• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamentalism

Are there any differences between the christian right and islamic radicals?


  • Total voters
    50

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

He said that they are "far and few between." You mention a single individual as proof that he is in error? It sort of gives his statement credibility. You don't have to identify individuals. Were this all you had to do, then there would be no discussion here. All you have to do is to look at the civilizations. When millions of Christians take to the streets and rejoice in some "god" inspired violence because Fallwell blessed it on international television...you will start to have a point. When Christian organizations inspire millions of Christians to burn down houses and government buildings and resort to mob prescribed murder over a cartoon depicting Jesus, then you will start to have a point.

Come to think about it, why is it that people here are trying to produce mostly peaceful Christian "fundamental" groups as some sort of comparison to mostly violent Islamic Radical groups anyway? Is it merely to show how the mind of the fundamental is related amongst religions? Isn't this common sense? But in acknowledging such truths are we now armed to dismiss the true dangers of the day or to bash Christians? It's simple exhonerations from facing the reality of today.

If we were to argue over who's religion is better (a rediculous, futile and highly insignificant quest), we would only have to look at the state they are in today and their beginnings.....

Christianity - born out of pacifism.

Islam - born out of war where one of the sects succeeded.

And through a history of on and off again religious violence by both, the re-definings, the learned tolerations and the absent of tolerations.....where are they today? Merely parading around that Christianity has its fundamentals is silly.

Parsing the language that I wrote doesn't indicate that I am hinging the non-validity of the "few and fair between" on the citing of one single person. I think you know what I meant.

Christian extremist don't accept other view of faith, and neither do Islamic extremists. Christian extremists want to see the second coming of God, and Islamic extremists want to have 70 virgin wives in the next life (or whatever it is). Both want violence against the other. Some want to send people strapped with bombs, some want to send Tomahawk missiles. Some do it for commerce, some do it for control. It is the same crap to me. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

The bottom line is that one group will value lives of the other group as less than their own group. Personally, I think an American Christian's life is as valuable as an Iraqi Muslim's life. Do you?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

This is not correct. it is not a question of believing in one more than the other. this is what appears as an enigma to foreigners about the Japanese. Shinto explains the divine origins of the Japanese people. Confucianism governs everyday life and Buddhism governs the after life such as it exists. In reality until modern times the Japanese believed in all three schools of thought. But the great wars in Japan were between the warring factions of the Buddhist monks. If you want to really find out about this you need to read the "Nihongi" to know how Shinto works. In English the best authority on the wars of the Buddhist sects is Sir George Samson. The translation of the life of Miyamoto Musashi also gives insight to this. The develpment of the martial arts is related to Buddhist monkes and not Shinto priests.

This website will provide you with a basic background on what i am speaking of:
Japan's Religion and Philosophy (Shinto, Buddhism,* Christianity, Religion in Japan Today)
You're first fallacy is the assumption that I am "western"
Musashi was hardly a buddhist. Sure he had a monk that followed around but that didn't mean squat.
Confucianism is hardly a religion, neither is taoism, they are more a set of principles as there is no claim of divinity in either nor is there a claim of absolute (quite contrary to taoism itself).
The very essence that you have shown here of a mixture of all these "faiths" in the everyday practice of in itself shows that the belief is more a hybridized structure and not the authentic and original beliefs themselves. Hence it's an error of assumption to claim that it was buddhist beliefs that led to the "wars". In fact I would go so far as to say that buddhism itself is not a religion neither as again there is no divinity - enlightenment and divinity are quite varied.
The reference to the warring states as religious wars is again highly invalid. The warring states (aka Sengoku jidai) had nothing at all to do with buddhism nor for that matter any religious beliefs either, they were purely about control of who ruled over whom. In none of the eras of Japan was buddha ever used as justification.

Even by your own description then, if buddhism deals with the death within Japanese beliefs then how then does it come to deal with fighting war in the life?
Finally, just as an example, I don't recall anywhere in buddhist text that places emphasis on suicide through stabbing one's self in the abdomen? It's clear that the buddhist belief though transfered over from china through korea has manifested itself into something else all together with only certain select parts (self enlightenment) preserved.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Christianity - born out of pacifism.

Islam - born out of war where one of the sects succeeded.
Christianity born out of pacifism, yet used as a justification for various wars through out history and also used to the persecution of thousands of individuals so as for the right of the vatican to exert it's "divine" control of the whole of europe.

