Anti-Abortionists, Muslims and Brown Shirts

In My Humble Opinion
1

This sounds like a Great Debates topic or even a Pit topic, but it’s not, because I’m not interested in debating the abortion issue, Islam and/or Nazism. In fact, I’m not interested in a debate at all. I don’t have a position that can be expressed by the term “Resolved.”

However, if a Mod wants to move this thread elsewhere, I’ll understand.

I want to look at issues of credibility for people who take positions that are associated with groups that systematically use force or the threat of force to get their way in society. Such people typically attempt to distance themselves from the more violent elements of their factions by starting out with a statement that they are opposed to the use of violence for political purposes, etc. etc. yadda yadda.

I can accept the notion that such people are being honest. Here’s my problem: I always see the Brown Shirts standing behind them when they say that. You know, when Hitler was engaged in taking over Germany, he had people publicly espousing the tenets of National Socialism in logical, reasonable terms. Meanwhile the Brown Shirts were out on the streets, roughing up anyone who got out of line, or who were identified as targets by the Nazis.

The Nazi debaters may well have believed wholeheartedly in the tenets of National Socialism, and honestly thought that the activities of the Brown Shirts were wrong and unfortunate. But as we all know, the Nazi leadership just considered the Nazi debaters to be so many beards, as cover to keep people thinking Nazism was a tenable belief system while the guns and knives operated in the background.

And in that sense, anyone who debated with the Nazi debaters were being tooled. They would have been well advised to pay more attention to the Brown Shirts working “behind” the debaters with fists and clubs and guns.

That’s my problem with groups like anti-abortionists and Islam. I see the anti-abortion debaters, but behind them I see the crowds hanging out at abortion clinics, screaming at pregnant women, the shooters gunning down abortion providers, and the bombers planting bombs.

And I see the Islamic debaters, but behind them I see the mullahs ordering women to be killed in grisly torture-murders like stoning, the morality police in Saudi Arabia beating up on women who appear in public inappropriately dressed or without a male escort, etc. etc.

And I just tend to see the debaters as so many beards, cover for the people who will inflict their will on others by violence.

Credibilty=zero.

For the record, and to forestall a lot of beside-the-point debate, I’m not saying that all anti-abortionists engage in violence or that all Muslims do. But there is no denying that some elements of both groups DO systematically engage in violence. And that’s enough for me.

Now, I’m not married to this position. It’s more of a gut reaction than a reasoned position. I might well change my mind in the face of a well-reasoned argument that explains why one should consider even the arguments of people associated with groups that systematically engage in violence. Or someone may have an argument that amplifies mine and extends it so well that I’ll be more comfortable with it. Because I’m not completely comfortable with it.

Have at it.

2

I see what you are saying… but the thing is… whenever there is an issue regarding something people feel strongly about, you will have all types of people involved. There will always be extremists, and there will always be the debates…

It really doesn’t matter on the issue… that will always happen.

Extremists actually think they are working towards a greater good… like if they set off a bomb, they may be able to stop abortions from happening that day…

It is hard to have a level headed discussion about topics like these because people feel so strongly about them…

but you shouldn’t let the actions of Extremists quiet the voice of the other side in your mind…

3

In that case you might as well lock yourself up in a room an never come out. All issues have extreme view points, and there are always some who espouse those extreme points of view. Their presence does not diminish the validity of the original issue, or the sincerity of those who advocate the less extreme view point. IMHO what you’re doing is having decided that you dislike the Muslim view of the world, and the anti-abortion side of the issue, you have very conveniently created a demonized version of both so you can feel self righteous and smug in your position.

It goes without saying, of course, this is just my opinion.

4

442 posts!!! Forget substance, I’m hitting 500 today even if it takes some padding! I hear the chicks really dig the high post count.

5

I agree with merge about this: extremists may well attach themselves to a valid cause, just as they may be behind an invalid cause, but you shouldn’t let extremists sway your opinion. The truth of an idea doesn’t depend upon who holds it.

That said, there are many complex issues in the use of political violence.

It’s a fine line between feeling passionate about something and resorting to intimidation or violence - and often the difference is more due to circumstances than any innate quality. If you are in a position where you feel your cause is valid, but has no political outlet, it is not unusual for people to resort to violence. This can also be seen with organisations such as the Basque separatists Eta in Spain and various organisations in Northern Ireland, such as for many years the IRA.

It’s important to note that in some cases violence may be justified and in other cases it may not be. But there is also a separate issue that in some cases violence may be effective and in other cases it may have an undesirable effect such as strengthening opposition and alienating supporters. (But many people feel they should do what they feel is moral notwithstanding the wider effects.)

For instance, the recent wave of Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel seem to have strengthened the resolve of the Israeli government to crush the Palestinians, rather than winning the Palestinians any freedom or driving the Israelis out.

6

IMHO maybe, what you should do is get rid of your prejudges before you try to partake in any form of debate or critical thinking with any of these groups. Good luck with that.

