Given the political season, one would be hard pressed to go too far without running into some degree of political discussion. While the basis of this thread is of a political nature, it really encompasses so much more.

If I could cure one disease, I would first seek those diagnosed with a fundamentalist mindset and try to have them open their mind to fathom a thought or two. Labels in and of themselves get in the way more than anything. If I said I were to apply any political label to myself right now, most would judge me to a certain extent and begin to put a picture together in their mind. Then this label would be examined by a fundamentalist mindset and we would either find ourselves in agreement or be at odds due to our clash of labels.

How can some of us be so naive that we feel that we are better, smarter, more correct, anything really.. because it is what we "think". I'm a Republican through and through and I know how to fix the economy, so listen to me and ignore everybody else! Would I be so arrogant to state something so ridiculous? Does any one person or any one group of people think they could actually do this? A democrat, a republican.. whatever, can do so much more with the help of everyone rather than isolating themselves. But we as a human race are so damn arrogant that we feel our own mindsets, our own beliefs, are so damn superior to that of everyone else's that we isolate ourselves and try to do it on our own. The results of that? Take a look around.

Don't tell me about your religious views and how better than you are than I because of what you believe. Don't tell me how on the ball you are because of your political affiliation and what you're going to do for the world because of how you're casting your vote, because I don't want to hear it. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about this fundamentalist themed crap that their ideology is the answer and so arrogant to outright bash and insult someone who may disagree.

Maybe if we attempted some open mindedness we might actually see some results. Maybe if we attempted to shed some labels rather than giving everyone and everything a title, we might see less resistance to what the actual message is.

I oppose any organization of a fundamentalist mindset that is naive enough to think they are better than anybody for the way they think. Who the hell am I to say who is right and wrong or better than one another?

Our race needs to understand that communication is just as much about listening as it is speaking. We're so busy talking that we don't spend anytime listening. If our political leaders, along with the voters, would spend some time listening to those they disagree with we might be able to make some progress.

When it's all said and done and our civilization is on the brink of extinction, whatever the date maybe, we can sit back and remind ourselves that at least we stuck to our guns. Our whole way of life may have been sacrificed.. but the point was made.



[edit on 3-8-2008 by chissler]

The big problem I see with politics is the incessant sniping and games of oneupmanship that go on between the two main parties (it's the same for the UK as the US). Republican or Democrat, Labour or Conservative, they are all the same self serving reptiles.

Ideally, I long for the day we have have a "none of the above" checkbox on the ballot papers.

Seriously though, the whole system of career politicians stinks. By the very nature of the "career" path, the political life becomes one of self serving elitism, far removed from the actual goal of serving the people. This also leads to expansion of government as each branch employs more and more advisors, lawyers and sets up special departments to govern every aspect of our daily lives.

The whole two party system and political debating becomes focused on trying to prove to the electorate who is the worst, rather than any meaningful steps to actually do anything that will benefit the people.
The electorate become entrenched in this two party squabbling to the point where they start to miss the whole point of exactly what the government is meant to represent, and who, ultimately, they work for. I see this as being all part of the plan though to divert attention or scrutiny of their actions away from the public gaze and instead have us focus on the trivial matters.

I've been around on this and other boards to have been labeled a lefty, a righty, a racist, a liberal etc, all based on the viewpoint of a single comment or post content. Once again, I see this as a form of conditioning and the entrenchment of political views by the masses.

I'd also add....

This is exactly why I steer clear of organised religion. Coming from a fairly religious family (mother was a preacher) I have seen first hand the intolerance and bigotry of the churchgoing faithful, to the point where I refuse to step foot into those dens of smugness.
ALL religions have their fundamentalists who whip up the masses, at times stirring up hatred rather than preaching tolerance and peaceful coexistence.
I have traveled the world, spending time and working with people from many backgrounds and from many countries. I treat everyone, rich or poor alike, with the same respect and courtesy that I would expect myself, and for the most part I am always treated well and accepted.
There again, I have no ulterior motive and do not presume to tell others that their faith is false and heathen, something the religious types should take note of. Perhaps if more people tried this approach there would be less turmoil in the world.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by Britguy]

Well said! Your thought about open-mindedness reminded me of a biography I read on President Lincoln. You know what he did on his inauguration day? He picked up all of his political rivals and put them on his cabinet.

