text:
Main Content
This item ships within two business days.
$4.99 flat rate shipping. See other shipping options.
You already have a Reputation of being incredibly awesome, and now you can step it up a notch with this hat from Metal Mulisha! This snapback hat offers trucker style with a mesh back and an adjustable plastic snap strap on the back. It also features 3D embroidered branding on the crown and bright pink accents. Thanks to this hat, you'll be an incredibly awesome stylish fashionista!
- 60% Cotton/40% Nylon
- Adjustable plastic snap strap
- Flat bill
- Imported
- Mesh back
- One size fits most
- Quality embroidery
- Satin underbill
- Structured fit
- Woven Metal Mulisha tag
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
St. George Lodging
Quality Inn St. George
Quality Inn St. George
1165 South Bluff Street
St. George, UT 84770
Best Available Rates for: Sep 05, 2015 - Sep 07, 2015 Change Dates
No data available for this date range.
Quality Inn St. George
- Star Rating
The Quality Inn of St. George, located in scenic Southern Utah, often referred to as "Utah's Dixie," is just 2 hours from Las Vegas, 30 minutes from Mesquite, Nevada, 45 minutes from Zion National Park, 4 hours from Salt Lake City and serves as Southwestern Utah's gateway to the National Parks including Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon National Park and Lake Powell.
Amenities & Services
Property Amenities
- Business center
- Common area laundry
- Common area hot tub (outdoor)
- Outdoor pool
In-Room Amenities
- Air conditioning
- Complimentary coffee
- Internet (fees may apply)
- Wireless Internet (fees may apply)
- Microwave
- Refrigerator
- Television

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- william clegg
- Gabriola Island B C
- Canada
This conversation is closed.
Can we ever be free of the caustic influences of fundamentalism?
The fundamentalist is one who is fixated upon the rigid, strict and literal interpretations of a particular belief or practice. The fundamentalists use circular reasoning to support their rightness by believing themselves to be morally right and they are righteous in the belief of being right.
As a consequence, their righteousness of 'being morally right' then allows them to see all those who disagree as heretics and potential enemies deserving of their scorn, contempt and even violence in the most extreme cases.
Most are familiar with the religious fundamentalists that can be found in every religion ever devised and who have been behind so many of the atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion and religious rightness. .
But few people are aware of the political fundamentalists found on both the left and right of the political spectrum who keep fanning the flames of conflict in society and who, once in office go out of their way to destroy whatever good the other party might have accomplished..
The economic woes besetting the planet today are a direct result of the adherents of Milton Friedman's economic philosophy which has been summed up as "greed is good' while ignoring all the criminal and corrupt adherents that have exploited this particular belief system.
Of course, the majority of people would rather seek common ground and compromise over conflict and strife. But invariably it is the fundamentalists that want to incite conflict and who seek to inflict their narrow-minded rigidity upon the rest of us, making them no less dangerous to human populatons than any other infectious disease. .
Closing Statement from william clegg
I think Frank Bierbrauer put it best "I believe that fundamentalists of all forms will be around as long as people believe themselves either be superior or possess superior knowledge to that of others". In other words, humanity's inherent arrogance may well be its greatest failing.
Dec 17 2013: I try to base my views on evidence and reason.
I'm human and subject to all the weaknesses that implies, but I have changed my views on many things when presented with compelling evidence and logic.
I don't assert there are no gods or goddeses. There could be a billion gods in every atom. Just I'm not aware of sufficient evidence.
I'm not committed to atheism in the way that some theists are committed to the bible or Koran being literally true.
I'm open to the universe being surprising and counter intuitive.
I lost my Christian beliefs when I realised the core tenants were no more supported than other religions. I wanted to believe but couldn't in the face of a growing understanding there was no good reason to assume it was different to any other man-made religion. It just happened to be the one I was culturally indoctrinated in.
if I faced with reasonable evidence of gods even nasty ones I couldn't help but believe. It's not a choice really.
Dec 17 2013: Thanks for putting so much thought and time into your responses and the excellent points you make regarding objectivity and belief.Dec 17 2013: Hi Obey,
It seems we are on the same page with this issue, and I am with you and the idea to be open to the surprises of the universe. Although I have practiced, studied, researched different religious and philosophical beliefs, I do not believe there is a god, and respect others who choose to believe in a god or specific practice, as long as the practices and beliefs do not adversely impact other people. I think it IS a choice Obey, to be open to information and evaluate it...or not.
You sometimes remind us of the atrocities in the holy books, and how that is not consistent with some of the teachings... I'd like to share a story...
I sat next to a young man on a plane recently, who was studying to be a video game designer/programmer. He was telling me about the business and mentioned the violence in a lot of video games. He realized that violence sells the games, and said he knew of a way to incorporate goodness with violence. Since he is a good Christian (he told me), he wants to create video games based on biblical stories, because in that way, the violence would be more acceptable, because it is in the name of religion/god. Fundamentalists, seem to think it is ok to violate others (kill, maim, torture, rape, etc) when it is in the name of a religion or god?
That is the kind of illogical, unreasonable thinking that caused me to question the religion I was born into. Even as a young child, I perceived the teachings to be inconsistent, hypocritical and contradictory. My devout christian mother, taught me to explore, and live a life of integrity, whether that included aligning with a particular belief.....or not.....and I am very grateful for her guidance as she truly lived her life walking her talk.
All my life, I have interacted with people of many different religious and philosophical beliefs, and I feel that it has broadened my worldview immensely. I fail to see how the righteousness of fundamentalists has ever contributed positively to our global society.
Dec 17 2013: Colleen,
There certainly are quite a bunch of confused souls that think/believe violence would be more acceptable given this or that 'consideration' and who ought to reconsider what they cultivate with their stories/thoughts/feelings/actions. I wonder what is meant by 'the righteousness of fundamentalists"? Here I differentiate between the fundamentalists that happen to be right and the ones that just think they are right! I understand that most just think of only the second ones which sort of makes me wonder why individuals seem to have a bias towards 'the negatives'. I would rather everyone had a bias towards the positives!
That is each have specific practice, as long as the practices and beliefs do have a positive impact on themselves and other people. At least we agree that it IS a choice to be open to information and evaluate it...or not.
Dec 17 2013: Esteban,
The meaning of fundamentalism is...
"a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles".
If a person is attached to a strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles, to the exclusion of, or failure to accept other's basic principles, I believe that is a person who simply thinks he/she is right. In my humble perception, anyone who needs to claim to be "right", only thinks s/he is right.
If a person chooses to believe s/he is right with his/her practice for him/herself, that seems very logical and acceptable. It is the practice of imposing one's beliefs on others that is not very useful.
Regarding your statement..."That is each have specific practice, as long as the practices and beliefs do have a positive impact on themselves and other people".
I suggest that fundamentalists may genuinely believe they are having a positive effect on others, because they are not exploring, or accepting anything outside their chosen beliefs. This practice can sometimes reinforce the need to try to convince everyone else that they are "right". Actually, when a person needs to try to convince me that s/he is "right", I perceive insecurity on the part of that person.Dec 18 2013: So which religious fundamentalists have it right?
How do we separate the man-made beliefs and incorrect interpretations from the one correct god or goddess concept and dogma and correct interpretation. We don't even know any gods exist let alone their nature, instructions,and implications for humans.
seems like the religious approach of relying on personal revelation, authority, and scriptures is all very subjective.
I'm with colleen. If all religionists accepted they are human and may not have it right, that society did not respect fundamentalism, we might ask be better off.
we have enough dividing us, enough challenges getting along with each other in a competitive world without people believing they have the absolute truth. That their god gave them a certain piece of land, that they know how best to live based on their interpretation of their cultural religion.
extremism is problematic, but even more so when people believe they have the creator of the universe on their side. Often these are beliefs with little supporting evidence or logic.Dec 17 2013: Colleen,
It seems to me that the fundamental point regarding fundamentalists I put forth seems to have been overlooked; succinctly put, the set of basic principles the fundamentalists holds can produce caustic influences or produce something desirable. That is "stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" can be a good thing or something else depending on the set of basic principles involved!
On a similar tone, I suggest that the underlying beliefs one holds determine whether resorting to the practice of imposing one's beliefs on others be useful or not. Ideally each ought to freely choose to do what ought to be done and just choose to do it; in practice sometimes individuals have to be 'pushed' to behave appropriately. Of course there is the whole issue of determining appropriate behaviors independent of individual biases and that is a whole different conversation.
BTW I do not see much of a difference between "a person chooses to believe s/he is right with his/her practice for him/herself" and an individual who chooses to stress strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles. Evidently someone may genuinely believe they are having a positive effect on others, because of what they think/feels/consider without this making it be so; the key resides in what actually be happening.
FWIIW seeking to show someone what is 'right' may be seen as a caring kind gift somebody seek to give to someone.
Dec 17 2013: I agree that those who work hard to convince others of what they are confident is true often mean well by it. .Dec 18 2013: I agree fritzie. Some mean well.
I guess they burnt witches for the good of society.
Vigorous debate is one thing. Violence is another.Dec 18 2013: Esteban,
I have not "overlooked" anything you put forth. As I told you in a previous conversation, I read your comments, and understand most of what you are expressing. Again, I say to you....there is a difference between understanding and agreeing.
