Fundamentalist Christianity - Fundamentalist Islam. The difference?

[MineralMan]

They are indistinguishable. Both foment violence. Both are intolerant. Both generate extremists. Both are capable of almost anything.

Norway is a perfect example. Before the perpetrator was known, the media opined that it was Muslims. Now that he is known, the truth is known. It doesn't matter. Fundamentalism is the issue, not the overall religion.

[spanone]

1. k&r...

[tsuki]

2. A rhetorical question. nt

[MineralMan]

26. Very good. 10 points to your house for recognizing a

rhetorical question.

[FLPanhandle]

3. All fundamentalists can justify criminal behavior

Whatever action they do, they justify it as helping their cause/religion/belief, so therefore it's "okay" in their world view.

A pox on all of them.

[backscatter712]

4. Fundamentalism from any religion should be considered a mental illness.

Think about it. How's it distinguishable from schizophrenia? Michele Bachmann hears God talking to her in her head - telling her first to obey her husband and become a tax attorney, then to run for Congress and the President, join the Tea Party and fight against all taxation.

[HopeHoops]

5. BIG difference - how the media covers it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Absolutely!!

[treestar]

6. I have a bit of trouble with this one

Arguing with conservatives, it is hard to come up with an explanation.

So far I have not seen that the Norway example involves religion.

Fundie Christians are annoying, but they don't commit terrorist attacks - the far extremists even.

Still it is political and complex.

[MineralMan]

11. News reports from Norway identify the man as a fundamentalist

Christian.

[treestar]

15. Just saw that.

Wonder how the right wing will spin it.

[B Calm]

12. Tell that to Dr. Tiller's widow!

[FLPanhandle]

13. Abortion doctor killings aren't terrorist attacks?

I think they can be included in that category.

[treestar]

17. Yes. They are single person attacks, though

How does one fight right wingers on that issue? I'm still thinking about it.

Lone nuts or a very few people, as in OK city.

[cleanhippie]

112. Tillers murder was not a one person attack.

There is a long list of conspirators we would be excusing if we call it a single person attack.

[Hugabear]

28. I guess encouraging wholesale slaughter of homosexuals doesn't really count, does it

http://carnalnation.com/content/40170/10/american-roots-ugandan-anti-gay-law

<snip>
The Ugandan anti-homosexuality law, which would make same-gender sex punishable by imprisonment and apply the death penalty to lesbians and gays who are HIV-positive, is shameful enough in itself. But even more shameful is the fact that there's evidence that the law may have come about with the support and encouragement of United States congressmen and fundamentalists.

The fundamentalist group known as The Family (or The Fellowship) has recently gotten a lot of unwelcome attention as several of their members—such as Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford—found themselves embroiled in high-profile scandals involving sex and political corruption. The Family is well-connected politically: they own a house on C Street in Washington, DC which serves as a second home for conservative politicians such as Senator Sam Brownback, Representative Bart Stupak, and Senator James Inhofe. And according to Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, Ugandan MP David Bahati, who introduced the anti-gay legislation, is a "core member" of The Family. Ugandan President Yoweri Musevini, who supports the legislation and says that homosexuality is a European corruption of Africa, is also considered by The Family to be their "key man" in Africa, and has had close relations with the group since 1986.
<snip>

[treestar]

46. You're going to Uganda for it

I'm debating right wingers here. They'll just say that's Uganda and that Uganda is not Christian.

[Hugabear]

62. It's American right-wingers that are pushing this law in Uganda

Just because they're in this country doesn't mean they don't have influence elsewhere.

They can't do what they would really like to do to homosexuals into law here in the US, that pesky Constitution gets in the way.

[sudopod]

102. And lots of Muslims will tell you that Al Quaeda and the Taliban

are not Muslims.

[okasha]

109. Uganda is majority Christian.

It was heavily missionized by both Anglican and Catholic churches during the colonial period. The more recent missionaries have been fundamentalists, which is how the Family got into the mix. Peter Akinola is doubtless stirring this particular pot, too.

The same suspects are behind the pogrom just beginning in Ghana, which has just ordered the arrest of all LGBT persons.

[timtom]

39. What about...

Eric Robert Rudolph -- the abortion clinic bomber?

The KKK was also linked to fundamentalist Christianity.