7

It’s not really fair to lump all the people holding a similar viewpoint together. I think that’s less of a problem in Nazism because it was a system of government and had an army, etc. But attributing behaviors of individuals to a group is problematic to say the least.
There are some Muslims and some anti-abortion people who are actively engaged in violence. Others actively or passively support them, and that’s reprehensible as well. But it’s hardly everybody, and it’s just not fair to say that the fanatics represent, or that their views take precedence over, those of the mainstream. Fanatics by definition are a minority, usually a very small one. If their views were more popular accepted, one can argue they wouldn’t feel the need to use such violent means.
It’s an old question, in a way: can you blame a position for its followers? It’s a hard one that I struggle with at times. In some cases, perhaps. But since most Muslims and pro-lifers don’t feel the need to be violent for their cause, it might be a tough thing to prove here.

8

In any group of people who share the same beliefs, there are those who can justify any activity as long as it benefits their goal.
The end justifies the means.
Rationalisation is one of human beings strongest urges.

9

No, you don’t see what I am saying. I chose my examples carefully, and I phrased my post carefully. Specifically, I said, “groups that systematically use force or the threat of force to get their way in society.” Note the word *systemtically. You’re right, extremists may attach themselves to any issue, but the occasional nut job who whacks an opponent isn’t part of a systematic program. Frex, anti-abortionists have regular programs of picketing clinics, and a well-organized underground that plans and executes bombings and, occasionally, people. Islam in some countries IS the government, so when a woman gets stoned (and not in a good way) it’s part of what I would describe as systematic state terrorism.

Now, Scientific Creationists are people whom I believe to be JUST as wrongheaded as anti-abortionists, but I don’t believe they engage in force to advance their views. And if one of them went nuts and whacked a biology teacher for doing Darwin, I wouldn’t consider it anything more than an isolated act by a nutjob, absent evidence to the contrary.

So I dispute your assertion that all groups attract extremists, and I point out that I’m making a distinction between random acts of violence and systematic violence.

It is hard to have a level headed discussion about topics like these because people feel so strongly about them…

Yeah, but I’m not discussing the groups themselves. You wanna debate those, have at it, but elsewhere. Substitute Klansmen and Palestinians for anti-abortionists and Islamists if you like. The principle is the same.

10

Yeah, well… behind Martin Luther King were the Black Panthers, so I guess the entire civil rights movement is discredited.

And behind the environmental movement, there are violent bozos like Earth First… so, I guess we can safely dismiss the environmentalist movement.

Gosh, this is fun!

11

Fascinating.

I’m generally of the viewpoint that while extremists are the ones getting attention and pulling on the ends of something, its the centrists (beards) that are actually the ones getting something done, so that the end result is something normalized, with fun party fringes.

To me, Evil’s saying the opposite, that its really the unruly mobs in charge, making things happen, and the intellectual side is just a front.

I don’t know how I feel about that. But its interesting to think about. Thanks for the brain candy, EC!

I think I hear Orwell calling me…

12

I like this idea. It’s a bit of a slippery standard since you first have to decide whether or not the group in question primarily operates by force and intimidation. You could make a case that any society does so to some extent through it’s laws. After all, some members of the society will only be law-abiding due to their fear of the consequences should they get caught. Sounds like intimidation, no? But I still like your idea.

I think that some of responses to you have been unfair especially since your idea is currently in use in our foreign policy. How many times have you heard recently that diplomacy doesn’t work with a dictator? Sometimes the peaceful, diplomatic way is wrong.

13

But, conveniently, every “violent” movement that evil captor cites is one that backs a cause he doesn’t believe in. His supposed point would be easier to take seriously if he’d included just ONE example of violent fringe groups on the Left.

That he didn’t speaks volumes. it shows that, in his mind, everyone on HIS side is a sane, rational idealist, while everyone who DOESN’T agree with him is simply a con artist or a deluded fool who’s fronting for fascists.

14

When looking to judge whether a group “systematically” uses force or the threat of force, you probably need to ask how cohesive, monolithic and centrally directed is that group. To what extent do Muslims and/or anti-abortionists march in lockstep? Do they take their orders from a central source? Is there such a thing as a “card-carrying” Muslim or anti-abortionist?

I’d say the answer is no. There are many sub-groups within these, agreeing on some points, disagreeing on others, sometimes mutually hostile.

The “group” of which you regard someone a member may be largely your own construct. The OP is a member of the group of SDMB posters. To what extent should his credibility be affected by the mindless ravings of another member of that group?

The extention of the OP’s thesis seems to lead down a bad road. A free society requires a strong burden of proof before holding someone accountable for the anti-social acts of another. Failure to do so could lead to many problems (e.g. racial prejudice).

15

Xema makes a good point: what do you mean by “getting their way in society”? Take Muslims, for example. What counts as the “Muslim way”? Islamism? Ba’thism? Secular democracy? Islamic feminism? You can find advocates for all of those positions and more within Islam (not to mention the fact that there are also many theological divisions), so it’s rather naive to dismiss the morality and good intentions of about 1.2 billion people based on certain factions.