I agree that stressing some basic principles can be a good thing depending on the principles that are involved. Stressing the golden rule, for example, seems to be a beneficial principle to stress. Fundamentalists often go beyond simply "stressing" a principal, and try to demand, intimidate, judge their particular principle to be "right", and often use verbal, emotional and physical intimidation to "stress" what they believe to be right.
A common argument of fundamentalists is telling people that they "know" what is right....they "know" what is truth, and if we do not follow their beliefs, we are lost....going to hell.....etc. That perception is not at all helpful or useful in our world, and has caused a great deal of unrest and killing throughout the history of our world.
Imposing one's beliefs on others, in my perception, is NEVER useful. Your desire to "push" people to think, feel and behave as you wish, is simply an effort to get people to agree with your beliefs.
I agree with your statement Estaban....
" Evidently someone may genuinely believe they are having a positive effect on others, because of what they think/feels/consider without this making it be so; the key resides in what actually be happening."
Absolutely! "The key resides in what actually be happening".
And what actually is happening, may be perceived very differently by different people because it is subjective.
Yes, in some cases, to show someone what is "right" (in your perception) may be seen as a caring kind gift ON THE PART OF THE GIVER. It may also feel like an imposition on the part of the receiver. When one tells you clearly, that it is an imposition, perhaps it is time to listen, if your intent is truly to be caring and kind.Dec 18 2013: I have heard conversations where smart people state the believe that their prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse.
as a Christian I was supposed to believe Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, resurrected (then disappeared - how convenient), the Tombs of Jerusalem, opened up, the sun stopped in the sky, a donkey spoke, that good sent bears to eat unruly teenagers, and flooded the entire world, the creator of the universe made a deal with a small tribe in the middle east, etc etc.
tired to all this was teachings about the role of women, on homosexuality etc.
it's amazing how religion makes smart people believe crazy unsubstantiated things, often at odds with the evidence.
what is it about religion that can do this? Or is it just the weaknesses of humans who assume agency to easily, and want to belong, and believe what our parents tell us, can be indoctrinated, over rely on intuition etc
Dec 18 2013: Obey,
Its not the religion its the humans... What is it about humans that can lead to all this?Dec 18 2013: Colleen,
I am curious why you seem to see that there is a difference between understanding the truth and agreeing with the truth. I do realize that some will understand the truth and then choose to reject it; for whatever reasons they may have to do so. Still I am curious to ask them why they choose to do what they do. Right now I am sort of taking the role of a caring fundamentalists that happens to be right and insists on pushing a valid point (without going pass the point of demanding nor intimidation). Telling people that one "know" what is right....(when one actually does knows the right way) is just a factual statement. Evidently to those who "know" what is truth, is the fact that if someone does not follow the true beliefs, well its evident to those who 'know' the truth the destination of someone... unless someone changes ... the way they head will lead them to a particular destiny...
My desire to "push" people to think, feel and behave , is simply an effort to get people to see and agree with the truth... (do note I am NOT saying my truth ... I am saying the truth). That some may perceive it this way or that way is a component of what actually be happening, still what actually be happening can well transcend individual subjectivities. Again notice how I seek to focus on the objective reality rather than stay constrained to some individuals notions... for example consider: when somebody gives a caring gift that is perceived as an imposition by the receiver and a caring gift by the giver. The fact someone claims its an imposition reflects a key omission of the facts involved and seeks to make the caring gift into something else in line with someone's perception. Should we listen to someone? should we listen to somebody? should we just recognize the truth of the matter? Do note that the example has three premises "1- when somebody gives a caring gift 2- that is perceived as an imposition by the receiver and 3- (perceived as ) a caring gift by the giver".
Dec 18 2013: There is a point that I think you are consistently missing in what Colleen is saying.
I hope I might try to clarify in different words.
She is saying there is a difference between understanding "what you are expressing" and agreeing with "what you are expressing."
In your reply to her you substitute "the truth" for "what you are expressing."
You may believe "what you are expressing" and "the truth" are the same thing because you are confident you know the truth. Others do not automatically believe what you say is always true. Elsewhere you have conceded, I think, that even you recognize your fallibility.
Thoughtful people tend not to accept simply on faith proclamations of truth from those they happen to meet on the internet.
Please think about this. Colleen, please excuse my interjection.Dec 24 2013: Good observation Fritzie....there is a point that Estaban is consistently missing.
Estaban consistently substitutes "the truth" for what he is trying to express, continuously sending the message that what he says is the one and only "truth". It appears that in his perception, his truth is the one and only truth.
I also agree Fritzie that thoughtful people tend not to accept simply on faith. I believe humans are evolving beyond the point of blindly accepting proclamations of truth presented as the one and only "truth".Dec 18 2013: Fritzie,
Please note how I consistently seek to shift the conversation towards 'the truth'. Its not about what others you me think to be, its about what happens to be. Also note that some consistently seek to shift the conversation away from 'the truth'; and make it about someone's notions. Yes in my reply to Colleen I substituted and used the term "the truth" seeking to move the conversation to that point. For some reason 'some individuals' want to associate that to an individual and shift the conversation into what each individuals holds to be, rather than just focus on the truth of the matter. The curious thing is that 'them who seek to make it about someone's truth' accuse me of seeking to make it about my truth when what I consistently seek be to recognize that the point be about The Truth. Arguing about individual preference likes and dislikes is a bit futile, conversing about what happens to be appropriate seems more productive. The thing is that when focused on the truth of the matter one basically accepts what be or rejects it... where as when talking about preferences one can get into all sort of stories...
Please note that focusing on what I may believe to be or what you and others may believe to be tends to distracts us from focusing on what actually happens to be. The thing here is Colleen insists we embrace her stand on focusing on what individuals think to be rather than just accepting to focus on what be. I insist we embrace the stand on focusing on what be ( do note I am not saying focusing on what I think to be, I am saying focusing on what happens to be). Curiously thoughtful people tend to accept simply on faith their own proclamations of truth while questioning truthful proclamations made by others.
Please think about this. Anyone and everyone is welcomed to interject.
Dec 18 2013: Most people in most circumstances, I believe, would be happy to embrace "the truth" if they knew what it was. Perhaps people are not interested in discussing that idea because it isn't controversial.
People try to figure out what is true and what is not. One cannot do this by comparing against the truth, because in looking for the truth, one doesn't already know what it is. Several story lines tend to fit the facts. One has no truth (perfect knowledge of "what be.") to compare against. That is precisely what one is looking for!
For many people, coming to a conclusion as to what is true is not done by taking someone else's word for it. This is your sticking point. You are confident, I believe, that you know the ACTUAL truth. Others are not confident that you do.
They are not confident that they do either, but this does not make them simply accept as true what someone on the internet tells them confidently is true.
I think you could have a major and productive breakthrough in your thinking, and would encounter less frustration in your exchanges with people, if you could be reflective in this area.
I think those who continue to respond to you are trying to help you look at your thinking more self-critically.Dec 24 2013: Esteban,
You write...
"The thing here is Colleen insists we embrace her stand on focusing on what individuals think to be rather than just accepting to focus on what be. I insist we embrace the stand on focusing on what be ( do note I am not saying focusing on what I think to be, I am saying focusing on what happens to be)."
The ONLY thing I have offered to you Esteban, over and over again, is the idea that individuals have their own thoughts, feelings, preferences, ideas, opinions and beliefs.
The apparent challenge for you Esteban, is that you do not seem to understand the difference between what you "think to be" and "what happens to be".Dec 18 2013: Fritzie,
Thanks. Some who respond are trying to help me think more self-critically and some who respond are just doing it as a reflex to defend their ways of thinking... rather than actually considering what someone on the internet tells them, especially because of the underlying implications. I realize now that many of my comments are like cold water buckets thrown over the sleeping dreamer... rather than a nice wake up call.... I need to design a better experience to help each see what it is that I desire to share with them. As you say its not done by taking someone word for it... its a bit more along having the same experiences oneself... as you say I will have to reflect on how to accomplish this... I hope other also see what it is that I am seeking to share...
I sense you perceive more confidence in me than what I hold, something that I have accepted is that assessing what is true and what is not can be a daunting point and there might be a different way out of the conundrum. I like to say that figuring out the problem may be unnecessary when one figures out what to do with the situation in such a way that the problems simply vanish. In other words it's not about who made the error its about what to do with the situation and establishing better practices to keep that from repeating itself...
Dec 18 2013: This sounds productive. I think valid, useful messages can get lost in the thick of what a person presents.
For example, I think the idea that one can often take actions that are either clearly or almost certainly advantageous even without understanding a situation thoroughly is a good and vital one. Some people find it difficult to act without understanding a situation thoroughly and therefore do not act. But not acting can have a consequence more serious than taking a best guess.
If one is on train tracks and a train is coming, one may not know whether it is better to run right or left but not running is disaster.
I think too that people prefer to engage with those who impress them as open to learn rather than only to express themselves. This might be a consideration in designing a better experience for yourself and others.Dec 24 2013: Esteban,
You write...
".... I need to design a better experience to help each see what it is that I desire to share with them. As you say its not done by taking someone word for it... its a bit more along having the same experiences oneself... as you say I will have to reflect on how to accomplish this... I hope other also see what it is that I am seeking to share..."
What you are seeking to share Esteban is apparent. How about designing a better experience to help YOURSELF, as Fritzie insightfully suggests.
