Speaking of my country, Canada, I rather like
my country's media analyst, Marshall Mcluhan's
take on fundamentalism. It has to do with the
effects of rapid change threatening identities.
When people are threatened they strike out.
That striking out, the way it resonates, and the
responses it gets, help to establish the new identity.
What is called religious fundamentalism is an effect
of the threat of change. However, from what I can see,
such fundamentalism is a definiton which is imposed
on others by so-called non-fundamentalists also as a way
of striking out, to establish an alternate identity.

Liberal, left-leaning values/interests are under threat
and are getting every bit as militant and potentially
destructive as their percieved enemies.

Challenging the W syndrome identfied as fundamentalism
may well be reinforcing it, rather than diminishing it.
It is Hertz' law. The consequences of the images are the
images of the consequences ... self-fulfilling prophecy.

If it comes to an enormous social showdown, the conservative
elements well could win, because of fear.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Gray [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The fundamentalism Problem

--- Francis Gavin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> As opposed to the very specific term 'intolerance'.
> Idiot.

France bans the hijab to promote 'tolerance.'

My country Canada, does exactly the opposite to
promote 'tolerance.'

Define 'tolerance'

> on 2/25/04 10:26 AM, Tom Gray at
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > This of course prodices a requirement for a
> specific
> > definition of the very cloudy term 'tolerance'.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.