Religion as a crutch in changing times.

[Veggie Meathead]

The news that keeps coming out of the Republican party says that they are enlisting religious fundies ina drive to secure votes for Mr.Bush.
We have also been treated to the news from the Lone Star state that the state legislature has adopted a platform calling for the teaching of Creation science, the decriminalization of attacks against homosexuals,opposition to abortion, ban on stem cell research and so on.

These initiatives reminded me of an extraordinary book by Nobel Prize winner, V.S.Naipaul,titled AMONG THE BELIEVERS-An Islamic Journey which was published in 1975.In this book Naipaul makes everal observations from his visits to Iran, Pakistan, saudi Arabia which are chillingly prescient about current events and also bear a remarkable resemblance to the situation with respect to religious fundamentalism in the U.S.

In his book, Naipaul states that whenever a religious scholar in the Islamic countries he visited was confronted with the fact that Islamic countries are, in general, unable to provide the basic needs in education, health and oppotunities for their citizens despite having enormous oil wealth,the reaction was uniformly the same: that the Koran provides all the solutions we need,we do not need any instructions from the Western world.The Islamic world was glorious when it followed the path of the Koran.It is only when Muslims abandon their faith, disasters occur.So, the need is for a revival of Islamic purity undiluted by Western influences.

Naipaul correctly reached the conclusion that "these half formed men"
as he called them want Western comforts but were unable to pay the price in developing Reason, Logic and Skepticism that are the bases of Western Scientific advances.It also presupposes that each individual is autonomous and capable of developing on his own without
authority figures dictating how they should think and act.He goes on to say that the deep mistrust of Western logic will ultimately undo Islamic societies and they will lash out in anger because they are unable to cope with modernity.

Do these ideas ring a bell? Taking in our own situation, we can see that the religious fundamentalists lash out at evolution,bioengineering, genetic advances,and any other thinking that they interpret to be against the Bible's teachings.This is once again a result of their inability to cope with the pace of change in Science.So they take recourse in literal interpretations of the Bible and want to put a stop to any further encroachment of science into their turf.When they fail, as they must,we will see a violent explosion comparable to the violence in the Middle East.

My point is that the religious fundamentalism of the Muslims is no different from the religious fundamentalism of our home grown Christians.And just like the Ayatollahs of Iran that Naipaul has described in his book, we have Mr.Bush claiming to be a born agin Christian seeking the counsel of the Falwells, Robertsons and the Dobsons.

[physioex]

1. As much as I despise Strauss....

Remember what his beliefs were about. Religion is a form to control the masses, any religion would suffice. This is the basis for the neocon philosophy. Remember our friends Wolfie, Perle, Libby, and Rummy... Al Gore talked about these nuts in his speech..

I also find the Churches in this country hypocritical. There are several out there that lease their lands for cell phone towers. How is this different from opening a Starbucks or Pizza Hut within the church? It's not religion it's commerce...

[Solly Mack]

2. No argument from me

a fundamentalists is a fundamentalists is a fundamentalists.

I honestly see no difference between the goals of rightwing fundamentalism and any other theocratic-minded people.

[gmoney]

3. most "-isms" are an excuse to quit thinking

I think that's actually a line from "Dogma" but faith and beliefs are usually a substitute for thinking, or for doing bad things under the guise of "following orders" of ones faith.

Yes, George Bush & the fundie right are quickly becoming the true "American Taliban."

[camby]

4. Fundamentalism is the Antithesis of Rational Thought

But don't confuse fundamentalism with religion or spirituality. It is possible to have faith in God AND believe in representative democracy! Our current leadership professes faith, but their actions show otherwise. A wise man once said, "By their fruits ye shall know them..." (I think Gore made reference to this in his speech also.)

[janx]

6. Thanks for pointing this out.

There is a big difference between politicians using fundamentalists to further their own political aims and those people who have a deep and private faith on a genuine level.

That, perhaps, is what angers me most.

[Veggie Meathead]

8. Indeed it is possible to have faith and belief in representative

democracy.Where this breaks down is when people like Bush ascend to power,forget that ours is a nation which has benefited immensely by the separation of Church and State;that people in power must bring about the common humanity inherent in all of us and not set about to
demonize one religion against another as the Nazis did or the Saudis do.In our own daily lives it is rare for any of us to even ask what each person's religious persuasion is.Unless there is a pressing need to learn of another person's religion, why are we even concerned about it?

That people like Einstein or Eisenhower called on their religious faith to guide them through turbulent times and did not wear their religious faith on their sleeves tells us that this aspect of a person's belief should remain personal and does not belong in the public arena.