Fritzie is absolutely right! People prefer to engage with those who are open to possibilities, rather than simply trying to convince us that you are right.Dec 18 2013: Fritzie,
I like the metaphor of the train... especially if we add the idea of considering entering a tunnel ... note that here one can't move to the right or the left ... depending on one's velocity and the trains velocity one may or may not make it to the other side in time... and by the time one realizes the truth of the matter it may be difficult to escape what will happen... sometimes it just better to be safe than sorry :-) The thing with impressions is that they are rather subjective and ultimately what really counts is the truth of the matter. Though you are right I need to consider the impressions within the design of better experiences. At the very least warn them what to expect :-)
Dec 24 2013: You are absolutely right Esteban...."the thing with impressions is that they are rather subjective...."
You are trying to express YOUR subjective impression as the "right" "truth".
How about simply trying to relax and have a good, open conversation rather than trying to "warn them" of something!!!Dec 24 2013: Colleen,
"You are trying to express YOUR subjective impression as the 'right' 'truth'".
I am relaxed and having a good open conversation which includes all sort of points being made...
Dec 24 2013: No Esteban. I have never said my subjective impression is "right" or absolute "truth". I continually present it as an idea, thought, feeling, perception, perspective....Dec 17 2013: Obey,
I too seek to base my views on evidence and reason and have changed my views on many things when presented with compelling evidence and logic AND even when no compelling evidence exists thought logic points to it. beliefs are interesting notions for they form the underlying coordinate language individuals choose to use to reason, feel and act. Some believe they can't change what they believe then some believe they can change what they believe. fact is individuals can choose what they believe, think, feel, do (of course sometimes it takes work and determination and practice and a bit more). The thing with 'the words' is that individuals require to know how to properly decipher them to know what the words mean; and the absolute meaning of a word is set once and for all when used. each time the words is is used a new absolute meaning is set. which may correspond to preceding meanings or not. This bounded freedom is akin to what takes place in reality and what individuals think of reality. thinking what be corresponding to what be enables one to perceive what be through what one thinks!
I too am open to the universe (and beyond) being surprising and counter intuitive!
Fortunately for me I kept my Religious beliefs while achieving a level-3 consciousness mind -in other words a life
experience that invalidates and shatters previous world view was unnecessary - http://www.memecentral.com/mu/mu0004.htm In a way I was able to eat and keep the cake by the ability to flex the meme-space on the fly with great capacity to hold 'dissonant', 'contradictory' beliefs while transcending the dualistic notions (by integrating them within a singularity that moves beyond a location and time while remaining still in time and a location).
Succinctly put what I hold to believe is as valid if not more so than others choose to believe. In the face of a growing understanding there was good reason to keep certain beliefs I was introduced to hold; really base on a personal choice!
Dec 17 2013: No problem et. I'm very happy for people to have different peaceful religious beliefs.
you asked whether I am really own to changing my beliefs. I believe I am.Dec 18 2013: I get what you are saying in that we can shake out beliefs to some extent. You can self indoctrinate yourself.
but there are limits to this.
I wanted to be a Christian. But over time I unconsciously did not believe what I was arguing for. It was unbearable. I lost a lot of friends but when I really put the claims to the test they failed.
I've prayed in tongues(still can), cast out demons, had amazing rapturous moments, just like special folk in many religions. These days I explore consciousness via meditation without the religious overlay.
I would only council that we can have amazing mind experiences, but need to be careful how you interpret these.
we can see people's brains at work when paying to Jesus or Allah or in communion with Vishnu. Something is happening in their brain. but we can not tell if they are really connecting to some supernatural entity. Hence I withhold belief.
I've seen ghosts, had an out of body experience, and amazing dreams. As far as we know this was just going on in my head.
one comment of yours that jars is your ability to hold contradictory beliefs. Im wary of messing with the law of contradiction. complexity, ambiguity, uncertainty fine. Two contradictory beliefs. both can not be correct imo
Dec 18 2013: Obey,
I once had an interesting dialogue with someone... the curious thing was that we basically agreed 100% while holding slightly different beliefs... we sort of disagreed with each other... while actually in essence agreeing with each other... we both held one was right and the other was wrong... we both held me was right and the other was wrong... after a while I realized that when someone who is wrong tells somebody who is right that somebody be wrong someone is actually just being congruent with being in the wrong stance... I realized that the belief one was right and the other was wrong could be wrong... for in practice both could be right... the curious thing was that at such an instant we in essence disagreed because I no longer held that one was right and one was wrong...unfortunately the other was unable to consider the alternative I put froth and choose to terminate the dialogue... I learned quite a bit in that interchange... something I been working on for quite some time involves transcending dualistic contradictory systems while still recognizing them. in other words two different beliefs systems need not be contradictory...Dec 29 2013: Agreed, that sense of superiority may well haunt us far into the future.
However, as for revolution, it is a failed premise. All revolutions have ever done is replace one bunch of thugs with another bunch of thugs, simply because they generally retain the same sort of top down hierarchy of power and control. I much prefer evolution to revolution because evolving means an advancement, an improvement.Dec 26 2013: Since this is a debate, it may be useful for us to remember that the arguments offered and refuted here should not be "quibbles" or trivial objections. It is interesting to note that there are several comments in this debate that may, if seen critically, fall into that category.
For example refuting anybody's statement/comment as 'that is what you think' and arguing on the basis that it does not therefore qualify as a valid argument (either openly or tacitly) is logically unproductive and is a 'quibble'. This is so because the basis of refutation is also founded on what the refuter THINKS. It is pointless trying to refute saying 'that is what you think' and implying a greater, deeper and more correct 'truth' without convincing everyone of the perspective of that truth in meaningful ways.
It is another folly in a debate to assume a position of greater understanding of a subject (unless it is technical and you are an expert) simply because a debate is intended for critically discussing a subject from opposing perspectives and if the opposition is discredited with lack of understanding, the debate turns into a 'preaching'.
It is also very uninteresting, at least for me, to argue when objections fail to confront the main argument under consideration. It is fallacious to oppose a point on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than responding to the main claim.
The main claim here seems to be that fundamentalism has caustic influences. The author is seeking ways how we can be free of those caustic influences. There are widely accepted ideas from literature and records about what is 'fundamentalism' and what are its 'caustic effects.' I think the author fashions the debate on that accepted premises. If one has to argue against it meaningfully, that premises needs to be accepted. One cannot win a football match by playing rugby.
Dec 26 2013: Pabitra,
As you sort of of imply the debate ought to focus on what happens to be, rather than what this or that individuals thinks to be. For this interchange I have chosen to take the stand of a fundamentalists ideology based on someone who happens to be right (not just based on the fact that they belie it so, but based on the fact that they just happen to be right). This isn't a trivial 'quibble' its a fundamental one. The main point I want to make is that the implicit notion "the caustic influences of fundamentalism" happens to be erroneous and that 'fundamentalists can have positive influences'. Of course and for the record I am not debating pro fundamentalist that happen to be wrong (though they believe to be right) I am debating pro fundamentalists that happen to be right. Claiming that all swans are white under the premise that we will only focus on white swans would ignore the fact that there are black swans. Just as the statement all swans are white happens to be wrong because there are black swans the statement 'the caustic influences of fundamentalism' happens to be wrong because there exists positive influences of fundamentalism (in the cases where the fundamentalists happens to be right...
Pointing out "that is what you think" is sort of a red flag to the other that they are not considering what be and are focused on something they think (which is derailing the rational interchange) As you stated it is pointless trying to refute what they think to be for after all that is what they think to be. As I have sort of said, there is quite a difference between pointing out the truth of the matter and getting down into trying to convince those who refuse to accept such truth. If someone was truly interested in understanding and exploring the point and I would most likely seek to help them in such adventure.
I sort of pointed elsewhere that we can't be free of influences though we can certainly choose the particular influences that predominate.
Dec 27 2013: Esteban,
In my opinion there are two ways debates follow interestingly. In one, commenters contribute insights on the basic idea on which the debate is founded, without arguing for or against it. But if one wants to argue against it, which is the second interesting type, one simply has to accept some ground rules or else everything is lost in confusion.
Ground rule one: The refutation is towards the idea, not its proposer.
Ground rule two: To use examples, logic and records (evidences) to challenge the idea, not the semantics or cognizance of the idea.
It's fine if you refute the notion that fundamentalism's effects are necessarily caustic. However, one would expect you to forward examples, logic and records from history in support of your stand. If as support you fall back on the moral right-wrong dichotomy, you are in effect pushing the debate into another foundation, which, I am afraid, the author might not have wanted in the first place.
Next, you and the author both have to come to a common understanding of the idea of fundamentalism. Wikipedia reference may be good one. You and the author also need to come to a common understanding of caustic effects. Remember by common understanding I do not mean agreement – just referring the same thing.
Most of us here may not think fundamentalism can produce any 'soothing effect' or anything good for society. If you refute that kindly provide us with examples, logic and records from history in support of your stand.
Dec 27 2013: Pabitra,
First, thank you for your words. I agree with what you stated and hope others do too and that we each and all embrace them.
I think that considering " fundamentalism's effects are necessarily caustic" falls back on the wrong dichotomy and ignores the fact that there can be fundamentalism's effects which are positive. I considered self-evident that everyone would just see the benefits of someone who is right insisting on being right because they just happen to be right. Given that the original assertion was not proven, I followed in kind and did not prove 'the countering' positions. I realize that to prove the original assertion we would involve showing that every instance of a fundamentalist effects would have to be caustic; where as to prove the secondary assertion we would involve showing that a single instance of a fundamentalist effect would have to be beneficial (not caustic). I considered that everyone could find the required case considering the notion that the fundamentalists beliefs happens to correspond to the actual truth. Note that it is not that as support I fall back on the moral right-wrong dichotomy; it is that I simply refuse to stand with only considering the wrong notion.
