juvegirl,

Apology accepted. For my part, I'm sorry too. I never intended anything I said to be taken as an attack on you personally. If you understood that to be the case, then I did not communicate clearly, and I'll own that one.

I believe that there is a difference between commenting on what someone SAID in a post and assuming things about them and judging them as a person. I try to be really careful with that. If you can find anywhere, in any of my posts where I've insulted you as a person, and I'm not talking about WHAT YOU'VE SAID, please point that out and I'll backpedal immediately.

it is a subtle difference, but a critical one in my opinion.

Example:

HumilityRocks' writing has an arrogant and pontificating tone.
His writing misconstrues the point and goes on written tirades.

That's fair game, talking about my writing and your perception of it. Not much of a point there related to content, but you're welcome to your opinion. But your writing also says things about ME directly (I'll add my 2 cents in parentheses), such as:

I make no attempt to look at what is written objectively. (no, I do attempt it)
My moniker is about humility but I go on to BE the opposite. (about irony, NOT about humility)
I am religious. (not religious)
I am flawed in character and can't use a dictionary. (deeply flawed, but can use a dictionary)
I am deeply hurt by your use of the dictionary. (not hurt at all)
I claimed you don't know many people of different faiths. (don't claim that, I have no idea who you know)
I claimed you don't know more than 6 people. (I don't know how many people you know)
I've insulted you two times. (insulting tone about what you said, I'll apologize for that)
I only have six friends. (depends on how you define friend, but it would be more or less than 6)
I have a need to attack you personally online. (not that I'm aware of)
I believe that I already have all the answers and because of this, am not worth talking to further. (not disputing my worth, but I clearly do not have all the answers)
I am defining fundamentalism. (no, just pointing out that there are other definitions)
My conception of fundamentalism is shallow. (I think I understand the multiple definitions as well as anyone else)
I attack you, misconstrue what you said, and insult you. (not my intention, honest!)
I ignore your comments. (again, not intentionally)
I'm not worth talking to anymore, because of my method of debate. (um, ok.)
I desire to be "right". (I do desire this)
I did not address the topic. (pointed out that many fundamentalists would be all for affirmations)
I'm looking for an apology. (could care less, don't mean that to sound asinine)

Here is the thing. With the exception of "I desire to be right", in the sense that I do want to think and write clearly, not a single thing you're written about me above is actually true. It turns out I'm not religious, or hurt by your comments at all, etc... So should I just let that go and move on? Or should I try to correct those misconceptions?

It is germane to the topic, because it relates to how we use language to influence people, or dismiss them entirely.

The thing that you're saying that I just can't find a way to agree with in any sense, is that lots of people use language a certain way, we can't do anything about that, and it doesn't matter.

It does matter.

To use the metaphor of the tides and your addition of New Orleans, the levies and bulwark worked great on the tide for several hundred years. When a big enough hurricane came through that was a huge problem, but that wasn't the tides. If you follow your argument through, we find that nothing can be done and that bulwarks and levies are completely impotent against tides, storms, etc...

Therefore, all the people in New Orleans are doomed and there isn't anything we can do about that, just roll with it.

I think we should either a) build better bulwarks and levies so that people can be safe, or b) get the people the hell out of New Orleans. And in Exactly the same way, we should be better about how we use language, or there are things we need to avoid (low, or no tolerance for certain kinds of racist speech, hate speech, etc...)

If people stand to be harmed by the use of language, I think we have a responsibility to do something, even if that something ultimately fails. Take fundamentalism out of that argument, I'm talking bigger picture here.

I'd agree with you that there are enough influences on language that it almost has a life of it's own. And that my personal impact on language as a whole is so small as to be not very significant. But language is passed down from one generation to the next and the only thing that impacts change is the collective force of people using it. If we are conscious and deliberate about using language well it has an impact. If one person does it, it is a very small impact... if a lot do, language itself is changed.

