You just blew my mind.

To answer the question: Maybe. I don’t want to pick a side either way. (Hee hee - I’m acting like a moderate!)

On the one hand, some moderates are really quite angry and take out their anger against what they view as intolerance or irreverence (depending on the situation). On the other, they may truly be trying to keep some modicum of peace, so they try to rein in the conversation to a more “reasonable” place.

But specifically coming out AGAINST fanaticism.  That, to me, seems different from asking folks to be more kind, or reverent or tolerant in their fanaticism.

I’m a moderate on many things, most things...I think...er, maybe not.  But when I’m moderate I shouldn’t attack the fanaticism of others but the instead I should, if I feel I have to for some reason, at most attack the belief or idea they embrace fanatically.

I wouldn’t say radical Muslims shouldn’t be radical, for instance.  It’s not their radicalism I object to.  I admire it and the dedication and discipline it requires of them.  But I’d say their belief that killing in the name of Allah is moral is wrong.  It’s based on only two lines of the Koran taken out of context and so the belief, according to the majority of Muslims throughout history, is wrong.  And the Muslim faith began as a non-vilolent faith in response, in part, to Christians having recently become violent - that was, in the Muslim view of things, a departure from the true message of Christ and character of God.  So it is also inconsistent with their own founder’s convictions.

THAT’s an argument against an idea not against the fervency with which one holds to an idea.

The media is blasting, routinely, “fundamentalism” and “fanaticism” and “radicalism” but the isms aren’t the thing to attack.  Ideas, if anything, make good targets.  If we want a moderate society then none of us can hold any belief or idea tightly.  Moderation on all things is the abandonment of passion at all times.

It’s sort of like how you can’t really be tolerant of everything?

What is sort of like how you can’t be tolerant of everything?

what you’re saying.

I don’t think it’s exactly the same, the more I’m thinking about it, but it reminded me of how people who are really big on being tolerant, usually are not actually tolerant of those who are not tolerant of being tolerant of everything.  (overusing the word?) Therefore, they are not actually as tolerant as they wish to be or make themselves to be or whatever.

so...someone who is really big on being moderate to the point of speaking out against anyone that is not, is not actually all that moderate because they are fanatically moderate.  If that makes sense.  It does in my mind.

I wouldn’t call the moderate-against-radical-fundamentalism a fanatic; I just wouldn’t call them a pacifist.  I think you can be a moderate non-pacifist. 

The moderate stands in the middle of fanatic fundamentalist (liberal or conservative) and pacifism.  I guess you could call the true Moderates “Just War Pacifists.”

I read the liner notes to Moby’s Play album and he railed against fundamentalism and then went on to tell everyone that ate meat was pretty much gonna burn in hell. 

The next CD I think he apologized for his own vegan fundamentalism. 

Essentially, in the first CD, Moby didn’t recognize his hypocrisy therefor a fanatic by his own definition.  Maybe that’s the difference in a Moderate and a fanatical Moderate.  -The true moderate recognizes the hypocrisy as a necessary evil to fight evil, whereas the fanatic can’t see their own hypocrisy, therefore they are consumed by it.

Absolutely, Seth.  Moderation? Cool.  Attacking non-moderates?  Not moderate anymore, fanatic.

"When moderates come out against fanaticism are they not being fanatical about moderation?”

A balanced critique of fanatacism that sticks to the facts and points out both good and bad points of the particular fanaticism in question could still be called an attack on that particular fanaticism while being moderate.  Whether or not an attack on fanaticism is considered to be moderate or fanatical would have to do with the manner in which it was conducted.

Perhaps we have different connotations/definitions of the word attack or fanatic.  In my estimation, there can be a friendly attack on someone’s ideas.  People attack my ideals regularly without me considering them to be fanatical.  What matters is that they have good form and are balanced and fair in their criticism.

At least that’s how I view fanaticism/moderation.  No biggie if you disagree and attack that idea.

MB

I hear ya, Shaun.  I get all bent out of shape when people are dogmatic about what I would call periphery issues of faith.  And I’ve even said before that the I am dogmatic about NOT being dogmatic.  Yeah, it seems hypocritical, but really it’s just a paradox.

Discussion.  Debate.  But not attack.  We must define attack differently.  For me, that word is inherently negative.