Islam born out of war? Interesting - since Mohamed claimed he was but re-describing Jewish and Christian beliefs and not creating a new religion. So then if you are to make the claim that Islam was born out of war, then the same would be for Christianity and Judaism to which the premise I've made stands.

The "Christianity - born out of pacifism. Islam - born out of war where one of the sects succeeded" is but the seeming bias against one religion over another and the inability of objectivity.
The war between mecca and medina was about control and not religion though yes it also had to do with the interpretation of, however this is invalid then to say that the religion itself was born out of war.
Fact of the matter is that fundamentalists anywhere whom believe themselves to be right through divinity and thus superior to are indifferent. Whether they be christian or muslim, it doesn't matter.
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

You're first fallacy is the assumption that I am "western"
Musashi was hardly a buddhist. Sure he had a monk that followed around but that didn't mean squat.
Confucianism is hardly a religion, neither is taoism, they are more a set of principles as there is no claim of divinity in either nor is there a claim of absolute (quite contrary to taoism itself).
The very essence that you have shown here of a mixture of all these "faiths" in the everyday practice of in itself shows that the belief is more a hybridized structure and not the authentic and original beliefs themselves. Hence it's an error of assumption to claim that it was buddhist beliefs that led to the "wars". In fact I would go so far as to say that buddhism itself is not a religion neither as again there is no divinity - enlightenment and divinity are quite varied.
The reference to the warring states as religious wars is again highly invalid. The warring states (aka Sengoku jidai) had nothing at all to do with buddhism nor for that matter any religious beliefs either, they were purely about control of who ruled over whom. In none of the eras of Japan was buddha ever used as justification.

Even by your own description then, if buddhism deals with the death within Japanese beliefs then how then does it come to deal with fighting war in the life?
Finally, just as an example, I don't recall anywhere in buddhist text that places emphasis on suicide through stabbing one's self in the abdomen? It's clear that the buddhist belief though transfered over from china through korea has manifested itself into something else all together with only certain select parts (self enlightenment) preserved.


Eastern or Westerner your basic premise is still incorrect.... there is no more to say.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Eastern or Westerner your basic premise is still incorrect.... there is no more to say.
Well that's intriguing, as I've clearly shown how the wars you've stated had absolutely nothing at all to do with religious conflict.
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Well that's intriguing, as I've clearly shown how the wars you've stated had absolutely nothing at all to do with religious conflict.

Whatr you have shown is an opinion that I disagree with totally in almost every sentence.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,631
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Parsing the language that I wrote doesn't indicate that I am hinging the non-validity of the "few and fair between" on the citing of one single person. I think you know what I meant.

Christian extremist don't accept other view of faith, and neither do Islamic extremists. Christian extremists want to see the second coming of God, and Islamic extremists want to have 70 virgin wives in the next life (or whatever it is). Both want violence against the other. Some want to send people strapped with bombs, some want to send Tomahawk missiles. Some do it for commerce, some do it for control. It is the same crap to me. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

The bottom line is that one group will value lives of the other group as less than their own group. Personally, I think an American Christian's life is as valuable as an Iraqi Muslim's life. Do you?

I don't really care. Our enemy is the Islamic fundamental and his suicide bombs, not a Christian fundamental and his tomahawks (I guess he keeps those in his garage).

And regarding the emboldened, where are the Christian fundamentals that travel across borders to kill non-Christians? It's the same crap to you, because you appear to have an intoleration for religion in general. Or you simply detest current day affairs and find comfort in being "politically correct" instead of facing truths.

I don't have a problem with that Christian fundamental who knocks on my door. I don't have a problem with the Buddhist Monk fundamental who sets himself on fire in protest. I do have a problem with the Islamic fundamental who is determined to slaughter in the name of his god.
 

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
9,349
Reaction score
3,947
Location
Montana
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

There are few differences between Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. Both religions subscribe to a "my way or the highway" ideology. Both have in the past or present gone to extreme measures to get their points across. Both contain a minority of extremists who go too far. Perhaps as of late the Islamic fundamentalists have been a bit more extreme, but that could easily be pegged to the fact that most Islamic fundamentalists live in a far less progressive and more barbaric culture and environment than most Christian fundamentalists do.
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