I want to do my part. I've failed miserably in that in my interaction with you. I'll try to do better.

humility:

It is clear that you will not make any attempt to look at what I write objectively. You have a moniker that indicates humility and then go on to be the opposite. As I said, if the intention behind that is irony, good. I had thought you were religious (and still do, actually) and as such, rather than call you out on a flaw, I posted the definition as a gentle reminder, in case you hadn't noticed the pontificating tone of your writing. Believe it or not, I'm known (in real life) as a caring, respectful person, and while I disagree with most religious dogma, I don't use that as an excuse to be rude to people. Obviously I hurt you deeply, or you would have let all this go a long time ago. I posted one line to you, you posted a tirade to me, most of which reflects a poor understanding of what I'm saying. Part of that is the fact that I have tried to make my responses short, to cut down on spam. Part of it comes from your hurt feelings.

You say you aren't assuming, yet, you said that you doubted that I know people of so many faiths. In fact, immediately after saying you didn't assume anything about me, you go on to state that you doubt I know more than 6 people, despite having clearly indicated I know many, many more. You also say you didn't insult me, but turn around and do it a second time. If your circle of friends stops at 6, then I guess I understand your need to attack me personally online. I don't need to justify myself to you, but in all honesty, I have a full life outside of the computer, which brings me into direct and frequent contact with many people of many faiths. You can choose to not believe me. But that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

All faiths do have fundamentalists. This is simple the factual truth. Even Wiccans have fundamentalists. I don't know how you could argue that. My comment with regards to similarity is not in how they practise their faiths (obviously a Jew and a Muslim do different things) but it is with regards to how they approach fundamentalism that they are the same. If you read all my comments, you know that I went on to explain that, as was appropriate for the discussion, I was more or less mostly discussing those of the Abrahamic faiths, since they would be more likely to be involved in "American" schools. I have done a great deal of study on the subject, read far too many books. I will not make further attempts to explain it in simple and concise terms for someone who is already convinced they know the answers and that I could not have anything worthwhile or intelligent to say.

Language is its own organism, in a sense. You can build all the harbours and levys you want; ask the people of New Orleans (God love them) how much good that does. Far more powerful people than you and I have tried to change the directions language took, to no avail. Check out the history of Webster's dictionary, for just one example. Many words in English cover a wide variety of meanings. It is confusing, perhaps, but obviously we manage. Rather than try to stop millions of people from using a word, you could perhaps try to come up with a defined term specifically for non-violent fundamentalism, although, as I've said, at it's heart, it's the same thing, it just uses a different method of expression.

You say you're not defining fundamentalism, but actually, you did.

You complain that I didn't respond to the content, but only took shots at you. This is patently untrue. I did respond to the way you spoke to me, yes. But I went on for a few paragraphs about the content, attempting to explain fundamentalism in yet another way, so that you could perhaps see that your conception of it is shallow. You return to attack me again, misconstrue what I've said, insult me and ignore most of my comments about fundamentalism, and take up your argument where you left it and continue.

In the end, dear poster, I have learned enough about your method of debate to determine my time could be far better spent on others in this forum. Your desire to be "right" has caused a huge amount of spam here, that could have been better spent discussing the topic, something I note you didn't bother to do. If what you're looking for from me is an apology, here you are: I'm sorry I didn't know your moniker was ironic, and that posting the definition of humility hurt you. In addition, I'm sorry that I and millions of others who use the term fundamentalist properly are seem to be insulting the apparently very selfless and good person you know. I hope you are able to accept this poor apology and to move on. [/apology] [/discussion with HumiltyRocks]

Why would you use this idea for hating on fundamentalists? A certain amount of this already goes on inside Christian schools. Fundamentalists believe that all of us are children of God. Ergo, we are all super awesome. Even the non-believers!

juvegirl,

One could argue that listing a dictionary definition for me about my own little name here is a condescending attempt to insult my intelligence. It assumes I don't know what the word means and that I'm not aware of how to use a dictionary. Your "only" comment to me was a shot directly at me... and not about something I said here.

When you take shots at me and not at content, that becomes irritating.

And it seemed to demonstrate that you didn't understand the joke. That really isn't that big of a deal, until you start insulting me based on your own apparent lack of understanding. I never insulted your intelligence, you did that all by yourself. I just pointed out that you did. I've never claimed to be humble, or to know anything about you beyond what you wrote. Those are ridiculous assumptions on your part. Please stop doing that.

