>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> The War Against Fundamentalism
Bookmark topic
I think you could draw one parallel here on this very site.
I've seen some people talking (Don't know if they were joking or not!) about hitting people who have Nokia phones, and others who take great pleasure in destroying them. You could say these people are extremists.
Most people here on Esato are enthusiasts. I guess condemning religions like Islam for the actions of a few is like condemning all Sony Ericsson owners as Nokia hating extremists just because a few people have Nokias to the point of wanting to hit people with them or simply think less of them because of their mobile phone.
I hate all extremism - Christians are guilty of that too. Did you know that in the US for example that neocon administration has bought in a law saying that ALL US publications, websites, etc. can only basically show topless photos? They've been some appeals against the law, but I don't think they've been successful due to the stranglehold on the supreme court and congress that Bush and his pals have
--
Posted: 2005-08-20 16:47:27
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-08-20 16:23:27, max_wedge wrote:
Most EXTREMISTS hold FUNDAMENTALIST reigious views.
But most fundamentalists do not necessarily hold extremist religious views.
Quite true.
Quote:As long as people don't say everyone who believes in this religion, is a fundamentalist, and everyone who believes in that religion is an Extremist, then we could live in peace.
Without doubt, that's also true.
Quote:I think that is more the point the author is trying to make.
This is where I disagree. The author made quite sweeping remarks against beliefs that are fundamental to the religions he mentions, notably Christianity and Islam.
He actually displayed intolerance to an alarming degree when he cast aspersions on people's right to believe what their "book" says, as well as their right to believe in a God who speaks to them.
Furthermore, if we are agreed that there is a distinct difference between fundamentalism and extremism (as we seem to have), then the very premise of his write-up is flawed. The battle is not against fundamentals. Its against extremists. You would agree with that; wouldn't you?
--
Posted: 2005-08-20 16:53:00
Edit :
Quote
I think we are getting bogged down in symantics. The author didn't say they weren't entitled to believe their book, he was saying that people who take literal meaning of one part of the book, but discard other literal interpretations that don't suit them, are crazy.
I agree. It is a kind of irrationalism that denies logic, and faith.
Let's take one example, evolution. Evolution is a well established theory with much evidence to support it (it may or may not be true, but it is a valid SCIENTIFIC theory). Religious extremists want to force a creationist "science" on all students in the name of fair hearing, yet the creationist "science" is more about discrediting the theory of evolution than building it's own scientific argument.
I agree people have the right to believe creationism, and even to teach it, but Creationism is a theology, not a science. Therefore it should be taught by religious colleges and not by the public education system. If creation, a theology, is forced on all students, then why not Islam? Why not Buddhism? Otherwise it is not a fair hearing at all.
The fact is, theologist's with faith in their beliefs do not feel the need to thrust it down everyone's throats. They are prepared to allow spirit to move people to believe, and that is the key. It is not up to us humans to determine how another person views God.
It is between that person and God alone.
I believe that all extremists have a serious lack of faith in their God, which is why they work so hard to discredit or destroy any viewpoint that opposes their own.
--
Posted: 2005-08-20 17:26:50
Edit :
Quote
@max_wedge: Yes; selective interpretation of faith has been and still remains a problem. I believe that's where extremism stems from.
People who do not care to be balanced are a danger to all of us. As a Christian, I see some Christians who are guilty of this, as much as non-Christians.
I see your point there and have no arguments against that.
Any expression of faith or personal belief that violates another man's will or personal rights is wrong and immoral. To that extent, I am on the side of the writer. But beyond that...
--
Posted: 2005-08-20 17:42:00
Edit :
Quote
I agree the writer has a bit of a chip on their shoulder, but essentially I think it's correct.
I think it's the use of the word fundamentalism that's confusing. In some circles the word fundamentalism is thought to mean extremism, but on the same token, such people wouldn't think of yourself (who claim to be a fundamentalist) as a fundamentalist in the sense that they understand it.
They also probably don't have a spiritual perspective (that's their right) so they don't understand that some people can talk to God, and get an answer. However in their own minds they listen to intuition (even if they believe the intuition came from their own thought processes) and let it guide them. What is intuition but the voice of a higher power?
It all comes down to symantics. When you get a strong feeling or a thought pops into your head, you know when it is God. A person with an atheistic world view, hears that same voice, and calls it "logic" or "intuition".
Ultimately, we are all more alike than we are different, no matter what our world view.
--
Posted: 2005-08-21 02:07:46
Edit :
Quote
Talk about food for thought...
This message was posted from a Nokia
--
Posted: 2005-08-21 05:22:35
Edit :
Quote
I think the writers argument is Fundamentally flawed.
He argues against fundamentalists when his beef is actually with etremists.
Knowing the fundamentals of a subject be it religion, politics, law, architecture or IT etc is a good thing I would have thought.
Semantics has nothing to do with it. The writer make outlandish and intolerant statements about what he thinks is asserted by the Bible, which he rudely refers to as 'thier Book'.
The Bible does not justify hate and neither do the fundamentalists he refers to. Extremists on the other hand...
--
Posted: 2005-08-21 10:44:12
Edit :
Quote
Semantics means when people use words differently - so when the writer says fundamentalists, he may mean infact extremists - in which case when he says "their" book, he is referring to that extreme person's extreme interpretation of the book. Not the book itself.
However I do agree the guy does not seem very accepting of people's religious texts, but maybe he's just seen alot of the death and destruction caused by people who claim their book told them to do it. He is not railing against religious moderates - and many fundamnentalists are moderate, in the sense that they are not extremists and they are willing to live and let live.
I think his argument is on the right track. I myself wouldn't be as harsh as he is being. But the point that many religious hardliners (call them what you like) use their religious text's as an excuse to commit barbarous and selfish acts is a fair point, even if he has dressed it up with more anger than is necessary....
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2005-08-21 11:21 ]
--
Posted: 2005-08-21 12:19:35
Edit :
Quote
A couple of definitions from
www.dictionary.com :
Fundamentalism:
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
Extremist:
One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.
extremism
Any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies
Adherence to the theology of this movement.
Don't know if that helps at all!
--
Posted: 2005-08-21 12:46:26
Edit :
Quote
thanks sammy_boy! It shows that some interpretations of fundamentalism do indeed involve extremism.
I think some peeps like to think of themselves as fundamental in the sense of "back to basics" and simplicity. That can often be a good thing, but also sometimes it can involve extremism.
--
Posted: 2005-08-21 12:55:27
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