We do need more open-mindedness. Every politician is concerned with his career, and how his image is going to look, how can he be re-elected, and retiring, a politician can't get anything done!

If we had open-mindedness, we would look at all the aspects of a problem, and solve it in the best manner, we would be able to make more morally correct decisions, and smarter, more ethical relationships with other governments.

The country would flourish, and the leadership would grow.

Abraham Lincoln did not go to Gettysburg having commissioned a poll to find out what would sell in Gettysburg. There were no people with percentages for him, cautioning him about this group or that group or what they found in exit polls a year earlier. When will we have the courage of Lincoln?

Originally posted by truth_seeker3
If we had open-mindedness, we would look at all the aspects of a problem, and solve it in the best manner, we would be able to make more morally correct decisions, and smarter, more ethical relationships with other governments.

And if we were to squash any label and put our own agenda aside, I'm willing to bet that we would find ourselves in agreement much more often.

Is all of this really too much to ask for?

Originally posted by marg6043
But you fail to understand one thing my friend, that the goal of those in power is to keep the populations fighting, against each other and divided.

An united world is no fun for the bastards as is a treat to their power.

Oh I get it and I could not agree more with you.

I watched some material on Robert F. Kennedy this evening and it was truly inspirational to listen to this man speak. He just comes across as a man without an agenda, a man who wants to do what's best for anyone and everyone, but also isn't arrogant enough to think that he can do it all himself or that he doesn't need to listen to anybody.

Now someone could go against everything I've just said here and probably substantiate it.

But regardless, a man without a personal agenda is a man I would vote for.

My question is, are we truly ready for someone without their own agenda and someone who is going to push the general public out of their comfort zone in order to provide us with the future that we all truly want? Sometimes we need to do things we don't want to do in order to become what we desire. Are we willing to do things we don't want to do in order to sustain our future? I don't really think we are.

So when we here social change, measures to save our environment, etc., we give it a title and have people judge the content before they even hear it.

And before I get hit with it from someone who comes into this thread, yes I know I'm guilty of exactly what I'm speaking against. I am offering a title here of "fundamentalist" and speaking against it. But for the sake of discussion and clarity, I feel it was necessary. Also, I am not bestowing this title on anyone inparticular. Merely speaking of a population that already exists.

I'm not saying we're looking for a "one man show", but we should begin to seek public officials who are not self-serving. Altruism and government isn't something that goes hand in hand, and that is a depressing thought. Is it really too much to ask for or that abstract of a thought? We can shoot objects into space with pinpoint precision, but we can't elect the right person for the job?

An individual free of corruption and selfless, open-minded and eager to do what is right even if it doesn't please the masses.

The task at hand isn't a complicated process. It only becomes complicated when men and women with agendas get their hands on it.

To save the environement, we need to take certain steps. It's actually quite simple. But why has this simple decision been so complicated? Human agendas. A fundamentalist belief that what is best for me is best for the world and people abusing the power that they were afforded by voters who felt they were electing the best person for the job.

Great thread

Just a few questions that I would like to raise...

1. At what point does the antipathy towards "Fundamentalism" become the inability to take a stand?

2. Open mindedness is fine, but what happens when one is so open minded that they can not see the truth?

While I believe and have often stated "A closed mind can not learn", I also believe there is a fine line one must walk.

Being Open Minded and anti-fundamental is fine until one takes it to the extreme. As people are prone to do.

I think that in all of our lives there comes a time when we have to stand and say, "This is right and I am going to fight for it", or "This is wrong and I am going to fight against it".

Remember that being open minded also means being able to see right from wrong and being able to differentiate the two. If one spends all their time being so open minded they are constantly examining the issues, when do they take a stand for what they believe in?

How will they know they believe in anything if they are always convinced they have to believe they may be wrong?

Can you see the conundrum here?

Semper

I agree that there is a fine line to walk.

As I've said, I do oppose groups of a fundamentalist mindset. But a time and a place does come where a stand needs to be taken. But when one does take that stand, one does not need to attach the chains and remain planted for all of time. We are permitted to change our mind and move forward.