If you have a problem with anything I've said, chime in, it's a free country. If you have a problem with me as a person, or you feel that I'm particularly arrogant, ok. I wish you wouldn't feel that way, but I don't know how to help you with that.

You said a couple of things I disagreed with:

1) That you are aware of ALL faiths and that ALL of them have fundamentalists and they are ALL the same.

I'm sure you have extensive knowledge of the six people (or however many) you know personally. I still don't believe that you are intimately aware of all religious faiths. Given that, I'm not sure that all of them have a fundamentalist fringe and I'm also not sure all the fundamentalists fringes are all the same. I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy of generalization here which is firmly in play.

There are some fundamentalists in a couple of groups I'm aware of that seem really similar. Therefore, all religions have a fundamentalist component and they are all the same.

Um, no.

2) I'm not defining fundamentalist in any particular way. I'm just pointing out that there is more here than the current connotation and that this is unfortunate.

3) You wrote, "However, there is nothing anyone can do to stem the tide of a changing language; one must simply roll with it, or be left behind."

Saying that we can not stop language from changing over time is not the same as saying we have no impact over how language changes. Like the tides, you can build a harbor, or a bulwark and have a profound impact.

If the tide of changing language is bigoted and evil then I think we have a moral and ethical responsibility NOT to "roll with it". Language changes through usage... if we're more careful and thoughtful with how we speak and write, it will impact how language changes for the better.

I'm not claiming that fundamentalism in current usage is bigoted and evil. I think it is unfortunate.

I do think it is weird to use the same word to mean:

"person who adheres to the basic principles of a religion"
AND
"really irritating small minded person who is dogmatic and who won't listen to reason"
AND
"person who straps a bomb to their chest and goes to blow themselves up in a Pizza Hut, killing as many innocent people as possible."

If you disagree, by all means, continue to the use the word however you want and go do great things.

An Australian newspaper (so you know it must be true...) published a study in which they experimented with school children. They were given a spelling test which was scored and results given. Half the students were congratulated and told "you did very well, you must be very smart" and the other half congratulated and told "you did very well, you must have worked really hard".

They gave similar tests and feedback weekly for a number of weeks, tracking the results. In the end the pupils who told they were smart stayed about the same over time whereas the pupils told they must have worked hard improved over time.

Certainly it's shaped the way I now offer praise to children.

Hey, I thought the Fundamentalists called it prayer, myself.

But I dunno.

HR: my *only* comment to you was the definition of humility. If your name is intentionally ironic, all the better.
I know my spelling is fine. At no time did I assume (or care if) your comment was for me. Your comments are frequently of a religious slant, you could be simply overly-excited about humility. That doesn't mean I don't understand language. Whenever someone resorts to insulting the intelligence of another poster, it speaks volumes about the insulter.

*You* were perhaps talking only about Christians, but my original comment was made before you and I was clarifying *my* statements. I know people from many sects of the three Abrahamic religions, as well as many others: Taoists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs etc. I have many close contacts that are Christian, Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists, and since these faiths make up a large part of the world population, a large part of the fundamentalist population, *and* are more likely to be concerned with "American" schools, I didn't bother to list. You shouldn't assume so much about people you know nothing about.

You define fundamentalism as a movement holding to certain "fundamental" tenets. However, your definition leaves out an important fact about fundamentalism. It is a reaction to modernism. A means of turning away from scientific thought (not theories) and returning to a point in the religion's history where the believer thinks the scholars were correct. It is a turning away from modernity in favour of a fabled golden-age.

The interesting thing is that Abrahamic fundamentalists never do go back to the true roots. Indeed, for Jews and Christians, it would be nigh impossible, since the religions developed over many centuries. Religion is never static, so fundamentalism is more of a turning-away from the religion, in that sense, than it is a return. Yes, they return to a point, but there is an earlier point still. Do Christian fundamentalists eat pork? Generally, yes. But Jesus didn't, because he was a Jew. Yet Jesus really shook up the established way of practicing Judaism. Rhetorical question: What then, is fundamental to Christianity? Do we go with Saint Paul, Emperor Constantine or Jesus?