In the year 710, the first permanent Japanese capital was established in Nara, a city modelled after the Chinese capital. Large Buddhist monasteries were built in the new capital. The monasteries quickly gained such strong political influence that, in order to protect the position of the emperor and central government, the capital was moved to Nagaoka in 784, and finally to Heian (Kyoto) in 794 where it should remain for over one thousand years.
One characteristic of the Nara and Heian periods is a gradual decline of Chinese influence which, nevertheless, remained strong. Many of the imported ideas were gradually "Japanized". In order to meet particular Japanese needs, several governmental offices were established in addition to the government system which was copied after the Chinese model, for example. In the arts too, native Japanese movements became increasingly popular. The development of the Kana syllables made the creation of actual Japanese literature possible. Several new Buddhist sects that were imported from China during the Heian period, were also "Japanized".
Among the worst failures of the Taika reforms were the land and taxation reforms: High taxes resulted in the impoverishment of many farmers who then had to sell their properties and became tenants of larger land owners. Furthermore, many aristocrats and the Buddhist monasteries succeeded in achieving tax immunity. As a result, the state income decreased, and over the centuries, the political power steadily shifted from the central government to the large independent land owners.
The Fujiwara family controlled the political scene of the Heian period over several centuries through strategic intermarriages with the imperial family and by occupying all the important political offices in Kyoto and the major provinces. The power of the clan reached its peak with Fujiwara Michinaga in the year 1016. After Michinaga, however, the ability of the Fujiwara leaders began to decline, and public order could not be maintained. Many land owners hired samurai for the protection of their properties. That is how the military class became more and more influential, especially in Eastern Japan.
The Fujiwara supremacy came to an end in 1068 when the new emperor Go-Sanjo was determined to rule the country by himself, and the Fujiwara failed to control him. In the year 1086 Go-Sanjo abdicated but continued to rule from behind the political stage. This new form of government was called Insei government. Insei emperors exerted political power from 1086 until 1156 when Taira Kiyomori became the new leader of Japan.
In the 12th century, two military families with aristocratic backgrounds gained much power: the Minamoto (or Genji) and Taira (or Heike) families. The Taira replaced many Fujiwara nobles in important offices while the Minamoto gained military experience by bringing parts of Northern Honshu under Japanese control in the Early Nine Years War (1050 - 1059) and the Later Three Years war (1083 - 1087).
After the Heiji Rising (1159), a struggle for power between the two families, Taira Kiyomori evolved as the leader of Japan and ruled the country from 1168 to 1178 through the emperor. The major threats with which he was confronted were not only the rivalling Minamoto but also the increasingly militant Buddhist monasteries which frequently led wars between each other and disturbed public order.
After Kiyomori's death, the Taira and Minamoto clans fought a deciding war for supremacy, the Gempei War, which lasted from 1180 to 1185. By the end of the war, the Minamoto were able to put an end to Taira supremacy, and Minamoto Yoritomo succeeded as the leader of Japan. After eliminating all of his potential and acute enemies, including close family members, he was appointed Shogun (highest military officer) and established a new government in his home city Kamakura.
Japanese history: Nara, Heian Periods
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

I don't really care. Our enemy is the Islamic fundamental and his suicide bombs, not a Christian fundamental and his tomahawks (I guess he keeps those in his garage).

And regarding the emboldened, where are the Christian fundamentals that travel across borders to kill non-Christians? It's the same crap to you, because you appear to have an intoleration for religion in general. Or you simply detest current day affairs and find comfort in being "politically correct" instead of facing truths.

I don't have a problem with that Christian fundamental who knocks on my door. I don't have a problem with the Buddhist Monk fundamental who sets himself on fire in protest. I do have a problem with the Islamic fundamental who is determined to slaughter in the name of his god.

Our enemy is not the fundamental at all, it is the society they live in. You throw some Christian loonies in the Middle East instead of Islamic, and the exact same thing would happen. There is nothing inherently different in the religions that would keep Christians from doing violence like Islamics are doing today. Given the charters and goals of some of the Christian fundamental groups, it is clear that they would have no problem acting the same in America as Islamic fundamentalists do in the Middle East, but our society will not tolerate it. We are educated and fed, with hope for our children's future. The Christian fundamentalists have nothing to offer the vast, vast majority of the people that is better than what they have. So the sit and fester on the outskirts of society, occasionally bombing an abortion clinic, but not able to do much damage because they cannot get a foothold.

In comparison, what little education there is in the Middle East often consists of solely the Koran. It'd be like teaching American kids only the Bible. Of course religious fundamentalism is going to flourish in that environment, even more given the fact that their economy is in the garbage and people have no hope for a job, let alone a future.