[supernova]

5. When fundamentalism is used to form a state

it becomes dangerous for outsiders. Until then, it's just a bunch of people practicing an extreme form of their philosphy.

Thanks for the Naipaul recommendation. I'll look for it next time I'm at the used book store.

It's amazing how so much wisdom comes out every year and goes virtually unnoticed.

I don't understand the ME fascination with cultural purity as a way of moving forward. The golden age of Islam was filled with advances in astronomy, medicine, and advanced mathmatics and it was also a time when they had great freedom and exchange of ideas with the comparatively backward West. :shrug: Why modern Islamic fundamentalist scholars can't or won't see that is simply amazing to me.

[Veggie Meathead]

9. I suspect their emphasis on cultural purity has several causes, the

most important one being the loss of their own status in Islamic societies as the Grand Poohbahs of wisdom.It has a sexual component to it as the women of the west with their freedom and bare skins excite the sexuality of the men in Islamic societies.And lastly, there is the experience with colonialism and imperialism with the resulting humiliation of the once proud Islamic empires.When combined with their forced acquiescence to the State of Israel imposed with US money and armaments,the call to Islamic purity is simply a call to turn back the tide of Islamic humiliation at the hands of Western powers.

[seabeyond]

7. i agree

i have been saying for a good year now, this election is about religion. having kids in a fundie school and church goers all around me, what i have seen them create and what they say out loud in the last three years, all shows this

[beachman]

10. You can't be serious.

"My point is that the religious fundamentalism of the Muslims is no different from the religious fundamentalism of our home grown Christians."

OK, so just hang a sign up that says no Bible-believers welcome in the democratic party.

And you guys wonder why the South is so Republican. Look, it's not just racism. You don't tell people that they are the same as Osama and Al Qaeda and Hamas, etc,...just because they go to church and believe in the Bible.

The vast majority of "home grown fundamentalists" are pretty dang near normal people for the most part, and much more closer to even the most ardent DUer than any radical Islamic group. I suspect even the fundamentalists here take a second look, for example, at a beautiful woman rather than stoning her to show her face in public, and it seems to me that fundamentalist and progressive Americans go to the same movies, same schools often, dress similar, etc,....It's just a fantasy to equate the political activism of the religious right with the violence of radical Islamic movements such as the regime in the Sudan, or Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia where women cannot even drive a car or show their face in public. By and large, we just don't have those types of extremism in the American political spectrum.

Also, I've never heard of a "fundamentalist" here in America killing their daughters for premarital sex, or advocating burning down the opposing religious institutions, or advocating bombing infidels, or making women wear burkas, or loudspeakers in every neighborhood calling people to prayer, or whatever. It's just not comparable.

The democratic party needs to appeal to all Americans of all religious views, and not disparage anyone due to religious beliefs.

[physioex]

11. Are you sure about this??

Also, I've never heard of a "fundamentalist" here in America killing their daughters for premarital sex, or advocating burning down the opposing religious institutions, or advocating bombing infidels, or making women wear burkas, or loudspeakers in every neighborhood calling people to prayer, or whatever. It's just not comparable.


Do you watch the 700 club? What does Pat Robertson think Israel should do with the Palestinian territory? Do you know what Christian Missionaries do? What kind of language does Bunnypants use in his speechs? What happened to books that were considered "un-Christian" back in the 80's? Who got Playboy magazines banned form 7-11? Who is doing voter registration for Bunnypants under a tax exempt status? Where do you find cell phone towers? Shall I go on??

[beachman]

13. wtf?

"Where do you find cell phone towers?"

Um, what do cell phone towers have to do with fundamentalism?

I guess you could say Christian fundamentalists are conservatives and most conservatives back American intervention and crimes against poorer nations, or some such, and there is some truth to that, but so do non-fundamentalist conservatives.

Bottom line is no Christian fundamentalist like Falwell or Robertson is organizing terror cells, or things like that, and wanting prayer in schools, outlawing abortion, etc,...is still fairly mild to killing women for daring to even show their faces in public.

It's just not the same level and type of extremism.

[physioex]

17. Are you sure...

Cell Towers are commerce, read the post all the way on top. As far as terrorism goes, what is happening in Israel and Palestine? Who is supplying the M1 Tanks, Apache Helicopters? Who is destroying farmland? Falwell, and Robertson are the main supporters of Israel. As far as they are concerned the messiah will not return until Judea and Samaria is occupied by the chosen ones. No the Christian Fudamentalists are terrorists...Get your facts straight...If we got rid of Robertson and Falwell, and changed some of our opressive policies, this country might not be soo hated...

[beachman]

25. so is commerce bad?

Heck, I like my cell-phone. Don't you?

And what about people that are religious conservatives, fundamentalists, such as Pat Buchanan which are not so pro-Israel?