While many fundamentalists live their lives quietly and peacefully, many of them become vocal (which is their right, IMO) but refuse actual debate. Some of these individuals go on to found countries on the graves of other nations, force women into subservient roles, or deprive children of routine healthcare practices, all in the name of their religion. The US arms and funds a foreign nation that is known to be in contravention of UN accords and the human rights commission, all because of religious fundamentalists at home, even while the American economy goes down the toilet. These people go to work, they pay their taxes, feed the needy, but then give money to support the occupation of another land. And call themselves Christian.

All of these people, at whatever degree they impact others, are fundamentalists by the actual and accepted definition of the word. I may not like being associated with those that call themselves Christians, any more than you like your friend, who sounds like an honourable person, being associated with the "fringe" groups, as you call them. However, there is nothing anyone can do to stem the tide of a changing language; one must simply roll with it, or be left behind.

I tried this stuff for a while once. I succeeded only in driving myself nuts with the repetitiousness. I don't think it's for everyone. Forcing yourself to smile when you don't feel like it just turns you into a person who operates on insincere emotions. Many people can see through it and are turned off by the weird artificialness of it.

"If this method improved test scores, do you think schools would be allowed to teach it? I'm guessing no, because it would seem like witchcraft to the fundamentalists. "

Are you serious? Nine-tenths of the church is nothing but this sort of pop psychology. Talk yourself up, there's power in your words, positive confession, it goes under a lot of names. Ever heard of Joel Osteen? I'm one of the fundamentalists you fear, but I can tell you two things: One, this is not witchcraft and it will work. Two, it doesn't compare to the power of knowing who you are in Christ. Confessing yourself to be a good, happy, successful, prosperous, whatever person will move you in that direction. Knowing that in Christ I am already victorious over every problem, able to confront every !$%*!$%*!$%* with courage and boldness, and destined to live in a mansion in a city where the streets are paved with gold will change you even more. And knowing that all of this is possible simply because someone loved me enough to die for me when I was a mean and ugly person empowers me to tell everyone else.

juvegirl,

Four quick things:

1) As far as I know, you spelled fundamentalist correctly, so my comment wasn't directed at you.

2) Fundamentalists from all faiths? Maybe so. But I don't think you've met someone from all faiths. And I don't think we're talking about rabid Buddhists or fundamentalist Hindus complaining about what is taught (or not taught) in American schools.

3) My little moniker is HumilityRocks, not Humility. That is about irony, not about humility. My guess is that I'm much more arrogant than most people you know. Just for YOUR I, irony is also in dictionary.com. Your condescension loses some punch when you demonstrate that you're not quick enough or aware enough of language to get the joke.

4) Let me try again on the larger point.

Fundamentalist has a current cultural definition. It also has a historical definition. The current cultural definition in reality reflects a very small number of people and is a fringe group. A very loud and annoying fringe group, but a fringe group nonetheless. I think that is what you mean when you say "fundamentalist" (and what Scott means as well).

I'm just pointing out that there is also a historical definition that is really specific and different from how you're using the term. The problem is that, being the same word, the term gets associated with a much larger group and the application and bad press is really unfair.

I have a friend I went to grad school with who is now a monk, under a vow of poverty and has given his life to help kids in the inner city. He has done a lot more good than I have in the world and he cares a lot more about minority test scores and education than I do.

He believes in the "fundamental" tenets of Christianity. In a very real sense he is a fundamentalist. He's not one of your fundamentalists.

Our culture uses fundamentalist in a really fast and loose sort of way. That is what it is, and that is unfortunate. I'm just trying to point out that there is a layer of subtlety here that I think we should be more careful with.

I don't want to lump in my friend who deserves to be honored with blowhard dogmatic idiots and the KKK, but the word "fundamentalist" gets applied to all of the above.

It's always somewhat annoyed me that people commonly use "how are you?" or some variant when they merely mean "hello". Any time I use a neutral greeting in response, nobody notices that I didn't actually answer the question they asked.

Wow, that Edge.org site is full of douchebags. "We're really smart!"

A personal story about the power of focused thought:

I once daily (sometimes multiple times a day) frequented a forum with a "I Hate Everyone" thread, where you could rant about anything. The standard form was a quick list of "I hate..." with little detail. Anything that was bothering you could be thrown into the Hate and burned by the collective. Often we shared sympathies -- "I hate [person] lost their father" -- or waxed philosphical -- "I hate [that] some people don't have fathers."