Religious fundamentalism is not the problem. A society that is so stagnated that it allows fundamentalism to flourish is.
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Even with some points of contention your post on this is tops. I agree with what you say for the most part but that still does not diminish the possible threat that fundamentalism poses in all societies even intellectually advanced ones. Look at history. People can be duped even if they are well educated.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Our enemy is not the fundamental at all, it is the society they live in. You throw some Christian loonies in the Middle East instead of Islamic, and the exact same thing would happen. There is nothing inherently different in the religions that would keep Christians from doing violence like Islamics are doing today. Given the charters and goals of some of the Christian fundamental groups, it is clear that they would have no problem acting the same in America as Islamic fundamentalists do in the Middle East, but our society will not tolerate it. We are educated and fed, with hope for our children's future. The Christian fundamentalists have nothing to offer the vast, vast majority of the people that is better than what they have. So the sit and fester on the outskirts of society, occasionally bombing an abortion clinic, but not able to do much damage because they cannot get a foothold.

In comparison, what little education there is in the Middle East often consists of solely the Koran. It'd be like teaching American kids only the Bible. Of course religious fundamentalism is going to flourish in that environment, even more given the fact that their economy is in the garbage and people have no hope for a job, let alone a future.

Religious fundamentalism is not the problem. A society that is so stagnated that it allows fundamentalism to flourish is.
Great post, bingo, you hit it dead on.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

In the year 710, the first permanent Japanese capital was established in Nara, a city modelled after the Chinese capital. Large Buddhist monasteries were built in the new capital. The monasteries quickly gained such strong political influence that, in order to protect the position of the emperor and central government, the capital was moved to Nagaoka in 784, and finally to Heian (Kyoto) in 794 where it should remain for over one thousand years.
One characteristic of the Nara and Heian periods is a gradual decline of Chinese influence which, nevertheless, remained strong. Many of the imported ideas were gradually "Japanized". In order to meet particular Japanese needs, several governmental offices were established in addition to the government system which was copied after the Chinese model, for example. In the arts too, native Japanese movements became increasingly popular. The development of the Kana syllables made the creation of actual Japanese literature possible. Several new Buddhist sects that were imported from China during the Heian period, were also "Japanized".
Among the worst failures of the Taika reforms were the land and taxation reforms: High taxes resulted in the impoverishment of many farmers who then had to sell their properties and became tenants of larger land owners. Furthermore, many aristocrats and the Buddhist monasteries succeeded in achieving tax immunity. As a result, the state income decreased, and over the centuries, the political power steadily shifted from the central government to the large independent land owners.
The Fujiwara family controlled the political scene of the Heian period over several centuries through strategic intermarriages with the imperial family and by occupying all the important political offices in Kyoto and the major provinces. The power of the clan reached its peak with Fujiwara Michinaga in the year 1016. After Michinaga, however, the ability of the Fujiwara leaders began to decline, and public order could not be maintained. Many land owners hired samurai for the protection of their properties. That is how the military class became more and more influential, especially in Eastern Japan.
The Fujiwara supremacy came to an end in 1068 when the new emperor Go-Sanjo was determined to rule the country by himself, and the Fujiwara failed to control him. In the year 1086 Go-Sanjo abdicated but continued to rule from behind the political stage. This new form of government was called Insei government. Insei emperors exerted political power from 1086 until 1156 when Taira Kiyomori became the new leader of Japan.
In the 12th century, two military families with aristocratic backgrounds gained much power: the Minamoto (or Genji) and Taira (or Heike) families. The Taira replaced many Fujiwara nobles in important offices while the Minamoto gained military experience by bringing parts of Northern Honshu under Japanese control in the Early Nine Years War (1050 - 1059) and the Later Three Years war (1083 - 1087).
After the Heiji Rising (1159), a struggle for power between the two families, Taira Kiyomori evolved as the leader of Japan and ruled the country from 1168 to 1178 through the emperor. The major threats with which he was confronted were not only the rivalling Minamoto but also the increasingly militant Buddhist monasteries which frequently led wars between each other and disturbed public order.
After Kiyomori's death, the Taira and Minamoto clans fought a deciding war for supremacy, the Gempei War, which lasted from 1180 to 1185. By the end of the war, the Minamoto were able to put an end to Taira supremacy, and Minamoto Yoritomo succeeded as the leader of Japan. After eliminating all of his potential and acute enemies, including close family members, he was appointed Shogun (highest military officer) and established a new government in his home city Kamakura.
Japanese history: Nara, Heian Periods
This has what to do with religious conflicts and religious fundamentalism?
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

This has what to do with religious conflicts and religious fundamentalism?