I just think comparing radical Islamic terrorists to Christian fundamentalism is way over the top.

[supernova]

12. Um... southerner here

and a whole heck of a lot of us are NOT fundamentalist.

Xtian fundamentalists here are different than Islamic fundamentalists only in degree, not purpose or intent. Left unchecked, American xtain fundamentalists would become xtain versions of radical Islamic extremists.

Look, I realize it's no fun looking at the monster lurking within, but it must be done if our democracy is to survive and thrive.

[beachman]

14. i live in the south too, well, Florida

And the vast majority of southerners are not fundamentalists, but considering that most southerners personally know some fundamentalists, when people claim they are the same as Osama or the Ayatollah, it comes off as ludicrous.

Banning Playboy as someone mentioned, from 7-11, is a minor issue. Islamic fundmentalists are more like the NAZIs in their support of systematic genocide in the Sudan and elsewhere. It's just something altogether different than anything within the American political spectrum.

[supernova]

15. But that's how it starts

Banning Playboys from 7-11.

Banning certain "controversial" books from the library (The Chocolate War, Huckleberry Finn, The Scarlet Letter, Portnoy's Complaint - just to name a handful of perennial favorites).

Making lists of professors who are "too liberal" and making sure these professors know that they are being watched if they say something out of line.

Acting the martyr for putting up a 10 commandments monument on State grounds then refusing to take it down.

Sorry, these people are trying despirately to roll all over the sacred notion of separation of church and state. I intend to use my full power to stop this insanity.

edit: and if calling people "American Taliban" is the only way to get their attention, so be it. They're the ones who have to look in the mirror.

[beachman]

26. Huck Finn?

You do realize liberals who were minorities are the ones that pushed for Huck Finn to be banned, don't you?

Never mind the fact that Huck Finn was anti-racism, since it contained the N-word, political correctness dictated it had to go.

I think promoting hysteria is not smart, and pretending that because fundamentalists don't like Harry Potter, or that liberal activists tried to get Huck Finn banned in high schools, that somehow these small, misguided efforts are tantamount to the systematic oppression of radical Islamic fundamentalists, or could lead to that, is just plain silly.

[Lars39]

28. Here's some reading for you to do....

Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence(There are 4 parts to article):
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

[beachman]

36. what a crock?

I've actually read Rushdooney and the Reconstructionists, just like I've read Larouche and others. It always amazes me the misrepresentation of groups and ideas.

Reconstructionists are very conservative, although Falwell and Robertson are not in that camp. Reconstructionists are more conservative than most fundamentalists, and maybe they aren't even fundamentalists at all.

They are Calvinists essentially, and no, they don't want to do away with democracy. That's total BS.

They probably do want to outlaw homosexuality, and they have some views that wouldn't be attractive to many, and are not libertarians, but at the same time, overall, they are not trying to set up a theocracy as some claim.

Articles that try to over-state the case miss the mark. The issue with Reconstructionism and others that want to use the government to advance moral values is a serious issue, and deserves discussion, but this is not something any one camp is solely guilty of.

[supernova]

30. I said, That's how it starts

they don't take over all at once. They get you used to it, one little civil encroachment at a time.

Until you willingly put up with the USAPATRIOT ACT.

Until you put up with a president who says he is bound by neither law or treaty in war time.

I call Bullshit.

As for Huck Finn. He's an equal opportunity offender. In his own time Mark Twain was bashed for presenting civilization in a bad light.

[beachman]

32. Huck Finn

Never heard of a fundemantalist bashing Huck Finn. That's news to me.

And we've always had people that restricted certain things, on the right and left.

Who is for banning tobacco smoking in public places? It's not Jerry Falwell and fundamentalists.

I am for legalizing drugs, not promoting them though, but neither party is for that.

So this crap about Americans of any political persuasion being like the Taliban or the Wahhabis is just insane. Sure, there are some very tiny fringe groups, but not in the mainstream of the political spectrum. It's just not that way.

Now, I agree on the dangers of the Patriot Act, but Clinton tried to get the same thing passed essentially after the OKC bombing so it seems a little more bi-partisan than we are being led to believe.

[supernova]

33. Got a link?

but Clinton tried to get the same thing passed essentially after the OKC bombing

I don't belive this, esp since the USAPATRIOT ACT was written primarily by John Ashcroft and his cronies.

So this crap about Americans of any political persuasion being like the Taliban or the Wahhabis is just insane. Sure, there are some very tiny fringe groups, but not in the mainstream of the political spectrum. It's just not that way.

If you don't think it can't happen here, you're the one who is insane. What makes you think we are so special as to be immune from the faults of the rest of humanity?