[backscatter712]

80. There's Jim David Adkisson, the Knoxville Unitarian Church shooter...

Right wing fundie nut who was explicitly targeting liberals, and targeted the Unitarian church because it wasn't "Christian enough".

[duhneece]

49. Christian fundamentalists murdered abortion providers

I disagree. Fundie Christians DO commit terrorist attacks.

In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").<9> The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.

[jberryhill]

78. Abortion clinics are bombed by elves, I suppose

[sudopod]

101. My face when there is only one planned parenthood clinic in Kansas.

:3

[MrScorpio]

7. The Fundamental Islamists are snazzier dressers.

Other than that, they're pretty much identical

[undeterred]

8. They are only indistinguishable if you've never studied religion.

I don't mean that as a put down. But you are vastly over-simplifying.

Fundamentalist Christianity - Christianity is a religion which actually has advanced scholarship and critical thinking, whether the people in this branch of it choose to study it or not. It has been co-opted by politicians for the purposes of electing right wing candidates. But right wing politicians certainly don't have total control over the fundamentalist churches. And I really don't think fundy churches advocate violence.

There really is no (edit: modern religious) scholarship in Islam. It is an ancient religion that has not evolved from ancient ways and has not been interpreted to fit with modern times. The fact that political extremism and and fundamentalist Islam overlap in certain situations does not mean that fundamentalist islam should be blamed for violence either. They do not "foment" violence.

[MineralMan]

14. Ah, but I have studied religion.

Fundamentalist Christianity does not value scholarship and critical thinking. Its doctrine teaches the infallibility and literal truth of the Bible. Anything that does not agree with that is not true, in fundamentalist philosophy. Christianity is not a single religion, by any means. The thousands of denominations and sects of Christianity run the gamut of beliefs.

Islam has produced many fine scholars. It too has fundamentalist sects which decry scholarship and critical thinking, and believe in the infallibility and literal truth of the Quran. They are very, very similar in the way they interpret Islam to the way fundamentalist Christians interpret Christianity.

I am discussing only fundamentalists of both religions, not the more rational believers.

[undeterred]

19. You are making gross broad brush generalizations

that tar millions of people with the same dirty brush. And you are asserting your conclusion instead of proving it. You don't give a single example of a group which is accepted within the fundamentalist branch of christianity or the fundamentalist branch of islam which "foments violence".

[MineralMan]

21. Yes, I am asserting my conclusion. I am posting my opinion.

You're free to post yours. See my signature line.

[cleanhippie]

113. Isn't "rational believers" a contradiction in terms?

I mean, one has to suspend rational thought to believe nearly any religious claim, right?

[Skidmore]

20. Wow!

Some of the greatest scholars in history came from within Islam, particularly in the area of science. Western medicine owes a great deal to the work of Ibn Sina, who was working on ways to control infections when Christian Europe was burning people as witches while blaming them for the Black Plague.

Aside from the sciences, Islam has had great scholars in philosophy and theology and great poets, people such as Al Khayyam, Rumi, and Sufi. The great divide in Islam had more to do with which line of Mohammed's descendants had the right to carry forward as protectors of the faith.

Fundamentalist Christian churches do most certain contribute to giving a nod to violence, as do fundamentalist Judaic sects. No one has clean hands in that area. In this nation, we have Christian sects who would gladly return the nation to practices of the distant past. Witness the efforts to hold back women, gays, and children and to strengthen tradition patriarchal structure in society by removing protections of the law.

I strongly disagree with you and would urge you to do a little research into the history of monotheistic religions.

[undeterred]

27. I am talking about modern scholarship in religion.

And I did a PhD. If you're going to talk about groups giving a nod to violence, are you willing to get specific and accuse them of "fomenting violence"? Are you willing to blame them for terrorism? Should they be arrested and brought to trial?

[MineralMan]

36. And we're talking about the intersection between religion

and real life. Religious scholarship is one thing. Political and secular reality is another. You may have a PhD, but you're missing the point of this thread. And since you bring it up, in what discipline did you earn your PhD, and from what university?

[undeterred]

42. Generalizing about all religions is about as useful as

generalizing about all politicians.

[MineralMan]

48. Oh, dear. Again, you have missed the point. I am not talking

about all religion. I am talking about fundamentalism in religion. Please pay better attention, and read my posts thoroughly. The word "fundamentalist" is prominent in all of them. You appear to have missed that word.

