Huge Pet Peeve

[Wynneth]

-----------------------------------
Main Entry:
zeal·ot·ry
Pronunciation:
\ˈze-lə-trē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural zeal·ot·ries
Date:
1656

: excess of zeal : fanatical devotion
-----------------------------------

I don't know about the rest of you out there, but I've come to a realization over the years... A lot of the problems that exist, today, are caused by zealous people--people who refuse to believe that people who see/believe/do/etc. things differently from the zealots are welcomed and encouraged to see/believe/do/etc. as they wish.

For instance... Since it's topical, at the moment, I'll make a reference to the fundamentalist conservatives and their behavior to anyone who, well, isn't a fundamentalist conservative.

Please, note that I am not stating that all conservatives (or even fundamentalist conservatives) are like this, but I certainly have yet to meet one who isn't.

Political candidates for the Republican party seem to've somehow cornered the market on "Family Values" and religion. It was a smart move to jump on that bandwagon, as it secures them far more votes than they'd ever receive without the fundies' votes... But, the thing that incenses me is that poor people continue to vote Republican and most of them cite one of the major reasons they do so is because the Republican candidate "shares" their "social values."

Really? Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

Zealots, though, come in all shapes, sizes and topics of discussion. This was merely an example. I'm griping about it because it's a pet peeve of mine and I wonder if anyone else shares the same opinion.

[HumanePain]

It is like that old quote:
"Defeating an evil man is easy. Defeating a man who thinks he is doing right is difficult." Or something like that.

The zealots genuinely believe they are doing something for the greater good and so bulldoze over any attempts to reason or think about the issue. And they may win, as the Nazi's did when they had unquestioning soldiers to carry out the most obscene missions.

[$haDe]

^ Humane has a very good point

It's a perspective.

Oh! And these zealot are terribly hard to bring down..

As they believed doing the right thing...gawd!!

They DARE cost it with their life.

[Fatbaby]

I was raised by zealots. Bitter disillusioned people awaiting the rapture. That is why I am what I am today - an athiest.

[Wynneth]

-nod- Yea and verily so, all.

[Nephele]

Absolutely agreed about fanatics of all stripes. I'm atheist, but I know some distasteful atheist zealots too, who aren't much different from the loud-mouthed religious fundies. I'm pretty much of the opinion that, if religion works for you, then that's good -- for you. But not for me. I would no sooner try to convert someone to my way of thinking, then I would endure them trying to convert me. I don't ever want to be the Thought Police.

Wynneth, I notice you have the word "suffragette" under your screen name. Here's a great quote for you, form a 19th century U.S. suffragette and civil rights advocate:

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do...because it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony

-- Nephele

[Blackbird]

Originally Posted by Wynneth

Really? Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?

Zealots, though, come in all shapes, sizes and topics of discussion. This was merely an example. I'm griping about it because it's a pet peeve of mine and I wonder if anyone else shares the same opinion.

( I REALLY don't want to get into a political debate, but I feel something needs to be said about that. Separation of church and state doesn't mean no God in politics/schools/whatever. Government can't control churches. -shrug- That's what I believe.)

But yes. I get what you mean, but I could say the same thing about "Liberals". Zealous people are everywhere, but it's a fine line between warranted enthusiasm and blind excitement. Like certain speeches I could reference...but anyways. It's sort of like faith, I suppose. You can have a lot of it, but it all depends whether it's blind or not.
I hope I make sense.

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Nephele

Absolutely agreed about fanatics of all stripes. I'm atheist, but I know some distasteful atheist zealots too, who aren't much different from the loud-mouthed religious fundies.

Seconded.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do...because it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony

-- Nephele

You think I want to abstain from sex before marriage?!?

[JCC]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

It is like that old quote:
"Defeating an evil man is easy. Defeating a man who thinks he is doing right is difficult." Or something like that.

Isn't it rather oppressive to decide what is right and what is evil, too?