You are right that we need to have a common understanding say of what constitutes fundamentalism. If we consider it as 'an unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs' then we could see whether the beliefs happen to be this or that; and the effects this or that creates; and if such be caustic or something else.
You are also correct in pointing out that "Most of us here may not think fundamentalism can produce any 'soothing effect' or anything good for society". I think you and others can find many examples of how someone how had an unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs and stood by their convictions changed society for good. Look at Gandhi, or King, or Mother theresa or any who changed the course of history thanks to their good beliefs.Dec 7 2013: It is good to have some belief to live for and to die for. The great Nelson Mandela stood for a belief.
But any belief that has to be forced or enforced on people, by manipulation or by violence, such belief is not good for its believers or for humanity.
We dont need terrorists, fundamentalists and extremists. We need words of truth and love, and acts of these.
greg dahlen
Dec 5 2013: William, you can add more than the current nine hours to this. I really don't mind people with strong feelings as long as they're not violent. I don't think you can assume that a person with strong feelings is in the wrong, I think a person with strong feelings could be in the right, they would certainly deserve to be listened to to see what their valid ideas are. I also think a person with strong feelings should be willing to listen to other points of view, and if the other points are better, to change. Some do listen, and are willing to change.
- +2
William, if you want more time on this, click "edit" and add more. Right now you have nine hours.
Dec 5 2013: thanks Greg, that was an over - or was it an under - sight on my part.
Of course your right that there is nothing wrong with being passionate about a subject, I often find myself experiencing that malady on occasion. However, the fundy invariably goes beyond just being passionate into self-righteousness where conflicts are inevitable, and when arrogance raises its ugly head discrimination and violence can soon become their tools of choice. . . .
greg dahlen
Dec 5 2013: well, in any statement of position anyone gives, it's best to separate the ideas the person is giving from the way they are giving them. A fundy could have excellent ideas, but present them in a way that sounds ornery, or dogmatic. So I can't categorically write off fundies.Dec 6 2013: William,
- +1
From where I stand the righteous happen to be morally right and virtuous. Why ask them to step down from 'their' position rather than everyone step up to the truth of the matter and embrace whatever actually happens to be the truth of the matter? Do note that by the righteous and the truth of the matter I am referring to 'the righteous' and the truth that actually happen to be righteous and true. I realize that there are many a charlatan who make all sort of claims to confuse and obfuscate the matters, though why listen to the charlatans notions rather than the righteous notions?
Do note that when the righteous assert what they know to be true (and which happens to be true) as being true they are basically bearing witness to the truth of the matter. To be arrogant involves "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities", so for the righteous to actually be arrogant they would have to be involved with such a sense. Which is highly unlikely because they subordinate what they think to be to what happens to be. It seems to me that generally arrogance comes from the other way around, that is the unrighteous who want to be like the righteous without actually embracing the righteous ways (a slight variant of this involves seeking to make the righteous like the unrighteous, claiming that there are no right and wrong ways, or that all ways lead to the same place). It seems to me that some beings refuse to subordinate what they think of reality to reality and would rather consider that what they think of reality is reality regardless of what the actual reality happens to be. I think that the more healthy stand involves recognizing what be for what be while still choosing to cultivate the better ways.
Dec 13 2013: I know several people who are quite "righteous" in their hatred of anyone who would have a name like yours. Does that mean they are morally right and virtuous, too?Dec 13 2013: Bryan,
Are you asking if someone who chooses hatred mean they are morally right and virtuous?Dec 29 2013: I believe that fundamentalists of all forms will be around as long as people believe themselves to either be superior or possess superior knowledge to that of others. In this way their egos are boosted. In addition it is common for there to be people who say recognise a great injustice or social problem within their world and believe wholeheartedly that they know the solution to it. This often takes the form of some sort of social revolution usually justified by some sort of ideal. The problem here is that the ideal, once imposed by the revolution, creates just as many problems as it is designed to resolve. It does this if it becomes in any way stagnant or rigidified as many religious, philosophical or political beliefs have done in the past.
Jim Guild
Dec 27 2013: I think this quote from Gandhi lays out our problem with those who base their lives in the fundamental elements of a belief: "All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take."
- +1
Too many believe that straying from their "fundamental" beliefs is surrender. Surrender is usually only attained after a good whipping of some sort. So, the battle rages on.
Dec 27 2013: Jim,
Actually there can be a give and take on fundamentals... somebody can give the fundamentals and someone can take them to learn what to do and what ought to be done! When someone surrenders to 'the fundamental truths that happen to be', someone gains knowledge and wisdom that cedes without condoning ones freedoms.
I know of loving surrendering into a caring relationship which frees and enriches the individuals ... in other words is not attained after a good whipping... as the dance rages on...Dec 27 2013: Thank you Jim, an excellent reference and from an honoured visionary whose fundy belief in freedom was exemplified by his leading by example, peacefully and persistently and without the desire to resort to force. Some might say authoritative - which is where I suspect Esteban's interests lie - rather than authoritarian which is the caustic fundy and problematic. .
Dec 27 2013: William,
Liked the sublet distinction you put forth between authoritative and authoritarian...
authoritarian is the caustic fundy and problematic
where as authoritative is just an accurate and true assertive determination...
Kind of also liked how you 'cunningly':
- supported the idea that fundys can be good
- provided an example that resorted to peace (rather than a whipping of sorts)
I wonder how many will see the underlying implications!
Indeed "fundy belief in freedom was exemplified by his leading by example, peacefully and persistently and without the desire to resort to force..." while certainly determined to attain a transformation that had but one option.
Lamb Lamb
Dec 26 2013: Human's behavior is function of our perceptions, interpretations, cultural values and our attitudes and beliefs. Our perceptions, interpretations, cultural values and our attitudes and beliefs in which factors are fundamentally shaped by "our relationships to others", that are extremely important aspects for human.
- +1
Respect Other's beliefs are explained how people compare themselves to others to learn what characteristics make them unique, this point is not allowed to be dismissed.
When individuals ( one-group ) hold power over another and begin to dominate them, negative stereotypes shade into dehumanization, ( eg. genocide issue in Rwanda in 1994 ) and moral exclusion of the individuals (out-group) are not far behind. The other example, as we are pushing one's beliefs onto others is not a good thing, and it is a practice that has caused a great deal of unrest in our world. (Colleen Steen, 2013).
In Peace & In Joy
Dec 26 2013: Well said Lamb Lamb.
I agree that when an individual, or group, holds power over another individual or group in an effort to dominate with their own personal beliefs and practices, it can oppress and dehumanize an individual or group of people. As you insightfully reinforce, we have seen that throughout history.
I also agree with your other comment about active listening being a gift....both to the one who is listening, and everyone else involved in the conversation. Unfortunately, fundamentalists seem to want only to express their own beliefs, which they label "right" or the one and only "truth". In an attempt to get everyone to agree, they are not usually genuinely listening to any other perspective, which is what creates a caustic influence in our world.Dec 26 2013: Lamb Lamb,
I see that "When individuals ( one-group ) hold power over another and begin to dominate them," it can lead to many possibilities and realities, some which are much better than what has been put forth. I can also see examples of pushing one's beliefs onto others being a good thing, and it is a practice that can bring about a great deal of peace and collaboration in our world. Of course there will be the opposers who seek to oppose this rather than seek to understand it. Some will even seek to justify their oppositions with a diverse set of rationalities most of which will ignore the fact the opposers cultivate opposition while collaborators cultivate collaboration.
BTW I liked what you said in your fist paragraph. Indeed "Human's behavior is function of our perceptions, interpretations, cultural values and our attitudes and beliefs. Our perceptions, interpretations, cultural values and our attitudes and beliefs in which factors are fundamentally shaped by "our relationships to others", that are extremely important aspects for human". I would just like to add that factors are also fundamentally shaped by what each chooses to cultivate/think/feel/say/do.
Dec 27 2013: I believe I understand the position you promote that some people prefer having decisions and judgments made for them, as, for example, the willing members of cults often do in following their leaders, than to come to their own conclusions and to determine their own actions. I don't know whether they consider it "soothing," but it may be preferable to them than taking responsibility for making their own decisions. The leader of the cult may be able to maintain peaceful order among followers who adhere to the prescribed course. The followers in the cult may find the arrangement beneficial to them, as might the leader who imposes his judgment and will upon them.
I offer this as a possible example to support your stand.
Dec 27 2013: Fritzie, I am curious....
Do you have any examples of cult leadership that has been "peaceful'?Dec 27 2013: Fritzie
Of course you could had offered the example of the civil system that ensures and keeps in lines 'criminals' by dominating them to behave nicely and/or atone for their deeds. I am sure 'the criminals' wouldn't consider it "soothing," though it may be preferable to take away their responsibility for making their own decisions given the decisions they have taken than allowing them to continue to criminalize and prey on society and its members. You could had also used the example of non-smokers holding power over smokers and dominating the rules of where the smokers can smoke. Even the example of joyful optimists holding power over the other attendees and dominating the mood of the party! As I said : many possibilities and realities, some which are much better than what has been put forth.