Also, I edited the post to which you are replying, to ask in what discipline you earned your PhD, and at what university.

[Rex]

29. Christianity and critical thinking? Bullshit.

Tell that to the scientist burnt at the stake by The Church. :eyes:

[undeterred]

31. Did critical thinking exist when that happened?

[MineralMan]

34. Uh, yes. That's why the church killed or imprisoned them. They were

exercising it. I give you Galileo. Science requires critical thinking. Religion does not.

[Rex]

43. Exactly, religion requires faith, no critical thinking allowed or wanted.

Not harping on religion, just that you are not supposed to think too much about the details and just 'have faith in Him'.

[undeterred]

52. Just so you know, there is a whole field of scholarship

around religion which involves the study of ancient languages, lands, languages and sacred texts. The people who call themselves theologians also study anthropology, the history of religions, ethics, philosophy, and the history of science.

There is a whole lot of critical thinking involved in trying to understand and interpret religion in the light of whats going on in the world. And these are the people who train the ministers who go out into the non fundamentalist churches. You don't have to have any faith to study this stuff at all.

[Rex]

56. There is no critical thinking needed in Christianity

you might want there to be more, but their just isn't. Yeah people that wanted to learn about life, art etc, had to do so with The Churches nod otherwise it was a quick death.

[MineralMan]

63. Oh, of course, and all that scholarship is aimed at supporting

the scripture and doctrine of whatever religion and sect the scholar professes. There is no assurance of real critical thinking in religious scholarship.

You're talking about interpretive scholarship, which has, at its foundation, the acceptance of whatever scripture is used by a particular religion. That, I'm sorry to tell you, is not "critical thinking." The Roman Catholic Church has been engaged in scholarship for centuries. Oddly, all of it has been in support of the doctrines of that church. RCC scholars who deviate to far from that are soon expelled.

Critical thinking requires the acceptance of the idea that current knowledge may be incorrect. I have not seen such in any school where religion is the foundation. I see it all the time, however, in the sciences.

[BiggJawn]

68. Isn't that field called "Apologetics"?

The study of making Science bend to what the Big Bronze Age Book of Faerie Tales says?

[timtom]

47. Tell "bullshit" to people like

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed for helping Jews to escape during the Holocaust!

And to modern day Christians like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo.

Then, try to awaken your dormant critical thinking skills.

Baby:bathwater, etc.

[Rex]

51. Tell that to all the scholars and scientists that were killed for thinking

critically over the thousands of years - they died for having the GUTS to think above that which required only faith.

Helping people during a time of war doesn't have to have anything to do with religion, nice try though.

Just have blind faith in Him. Thanks. :eyes:

[timtom]

64. Wow!

Seriously, your point of view is so LAME!

Please compare with MineralMan's. See the difference?

No?

[Rex]

66. Lame? How sad for you..

You can quit now if you cannot think of anything better to do but waste my time with your ignorant statements.

[duhneece]

54. How many women were burned by Chrisian fundies

as witches?

[Rex]

73. We will never know.

Fundies of all stripes are dangerous, because of their general ignorance of nature and science.

[Exultant Democracy]

35. What a seriously ignorant post with a huge dollop of arrogance. Do Mu'tazil or Rumi ring a bell?

You assertion that their is no real scholarship in Islam is one of the most absured things I have ever heard. While the christians were busy in their dark ages digging in the mud with sticks the Muslims were the ones carrying the flame of civilization.

Did you think there was no real scholarship going on while they invented algebra? You post would seem to claim that you have studied religion, if this is the case then you are the worst type of liar for the way you have decided to besmirch the entire religion of Islam.


The group know as the Mu'tazil are some of the most impressive religious scholars from any religion that I am aware of with some real transcendental shit that was light-year ahead the of Thomas Aquinas for instance.

And Rumi, shoot I don't even know how to get into him, but if you don't know who he is then you are missing out on some of the most beautiful thinking, philosophy and poetry known to man.

This statement is also pretty absurd from someone who 'studied religion' "It is an ancient religion that has not evolved from ancient ways and has not been interpreted to fit with modern times." I'm forced to assume you didn't study as much as you thought since you are obviously not aware of Sufism. If anything Sufism and the modern Buddhism practiced in the west are the two most 'evolved' religions in common practice. As Einstein said "If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism." Sufism is a from of Islam that has gone though what some would call a convergent evolution to end up in a very similar place as Buddhism in that "It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."