Simply showing that Buddhist violence and war is not at all how you pictured it.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Simply showing that Buddhist violence and war is not at all how you pictured it.
Yet you didn't show buddhist violence. No where in your post have you indicated war over orthodox ideologies. Instead what you have shown are clans seeking dominance.
In fact the closest that you have come to show of buddhist political influence would be the capital moving - but that was without any conflict.
So, again your argument does not follow through.
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Yet you didn't show buddhist violence. No where in your post have you indicated war over orthodox ideologies. Instead what you have shown are clans seeking dominance.


It is evident that these wars were over religious beliefs and not simply clans. You want to simplify it in that manner fine but it is not a true picture. It's not worth splitting hair over.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

It is evident that these wars were over religious beliefs and not simply clans. You want to simplify it in that manner fine but it is not a true picture. It's not worth splitting hair over.
No it's nothing to do with splitting hairs. It's recognizing for what it is as to what you want it to be.
If the "rulers" were buddhist, then they wouldn't be rulers at all. That's buddhism.
Then you're post states of "Japanization" which is in complete agreement with my former post here and here.
The raging muslim fundamentalists in the ME today are waging themselves a religious jihad against western christianity, they want their dark ages religious inquisitions and so on.
The wars you have shown were not religious by any means but simple conflicts for control of power. Buddha was not used as a justification for the wars - though it's likely that both sides claimed Kamisama to be on their side however kamisama is hardly buddha.
 

Inuyasha

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
58
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

That's your opinion. I disagree with it.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

That's your opinion. I disagree with it.
You can disagree as much as you want.
It's not an opinion, it's an summary of your own posts. You have not showed how it was a conflict of religious righteousness or theocratic rule. What you have shown is a power struggle between clans.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,631
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Our enemy is not the fundamental at all, it is the society they live in. You throw some Christian loonies in the Middle East instead of Islamic, and the exact same thing would happen. There is nothing inherently different in the religions that would keep Christians from doing violence like Islamics are doing today. Given the charters and goals of some of the Christian fundamental groups, it is clear that they would have no problem acting the same in America as Islamic fundamentalists do in the Middle East, but our society will not tolerate it. We are educated and fed, with hope for our children's future. The Christian fundamentalists have nothing to offer the vast, vast majority of the people that is better than what they have. So the sit and fester on the outskirts of society, occasionally bombing an abortion clinic, but not able to do much damage because they cannot get a foothold.

In comparison, what little education there is in the Middle East often consists of solely the Koran. It'd be like teaching American kids only the Bible. Of course religious fundamentalism is going to flourish in that environment, even more given the fact that their economy is in the garbage and people have no hope for a job, let alone a future.

This is not an "either/or." You have it right, and this is just about exactly what I have said in the past. However, Islam is the problem and given the same environment Christianity would have a problem as well (as seen in 16th century Europe - where have you seen me type that before). It is very dismissive of the whole by using the exceptions as comparisons to the generals. What is your point?

Was it this.....

Religious fundamentalism is not the problem. A society that is so stagnated that it allows fundamentalism to flourish is.

If so, then you are are not accounting for human nature and dismissing religion itself as a factor. Is the rarely seen Christian terrorist in today's society not a problem when he becomes determined to kill and destroy in the name of "God?" Of course he is. Certainly we can come to terms with this and identify the far lessened degree, but is he not practicing "religious fundamentalism" within a society that denies him his respected place? Of course. And why does our civilization refuse an acceptance of Christian fundamentalism when the Islamic world does not refuse the stature of their zealots? Is the difference the religion? Is it possible to look at history and the world today and reflect on the religions as shaping factors of society?

* Despite their similar appetites for horror in later centuries, Christianity did begin as a pacifist movement while Islam was wrought in war. Is it too difficult for us to look at the world and conclude that a religion's origin can shape its psychology two thousand years later or 14 centuries later? Jesus Christ responded to violence with a rejection of violence and to the suffering with a readiness to suffer. He befriended the poor and the weak as lovingly as he did the priviledged and the strong. The "sinner" was still respected as a child of "God." And given that his followers went mildly on to surrender their lives to annoyed governments just to accept such teachings, it's amazing Christianity survived. Eventually, these inspirations endured and devoured the greatest empire the world had seen. Christianity survived and conquered with it's message, not with sword (Periods in history were to come much later). Islam has a complete opposite origin. It reflects a situation as if Christianity was born from Genesis instead of Matthew (Christs appearance). Islam, in the beginning, was exclusive to Arabs only and was wary of outside influences (something seen today). But Muhammed survived by making war on pagan Arabs, who once became subjugated, swelled the tribal armies of Islam. The force of "with us or against us"-a tool used by Jews and Christians in points in history-arroused latent energies. Islam exploded out of the Arabian peninsula with a fury that toppled empires, always through warfare. And after Muhammed died, the Shia succession became an inspried movement as Islam became the ultimate form of control and governance. The lands were conquered for Islam by the sword, but the populations were conquered by self interest.