[Blackbird]

Originally Posted by JCC

Isn't it rather oppressive to decide what is right and what is evil, too?

No.

Not really.

[Wynneth]

Originally Posted by Blackbird

( I REALLY don't want to get into a political debate [...] )

Based on some stuff in the rest of your post, I gather it's probably a very good idea to not jump into that sort of discussion, yes. -chuckle-

Originally Posted by Blackbird

[...B]ut I feel something needs to be said about that. Separation of church and state doesn't mean no God in politics/schools/whatever. Government can't control churches. -shrug- That's what I believe.)

But yes. I get what you mean, but I could say the same thing about "Liberals". Zealous people are everywhere, but it's a fine line between warranted enthusiasm and blind excitement. Like certain speeches I could reference...but anyways. It's sort of like faith, I suppose. You can have a lot of it, but it all depends whether it's blind or not.
I hope I make sense.

It makes sense, sure. To a point. Government can't control churches, no. But, the government should have no say in whether or not there's religion enforced in schools. It's not their purview and, personally, I'm tired of that whole debate.

The government has no business meddling in ethical/moral affairs, just as the churches have no business insisting that the government meddle with them.

There was a reason for the separation of church and state--to protect our rights to the freedom of religion. Prayers shouldn't be forced in schools, because kids whose religion is different from the Judeo-Christian traditions shouldn't feel obliged to participate in someone else's religion.

Just because the Judeo-Christians are in the majority doesn't mean that they get to say what goes. Might does not make right.

At any rate, yes. My original statement was that zealots are everywhere, in almost any fathomable fashion. There are zealots here, even. There's a fine line between firm conviction and zealotry--a fine line to tread--and most people aren't interested in being self-aware enough to check themselves before they dive off of the deep end.

There's a great quote that my husband introduced me to that, while it originated as a religion-themed quote, I think can apply to almost any situation...

"A faith unquestion isn't a faith worth having."

The same could be said of almost anything, really. So, I question everything and try to look at things from both sides of the story. Hopefully, it'll keep me from ever falling off into zealotry--and hypocrisy.

[Disaffected Shoelaces]

Originally Posted by Blackbird

No.

Not really.

History repudiates your argument better than I ever could.

[Jaye Jang]

Well, now I know how tired I actually am ( I work two jobs). When I first saw this thread I thought, 'Wow. Wynneth seems like a nice person. Why would she be peeved at pets? I like pets). Okay, so I'm awake now. Politics, don't go there myself, as it just causes a fight someplace. Consider myself religious, but am totally for separation of church and state. History agrees. (Some of the worst-case scenarios for human oppression occur when the church runs the state or vice versa). As for the 'family' values, I have always wanted to ask, "So, whose family? Yours or mine?"

[Wynneth]

Originally Posted by Jaye Jang

When I first saw this thread I thought, 'Wow. Wynneth seems like a nice person. Why would she be peeved at pets?

-laugh- I have seven pets! (Four cats, a huge monster puppy and two bettas.) I often get peeved at them, but my love for them outweighs the peeves they pay me. -grin-

Originally Posted by Jaye Jang

History agrees. (Some of the worst-case scenarios for human oppression occur when the church runs the state or vice versa.)

Yes. -beam- History does, indeed, agree! And, what's even better? I agree with History on that account.

Originally Posted by Jaye Jang

As for the 'family' values, I have always wanted to ask, "So, whose family? Yours or mine?"

BRA-VO. Exactly. Precisely. Yes. I can't express how strongly I agree!

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Blackbird

No.

Not really.

Okay then, justify to me how morality and consequent 'justice' could possibly be objective and enforced without being oppressive.

[Wynneth]

Originally Posted by Nephele

Absolutely agreed about fanatics of all stripes. I'm atheist, but I know some distasteful atheist zealots too, who aren't much different from the loud-mouthed religious fundies. I'm pretty much of the opinion that, if religion works for you, then that's good -- for you. But not for me. I would no sooner try to convert someone to my way of thinking, then I would endure them trying to convert me. I don't ever want to be the Thought Police.