[beachman]

35. totalitarianism

Didn't say it could not happen here, but demonizing fundamentalists because they don't want children looking at Playboy or some such is just plain stupid.

Totalitarianism can come from the right or left.

If you study history, the closest we came to a police state occurred during Woodrow Wilson's presidency in the original Red Scare. He was not "conservative", but at the same time landed troops on Russian soil to support the Whites there.

So we need to take the tinted glasses off and look at things realistically.

[supernova]

37. Um... You had to go back to Wilson

and completely overlook McCarthy? :eyes: He wanted to ruin people, and succeeded in some cases. All in the misguided notion that "the reds" are coming to get us!

I'm not about to back down on the free speech argument. I can understand seabeyond's take below. She just wanted the mags up out of the way of her children. But to want things permanently removed from sight simply because you don't approve, that's unconstitutional.

[beachman]

38. majoring on minors

I went back to Wilson because that was more serious than the McCarthy thing since it was the Executive Branch locking up thousands illegally, and I wanted to make the point that any political persuasion can resort to such tactics. It's dishonest to assume otherwise.

I think the fact that fundementalist Christians are anti-porn means they are the equivalent of Hamas or something is so ludicrous that anyone advocating such a position has destroyed their credibility and marginalized themselves in political discourse.

We don't need to tell fundamentalists they are evil people and similar to terrorists because they don't like porn and by the way, come vote for out guy. That's lunacy.

Forget the minor stuff, and talk about the environment, war, etc,...

[supernova]

40. Minors turn into majors

if they are not made aware of the dangers.

You've done nothing but spout "it's the left's fault" in this thread.

The fact is in the present it's the right that has the totalitarian tendancies and we need to make them aware of that.

[beachman]

44. you're dreaming if you think only the right has those tendencies

Fact is the Left is just as prone to totalitarianism as the right, and so are the centrists. Heck, remember the MOVE bombing in Phillie. It was democrats more in the mainstream fire-bombing a whole neighborhood that harbored more radical democratic leaning people. Maybe they weren't democratic-leaning, but they were not right wingers either.

Got to be honest.

Christian fundamentalists are not a serious threat, or an ideology that tends towards totalitarianism. It may be intolerant of others, but there is no denunciation of democracy or anything like that.

Islamic fundamentalism is by definition totalitarian.

[supernova]

46. *YAWN* Same old song, one note wonder

Fact is. It's the right with the problem now, not the left. To not realize that you are living in a state of denial.

[beachman]

49. depends on what you mean by right

Waco, I suppose that was just good law enforcement?

The Davidians, as wierd as they were, were not right wingers as the media portrayed, but inter-racial, and probably if anything more liberal.

I admit the Patriot Act is pretty scary, but it's not just the right that helped pass that, and I am not convinced a democrat would not have passed the same legislation.

The government's misconduct seems to be a bi-partisan affair, if you ask me.

[supernova]

70. "Right"

Here's a sample of what I mean by "right"

Ronald Reagan
George Bush
Jerry Falwell
Pat Robertson
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Donald Rumsfeld
Condoleezza Rice

That's just the short list. Never mind the Wackos on radio like Rush, Sean, G Gordon, etc.

These people aren't conservative. My dad was conservative, old-fasioned Southern Babpist conservative, who voted for Nixon. Nixon looks lovable next to these very scary individuals.

[seabeyond]

42. but but but

i agree with you on all you are saying, i am suggesting though there has been a shift. i suggest in their blind devotion of late to a president that is directing them, they are being led astray.

i hang with these people, and i see the beauty in them, but there has been a shift the last year. there is an anger, hate not love. there is an intensity. my feel on it, is for me, the greater sin, that preachers teach the wrong path to their followers, and i am telling you i really believe their is a misstep going on in these religions. i am not hearing the purity in christianity, i am hearing agenda, and agenda is directed by ego, and ego isnt in purity

sitting in house sunday morning huge windows to see outside, beautiful, i love my sundays, i swear i can hear the singing hymns and feel the wave of christ conscious, and i thank all in church allowing me this feel. a bus drives down our street, painted black, no i say, it has flames painted on the front and to the side, no i say as it drives up the street, yup..........

church of grace right up the street. the bus is in darkness anger agressiveness in it presentation. that is what is being fed to the flock

church buses are painted white. you wonder why

[beachman]

43. well...

There could be something going astray, but it's still a long ways from the Taliban or anything like that.

[physioex]

51. Let's look at the numbers...

How many people have been in killed in the name of Christianity? How many in the name of Islam? And most interesting, how many in the name of satan? Do you know about the Crusades? Now which religion is more evil? How many innocent Iraqis were killed in the last fifteen years? Tally up the numbers, I am sure it will be interesting....

