Skip to main content

Extremism: The Cult of Fearing the Extreme

If you are afraid that Liberals are out to take your guns and destroy all notions of masculinity because some extremist group on the political Left has said that that is their goal, you may be as extreme as they are. How so?

You see, all extremism has a polarizing effect. Anyone who holds any position, can always find someone who holds an "extreme" position that opposes them. But should we always base our decisions only on such extremes? Must we become extreme in response to extremism? And if so, are we not become the very thing we are agaisnt? 

If people base their ideas about homosexuals in general, for example, on a small minority of homosexuals who may claim they want to make everyone in the world homosexual, is that not the same thing as all homosexuals in general basing their ideas about Christianity on the anti-homosexual hate of the Westboro Baptists, who openly believe that homosexual should be put to death?

To argue that one group must be considered a legitimate threat, is to argue that all extremist groups are equal threats. To claim that any one extreme group, however small, represents the ultimate goal of any movement or group, is to say that all extremists groups, however small, represent the ultimate goal of all movements or groups.

If  5 Catholics claim to want to burn all homosexuals alive, then using such reasoning, ALL Catholics should be seen as supporting such a plan, even if they do not believe it personally. And if one group says they want to ban all guns everywhere, by such reasoning, then all people who support gun laws should therefore be seen as simply supporting the complete confiscation of all guns everywhere.

To actually adopt or preach either of these positions in response to such extremists, is to become an extremist. That's how fear and terror and manipulation and cold wars have always worked. They do not fix anything, they only ever make things worse, by allowing extremism to beget extremism.  

In fact, how can anyone ever know for sure that people like St. Augustine and other Christian writers, who wrote the most horrible things about women and homosexuals, weren't seen by the majority of people in their day as crazy extremists, in the very same way that the majority of people today see the Westboro baptists or even ISIS as crazy extremists? 

The only difference is that there were far fewer people around back then who had any education to challenge such extremists, especially when you consider just how truly superstitious most people were (they burned the mentally impaired as witches ferchrisake!), and just how ruthlessly violent the Church was to anyone who challenged it's supreme rule. Indeed, the Church treated all those challenged it's authority even more brutally than the Sanhedrin had treated Christ himself for challenging theirs.

 And when everyone is terrified of the extremism, everyone becomes an extremist. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Christianity is More Unnatural Than Homosexuality

I grew up in a family that is about as homophobic as Phil Robertson and the Westboro Baptists, only they're not quite as boisterous about it; at least not in public anyway. They have also conveniently convinced themselves  that their homophobia is really just their unique Christian ability to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" (even though these very same Christians adamantly refuse to accept that people can "hate Christianity, but love the Christian").  The sexual superiority complex necessarily relied on by such Christians is, of course, blanketed beneath the lambs wool of the Christian humility of serving "God." They interpret their fear of those who are different, in other words, as simply proof of their intimate knowledge and love of God. And the only thing such Christians are more sure about than that their own personal version of "God" exists, is that such a "God" would never want people to be homosexual - no matter how ma...
  The world changes according to the way people see it, and if you alter even by a millimeter the way people look at reality, then you can change it.” James Baldwin   

Why Are Republicans Pro Life?

Most people don't realize that the Supreme Court has been in the hands of the Republican party since at least 1970! In fact, even in the landmark case of Roe v Wade that legalized abortion, SCOTUS was inhabited by 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats, and the vote was 7 to 2. One of the reasons is that the Republican Party has absolutely ZERO desire to win on the abortion issue. And that's because abortion gives the GOP a clear focal point with potentially unlimited organizing power. And it's an even simpler message to sell than religion, since we are "pro-life." (if that was true, however, they wouldn't be actively trying to repeal healthcare for up to 30 million Americans, nor would they be so pro-gun, pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro welfare cuts, pro- social security cuts, pro- drone strikes, etc). The Republican party officially became "pro-life" in 1976, thanks to Jesse Helms (R-NC). The only reason no serious challenge was brought within the pa...