In the end I think it is clear that you are fundamentally ignorant about the course of history in the Islamic world and without an understanding of the rise of Wahhabism you have placed an entire religion out of context. If you did understand Wahhabism then you would also accept that fundamentalist Muslims and Christians just like all fundamentalist are the same when it comes down to what matters.

[undeterred]

You didn't read my post.

[undeterred]

37. You didn't read my post.

[Exultant Democracy]

41. You mean I replied to your original post, not the considerable edits afterwords.

[undeterred]

45. From the context of this thread it is clear that we are talking

about religion as it exists today.

[Exultant Democracy]

55. Your post said it is 'an ancient religion that has not evolved'

full quote for context-"It is an ancient religion that has not evolved from ancient ways and has not been interpreted to fit with modern times."

Your implication here is very clear. You are basically saying that Islam when from Mohammad in his cave to present time without evolving from it's ancient ways. I took serious issue with this characterization because it is so obviously false.

If we are talking about the "religion as it exists today." Then you can't very well ignore the evolution of the religion into it's modern form (even if you say it never evolved.) Personally I don't think you can even have an informed conversation about Wahhabism without going back to the era of Ibn Hanbal and understanding how his teachings interacted with the influences of imperialism hundred and hundreds of years later.

Even still is we are only talking about modern Islam then Sufism still disproves your basic assertions.

[Rex]

60. Yeah but that isn't what you posted originally.

Way to be intellectually disingenuous.

[fascisthunter]

44. fanaticism, there is no difference and trying to spin it shows your own personal bias

very interesting actually.

[backscatter712]

72. Christianity and Islam both have their PhD level thinkers, and they both have batshit fundies.

Eric Rudolph... Osama Bin Laden... What's the difference?

[jberryhill]

79. I'll sign up for a course next time someone shoots at me

So I can appreciate the fine distinction in their motivation.

[sudopod]

103. Counterpoint: The entire spectrum of Sufism. nt

[Skidmore]

9. All the monotheistic religions of the world have rabid

fundamentalists and there is not one whit of difference between all three of them. This is why the middle east is in such turmoil. There will be no peace as long as the vast majority of adherents to all three faiths sit back and conduct proxy wars through the extremists in their community rather than push their fears aside and begin to talk with seriously with one another.

[yellerpup]

10. Couldn't agree more.

A midwestern publishing company turned down my novel for drawing the comparison. I would not edit that part out.

[LetTimmySmoke]

16. The difference: the skin color of the violent extremists

[MineralMan]

25. No. Not at all. There are Christians, Muslims, and Jews of

all skin colors. There is no difference in that regard.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. In this country, the difference is that otherwise sane people

are willing to rationalize hate filled invective out of Christian Fundies, they reward it, accept it, and when those targeted by the language of elimination and division call the hate speech out, we are told we are pony wanters who do not understand 'traditions'.
Take the various 'ex-gay' and anti gay 'ministers' Obama employed during his primary. They had called the minorities they do not like murderers of children, prostitutes, thieves, and they used those accusations as reason to call for war on us, 'the gloves are off, this is war'. The fact that this was done 'under the cross' made it acceptable, even to those who say they are atheists. It is the larger community that allows 'their own' to foment hate until it explodes, again and again.

[Gormy Cuss]

23. Fundamentalism isn't the problem.

It's the marriage of fundamentalism with right wing extremism that is dangerous.

[MineralMan]

24. At the fundamentalist level, it doesn't matter. Fundamentalism

almost always is intolerant of anything or anyone not affiliated with their particular religion. They find support for this in their scriptures and accept that everyone not holding their beliefs is the enemy. Both Islam and Christianity, along with Judaism use scriptures with serious language of intolerance with in it. That scriptural intolerance has been used by all three religions to justify the killing or even genocide of "outsiders."

It doesn't take an advanced scriptural scholar to find scriptural examples.

Since fundamentalists treat their scriptures as absolute, unerring truth, it is a short step to violence. It is separate from political beliefs. The terms "right wing" and "left wing" are essentially meaningless in this regard.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. I strongly agree with your last paragraph

I also think that is an important point to be made.