[beachman]

53. the numbers

more killed by far in the name of athiesm actually via the various communist movements of the 20th century

Islam has killed huge numbers

The Roman Catholic movement killed millions too, mostly other Christians actually, some of which would be called fundamentalists today.

But I think regardless, what is relevant is what we face today, and to think that Christian fundamentalists in the US are going to rise up and start killing people is insane, and is not the type of thinking that will produce votes.

Islamic fundamentalism is a direct threat not just to us, but other Moslems and people around the world.

There is a reason most Iranians want to get rid of the mullahs, and it's because they have had to live with it.

[physioex]

55. I don't like organized religion...

Let's take productive....If you want to stop Islamic fundamentalism, you have to take away the reason for people to hate, and eliminate poverty. Take a more evenhanded approach towards Israel. Insist on reforms in countries like Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. There is a lot of corruption in these coutries, and it is PARTLY the americans fault. Unless this happens, Islamic fundamentalism will be fueled. What Shrub did in Iraq is defintely not helping, there are a lot more pissed of fundamentalists. The mudering of innocent civilians, rape, and torture...It is pointless to argue one religion is "less evil" as compared to another...Unfortunately I don't sit holding my breath thinking that this will happen in my lifetime...

[seabeyond]

56. i dont think it is the christian fundies that

are going to rise up and kill, i think it is the ones that dont go to church yet use the rules of religion for their prejudices that are going to rise up and kill

i just see the new rising of the nazi party of the 40's the kkk's of the 60's. same group, same mentality

on edit, nah i am gonna go with i think a lot that take the bible literally can be part of this group also, in violence. i mean i hear them talk. was sitting in the park the other weekend at a school function adn listening to two men that said they the fundamentalist had to find their own state, they werent going to be allowed to be in this nation. and then read how they are looking at certain states to seperate from u.s.

[physioex]

57. I can agree with that...

If you read Strauss' teachings there are three types of people.
It's something like this so I will paraphrase.

Leaders, thinkers, and the masses. The leaders are above religion and are not bound by it. This is the Neocons, like Wolfie, Perle, Libby, and Rumsfeld. The Neocons studied under Strauss by the way. The masses are the ones that get contorlled by the religion, any religion will do. The thinkers don't fit in either category. So yes, I can believe what you say. The leaders and masses are the ones involved in the uprising you are referring to...

[seabeyond]

39. clinton tried to pass one, once he saw the threat of obl

but my suggestion that clintons wasnt as abrasive to civil liberties as this one. all wanted this patriot act, just it had things in it that go too far. and of course we already see them being abused

[Ms. Clio]

77. "Sure, there are some very tiny fringe groups

but not in the mainstream of the political spectrum. It's just not that way."

No, and we don't have generals calling other peoples gods "idols," either, right?

Bush supposedly believes God personally delivered a message to him about killing thousands of people in Iraq (Though I'm not sure if God told him to lie about the reasons for killing those people, or if he came up with that one on his own).

Among those not very "attractive" Christian Reconstructionist beliefs are stoning for adultery and a revival of "Biblical slavery."

Just makes you long for those good Old-Time Religion days, don't it?

[beachman]

80. that's BS

Sure, the born-again general and Bush too probably sees this as somewhat of a holy war, but so what? That doesn't mean they would be doing anything differently than if they were total non-believers. Do you think the motive in Iraq is religious?

The idea that there is this large group of people secretly plotting to bring back slavery or stoning women for adultery is just plain idiotic. Now, there may be some calling for punishment of homosexuals. I sort of think that is true, but you lose credibility by making wild claims that aren't true.

Isn't there enough credible differences between the camps that we can focus on them instead of diverting arguments to wild speculations? I mean your post reminds me of the Palestianians who insist Jews secretly eat babies in ritual sacrifice. Why bring up nonsense?

[Ms. Clio]

81. No, that's BS

Sure, the born-again general and Bush too probably sees this as somewhat of a holy war, but so what? That doesn't mean they would be doing anything differently than if they were total non-believers. Do you think the motive in Iraq is religious?

So what? So what??? The guy who fantasizes about being a dictator might see this as a holy war, and that's just peachy keen with you?

I think there are any numbers of motives for Iraq--oil, strategic denial of resources to other nations, an attempt to reshape the Middle East in the U.S. plans to prevent any other power from rising to contest its hegemony. That's not BS--it's called PNAC, and if you're not familiar with it, I suggest you look it up

I also know that someone posted just today that a released female prisoner saw teenagers being given Bibles, that prisoners trying to read their Q'urans are harassed, etc. Is there some systematic plan in place to convert the Iraqis? No, but there is certainly a deeply disturbing indication of a fundamental lack of respect for their religion and humanity.