BTW my position didn't consider what you said "that some people prefer having decisions and judgments made for them"... though I do see how some people need others to make decisions and judgements for them...Dec 27 2013: Colleen, there are peaceful little religious communities with a very top down structure in which leaders' interpretations are held as the final word. I do not know enough about the subject to be certain, but I believe some communities of the Amish are one example. The Shakers were another.
Esteban, I offered an example in which those who follow the leader find that beneficial to them because I interpreted other people's posts as asking you for examples, and I thought I saw one that helped me understand your position.
Dec 27 2013: Oh I agree Fritzie, that there are some peaceful religious communities. I have lots of friends and family who participate in peaceful little communities which have set goals. I did not think of the Amish and Shakers as a cult, but you're right, technically, by definition they are. Although these communities have clear beliefs, I do not hear very much about the groups you mentioned trying to push their beliefs onto other people.Dec 27 2013: Fritzie,
I am glad you found that example useful and sought to help others understand my position. I sort of associated the example related to cults with something rather negative and wanted to distance myself from such notions especially in light of seeing better alternatives. Now that you frame it as " those who follow the leader find that beneficial to them" I see a much better notion for all to consider.
The framing " those who follow the leader find that beneficial to them" seems to be much more neutral. I am sure there will be those who see good leaders and those who see bad leaders and then those who see leaders as leaders... Likewise I am sure there will be those who will see cults as good or neutral though I think most will see cults as bad, as something negative. Its also related to the point I am making about fundamentalists mostly being associate with something negative. I wonder: why individuals can't see nor consider that following 'a good leader' 'a good dictator' 'whomever tells the truth' can be beneficial?
I think you would agree with me that cults, dictators, fundamentalists tend to be associated to negative stuff, and how individuals tend to project the examples characteristic used unto the point being made. In theory we should consider the points independently though in practice they blend and are difficult to disassociate one from the other... thats why I prefer to use positive examples...
Again thanks for clarifying the point you sought to make and how you didn't intend to put a negative association to it...
Lamb Lamb
Dec 25 2013: Active listening is a " Gift ". " ? "
- +1
" It is not what our message does to the listener, but, what the listener does with our message, that determines our success as communicator or not " (Mackay 1998).
warm regards to All,
Dec 25 2013: Lamb Lamb
Yes listening is a Gift! To me active listening involves the listener guiding the speaker towards the realizations the listener knows.
Defining the success of our communication based on what the others choose to do; presently seems to me to cede, shift and give to the other a power than doesn't belong to them. In other word: It is what our message does to the listener, AND, what the listener does with our message, that determines our success as communicator! The failure to communicate may reside in us or in them or in a combination of the two or even in other stuff! Like wise the success to communicate may reside in: a) what we do, b) what they do c) what they do and what we do d) some other stuff e) a combination of all of them.
determines our success as communicator is determined by actually commenting!
ThanksDec 25 2013: Too bad those responsible for funding schools and developing curriculums seem to be so desperately lacking in that active listening skill themselves.
Johnny Atman
Dec 23 2013: Mr
- +1
Any form of fixation is not intelligent, and this is the problem of belief, on which fundamentalism is based.
A mind that is rigid, is not free. A mind that is not free, spreads the same energies onto others. It does not matter if the mind does good deeds or not; the loss of freedom is the loss of goodness.
Attitude of willingness can be born of passion, which is different from fundamentalism, of discipline and determination. Passion is the greatest motivator: you either have it or you don't.
Dec 23 2013: Indeed Attitude of willingness can be born of passion, just as it can be born of fundamentalism, or discipline or a determination or a bunch of other stuff. The greatest motivator is love: each and everyone get it though some choose to reject it and some choose to embrace it...
BTW The fixation that "Any form of fixation is not intelligent" aside from resulting in an unintelligent self-contraditory assertion can lead to infectious spreading of erroneous matters. It does matter if the mind does good deeds or not... it does matter if the mind freely chooses to do what ought to be done or is coerced into doing what ought to be done. Freely choosing to bind oneself to do what ought to be done may seem like a loss of freedom or an assertion of it... it all depends on the underlying storyline one chooses to follow... Some minds that are rigidly set on the truth, hope, faith, love can be free while bound to them ideals!
Dec 24 2013: Read what you have just written and see what you discover...if your lights are switched on....
Dec 24 2013: Johnny,
If you want me to consider something you consider then you are going to have to ensure that what I considered corresponds to what you considered... of course I may have a better grasp of what you had in mind if you expressed it first then validated that what I got corresponds to what you intended (or expressed how I need to modify what I got to correspond to what you intended)... As Is I may read what I have just written and see/discover myriads of insights that while useful may have little to do with what you had in mind...
As I mentioned, " it all depends on the underlying storyline one chooses to follow... Some minds that are rigidly set on the truth, hope, faith, love can be free while bound to them ideals"!
BTW note that even if one chooses to fully embrace just one of them, say love... the others just eventually follow...Dec 23 2013: I wonder if fixation is similar to addiction in that the fixation becomes central to the users existence just as things such as drugs, food, sex, hoarding and the countless other things we become dysfunctionally attached to?
I really like the reference to a free mind being an open mind, especially since "freedom" is a popular theme in this 21st century despite all the contradictions to the concept in both human practice and human beliefs.
However I have seen and heard some fundys express tremendous passion when expounding upon what is right and what is wrong or even evil. While I can relate to the passion for a subject has great significance to me, I cannot abide with anyone using that passion to then justify their violence - verbal, physical or psychological - towards those they deem to fall into the later two categories.
Fortunately not all fundys are as openly passionate about their beliefs as others choosing, instead, to live a contented life secure in the knowledge they were Right and find no need to impose their rightness on anyone else. . But the passionate fundy who then insists 'things be done their way' or ' we are right your wrong' is a truly caustic influence. And it is in this context that i draw the line and see that example of passion as simply a power and control high which can become quite addictive to some and very destructive to a community. .
Dec 24 2013: Passion, purely understood, does away with all that....like Esteban, people that do not understant the words they use -in action- they merely talk from mental meaning which is head jobbing.
The sad state is that people do not understand what they say and just say it to score points, as if this arena is a political arena. Where honesty lacks, darkness descends.....Dec 24 2013: William,
expounding upon what is right and asserting that those who are wrong are wrong may be perceived by those who are wrong as verbal, physical or psychological 'violence' or as simply a statement of facts. Note that one can deem certain individuals to fall into a particular category because the individual happens to be into that particular category. Also note that the righteous passionate fundy who insists 'things be done their way' or more appropriately who insists 'things be done the right way' hardly is a truly caustic influence, in actuality they just may be a truly soothing influence . Those who are right can assert ' we are right your wrong' to those who are wrong as a statement of fact; and those who are wrong may recognize what be right and embrace what be right in peacefully joyful ways.
I noticed how you pushed the idea of justifying violence within the context of how you cannot abide with anyone using their passion to then do 'something'... I hope that this particular reframing of what you shared with us leads to a reconsideration as to what it be you cultivated. I also see other notions you chooses to cultivate in your post that I doubt you would consciously want to cultivate.
As Johnny Atman sort of said : The state is that people hardly understand what they say and just say it to score points... often under the influence of the notions they serve which become central to their existence.
Where honesty dawns, understanding lightness descends.
Individuals ought to understant the words they use -in action- and -in theory- and -in content- ideally prior to using them; individuals ought to also recognize that each be responsible for the words they use and how they choose to employ them entities.
Personally I like to use head jobbing as a way to get into why individuals choose to cultivate this or that.
I find often individuals are under the influence of their ideas/feelings/desires unaware of what it is 'they' do. (Ideas/Indivuduals)
Dec 24 2013: Esteban,
People who insist that other people do things their way (the right way as you like to insist) are caustic. Insisting that others do things your way is not in any way a "soothing influence". You can tell yourself that as many times as you like.....that is not truth.Dec 24 2013: Colleen,
People who insist that everyone do things the right way DO in a way have a "soothing influence"... of course they also can lead to a caustic influence in those who desire to do things in the wrong way... we would have to see if the insistence to do it right or wrong is what causes the caustic influence to persists...
As you sort of said - You can tell yourself that (what is wrong is right and what is right is wrong) as many times as you like.....you may even believe it to be so... still that is not truth; for what is right is what is right!
Dec 24 2013: No Esteban, people who insist that everyone do things in a way that THEY think is right are not at all a "soothing influence". They are controlling, domineering people, which is caustic in our world.
I HAVE NOT SAID ANYTHING IS RIGHT OR WRONG ESTEBAN. I continually offer to you the idea that individuals have their own thoughts, feelings, ideas, preferences, perceptions, perspectives and beliefs.
You can tell yourself whatever you like Esteban, and you apparently believe everything you say to yourself is the one and only truth. How is that working for you?Dec 25 2013: Esteban, you are most definitely wrong and seem to be labouring under an extremely disturbing belief system.. I know this to be true and I can prove it because you disagree with my assessment of the Self-Righteous. Since my assessment is Right and you insist upon asserting otherwise you must be wrong since there can only be one Rightness.
However, when you realize and then freely admit the truth of my assessment you too can expect to be embraced by the Rightness of this wisdom yourself.Dec 24 2013: Colleen,
Well that's what you think...
Why do you insist of shifting from :
- People who insist that everyone do things the right way DO in a way have a "soothing influence"...
- people who insist that everyone do things in a way that THEY think is right...