Absolutely! I'm very much in agreement with what you've said. Now, I do have a tendency to attempt to explain my point of view, on the off chance that the person(s) on the other side of the table are harboring misconceptions. However, if, after I've explained my views and they've explained theirs, and we still don't agree? That's where my favorite debate resolution comes in: agreeing to disagree. Everyone has a right to believe/think/feel/etc. what they want. I simply am out to learn and share what I've learned.

Originally Posted by Nephele

Wynneth, I notice you have the word "suffragette" under your screen name. Here's a great quote for you, form a 19th century U.S. suffragette and civil rights advocate:

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do...because it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony

-- Nephele

Oo. I like that. I like it. A really lot. -grin- Thanks!

(Side note: the feminists out there may strike me down for this, but I don't use 'suffragette' in the way it originated--though, of course, I've always been fully behind their cause... I love the way the word sounds and, if you take it down to root-levels, it can mean something that's more meaningful to me, personally.)

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

You think I want to abstain from sex before marriage?!?

I think Susan B. Anthony was talking more about those who recieve 'special prophecies' from God, I. E., they believe they are hearing directly from God, and aren't really that concerned with the truth from the Bible [though they -will- use random scriptures to justify their position.]

[Wynneth]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

I think Susan B. Anthony was talking more about those who recieve 'special prophecies' from God, I. E., they believe they are hearing directly from God, and aren't really that concerned with the truth from the Bible [though they -will- use random scriptures to justify their position.]

What if I want to take it in an even more generalized fashion? 'Cause, it does speak pretty well on the matter of religious zealots.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by JCC

Okay then, justify to me how morality and consequent 'justice' could possibly be objective and enforced without being oppressive.

I think it depends on what you mean by 'oppressive'. Do you mean it in the sense that the government is completely tyrranical in a George Orwell's 1984 way, or do you consider any kind of policing at all oppressive?

Me personally, I think we -have- to have some kind of law, which comes directly from moral judgment; otherwise, it would be complete chaos, and we'd be much worse off than we are now.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Wynneth

What if I want to take it in an even more generalized fashion? 'Cause, it does speak pretty well on the matter of religious zealots.

I'm sorry Wynneth; I don't exactly follow.

Do you mean if this idea is expanded to not just include religion, but to include politics, etc. as well?

[Wynneth]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

I'm sorry Wynneth; I don't exactly follow.

Do you mean if this idea is expanded to not just include religion, but to include politics, etc. as well?

Not really... What I mean is, Susan B. Anthony--per your reply--meant that quote in reference to people who "heard" from God and so on. Is it not applicable to those who don't claim to "hear" God, but are still religious zealots?

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Wynneth

Not really... What I mean is, Susan B. Anthony--per your reply--meant that quote in reference to people who "heard" from God and so on. Is it not applicable to those who don't claim to "hear" God, but are still religious zealots?

Ah, gotcha.

Well, I suppose it could apply to both; both think they are doing what God wants them to.

[Sorry if I seem air-headed; not feeling great today. Really need some rest.]

[Wynneth]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Ah, gotcha.

Well, I suppose it could apply to both; both think they are doing what God wants them to.

[Sorry if I seem air-headed; not feeling great today. Really need some rest.]

Well, the work day is almost done! -smile-

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Wynneth

Well, the work day is almost done! -smile-

Heh heh. That's true. XD But after work comes the rest of the things I gotta do. x_x;;;

Heh. I tell ya, I would LOVE a completely lazy Saturday this weekend. :P

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

I think it depends on what you mean by 'oppressive'. Do you mean it in the sense that the government is completely tyrranical in a George Orwell's 1984 way, or do you consider any kind of policing at all oppressive?

Me personally, I think we -have- to have some kind of law, which comes directly from moral judgment; otherwise, it would be complete chaos, and we'd be much worse off than we are now.

Morals are subjective, good and evil are terms used to try and define that which isn't tangible.