The rest of your post is not worth a response--no one has uttered anything about "plots," except you. I won't say what you sound like to me, but three years of experience here gives me a keen nose for your kind.

feh

Edited to add links to what Christian Reconstructionists/Dominionists do believe, which does include everything I said--my goodness, you're taking this a little personally, aren't you, hitting too close to home?

http://www.harpers.org/JesusPlusNothing.html?pg=1

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/diamond.htm

[beachman]

85. so what because it is a different topic

Maybe it's difficult for you to see the difference, but the fact that Bush may see this as a holy war is significant, but as you pointed out, the motives are probably there regardless of the religious overlapping motive.

Same with a lot of this stuff. Fact is there are Bible-believers and literalists who do not take the same stance politically. I think what you are doing is equating the neocon foreign policy approach with fundamentalism and the 2 are not related.

The reason most literalists are fairly conservative voters probably has much more to do with social and moral issues such as the porn thing someone mentioned, or abortion, or stuff like that, and I think it is a fair assessment to talk about those things in connection with religious fundamentalism.

But to state that backing those things is tantamount to support for genital mutiliation or honor killing or some extreme things, that someone on this thread mentioned, is just not correct.

I think there is a valid point on support of Israel being linked to fundamentalism, but to claim Iraq or Bush's approach on the war on terror is somehow an outgrowth of fundamentalism is just silly.

Heck, need I remind you that LBJ who led us into Vietnam, or expanded our role via the Gulf of Tonkin incident was no Bush-type of person despite both being Texans. So anyone of a particular persuasion can develop these problems and issues.

To call people that believe the Bible is true, or the word of God, or whatever, and demonize this massive voter group is just plain stupid, and a big reason the democratic party has become the minority party.

I mean come on. Bush can hardly string a few sentences together, and yet he won, or came close enough to get in there. Ever wonder that just maybe, just maybe, suggesting to large portions of Americans that they are ignorant idiots due to their religion is not the best way to win an election.

The biggest indicator last election that someone would vote for Bush was church attendance.

Think about it.

Ranting from the sidelines may be fun, but it doesn't win elections.

[physioex]

18. Study the Israel/Palestinian cause more carefully..

Who do you think is funding Israel? What is Israel doing with that money? Who is propping opressive regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

[beachman]

27. OK, but....

Being either pro-Israel or anti-Israel, or neutral, is not confined or predicated by Christian fundamentalism.

[physioex]

19. Banning Playboy is a minor issue to you..

But not for me. What about abortion rights? Who is murdering abortion doctors? Isn't that terrorism?

[seabeyond]

21. walked into my convienence store for four years

and the first thing in site is the magazine rack each time i opened the door to walk in i automaically looked at the top rack and it is playboys and others sitting proud. women in their provacative pose and a brown paper around there chest.

i didnt think much of it, then holding my two year old in arms and holding door for 5 year old boy i noticed it was directly in their view everytime they walked into this store.

it was also there for every girl and all other boys.

i called and told them enough..........

but i had no desire for them to take magazines out nor deprive any other the opportunity to buy them, simply put them behind the counter like they did in the old days.

you may have issue with it, but i personally dont feel my little boys nor girls should see this is the normal for who a female is.

and

i am not a fundie, just a mother with a job

[beachman]

29. murdering abortion doctors is

Terrorism, but so was the Unabomber, and that doesn't mean environmentalists are terrorists, nor fundamentalist Christians.

Exagerating threats doesn't help promote understanding, and there are plenty of feminist democrats not so happy with pornography being so up in everyone's face.

[Veggie Meathead]

45. I agree that Christian fundamentalism as it stands today is less

violent than the Islamic variety.But, I think the reason for it is that the Western societies, especially the United States has such overwhelming military and economic power at its disposal, it can enforce its will over Islamic societies easily.The instant a counterforce emerges that can challenge the military might of the U.S.
as is likely if Iran develops its own nuclear arsenal and the delivery systems, you will see violence directed at Muslims to increase.The same will be true if the United States loses economic superiority to China.

We should see the violence in Islamic societies as the result of their weakness vis-a-vis Western societies and their reluctance to change their societies.If we go down the road of Christian fundamentalism and abandon the tradition of logic and reason that gave us the science and technology to master natural forces, we will also find ourselves in the same plight as Islamic societies.In fact,the pseudo science advocated by christian fundamentalists is no different from the refrain that Naipaul describes about the universal solutions prescribed by the Koran.