[MineralMan]

50. Thank you.

Attempting to mingle religion and politics when applying labels seems a mistake to me. For me, the terms "right wing" and "left wing" are poorly-defined in any case. It seems like each person has an individual definition of those labels. I try not to use them.

[Gormy Cuss]

58. That's surely the definition of "fundamentalism" as it's spun today

but nothing about religious fundamentalism requires the treatment of others as enemy -- rather, it requires treatment of them as infidels who aren't reaping the rewards of the true faith. That's why so much energy is expended in proselytizing. Extremists within all fundamentalist sects interpret the message as a call to violence.

One needn't be a fundamentalist to use religious teachings as a call to violence either. Lots of sorta-kinda-members of a religion use their sparse knowledge of dogma to justify hurting or killing others.

[damntexdem]

30. The Xian fundies are closer to seizing real military power.

Think of all the nukes alone in U.S. stockpiles -- and imagine President Bachmann. Shudder!

[MineralMan]

32. That's true in the United States, but not necessarily true

in other countries.

[timtom]

33. Mineral Man!

I'm impressed! A very fair-minded point of view, which I share.

K&R!

[MineralMan]

40. Thanks!

[Cool Logic]

53. Exactly, religions do not kill.

The false followers of religions are the ones who are responsible for the violence and the killing.

[MineralMan]

59. False? How are they "false followers."

Each sect of every religion can point to scriptural support for its doctrines. They all define their doctrines as the "true" doctrines. The more fundamental the sect, the more they believe they are the only real followers.

As an atheist, I think they're all just following superstitions and fables. To religionists, believers in other sects than their own are following false doctrines. Calling another Christian or Muslim a "false follower" just means that you don't agree with their interpretation of scripture or their doctrines.

It's a meaningless term.

[Cool Logic]

88. Like you, I do not believe in the supernatural; however, it is abundantly clear that

people who endeavor to interpret religious doctrines as a license to kill, are false followers. Most all religions have blemishes caused by their false followers attempts to gain power and converts through violence; however, no religion can stand for long without a moral base. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to kill, but to respect the lives and beliefs of others, as you do your own.

Thus, it it goes without saying that those who kill in the name of religion, are the "false followers."

[MineralMan]

89. Not necessarily so.

Both the Old Testament and the Quran contain numerous passages about slaying the infidels. Sometimes, these involve wholesale genocide. Scriptural support for violence against the followers of other religions is part of the totality of scripture.

For sects that emphasize those passages over others, it's incorrect to say that they are "false" followers. They simply have selected a different aspect of the scripture to follow.

[Iggo]

57. Spelling. (n/t)

[MineralMan]

67. Grammar. Orthography. Etymology.

Are we having a discussion of language terminology here? Did you have a comment on the subject of the thread?

[Iggo]

97. It's spelled 'Fundamentalist'...

...but it's pronounced "Killing in the name of..."

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

65. That's a matter of little interest to me.

The only people I'm concerned with are those participating in the discussion. I don't create threads as a popularity contest, to be quite frank. :shrug:

[fascisthunter]

70. it's actually very interesting

it gives on a perspective on DU as a whole. I didn't think you were looking for popularity. I agree with your OP...

[MineralMan]

76. Thanks. I just posted a new thread in GD that directs

people who are really interested in recs/unrecs to the Top Tens page on DU, where you can find some information about threads that are currently very active.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1556822

[backscatter712]

69. Indeed. I just tossed in a K&R to counter the fundies!

[fascisthunter]

71. Good... because I think this OP is important

[rug]

74. The issue is fundamentalism in anything, not simply religion.

They should move this back to GD.

[MineralMan]

81. I suppose so. Normally, I don't apply the word to other

disciplines, though, but I certainly understand what you're saying. It could be applied to political parties, or some of the sciences, too. I don't use it that way, but you make sense.

As for where this thread is, that's not my call, and I leave all such things to the DU moderators. It doesn't really matter.

[Adsos Letter]

100. True

Fundamentalism in its American context refers to a reaction within protestantism to the rise of liberal christianity, and a subsequent definiton of christian "fundamentals."