Note that with your 'NO Esteban' you have said something is wrong and thus your capitalized claim is certainly evidently false. Yea you "continually offer to you the idea that individuals have their own thoughts, feelings, ideas, preferences, perceptions, perspectives and beliefs" and I continually tell you that said stuff may be right or wrong depending on what actually happens to be.
As you sort of said: one can tell oneself (and others) whatever they like, and may even apparently believe everything one claims to be... still what happens to be will determine the actual validity of the claims... some will recognize the truth of the matter and some will make up all sort of stories to tell and seek to deny what be... still what be remains being what be ...
Dec 24 2013: I am not shifting anything Esteban. I continually offer to you the idea that individuals have their own thoughts, feelings, ideas, preferences, perceptions, perspectives and beliefs.
People who insist that their way is "right" for everyone do not provide a "soothing influence" Esteban. That seems to be your justification for insisting that your way is right. As you insightfully say Esteban, "some will make up all sort of stories to tell and seek to deny what be".Dec 24 2013: Well that's what you think...
The evidence shows the truth of the matter... you are insisting on shifting from one to the other... even in your last post you continue to do it while denying it...
Dec 24 2013: I have not "shifted" anything Esteban. I continually offer to you the idea that individuals have their own thoughts, feelings, ideas, preferences, perceptions, perspectives and beliefs.
I also remind you that what you think is truth, is YOUR personal subjective truth. You are correct....the evidence shows the truth of the matter. That's all anyone has to do to discover the truth of our conversation is read through the comments.Dec 24 2013: Indeed anyone can discover the truth of our conversation by reading through the comments and making the appropriate considerations. They will see if your claim that you have not 'shifted' anything corresponds to the truth or to something else... its rather easy to see who seek to focus on the truth of the matter and who seek to focus on what some think.
Dec 24 2013: I have not "shifted" anything Esteban. Yes, it is easy to see what we, as individuals focus on.Dec 24 2013: That's what you claim... just look at the comments and see the truth of matter... as you conceded " it is easy to see what we, as individuals focus on".
Dec 24 2013: I agree Esteban, that it is easy to see what we, as individuals focus on.Dec 25 2013: william
Why do you claim that I happen to be most definitely wrong?
In particular what disagreements and agreements do you see between your assessment of the Self-Righteous and my position on it. How do we determine that someones individual assessment of the matter actually corresponds to the actual valid assessment of the matter. If you do know something to be true and happen to be right about it certainly those who disagree with you would be wrong. The question is how does one know who is right on the matter...
BTW the belief system I operate under holds that whomever realizes and then freely admit the truth of the matter gets to be right and enters into the Rightness of the wisdom of getting it right. Why do you seem to consider that as "labouring under an extremely disturbing belief system'?
Dec 25 2013: Esteban,
You just stated that you were no longer going to try to convince anyone that you are right!!! You said you were moving on to better stuff!!!
EDIT regarding comment below:
I was pretty sure he wouldn't "get it"Dec 25 2013: I apologize for the provocative comment. It was only meant to illustrate where the caustic influence invariably ends up and does not reflect the inquiring mind I seek to maintainDec 25 2013: Colleen,
You apparently didn't understand what I said and have distorted it accordingly to what you think I said...
Edited to add:
As I sort of said:
- You didn't understand what I said
- you have distorted it accordingly to what you think I said
- your response below only reaffirms the veracity of what I claimed and have restated with this edited addition
Dec 25 2013: Perhaps you forgot what you wrote Esteban...
"Esteban Trevino
25 minutes ago:
Its been fun interacting and now will focus on better stuff... so you will likely not see me responding as I had been in the past... "Dec 25 2013: William,
First - You might have been getting notified about responses mainly intended for Colleen. I am sorry about that. it just seemed the better way to respond below colleens comments given the existing functionality of the enabling conversational system.
Second- This response is meant to you, related to a post where you apologized.
If you look closely at my response you will see reflected ' the inquiring mind" behind my response to your post that stared " Esteban, you are most definitely ...". In a way I now see that my response illustrates how each can determine how things end up by what they choose to do. In other words without intending it I have illustrated that 'provocative comment' and 'their caustic influence' can lead into inquiry, exploration and better understanding OR away from these. I am glad that was only meant to illustrate where the caustic influence invariantly ends up served to illustrate that we can choose a better road. I sort of want to say I am sorry to have taken out the foundation of your illustration and making it untenable while at the same time happy to have illustrated how the inquiring mind can lead into inquiry, exploration and better understanding.
BTW for the record; I saw your comment as just a comment; in other words did't judge it as being a ''provocative comment', to me it was what it was and I sought to seek to understand what you said. Now that you explained that " It was only meant to illustrate (something)" I think to understand what you intended to show and am glad to have shown that what individuals seek/choose can and does determine the flow of interactions.
Of course some individuals will make all sort of hindsight remarks and claims as to their understandings and the understanding of others; when the truth of the matter eludes them before during and after the fact (though they claim to get it and that others don't get it). Those who know the truth and embrace it get it right! I think you do understand this.
Dec 25 2013: Esteban, there is no doubt in my mind that you are a thinking person who is actively seeking to understand the words and the meanings of others and, in that regard, I see no caustic influence in your perspectives.
So let me take this moment to wish you all the best over the holidays and my thanks for being so engaged in this discussion.
NamasteDec 26 2013: Thanks for the kind words... I too take this moment to wish you all the best over the holidays and may the new year bring understandings and positive influences...Dec 18 2013: Fundamentalism is a fear to live with alternatives, questions and opposites. It is an ancient remnant of human instinct that colors even the evolved mind in the name of ideals, absolute right and presumed superiority as a defense mechanism of mind. I have heard crap like 'Marxism is infallible' etc and I think it creates 'otherness' in an unproductive way.
We can be free from caustic effects of fundamentalism by no less than a moral revolution and a truly meaningful education in societies. But before that we have to sincerely want it to go away.
Dec 18 2013: Agreed Pabitra. Unfortunately it is the ongoing mean-spiritedness and violent retaliations that the self-righteous and the arrogant allow themselves that silences many. And so-called Justice systems around the world will only respond once the violence is perpetrated which is far too late for those so victimized.Dec 19 2013: I agree it seems to be part of our nature. Instinct not reason.
What to do about it.
suggest you can focus on the most excessive behaviours or you can focus on the poor thinking processes that go into religious beliefs. You can point out that the foundations of most religions are unsubstantiated claims.
Dec 19 2013: For fundys faith trumps reason and belief is absolute while that of others is irrelevant. In other words, sadly there is no room for discourse.
Dec 19 2013: William,
Note that 'The Truth' trumps reason and belief is absolute while that of others is irrelevant. In other words, 'the truth' is accepted or rejected ... sadly there is no room for discourse; what is true is true and what isn't true isn't true... still there may be room to dialogue converse reason and discourse about beliefs individuals truths and their correspondences with each other and amongst each other in relation to the truth...Dec 16 2013: On morality, my point is theists claim there is no objective morality without a creator.
I'm not claiming there is an absolute morality.
my counter to the theists is that either an absolute morality exists independent of any gods and the god is just highlighting it or you have divine command where whatever the god says should be done is the objective morality.
just because a god commands something doesn't mean the commandments are good or bad. You have to assessthese on some other basis unless you assume whatever a god says is good. So if a god supports slavery and commands genocide and murder and sends it's creations to eternal torture that is good by definition. What nonsense.
which to me is just as arbitrary a moral framework as every other god concepts moral framework or human frameworks.
my view is there is no absolute morality. We develop moral frameworks and within these can be objective.
Mine is based on reducing suffering and improving the human condition.
this may overlap with some aspects of theist beliefs but I'm not stuck with the harmful or unnecessary rules such as killing adulterers, unruly children, homosexuals, and acceptance of slavery.
Dec 17 2013: Obey,
Well as a theists who claims there is an objective morality independent of a creator I would have to point out that some theists do claim that there is an objective morality :-) Indeed an absolute morality exists independent of any gods and God is just setting and highlighting it ... Do note that just because someone claims God commands it does not mean God commands it. By the same token if someone chooses to reject what be right well that hardly changes what be right. A while back I came to the realization that God just created one eternal destination the thing is that some see it as it is and some see it as it is not... the irony of being in eternal joy while eternally suffering dew to the fact of rejecting the truth of the matter...
My morality is based on the wellbeing of each and everyone. Of course those who choose to do bad stuff end up binding themselves within the bad stuff. The thing is that many a time they get others, even innocent bystanders involved in their stuff... Kind of like a sick child sickening the whole school... it seems we need better ways to promote healthy coexistence...
Dec 17 2013: You write to Obey that you "came to the realization that God just created one eternal destination..."
Is that an example of what you consider to be "right" or "true" or "what be?"
Dec 17 2013: Fritzie
' the realization that God just created one eternal destination..." is an example of a belief that I hold to be true... evidently just as it might be true, it just might be false... I suppose in dew time each will find out... still the reasonable thing to do at least from a rational expected probability stand is to believe... see Pascal's Wager... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager ) I wonder if Obey will find this sufficient to change beliefs :-)Dec 17 2013: I'm interested in how you came to the conclusion there is an absolute morality.. what is it.
If a god does command something is it good by definition..
or could gods be as fickle as humans?
I guess it depends on your god concept.
How do you determine what this absolute morality. is and whether it exists?