I agree that Christian fundamentalism is qualitatively different right now.It is only a matter of time before its virulent form appears in our society.Mindlessness and the violence that goes with it are contagious.We are not immune to these diseases.

[beachman]

47. what are tyou talking about?

Seriously, violence against other nations is an important issue, but a different subject.

The problem with Islamic fundamentalism, which is mainstream Islam in the Middle East, is not that it produces terrorism against us, though that is a concern. It is fundamentally and totally alien to the whole concept of liberty.

Say what you want, but Christian "fundamentalism" just isn't.

In fact, we had a lot more "fundamentalists" in prior years, even more at the time of the Revolution, and we got along OK.

I know. The Indians and minorities and some people did not get along OK, but that was more indicative of the whole soceity.

Say what you want, but ardent Christianity and belief in the Bible have not historically tended towards totalitarianism, as you seem to think it would do. In fact, it is arguable that fundamentalism had the opposite effect via fragmenting the ecclesiastical authority.

Take the Baptists. They are the most democratic in terms of church polity. They vote in their leaders and vote them out, and many fundamentalists are in a lot of ways more radically democratic than other traditionalists.

[Veggie Meathead]

50. Have you heard of the phrase "Praise the Lord and pass the

ammunition?".Where do you think the moral basis for the genocide of the Native American population came from? Where do you think the basis for slavery of black people came from? If you think slavery was benign, may be you should talk to some black folks who lost their relatives to lynch mobs in the South.Because you have not directly experienced violence firsthand does not mean it did not occur and with the full concurrence of the Church.Would you consider the activities of the KKK in the deep South to be terrorist or not? If so, why did it have the tacit sanction of the Churches?

To pretend that we are not capable of the same religion inspired violence as the Muslims is to say that our common humanity is meaningless. If at all the Christian fundamentalists are less prone to violence one should thank people like Martin Luther King and Andrew Goodman and many others who sacrificed their lives.

And finally to complete my rant, you may want to recall that the Apartheid regime in South Africa which routinely killed black south Africans with impunity had the full support of the Dutch Reformed Church.

[beachman]

52. So the Dutch Reformed are fundies, eh?

Look, no one here is defending the Klan or anything, or claiming Americans are a non-violent people, but the impetus for slavery and oppresion of Indians did not come from fundamentalists or Christian missionaries. If you believe that, you didn't learn too much in your education.

Heck, the Cherokees were as "Christian" as the rest of the nation by the time they were forced on the trail of tears.

The truth is that extremely fundamentalist Christians often led the fight for abolition of slavery, just as traditionalist Christians resisted it sometimes. The motive for slavery though was greed, not religion.

[Veggie Meathead]

54. Yes, they are fundamentalkists because they believe in the

Bible's literal truth.In fact, they justified Apartheid with the claim that the Bible sanctioned the separation of the races and that the black race was inherently inferior.It was this interpretation of the Biblical reasoning that allowed the Afrikaners to terrorize black South Africans with impunity.

Simply because we have reached a certain level of sophistication in our dealings with each other does not mean we would not revert to religion inspired savagery when conditions are appropriate.

[beachman]

65. MLK was a fundie too, I suppose

Look, if you are saying that people that believe in the Bible and try to put it's principles into practice, especially relating to politics are dangerous,unstable, etc,...and fundamentalists, then the whole dang civil rights movement was largely a fundamentalist movement.

Cut the crap and admit that the political issues you raise have very little to do with believing or disbelieving in the Bible, seeing as how literalists take opposing views on the same subject. The Bible is sufficiently broad, and Jesus's teaching a-political enough, to embrace and include people of many different political persuasions.

Furthermore, the idea that the Bible taken literally means blacks should be subugated is absurd, and any black preacher will tell you the same. Fact is that is not taking the Bible literally, but mistaking the Bible and using it selectively.

Heck, Jimmy Carter reads and teaches the Bible.

Is he a fundie, or NAZI, or neocon too?

Geesh!

[Veggie Meathead]

69. When I talk about fundamentalism or Separation of Church and State, it

is directed at those in society who hold the reins of power and not those, like MLK who was leading a movement to restore the rights of the black people who were unjustly denied their fundamental rights.Religion was used as a cover by the fundamentalist to say that black people were inferior, the extreme manifestation of which was the Apartheid regime in S.Africa.What you are implying is that MLK was wrong to use his pulpit to lead the civil rights movement and that he should have acquiesced in the segregation and the denial of equal rights.Even the Bible exhorts us to fight injustice.The rightwing fundamentalists are in the business of hiding their prejudices behind lofty Biblical themes.You may want to ask the Falwells and Robertsons where they stand on the torture issue.The answer, if they were honest would surprise you.