(Aside from the actual problems of life, we often "hated" each other for various comic reasons and played along.)

What I learned after a few months was that focusing my thoughts on the problems (annoyances, inconveniences, etc.) of life was sapping my happiness. Sharing the "hate" didn't make me feel better... I just wanted to rant more and more. Then my grandfather died (it was expected, though) and I was able to use that as an excuse to not only get off the thread ("needed some personal time") but the whole forum (just in case, because browsing that close is too tempting). I quickly felt a lot better, especially since my grandfather was no longer suffering and I was able to make it to the funeral. He was a positive person his whole life and I took some strength from that. Six months later, despite having more "problems" in my life (financial, mostly), I feel the best ever in every way, and all my personal relationships are flourishing. (And I haven't visited the forum even once since.)

"Hate" is a strong word that shouldn't be bandied about willy-nilly. Save it for something that needs all your time and attention to rid the world of. That's true hate.

@drazen: Totally agreed!!
I just watched this movie called "Yes Man"(Jim Carrey) yesterday. It featured a depressed guy finding magical changes in his life by starting to say "YES" instead of "NO" to everything. As much as i got the point that you just need to be more open to new things in life, I couldn't help but think that Jim's character was someone who just lost his funny bone/jovial nature due to the divorce. Not everyone has that nature or ability to crack light-hearted jokes. It just isn't in their nature. So just telling them to lighten up is hard, after all you can't lose what you don't have.

Hi Scott,

We become what we contemplate on. Rote self-talk doesn't seem to work. We must ponder on the meaning of the statements.

To prevent ourselves from monitoring our thoughts too much, it is better to set aside a specific time for affirmations and contemplation each day.

Our mind seems to have the ability to execute our conscious decisions subconsciously. Hence, the key is to allow our mind to ponder on the desired end result. I've become a much better carrom player by just seeing the pouch and hitting freely without worrying much about what the outcome will be.

You can try this in your indoor soccer games. Just ask your team to see the goal every now and then. The number of goals scored will increase.

My goal now is to use affirmations and outcome thinking to become as big a success as you are.

I used to work with a man who was like that.

"How are you, Fred?"

"Absolutely super!"

It was really cloying and annoying at first. But over time, as you really got to know him, it went to work on you. You started to like him, and then you realized you just couldn't be in a bad mood around him.

It was great.

I used to be religious - and depressed. Deeply, mind-numbingly, soul-deadeningly, depressed. The kind of depression in which your blood turns black and you can't get out of bed in the morning - because you've forgotten how, let alone why. This was a long time ago. Thinking back on that time is like peering through a lens into some strange, distant sunless world. I don't live there anymore thankfully. I wouldn't know how to go back there if I wanted to. That part of my life is long over. I'm very grateful for that because I am keenly aware that many people never make it out. I was a teenager, and rash. Things could have ended very differently.

I can't say affirmations were the cure. They aren't strong enough on their own - but they are connected. Changing self-talk was essential. It took a long time. Years, actually - and no psychologist ever said or did anything helpful in all that time. It was my faith. It's one thing to try to say "I'm fantastic" when you don't believe it. Maybe that supplies a bit of a boost when you are close to that way of thinking anyway, but it does nothing for the person who values herself below the level of pond scum.

When you say - and actually believe: "God loves me", it's a whole other thing. When you begin to believe that by hating yourself you are dishonoring god - and you try to take seriously the biblical instruction to "take every thought captive" - and apply it even to routing out the self-hatred - then there can be progress. I should know.

I no longer have the faith I had when I was climbing out of the pit I was all but born into - but I'm grateful I had it then. I believe in positive self-talk - but if that is all you do, it is just a gimmick. The effects won't last. It's like the sweetener in a recipe. It makes the food more appealing - and more likely to be consumed, but the actual nutrition (that brings the growth) comes from other sources.

That's EMILE COUE (with accent aigus on the first and last "e". He was, if I recall correctly, one of the inspirations of the movie THE ROAD TO WELLVILLE. Never saw it.