Current definitions of fundamentalism would probably include Seventh Day Adventists because they are (mostly) socially conservative, and hold to a literal (although not word-inerrant) interpretation of the Bible. At the same time, they abhor violence, support Church/State separation, and believe that religious intolerance in the US will lead to a persecuting theocracy.

And, they don't hold to the original list of fundamentals in its entirety, and would not have been included in that movement when it formed.

[Kievan Rus]

75. All that seperates them is 8,000 miles

[MineralMan]

82. Not really. Measure the distance between Rome and, say,

Iraq or Israel. The major religions are global, not regional, these days.

[backscatter712]

84. Good point.

Christianity takes the Americas, Europe, Austrialia, parts of Asia and Africa. Islam takes parts of Asia, Africa, Europe, has a presence in the Americas and everywhere else in the world.

Geography isn't really a significant factor. When it comes down to it, both religions (as well as all the other major religions in the world) have their crazies.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

77. There is a huge glaring difference

Christianity ends in total world destruction. Islam does not.

[MineralMan]

83. You know, eschatology is really beyond the scope of this thread.

It's an interesting topic, but not really what this thread is about.

[Hand_With_Eyes]

91. 'Pay no mind to the 800 lb guerilla behind the curtain'

:)

[MineralMan]

93. Hmm...

Guerrilla - Few weigh 800 lb., but can easily hide behind a curtain


Gorilla - Hard to hide behind a curtain.

[backscatter712]

86. No, Islam has their end-times prophecies too.

The bible has that wacky Revelations ending. The Koran has something similar, with Jesus and the Madhi tag-teaming to kick ass at the end of days.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim__]

85. Was the massacre at Tienanmen Square terrorism?

If Fundamentalism is the issue, what type of fundamentalism was involved there? Is the claim about fundamentalism being the issue a reach for an overly simplistic answer? My vote is, yes it is.

[MineralMan]

87. Hmm. Not all violence and terrorism are connected to

fundamentalist religions. I did not say they were. There is much violence in the world that has no religious connection at all. I'm not talking about that, though.

Some might argue that political fundamentalism was responsible for Tienanmen Squre, but I don't use the word in relation to political beliefs.

You raise an interesting question, though.

[humblebum]

90. It should never be forgotten that NON-religious extremists are capable

of just as much meyhem as any religious extremists, as history clearly shows.

[tortoise1956]

92. I think you missed the true difference between Islam and Christianity

Christian fundamentalist sects, as a rule, are isolated groups with few members. They do not represent the mainstream beliefs of the Christian church.

Fundamentalist Islamists, on the other hand, are a large driving force in Islam. The Salafis (or Wahhabis, as they are commonly called in the Western countries) contain a large number of sects that not only believe that true Muslims should live by rules that were finalized in the 7th-9th centuries, they attempt to coerce other Muslims into following their precepts by any means necessary, including murder. It is very dangerous for Muslim scholars to challenge this worldview, and many of them have been killed for merely publishing their views.

In addition, these fundamentalist sects have achieved governmental control of several countries in eh mideast, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. In others, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and most of the emirates on the Persian Gulf, they have de facto control of the population through the methods I detailed in the previous paragraph.

Another area where there is a huge difference is Sharia law, which is based in its entirety on a legal code developed more than a thousand years ago. This code is derived from the Qur'an, and does not accept any precepts that are not based on other teachings.

Lastly, even most of the so-called moderate Muslim states do not recognize women as being equal to men, both in everyday life and in a legal sense. For example, it is common in most Muslim countries to find women wearing a burkha so that they do not run afoul of Sharia law, either aa a formal state policy or forced on them by fundamentalist groups who are tolerated, and in some cases, organized and operated by the State.

There is a growing body of scholars who see that these groups and their worldview are crippling their society, and are bravely trying to bring about change. I respect them for that. However, this message is not gaining much ground, and is ruthlessly attacked by these sects. I realize that there are violent Christian sects, but you can't rationally argue that they have anywhere the level of influence in Western life that the violent Muslim sects do. It just isn't true.

Note: While I was raised as an Episcopalian, my parents understood that I had to make my own choices and develop my own beliefs. I no longer attend church, and consider myself to be an agnostic. However, I can't stand by and allow the rigid type of mindset expressed in this thread to go unanswered. I would say that the original poster is advocating a fundamentalist atheistic view of the world, and refuses to accept any other alternatives at all.

