and an attack poster.... I would find the poster to be unnecessarily cruel and in poor taste.... It's not celebrating a belief, but attack someone Else's.

 

[EricBess]

Then you have to include Muslims. Then Buddhists. Then Scientologists. Then Satanists. Then atheists and the WBC and whatever other kooky religions are officially recognized as tax-exempt institutions in this country.

Yes and no. Such displayes are put up by employees to celibrate their religious holidays. I don't think you need to cater to non-employees.

Also, not all religions recognize the same important dates. To the best of my knowledge, Satanists, for example, don't have public holidays, but if they do, then I suppose that if they want to advertise themselfs by putting something up, then let them. Jehova's Witnesses, for example, don't believe in holidays at all and scientologists may feel similarly or may simply follow typical pagan traditions (such as Santa Clause at Christmas time).

Christmas time is probably the one time of the year that multiple religious holidays overlap (or the same holiday is celebrated differently), but I doubt it is to the extream you feel it would be. I mentioned Jewish because they have Hanukkah around the same time of year. I don't know enough about Muslim religious traditions to know what they have, but if they celebrate Christmas a bit differently and there is a Muslim employee that wants to take the effort to put something up, then why not?

If there is enough interest at specific times of year that space becomes an issue, then you designate areas and assign them by some random method. If it simply isn't plausible due to that much diversity, then I guess you don't allow anything, but I personally doubt that would be the case anywhere.

I'm just saying that I see no reason to deny someone an outward expression of their religious celebration and the argument that there are a lot of different religions I think supports my argument rather than denys it. We shouldn't be offended by diversity and yet that seems to be where we are going.

 

[Oversoul]

If you don't think the above statements were generalization, that's fine with me. I can only interpret your words, and sometimes a person's thoughts and beliefs get muddled during the transfer into language. I think I understand your point of view, but I disagree with your broad assessment of all self-described moderates and that's my only problem with what you wrote. I'm sure there are people who do what you describe, but I think most moderates are simply people who don't strongly identify with any particular political party.

In my understanding, the key characteristic of any generalization about people is that it takes an observed trait for some of a group and extrapolates that for the entire group (or possibly acknowledges exceptions but dismisses them as unimportant, I suppose). A statement like "people do x..." isn't a generalization because it isn't doing that. No one (or so I'd hope) would assume by reading such a statement that I'm generalizing from the people who do this thing that everyone who is a person or even most people do this. I'm specifically referring to the ones who DO. If I'd said that self-identified moderates do it, then that would be a generalization. Anyway...

There may be some confusion because when responding to Mooseman, I accidentally misquoted myself and made it look like I might have been saying that. Poor editing on my part. But the post you actually quoted from was the original, which did say what I wanted it to say. But you very likely also read the other one and may have been thinking about it, so I can see the potential for confusion...

As for the other one about moderation being playing it safe, let me be clear about that. It's not a generalization because I'm not talking about people doing in this in general. Rather, I believe that it is the case in an absolute sense. Moderate strategies tend to produce little change. The payoff for implementing such a strategy isn't likely to be huge. But the potential negative side effects are less likely to be catastrophic. Moderation as a method in government really is "playing it safe." And I don't mean "mostly."

Yeah, that saying about there being no absolutes, I'm ignoring it. After all, if anyone actually does have a counterexample (which would be a situation where the moderate strategy is high risk compared to the extreme strategies, although how one would conclusively determine that I'm not sure), I'd be very interested to see it.

Getting back on topic: I think KJ's original point was that two sides were both going to extremes to further their own political agendas. A sign saying that Santa Claus will take you to hell is extreme. A sign saying that religion is a myth is also extreme.

The first sign is deliberately intended to seem extreme. I don't know why a group who believes we're all damned anyway (the WBC considers itself to be Calvinist) goes to such lengths to inform us of our impending eternal punishment, but that they have long favored shock tactics and intrusion into what seems like none of their business is pretty obvious.

I don't agree that the Freedom from Religion Foundation's sign is extreme. It seems kind bland. I suppose it's a subjective value judgment for anyone to make that call, but that's how I call it...

Neither one has any place on government property, nor does a nativity scene. The logical (and, IMO, moderate) solution would be not allowing any special interest or religious groups to put anything on government property.

I agree with everything outside of the parentheses.

A couple of years back, there was a debate over whether or not to put a copy of the ten commandments up in a court building. The great majority wanted it, but a few people yelled "church and state". In the end, the ruling was made that putting the ten commandments in a public building was not mandating a religion and it was allowed.

Yes, I know. Van Orden v. Perry. That was their decision. It was a close decision and in another case at the same time this one was going on, with the same justices, that was very similar to this one (but the commandments were displayed inside courthouses instead of on the outside), one of the justices switched sides and the majority of the court ended up ruling that the commandments were promoting a religious message. What a mess. The justice who voted both ways argued that these were borderline cases or something. Details like who donated the monument were given greater emphasis than what the monument actually represented.

From what I remember of the case, I saw nothing wrong with John Paul Stevens' dissenting opinion in that case. He found it clear that the monument was sending the message that the state endorsed the principles of the "Judeo-Christian God" and that this blatantly violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

People need to stop getting so offended at the presence of religion and start being more accepting of other people's religions. No days, "separation of church and state" seems to be used as an excuse to attack religion and that was certainly never the intent.

How is the First Amendment used to attack religions? It specifically addresses government endorsement of religions. It also protects them from the government (the free exercise clause). What's all this about attacks?

Putting up seemingly-harmless Christmas decorations is what leads to messes like this in the first place. You even state that Jewish people should be allowed to put up decorations representative of their beliefs. Then you have to include Muslims. Then Buddhists. Then Scientologists. Then Satanists. Then atheists and the WBC and whatever other kooky religions are officially recognized as tax-exempt institutions in this country. You can't leave anyone out or they'll feel discriminated against. And then you end up with a clusterfart of decorations and conflicting messages and they all become equally meaningless. Instead of the government endorsing no religion, it's trying to endorse them all.

Every government institution really needs to take a step back and stay out of everything. Why on earth do we need any decorations for our government buildings in the first place?

Quoted for truth. This is exactly the problem with the whole affair. Government buildings are not forums for religions and other groups to discuss their relative merits.

If there is enough interest at specific times of year that space becomes an issue, then you designate areas and assign them by some random method. If it simply isn't plausible due to that much diversity, then I guess you don't allow anything, but I personally doubt that would be the case anywhere.

I'm just saying that I see no reason to deny someone an outward expression of their religious celebration and the argument that there are a lot of different religions I think supports my argument rather than denys it. We shouldn't be offended by diversity and yet that seems to be where we are going.

But the problem I (and I think most people who are in favor of just ditching all the displays) have isn't so much that this has become a ludicrous circus. It's that these displays are unnecessary anyway. People can put up displays on their own property. They don't need to use the Capitol to do it.

But they want to because it gets a message out. They're trying to use this as a forum. And I say, on principle, that they should take their causes somewhere else. That this has become so silly and brought in the WBC so that they could have a piece of the action is maybe annoying, but not the actual problem here.

 

[Killer Joe]

That's weird, I could've sworn I posted a reply this morning on this thread....