Dec 17 2013: Obey,
The construct a god seems to imply many gods, personally I consider that there is only One God and from what I know God's way is one and the same with the Highway... if it boiled down to my way or His way I would rather it be His way...and fortunately it can be both my way and His way at the same time...
As I said I consider the sustainable-desirable-congruent with life ways as the absolute moralityDec 17 2013: I expect that Obey is quite familiar with Pascal's Wager.
I understand now that you hold that belief to be true (as you likely hold a variety of other beliefs to be true) but that you DO recognize they could be true or they could be false.
I did not know until now whether you recognized that what you personally are convinced is true might, in fact, be false. It is useful for you to recognize that you (or anyone) cannot necessarily discern with accuracy what is right or true. This recognition might make it easier for you to come to understand why people do not always agree with your conclusion about what is true. It is not that they want to have been right in a different belief, as you often claim, but only that they, on the basis of reasoning probably as legitimate and rigorous as yours have come to a different conclusion or recognize that an airtight conclusion cannot be drawn on the basis of what is known.
Dec 17 2013: Fritzie,
Indeed it is useful to recognize that the certainty evidence some seek to be convinced could simply be inexistent at this stage and each is left to choose to believe or disbelieve within uncertainty. Personally I try to hedge my stand so that 'I win in every case' :-) Please note that while I seek to share as best as I can and provide evidence to support my claims that I have on many an occasions told others about the fallacy behind getting into convincing them with particular cases. It is not that there aren't any cases, its that 'they' tend to reject any case put forth. It is true that we cannot necessarily discern with accuracy what is right or true, still we can discern with accuracy what is the right to do... there is a story I like: ( at the bifurcation there is an angel and a devil... one always tells the truth one always lies... no one knows which is which... there is a sign that states: asks either one of us a yes or no question an be on your way... there are two ways to go... one leads to heaven one to hell... this has a logical solution and one may know with certainty the way to go even if forever uncertain who was the good angel and who was the bad angel...)
In a way it is that some want to figure out which be this or that angel rather than focus on figuring out the certain way to go... even if forever ignoring certain stuff...
The thing about many is that they seem to put forth an airtight conclusion to be drawn on their basis of what is known without recognizing the possibilities...Dec 17 2013: Esteban,
You write..."Personally I try to hedge my stand so that 'I win in every case' :-) "
Perhaps THAT is why your comments seem so contradictory! That explains a LOT!!!
I certainly perceived that you are always trying to "win in every case".....now it is more clear...THANK YOU!
EDIT regarding comment below.
This is the first statement of yours that I truly believe is your truth, because it appears to be so apparent...
" Personally I try to hedge my stand so that 'I win in every case' :-)


text:
CLEVELAND -- It's time to get revved up car fans. Registration has opened for the Cleveland Auto Show's 15th Annual Classic Car Competition.
(See photos from the 2012 Classic Car Competition in the gallery above)
To register, the car must be 25 years or older, approved by the show management and may not be offered up for sale. A picture must be provided even if you have been invited to the competition in the past.
Photos: 2012 Cleveland Auto Show -- Pricey cars
"This should be one of the most spectacular and memory-provoking displays of cars that we have had in a long time," said Karen Ford, manager of the classic car competition. "We are really taking into consideration that this is the 15th Annual Classic Car Competition, so we are trying to make sure that this Competition represents the very best of the classic cars in northeast Ohio."
Registration is open until Monday, Feb. 11, 2013.
To participate, e-mail Karen Ford at firstname.lastname@example.com.
There is no fee to register.
Judging will take place during the Cleveland Auto Show with prizes awarded on Saturday, March 2, 2013. Prizes include $1,000 cash to the "Car of the Show" with $200 cash going to the next top-five vehicles.
TheCleveland Auto Show races into the I-X Center in 2013 from Saturday, Feb. 23 through Sunday, March 3.
The event will feature more than 1,000 new vehicles, family friendlyentertainment and celebrity guests, among other things.


text:
Red, white and blue potatoes are in the ground. Red onion sets are planted in neat rows.
Gobs of sugar snap peas are inoculated with rhizobium and pushed into the soil beneath wire trellises. They're all my family's favorites.
And, the favorites of millions of people who go hungry every day in this country.
Over 47 million people, the majority children and senior citizens, in the United States didn't have enough to eat in 2010, according to the World Hunger Organization. And, the number grows daily in this rough economy. Hunger has become an epidemic.
Because I've experienced nature's bounty in my vegetable garden for over two decades, it wasn't difficult to become part of Plant a Row for the Hungry (PAR), a program that has been a part of Garden Writers Association since 1996. Their message is plant an extra row of beans, an additional tomato plant or hill of squash and donate the harvest to the local food pantry.
Potatoes are very popular at food pantries; their hungry clients cannot get enough of them. These are some I grew and donated.
PAR gardeners have contributed more than 18 million pound of fresh vegetables and fruits to the hungry, over two million pounds in 2011, alone!
The easiest crops to grow, and the ones that go first at food pantries, are:
Collards and kale
This is my Plant a Row for the Hungry garden. I harvest at least 400 pounds every year for the local food pantry, just from six raised beds.
I don't have to plant extra hills or rows, because there is always plenty to share. As any veggie gardener knows, squash keeps on coming, and there are always too many tomatoes! It's only a matter of taking your extras to a local food pantry or PAR collection point. Contact your state extension service for local PAR information. Many Master Gardener programs do PAR collections.
Please plant an extra row of vegetables for the hungry. It's so easy to stop hunger.
Doreen Howard has written for The Old Farmer's Almanac All-Seasons Garden Guide for 15 years and is the former garden editor at Woman's Day as well as a photographer. She has grown more than 300 varieties of heirloom edibles and flowers in the last two decades.
In stores now!
Look for Doreen's newest book, Heirloom Flavor: Yesterday's Best-Tasting Vegetables, Fruits and Herbs for Today's Cook. Find in stores everywhere including Walmart and on the Web including Amazon.com.


text:
Baking Tools
- Mauviel Metal Stand for Beating Bowl $75
- Williams-Sonoma Vintage Kitchen Scale, Black $39.95
Thanksgiving Baking Tools
Baked treats like pie and more are an important part of Thanksgiving dinner. Our range of Thanksgiving baking tools can help you make delicious treats at home. The collection includes oven thermometers, measuring cups, pastry blenders, food scales, pastry brushes, pie crust shields and more. These tools are specially designed to help you attain perfection in baking during the holiday season. You can also take a look at our range of Thanksgiving roasting tools to roast your turkey to perfection. We also offer a selection of Thanksgiving sides tools like potato masher, herb mills, dressing emulsifier and more to help you complement meals with delicious sides.


text:
If you can dream it, you can do it. -Walt Disney
Quality is a great business plan. -John Lasseter
Let's make some funny pictures. -Tex Avery
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. -Howard Zinn
When critics sit in judgment it is hard to tell where justice leaves off and vengeance begins. -Chuck Jones
And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? -Jesus
A man should never neglect his family for business. -Walt Disney
What's most important in animation is the emotions and the ideas being portrayed. -Ralph Bakshi
Once you have heard a strange audience burst into laughter at a film you directed, you realize what the word joy is all about. -Chuck Jones
Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. -Buddhist Proverb
Sign In
MacBook Pro with Retina Display Teardown
News and events from around the world
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
MacBook Pro with Retina Display Teardown
Apple releases an ugly creature with a beautiful face, something you want to love but have to hate. If it breaks or you want to upgrade, you just throw it away and buy a new one. Brilliant. Make sure you have lots of extra cash for Applecare (or you're screwed) and all the adapters you'll need, like ethernet, older ports that are gone, oh and a dvd drive. You'll probably be in over $3000 at that point.
Hmmm, customizable PC laptops are looking a lot more attractive these days... more power for less.
The new MacBook Pro with Retina Display is stunning. 0.71″ thick, super-fast processor, and 95 watt hours of battery life. It crams 5.1 million pixels—that's one pixel for every resident of Singapore—into a 15.4″ screen.
But even though it packs lots of gee-whiz bells and whistles, we were thoroughly disappointed when we ventured inside. This is, to date, the least repairable laptop we've taken apart. Apple has packed all the things we hate into one beautiful little package.
Read more and see inside: MacBook Pro with Retina Display Teardown
Re: MacBook Pro with Retina Display Teardown
I think I'll be crossing Apple off my list of suppliers that I buy technology from. With their new Macbookpro they are showing that they'd rather look backward and push their technology in the wrong direction. Big companies that are responsible for leading the world into the future, should do exactly that, leading the world.
We are entering a time when computers need to be as "green" and upgradable as possible, totally recyclable, and not promote burying the planet in a pile of toxic trash. Companies just keep pumping out billions of non-recyclable toxic gadgets without wondering where it's all going to go. These computers and gadgets don't last long and this is going to become a very serious problem.
wired.com - I've been writing about Apple and the value of repair for the better part of the last decade. Repair is our mission at iFixit — and it always has been. Even so, I didn't expect the scale of the public response when I argued last week that consumers should choose the hackable, fixable non-Retina MacBook Pro over its sleeker-and-shinier-but-locked-down sibling.
The debate has been contentious. Garrett Murray argues that repairability is ludditism, old-fashioned inertia dragging down forward progress. He believes that more compact devices will necessarily be less upgradeable and hackable.