[humblebum]

96. For many who post here, they only see RELIGION and Christianity

in particular, making very little distinction between the Abrahamic religions, nor sects and denominations within them. And fanatical atheism, for many, doesn't exist nor has it ever existed inspite of all the evidence to the contrary.

[dimbear]

104. " Christian fundamentalist sects, as a rule, are isolated groups with few members. "?!

There are 13 million Mormons.

They believe the Book of Mormon is the direct revelation of God.

Fundies to the bone.

[tortoise1956]

105. Uh, no

It appears that you haven't had much interaction with LDS. I work with Mormons, some of the engineers who work for me are Mormons, and my wife spent her high-school years in Utah (She was a Gentile, by the way). In my (and her) experience, Mormons are no better or worse than any other group. Yes, there are some isolated fundie groups who hold extreme views, but they do not constitute a majority, or even a significant minority, of practicing Mormons, and their beliefs do not represent mainstream church beliefs.

As far as believing that Joseph Smith delivered the word of God to the world, I agree that it's a far-fetched and, to me at least, unbelievable story. However, they do not generally try to force their beliefs on others. As a matter of fact, according to my engineers, if they go on a mission they are specifically told to not be aggressive or pushy, because that is counterproductive.

Try not to base your opinion of Mormons on a cable series...talk to some of them, keeping an open mind while you do so. You might be surprised at what you learn about their beliefs.

[dimbear]

107. Sillly me. Five years in Salt Lake City but I don't know the Mormons.

Not very observant of me.

[tortoise1956]

108. Evidently you don't pay much attention at all.

If you could live in Salt Lake City for 5 years and not see a difference between the mainstream Mormon church and the Christian fundie sects the OP talked about, then you either didn't pay any attention, or you have little interest in presenting Mormons in a positive light.

As my wife pointed out to me this morning (I was a little tired last night and forgot about this) her first husband was a "Good" mormon boy. Probably the biggest mistake of her life, except for the two kids they produced. Anyway, she has firsthand experience from the point of view of a Gentile what Mormon families are like. While she doesn't care for the Mormon church, she grudgingly admitted that her in-laws and their families were very little different from her gentile friends and their families. That hasn't seemed to change over the years. Her son and older daughter were given the choice to become members of the Mormon Church, and attended instruction in the church (of their own free will), and the son told me this morning when I called that most of their teachings were no more extreme that those found in other mainstream Christian sects. They do believe in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, which I will admit is far-fetched followed by really, REALLY implausible, but other than that they are your basic mainstream Christian group.

I'm not trying to say that there are no extremists in the Mormon church. Living in Las Vegas, with its large Mormon community, means that we hear about the idiots living in the Nevada/Arizona/Utah area that believe we should revert to old testament ways. That is NOT representative of the mainstream church.

Here is my challenge to you. Why don't you post why you think mainstream Mormons are a bunch of Fundies? I'd be interested to see what your standards are.

[dimbear]

116. There is merely a difference in our concept of the term.

My post about the Mormons is intended as a counterexample to your post. It is an assertion of opinion, and it lacks any insult or slur toward you.

Your replies can't boast of the same.

Once we descend to slurs, rational discussion closes.

[tortoise1956]

117. Point taken

I was a little harsh, and I apologize for that. I objected to the characterization of all Mormons as fundies, and I overreacted in my answers. Mea culpa.

I guess the part that really bothered me was the implication that believing that the Book of Mormon was the word of God made ALL Mormons fundies. You could say that about almost all religions. That statement lumps a lot of good people in the same category as a few really dangerous and scary idiots. When I read it, the first thing that came into my mind was those bigots who still say that because some gay men are child molesters, they ALL are.

Before you take it wrong, I am NOT trying to say your generalization is the same as the one I cited. It's simply your opinion, not an attempt to demonize all religions or ascribe evil intent to them. I just don't agree with it.

Once again, please accept my apologies for the personal comments. I'll try not to do it again. If I do, feel free to call me on it.

Can we continue with a rational discussion if I promise to be good?

Edited to put back all the stuff I inadvertently deleted (I spilled coffee on my keyboard last night, it's not working too well...)