I'll use capital punishment for one.

I don't understand how someone can say they are for it and support it 100%. I also don't see how anyone could say the opposite. I may have said this in the past, but the truth that I've come to realize is that I oppose it almost all of the time, but I always reserve the right to feel that a time and place maybe necessary for it. But that time has not come yet.

To oppose fundamentalism is not to avoid taking a stand on an issue. I feel it is merely keeping the eyes and ears open and accepting the fact that you really don't know the real answer and you're open to learn.

If I was to say without hesitation that John McCain is the best man for the White House, how could I possibly justifty it? So much material is out there to say just the opposite. But at the same time, so much information is out there to support it. So why do we even waste our time trying to prove something so trivial? Why are we so arrogant in our ways that we actually think we can prove this?

Neither are probably the best man for the job, but I'm confident neither are the worst. Whoever gets the position, I hope that they represent the office in a just manner and consider what is necessary for the longevity of our race. Not just Americans, but for us as the human race.

semp, you say that what happens when someone is so open-minded that they can not see the truth. This comment really catches my attention. Rather than responding and missing the point, I'm going to ask you to elaborate on this when you have a moment.

"So open-minded that you can not see the truth"

Seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me, but I'm looking forward to engaging this question.

Well it so happens I have some time...

"So open-minded that you can not see the truth"

Old quote I love is this:

"You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything" (Song actually)

Now understand I can only speak for myself here...

Open Minded:
Now I have always thought of myself as open minded, although there are quite a few that may argue that about me. Yet I have an opinion and as a general rule that opinion does not, will not, change just because someone tells me there idea is better. Pretty much not if a hundred people tell me this. I am my own man and I make up my own mind.

As I stated, being open minded is good to a point, then one becomes so unsure of any position, they refuse to take a stance on anything. You have met people like this, I know I have.

I admire confidence in a person; even if they are confident about something I believe is wrong. The fact that they take a stance and stick to their guns, is an admirable trait to me.

CONVICTIONS

Convictions.... That word seems to being going out of vogue more and more these days and that is a shame. There was a time, back when men wore hats, that a man of convictions was a man to be admired. Not wishy-washy, no flip-flipping, just a man and his convictions. I like to consider myself a man of convictions.

As far as the political scene goes, I say if your a Liberal, be a Liberal and be proud of it. Stop namby-pambying around with names like "Moderate" or "Progressive" and just admit who and what you are. I am a Conservative. Point in fact, a strong conservative with conservative ideals, actions and lifestyle. I am not wishy-washy at anytime, I know who and what I am. I do not believe that makes me close minded as I can see and understand the "other" side of an issue, i just do not agree with it.

Along the lines of Capital Punishment:

I have always been socially opposed and morally in favor of capital punishment. I believe that it cost too much to put an offender to death so I am socially opposed to it. I believe in the ultimate punishment for certain offenders, so I am morally in favor of it. I also understand the view points of those opposed as I understand those that support it. So I am open minded enough to understand, yet firm in my convictions on how I feel.

You said this:

accepting the fact that you really don't know the real answer

Now I understand what your saying, but in certain circumstances that is just not a luxury one can take.

Sometimes a man has to say, "I believe it, therefor in my life, that makes it so."

Trust me, without going into too much detail, being in the Marines and Police work, there have been and always will be times I have to, HAVE TO, know the answers and not open to other suggestions. I am talking morally as well as physical situations..

For me that is the "fine line."

Open minded is fine, but I will never lose my convictions.

Semper

semp, if I didn't like you so much I would really make this interesting.

I wish we could debate this face to face rather than having to relay our thoughts over the internet. But alas, we truck on.

I genuinely feel that some of the quotes used, "fail to stand for something and you will fall for anything" is way off its mark and merely used to inject confusing on what the actual intent of such a position is.

When I read your post semp, I really kept hearing the theme of integrity. Intregrity is something that I hold near and dear to my heart and I fault nobody for doing the same. There is a difference in adopting a fundamentalist viewpoint and merely abiding one's own morals and intregrity. I see you as an intelligent person who certainly considers all factors. That's intregrity. Not close-mindedness, not the belief that you are better than anyone else, but like you said.. you look at the facts and you formulate an opinion. I have no issues with that.