Others said repair doesn't matter; consumers don't care. On some level, they're right. If something breaks, most computer owners won't grab a screwdriver — they'll take it to a specialist. And if the computer outlives its usefulness, they won't upgrade their machine, they'll just buy a faster one. Some folks correctly pointed out that Apple products are more durable than other computers. Plus, Apple has a reputable extended warranty program.
But sending your difficult-to-repair computer off to a Genius doesn't exempt you from repair troubles. About a third of computers break by the fourth year. AppleCare doesn't cover accidents and only lasts up to three years. Less repairable design guarantees that fixing stuff will be more expensive and complicated. Repairability is important for consumers.
Yet I think this argument misses the bigger point. The future of this planet depends on the quality of our electronic devices — and how long they last.
Technology doesn't just make our lives more convenient. It makes life better on a global scale. Modern communications have driven advances in biotechnology, soil science, and medicine. For the first time, farmers are able to get instant weather advisories, pay for fertilizer by phone while standing in the field, and fight back against local monopolies with access to global commodity prices. Globally, we manufactured 1.6 billion cell phones last year, and we'll make over 2 billion this year. The problem? The way we're doing it hurts people and permanently damages our environment.
I dream of a sustainable technology industry that makes life-changing innovations like the iPad available to everyone on the planet. But I have a message for Jonathan Ive. I think that on top of building amazing new products, the technology industry should have three goals:
- Make our innovations available to everyone on the planet, not just the richest 12 percent in America and Europe.
- Stop the devastating environmental and social impacts of hardware manufacturing.
- Depend far less on mining than we do currently. It's not just the coltan mines fueling wars in the DRC — the Berkeley Pit disaster was so devastating that many in Montana wish they had never tapped the copper deposits. That same situation is repeating itself in parts of China and Africa right now.
I've spent a lot of time studying these problems. I've visited the electronics scrapyards in Ghana where children burn electronics to mine them for raw materials. I've interviewed product designers at leading electronics manufacturers, including ones that integrate life cycle analysis into their design process. And I've spent a lot of time studying the aftermarket — the raw underbelly of the consumer electronics industry, where repair, reuse, and material recovery happen.
There's no such thing as a completely green cell phone or computer. Even elective 'green' standards like EPEAT are far from mandating environmentally neutral products. I'm on the EPEAT balloting committee, and chemical companies have successfully lobbied for years to water down standards — much to the chagrin of everyone, including many manufacturers.
I've learned that most of the environmental and social impact of the electronics industry happens outside of the purview of the device manufacturers: It happens in mines and chemical factories well upstream of Foxconn and in unregulated scrapyards around the world.
Pit mining is savaging the environment, causing water pollution issues that lead to birth defects and are unbelievably expensive to clean up. Semiconductor manufacturers' insatiable demand for a vast array of minerals is also causing geopolitical issues. China is heavily restricting exports of rare earth metals to prop up its domestic manufacturing sector.
When the warranty ends, manufacturers would prefer it if stuff disappeared so they could sell you a new product. But the real world isn't nearly so tidy. Only a small fraction of the electronics produced are recycled. And even then, they're usually shredded and separated into component materials. Shredding is a waste of resources and squanders the embodied energy in devices. Worse, many materials, including rare earths and coltan, are not being recovered at all.
So, why do we keep making more devices? We're pretty close to manufacturing almost all of the electronics we need. There's no need to make a billion more cell phones next year than we did this year. Increased manufacturing isn't just due to advances in technology — we're not very efficient at utilizing things that we already make. If you don't have at least one cell phone in your junk drawer, I bet someone in your family does. That phone could be helping someone else.
In an ideal world, after you've moved on to your next gadget, technicians will continue to repair, salvage, and refurbish the old one. It will move on from owner to owner. iFixit is part of that ecosystem — in addition to teaching repair, we buy computers from people and resell the components. I once received a computer with a handwritten note on it: "Goodbye, iBook. In your death, may you give life to a dozen more computers."
And that's my hope for electronics everywhere. Fortunately, the migration of usable electronics to the developing world is natural. Lots of people can't afford to buy new computers. Passing along old devices is the best way to share the benefits of technology. In a few years, the computer that you gave to Goodwill could very well end up in a computer lab in Kenya. I know electronics refurbishers that have resold the exact same computer six or seven times. And assuming repair techs have the knowledge and skill required to maintain them, those computers will serve their owners well, costing less each time they're passed along.
Long-lasting, repairable hardware is the key to making computers available to people who couldn't otherwise afford them. Upgradeable tech also helps — even if you don't upgrade your own computer, somebody else down the line can. It's amazing how long people can keep technology running.
Read the rest:
Unfixable Computers Are Leading Humanity Down a Perilous Path
Re: MacBook Pro with Retina Display Teardown
I wonder when we'll start seeing Apple laptops that are as thin as a piece of paper. Then we can stack them in a pile every few months when they become obsolete.
Well, someone has to build non-upgradeable non-recyclable and unfriendly to the environment disposable technology, right? We can't all think about the future of life on the planet, especially a big company like Apple, who should stay focused on that almighty dollar and the power it gives to its owner. Maybe we'll see Apple sue a few more companies this year too. I don't see why not.
Federal agencies can no longer buy Apple products for their offices. According to a recent announcement, Apple will be pulling all of their products from the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), the leading green consumer electronics standard. EPEAT is designed to mitigate the negative environmental and social impacts of electronics manufacturing by requiring that products meet eight environmental "performance categories," including product lifetime, toxic materials, and recyclability of components and packaging materials.
Since 2007, all of Apple's new products have been EPEAT Gold Certified, as they've widely advertised. EPEAT was developed by the Green Electronics Council, with a grant from the EPA, in 2006. By June 2007, 19 major electronics manufacturers had products registered with EPEAT, including Apple. Voluntary, government-adopted environmental standards such as EPEAT are one of the most effective ways to make the electronics industry greener. The federal government has significant buying power, and federal agencies can only purchase products that meet the EPEAT standard.
It's no coincidence that the decision came just weeks after the release of the very-difficult-to-repair MacBook Pro with Retina Display. When we tore it down last month, we noticed that EPEAT certification was quietly left out of Apple's marketing material. Even the environmental report for the new 15-inch non-Retina MacBook Pro, which is not much changed from last year's model, no longer mentions EPEAT at all.
According to my EPEAT contacts, Apple's mobile design direction is in conflict with the intended direction of the standard. Specifically, the standard lays out particular requirements for product "disassemble-ability," a very important consideration for recycling: "External enclosures, chassis, and electronic subassemblies shall be removable with commonly available tools or by hand." Electronics recyclers need to take out hazardous components such as batteries before sending computers through their shredders, because batteries can catch fire when punctured.
That's why it's such a problem when manufacturers glue batteries into place with industrial-strength adhesive. When we originally tore down the Retina MacBook Pro, we could not separate the battery from the upper case. The next day, after a lot of elbow grease, we were finally able to get them apart—but in the process punctured the battery, leaking hazardous goo all over.
Read More: Apple Ditches Green Standard, Cuts Off Federal Agencies from Apple Products
3 posts • Page 1 of 1


text:
The Idea for a Destination Hotel is Born
In July of 1971 Valley River Center, which had already become a landmark development in the Pacific Northwest and was about to celebrate its 2nd anniversary, announced a multi-million dollar addition to the complex. The idea for a Destination Hotel (or Motel as it was called back in the day) is born with wild speculations of fountains, river overhangs, and large convention space. The Valley River Inn was a news making icon from day one.
The complex was a joint venture by the Woodard family of the Village Green and the five owners of the Valley River center. It was going to have about 150 rooms in the original build, with plans for more as they were necessary. The complex was also planned to be a large banquet and convention facility with many small meeting rooms as well as a few large spaces. The final cost for the original space totaled 3.5 Million.
In 1972, when the plans of the hotel showed it occupying commanding river view space the city instantly fought back. With the City of Eugene being the environmentally conscious city it is, it worried about the effects that such a large overhang could cause the river and the river wild life. Not long after the public showed its distress over the original renderings the developer retracted their plans and put out new drawings featuring optimal space between the river and the hotel, leaving enough room for the new bike path the city was proposing!
Post Your Comments
To post a comment, type your comment and select Post Comment at the bottom of the form; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the post you replied to. Your email address will not be posted.


text:
It was just five months after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation in restaurants and waiting rooms of terminals serving buses and trains that crossed state lines. On May 4, 1961, 13 young activists set out on a bus tour of the Deep South to dramatize the fact that the law of the land went unenforced.
See also: 50 years later, students retrace a historic Freedom Ride.
By the end of the year, hundreds of other Freedom Riders — black and white — had joined efforts sponsored by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and headed for Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Arkansas. They willingly exposed themselves to firebombing and other forms of mob violence, some of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan. Most of the Freedom Riders were arrested and jailed.
"These courageous freedom riders have faced ugly and howling mobs in order to arouse the dozing conscience of the nation," Martin Luther King Jr. said at the time. "Some of them are now hospitalized as a result of physical injury. They have accepted blows without retaliation. One day all of America will be proud of their achievements."
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the 1961 Freedom Rides, a defining — and perhaps transforming — moment in the civil rights movement. (It's also the year the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial will open in the nation's capital.)
A few years ago, after discovering the mug shots of 328 Freedom Riders who had been arrested and jailed in Mississippi in 1961, journalist Eric Etheridge decided to locate, interview and photograph as many of them as he could find. The following portraits and profiles are adapted from his 2008 book, Breach of Peace.
First profile: The preacher >>