Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Who put the mental into fundamentalism?

Anyone who's spent time around the blogosphere will have come across conceptual art project fundamentalist crusader AJ Chesswas. Apparently he is for real, he's had his somewhat antediluvian views challenged by “a romantic involvement with a Labour party campaigning feminist law graduate" -- surely she hasn't! -- and Liberty Scott has had a long, long, long go at his views on sex. "Who put the mental into fundamentalism?" asks our hero. And just what's AJ's hang up anyway? (And why is he retiring from the blogosphere?)

LINKS: Christian fundamentalism and sex - Liberty Scott

11 Comments:

Anonymous Ruth said...

What's "Liberty" Scott's hangup one could ask? Why is he so interested in Chesswass' sex life? Why write such a bloviating post about it?

If Chesswass's morality is different to his - so what- why make fun of him for daring to have an opinion that differs from his own? I wish people of all stripes would refrain from trying to impose their beliefs and belief systems on everyone else.

Anyway in my experience those who take an undue interest in others sex lives are the ones who would have to be optimistic on a dark night. Methinks he doth protest too much.

2/14/2006 01:21:00 pm  
Blogger Rick said...

I would accept the explaination he provided. It challenges you on what you believe and tests that conviction.

Both liberty and sex are worthy ponderances, perhaps the sum of all ponderances.

But I think it's sweet that you're concerned Ruth.

2/14/2006 01:48:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Ruth: "Why is he so interested in Chesswass' sex life?"

Well, I guess that's what he was explaining in his first paragraph. (You did read the first paragraph?)

"If Chesswass's morality is different to his - so what- why make fun of him for daring to have an opinion that differs from his own? I wish people of all stripes would refrain from trying to impose their beliefs and belief systems on everyone else.

My guess is that Scott is wondering why other people don't feel the same way as we do about imposing their beiefs on others. In fact, that's exactly what Scott said in his second paragraph (you did read the second paragraph?): "My main engagement has been the curious religious fascination with sex." Seems to me that AJ and other fundies aren't too interested in living and letting live, and instead are all too eager to impose their beliefs on others. Naturally enough, Scott is curious to understand why.

With good reason, as it turns out. Scott quotes AJ towards the end of his post (you did read to the end of the post?):

AJ: "How can such an important matter not be the interest of a people's government? This is even more important than things like smoking, alcohol and obesity, because it deals with a person's core relationships and identities. If we get this right, and children are given the right start to life by two parents who truly love each other, we probably won't even have to deal with the problems and addictions that arise from a person's depression and lack of meaningful relationships and identity.”
.
Furthermore..
.
“And if there are any sexual acts that are more risky than sodomy they certainly should be illegal!! Force is certainly a very good argument when dealing with the immoral and unreasonable!”


Yikes.

Ruth again: "Anyway in my experience those who take an undue interest in others sex lives are the ones who would have to be optimistic on a dark night. Methinks he doth protest too much.

You'd have to ask Scott about that, but from what I hear...

2/14/2006 02:59:00 pm  
Anonymous Ruth said...

I always found Chesswass to be very pleasant to deal with. He's not forcing me to convert.So why should I care? Surely libertarians would agree to live and let live...myabe not.

Peter: The woman I read who said libertarian male bloggers were pompous assholes sure is right. You couldn't be more condescending could you?

If "Liberty" Scott knows as much about sex and what Chesswass thinks as he does about TRH and AIR I doubt he could catch a woman with a net and a pack of hunting dogs.

2/14/2006 04:45:00 pm  
Anonymous Ruth said...

PS -Assuming it's a woman he is after, of course. One must not be presumptuous.

2/14/2006 04:54:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Ruth, you said: "[Chesswas] is not forcing me to convert. So why should I care?"

Because apparenty he is seeking to have the law changed to force others -- or at least he would agree with those who would have the law changed to force others -- not to "convert" (whatever that means), but to ban sexual practices that he or they deem immoral. Why should anyone care about that? Because it's not the government's job to prowl around our bedrooms, and it's appropriate to call people on it when they argue that government should be.

AJ is welcome to stick to the missionary position, or the masonry position or even the mockeries position with himself and whomever chooses to perform with him -- and he's welcome to try and persuade others about the merits of his, ahem, position -- and about that we can easily live and let live. But when he seeks to ban other people's pleasures or offers support to those who would do then it seems to me it's entirely appropriate to call him on it. I'm sure Scott will have something more to say on it all when it's the working day for those on Greenwhich Mean Time.

"The woman I read who said libertarian male bloggers were pompous assholes sure is right." Well, there you go.

And BTW, what's "TRH and AIR," and should they be illegal? :-)

2/14/2006 05:56:00 pm  
Anonymous Ruth said...

AIR - Air NZ TRH - Tranz Rail

Bullshit he is seeking a law change. He is just some blogger ranting away into the ether just like the rest of us.

Question: Is Chesswas a virtuous man or an unvirtuous one? Is he moral or immoral? Or does he just stand outside YOUR acceptable moral categories?

It may be difficult to believe - but some people who call themselves Objectivists believe that the key to a happy and fulfilling life is integrity and projecting the consequences of one's actions. Mindless hedonism is not in one's self-interest.

2/14/2006 08:48:00 pm  
Blogger Rick said...

The woman I read who said libertarian male bloggers were pompous assholes sure is right.

Somebody should do something about that.

2/14/2006 09:20:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

Ruth there is a world of difference between what I think the role of the state should be and what my personal morality is. I want the state to leave people alone to make choices, and I think, by and large, they make good ones that suit them.

I do not believe in mindless hedonism, I don't live that way - but I think many people spend a short time living like that.

Chesswas is a virtuous man if he is true to himself and those he cares about, BUT leaves everyone else alone. He wont - he wants to put people in prison for doing that which offends him. There is no virtue in that, it is highly offensive to think that, for example, a good friend of mine and his gay partner would be criminals under his world. He promotes this idea, votes for this idea and supports organisations that promote it. At one point he questioned the holocaust, should that just be left to lie?

Ruth, if you think that people who advocate persecution (Chesswas calls it love) of adults engaging in consensual sex are moral then declare yourself - there have been plenty followers of fascism before and your rudeness would go along with it. I, on the other hand, don't force anyone to do anything, I want people to be treated as adults.

It is not the state's business if people choose celibacy or to be slutty and kinky - it is not my business either, unless I am forced to participate or bear the consequences.

I am no moral relativist, I don't think repressive celibacy or unbridled sluttiness are good ways to live one's life, but damned if I think 122 MPs know better!

2/14/2006 10:43:00 pm  
Anonymous george said...

"Take what you want, and pay for it." said God......Spanish proverb.

2/14/2006 10:57:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

Of course Ruth I think it is far more moral to engage in a debate about concepts without getting personal, than to insult and denigrate someone - however, your currency is well known and clearly you get something from stepping on people you don't know. You accuse others of being condescending and pompous, yet you are repeatedly rude and obnoxious.

You don't like to live and let live. Why the anger? Do people who can articulate facts and concepts calmly wind you up so much? I have never insulted Chesswas, I have no desire to do so and if you read all my comments on his blog you will see that

2/14/2006 11:45:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home