* And what about the women? Christianity is rich with female heroism and the virtues of Christ's teachings are captured in icons like Ruth, Judith, and both Mary's. Even as Christ willingly died for the sins of other men, it was the women that stayed at the foot of the cross as the male disciples ran and hid. If we look in the Qu'ran, when women are mentioned at all they are used as a source of corruption-bent on cutting off more than Samson's hair. Women are used as proof that the old Mullah is always right and just.


Now look at our civilizations today? One civilization embraces education, creativity, toleration, human rights, equality between races and genders, and a more passive role in the world. The other oppresses and subjugates their women, stifles creatism and does not tolerate that which is against "God" to the degree that the "martyr" is justified. The existence of indoctrinated and celebrated hate fuels centuries of rage against Jews. Does the west prosper, because it has gone through the pain of reshaping Christianity for centuries and included the influence of other religions along the way? If this is true, can it also be true that the Islamic world suffers because of it's refusals? Is the Middle East a wrecked society because of their stagnations or the religon that encourages those stagnations?

We cannot allow oursleves this notion that we can dismiss the religions from this world as a shaping factor. In the Middle East, we see a monoply on religion. Well, if absolute power corrupts absolutely than absolute religious power corrupts religion absolutely.

So when you state...."Religious fundamentalism is not the problem. A society that is so stagnated that it allows fundamentalism to flourish is."...you have to ask yourself..."Why does it stagnate and continue to hold dear the ideals of its religion's birth?"
 
Last edited:

Maximus Zeebra

MoG
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
7,588
Reaction score
466
Location
Western Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Same mentality of a superiority complex thinking that they are God's favored ppl and that the rest of humanity are ungrateful sinners that will burn in hell. More importantly that it is thier job to send them there.

Same attitude as Nazi Germany
 

Maximus Zeebra

MoG
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
7,588
Reaction score
466
Location
Western Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

Why:

I just don't see the christian right-

* declaring a holy war throught the world.
* Murdering innocent women in the name of there religion and god
* Murdering innocent men in the name of there religion and god
* Murdering innocent little boys in the name of there religion and god
* Murdering innocent little girls in the name of there religion and god
* Murdering innocent infants in the name of there religion and god
* Murdering innocent elderly in the name of there religion and god
* Rioting over free speech
* Rioting over cartoons
* Demanding the conversion of everyone to islam or face death
* Strapping bombs to there chest
* Hijacking airliners
* Hijacking Busses
* Hijacking trains
* Hijacking Boats
* torturing people on film and then distributing that film to be played to the sheeple that adore them
* Being apathetic when something atrocious is done in the name of the christian religion
* Assiting terrorist with food, lodging, training, money, medical.
*etc etc etc etc

The US has declared a "holy war" against Muslims with Bush fooling the American evangelists to thinking he is God.
US have murdered many women, men children and elderly in Iraq
Still no riots over the patriot act
the US is not demanding everyone to transform to christians but they are certainly trying, with war to get people to become christian and democratic.
Not seen a single report of anyone from the US strapping bombs on themself
No hijackins yet except countries.
Many videos show US soldiers torturing Iraqies, they have been distributed.
 

Maximus Zeebra

MoG
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
7,588
Reaction score
466
Location
Western Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: America's Christian conservatives are not much different than Islamist fundamenta

No they are not, they are war. They were not done by christians in the name of christians to advance chritianity. And you would be exactly what You are for trying to push these as anything other then your bush hating agenda. Because they have nothing to do with religion, but you knew that. Your pity party for those that try to kill US soldiers is fine. But your lame attempts at connecting these events with the christian religion is pathetic and lame............... By the way, I am not christian, so I have no real stake in the religion or its detractors at all.

The Christians just do it in a different way, through "legitimate governments and wars"
 
Top Bottom