[okasha]

110. Two points.

1. Sharia law is basically Mosaic law, adapted wholesale from the Old Testament. In some cases, were it literally observed, it would be considerably more merciful. According to Shar'ia law, conviction for adultery demands either a confession or the testimony of four male eyewitnesses, who must actually see body parts connect. Think about what would be necessary to meet that criterion: four guys crouched down at the foot of the bed, eyelevel with the mattress, while the oblivious couple carries on. (This is one of the things that makes me think Muhammad had a seriously wicked sense of humor.)

2, Burkhas are worn in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan; they are not common elsewhere. The niqab, or face veil, is worn by conservative Eghyptian women. And the chuddar appears to be giving way to the simple hijab in Saudi Arabia.

[Humanist_Activist]

95. As far as the acts of violence, competence is the main difference...

Muslim fundies are generally better organized for terror campaigns and make less stupid mistakes. Christian fundies are generally lone nuts, or small groups, most of them get caught before they can execute their violent activities.

[tortoise1956]

98. Exactly

And, in my opinion, the reason for this is that Christian fundamentalism is not formally recognized as a mainstream viewpoint by most Christians. Fundamental Muslim sects, on the other hand, are not only tolerated by some governments, in many countries they have actively been assisted in their attempt to usurp Islam and force their beliefs on others by organs of the State.

[Humanist_Activist]

99. In addition I think, in the case of some governments the active repression of the Muslim fundies...

also had a similar affect. In most countries with Christian fundies in them, they have enough religious freedom to not be jailed or executed unless they actually act on their beliefs, while Islamic fundies have less to lose by acting. Christian fundies also can blow off steam with rhetoric rather than action.

[tortoise1956]

106. I hadn't thought of that

It makes pretty good sense. Damn, now I have to be nice to you for 15 minutes! (Kinda like a timeout...)

Seriously, thanks for the insight.

[cleanhippie]

111. Actually, I think it's simply organized religion.

Any ideology that teaches eternal pain and suffering for nonbelievers doesn't need fundamentalism to make it dangerous.

[tortoise1956]

114. My biggest problem with any Fundies,

is that they insist on a literal interpretation of the their holy texts, including all the lurid Hellfire and Damnation sections. I do know that we were not taught it quite that way in the Episcopal Church when I was just a little tyke (eons ago). I also believe that any religion that proclaims itself to be the only way to Salvation, is obviously not. I mean, come on - why would a supreme deity limit the road to him/her/it/them, to a teeny-tiny footpath?

Not to mention any sentient beings elsewhere in the universe (think ET). Are they all damned because the Vatican hasn't started a space race against Mecca and Jerusalem?

[cleanhippie]

115. I actually hVe more respect for fundies than I do for moderates.

At least they are consistent and believe what it actually says. Moderates simply ignore the most obvious discrepancies and rationalize the rest. :puke:

[tortoise1956]

119. I like to think of it as separating the wheat from the chaff

Like most ancient texts, the Bible reflects the times and experiences of those who wrote it. Anyone who takes every word literally is going to have a lot of trouble trying to account for all the contradictions.

However, there are good precepts that can be taken from the Bible, as is true of most religious texts. An example would the Golden Rule. In the King James Bible, 11 simple words describe one of the most profound moral statements I have ever read:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

How much better would things be if everyone followed this rule?

Most moderate Christians that I know don't take everything in the Bible literally. They do, however, try to live their lives by the rules that still apply to modern life. For example, they don't follow all the dietary laws, but they do try to be kind to others, help those who can't help themselves, and show respect for other beliefs. They achieve varying degrees of success, and some are more sincere than others, but hey - that's just human nature.

As far as the funamentalist sects, they are willing to ignore the contradictions and twist the words around to justify their actions. That is the scary part to me, because as has been proven in the past, almost any action can be rationalized by some verse in he Bible, or the Qur'an, or pretty much any other sacred text.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth...



.

[cleanhippie]

120. I agree with you. The only problem is that the "golden rule" didnt originate in the bible.

Nearly all of the "good stuff" in the bible has been co-opted and incorporated from prior sources. The bible, in a moral sense, is hardly original.

[kwassa]

118. It had nothing to do with fundamentalism, except as a form of believers vs. non-believers.

Any group that believes that they solely have possession of the complete truth, and that no one else has, certainly creates extreme behavior.


It doesn't have to be religious at all. Nationalism, various political ideologies, cultural beliefs, bigotries.