But what I would have an issue with is if you began to see facts that went against what you believed and you ignored your integrity and stuck to your guns, even if you began to believe otherwise. I think you would change your mind on all issues if faced with any new information that proved something that you previously disagreed with.

We are similar in our convictions and our intregrity, we just happen to disagree on some details. But you and I are one in the same.

Would you change your mind if a day came that you read something that went against everything you believed? If new facts were introduced to the equation and it could not be overlooked.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by chissler]

Would you change your mind if a day came that you read something that went against everything you believed? If new facts were introduced to the equation and it could not be overlooked.

I am on ATS!!!!! So you are correct....

I for one, do not equate integrity with convictions. I can see how my previous post would lead one to believe that, but they are two different "animals" as it were, at least to me.

I believe that one can be exercising their integrity "BY" changing their mind on an issue. Yet if they change their mind due simply to popular opinion or even overwhelming opinion, they have sacrificed their convictions. Their integrity may be fully intact.

I agree that a face to face debate would be fantastic. I'll put the coffee on and the front door is open...

As for the Fundamentalist Viewpoint, I must confess to hold something like that myself. Besides being a Conservative, I am a fundamental Republican. Now while I am nothing like the NEOCON's currently in charge of my party, I also have not allowed the Liberal mindset to change my convictions. I am still a Republican and proud to remain one.
(Note the correct usage of the term NEOCON)

So in many ways, I hold fundamentalist ideals and my convictions keep them intact.

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
I believe that one can be exercising their integrity "BY" changing their mind on an issue. Yet if they change their mind due simply to popular opinion or even overwhelming opinion, they have sacrificed their convictions. Their integrity may be fully intact.

I agree with the first sentence, and I agree that it is a test of one's intregrity to adjust their own opinion when faced with certaion situations. But a situation that their own mindset was truly changed, and not conceding to societal pressures. However, if someone changed their opinion due to societal pressures and began to voice material that they did not truly support, I feel that they would have turned their back on their intregrity. Changing your mind for the wrong reasons is not an act of integrity. It is a sign of someone who isn't willing to stand up for what they believe in.

So yes you can change your mind and retain your intregrity, but it can also be squashed. It all factors on *why* you changed your mind.

You bestow these titles upon yourself and I ask you if you feel they ever get in the way of a legitimate discussion? If I said that I would vote Obama in the upcoming election, what would you think? Be honest, my feelings won't be hurt. much

I just can not process why people are so eager to title themselves, if their intent is for the greater good. What purpose do they serve?

When we get into these political affiliations, are you true to the party or yourself? Would you sacrifice yourself for the greater good of the party? What if you disagreed?

I think we could see much more production from our sitting governments if these labels were pushed to the wayside and we simply did what we thought was right. If our politicians started to answer to themselves as opposed to their party, maybe we would see politicians standing up for what they believe in. (I feel this is a problem more in Canada than in the U.S., so if you don't get what I'm saying here.. don't worry)

Originally posted by semperfortis
I often disagree with my party, yet I stand behind them completely.

Why?

I fail to understand why you would support something you did not agree with?

Skeptic has one of the greatest quotes I have ever read in his signature. "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." So why continue to support a group that you do not agree with? Do you see changing one's mind as a form of weakness?

If a man voted Bush in 2000 and '04 but is voting Obama this year, is he or she weak?

I'm not advocating voting against your affiliation, but why do you go as far as still supporting a group that you do not agree with?

I think when any person/group gets to the point where they can no longer counter their opposition's viewpoints with rational, present-day examples, when they lose their ability to alter their opinion based on what they see in front of them because the need to stick to their convictions is more important, and when they have to resort to belittling, name-calling, or demonizing because of that, that is when a person's viewpoint turn detrimental. That goes for religion and politics, though for many, they are one and the same.

To give an example. I can respect someone who thinks that homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn't produce children. I can NOT respect someone who takes the Westboro approach.

Another example is most of the MSM talk radio hosts. If they would present rational arguments I'd be fine. Instead they resort to name-calling and mud slinging. (I already realize, of course, that that's just what sells best.)