[beachman]

74. MLK was not using religion as a cover.

He was practicing his religious principles, and no, it was not wrong.
What you are doing is to claim that having a religious motive in taking a political stance is wrong automatically, and if you are right, which is not the case, then MLK would be wrong.

I also think it is highly dubious to lay Jim Crow and Apartheid at the feet of what you call fundamentalists, which seems to be anyone that believes in the Bible. Heck, quite a few "fundamentalist" actually oppossed these things. Certainly, the Holiness (Pentecostal strain) churches in the South were extreme literalists, and yet the only inter-racial churches in the South. The theologically liberal churches were not inter-racial, and you cannot tell me, who grew up Episcopalian in the South, that it was only literalists that supported Jim Crow.

Check out that movie, The Aostle, with Robert Duval. He is a wayward preacher, but the sub-culture the movie portrays is pretty accurate.

So this whole idea that literalists are responsible for racism, slavery, Apartheid, etc,...is just wrong. Sad to say, but there was wide support in the South for maintaining separate schools, etc,...and subjugation of African-Americans, and you may not realize this, but literalists in general were not the power players in the South. They were not the ones calling the shots, and never have been.

[silverlib]

58. Only the left Christians can stop the fundamentalist

There is a growing faction of active left Christian Democrats. We are growing in numbers and in power. In doing so, we can influence the gullible Christians following Bush like the Piped Piper and give them a different perspective and viewpoint.

Putting down the Christian religion will gain no support from Christians who have been Straussed. Left wing Christians believe in women's choice and separation of church and state, just as you do.

Faithfulamerican.org, a recent shoot off of True Majority has just published an ad campaign to be broadcast on major Arab networks in Iraq. This is what will defeat the fundamentalists, not anti-Christian rhetoric. Fundamentalism is dangerous, but only if they have a following. Liberal Christians will work very hard to make sure their following disintegrates. Being an atheist is fine and that is individual choice. Being anti-Christian or anti-any religion gets us no where. We all live in the same world and we need to work hard to respect each others beliefs.

[seabeyond]

59. silverlib i so agree it is the left christians that have to

stop the fundamentalist. so with you. why i am going to my catholic friends, not being catholic and telling them, it is there to do in their church to stop this vote repug only or going to hell or not getting communion.

and it has been that way every other time the fundamentalist started getting power, it was the moderate christian that didnt allow. right now many of the moderate out of fear is embracing mob

[janx]

16. I think you miss the point.

There's a reason we have Separation of Church and State in our country. It started with the Pilgrims, and it doesn't end there.

Would you like to wait for a time when government has dominion over religion? Would you like to wait and watch and see the perversion that history has taught us will occur?

Don't be naive, man. Review history. Whenever any government embraces any religion over another, people begin killing in the Name of God. That is what fundamentalism brings about.

And that is the greatest blasphemy.

[beachman]

34. uh huh?

I just think this is hysteria on many people's parts. We don't complain about separation of Church and State when African-American pastors are opening up the pulpits to us, nor when Jesse Jackson, a minister of the gospel, comes to town, or when deacons bus people to the polls.

If you don't like someone's politics, just say they are wrong.

At some point, the demonization of people has to stop. It isn't helping.

[Veggie Meathead]

60. What you have forgotten is that black people were powerless in this

country and did not even have the right to vote until 1964.The black churches were the only forum from which any meaningful dialog could be held among black people without the threat of violence by the KKK.To say that this violates the principle of separation of church and state is laughable.That speration of powers was meant for institutions that hold power.By definition, the black people in this country did not have any political power and even now through the chicanery of Bush, Rove and Delay they are being marginalized.To compare their use of the church to voice their powerlessness as Martin Luther King did is to make a mockery of the whole concept.

[Tansy_Gold]

61. Thank you, VM,

for expressing my own response perfectly.

Tansy Gold

[beachman]

66. No, you are making a mockery of Martin Luther King's faith.

MLK believed in putting the principles of Jesus Christ into the practice of politics. You call that joining Church and State. I call that justice, and I think it is a shame when people disparage people of faith from any political persuasion from being politically active.

When you disagree with someone politically, it is wrong to avoid substantive debate with the weasel argument that somehow because they are people of faith, they have no right to voice a political opinion, or be politically active.

Furthermore, it is highly hypocritical considering that churches of just about every persuasion are courted by the left and right when it comes down to elections.

Ideas must stand on their own.

Trying to marginalize the ideas by attacking people of faith as if it is wrong for them to be involved is sickeningly undemocratic.

You think Jimmy Carter's faith was not involved in his principles for civil rights, etc,...?

Well?

My beef is such thinking as I see here is the type of thinking that killed Carter's presidency and unnecessarily divides this country. It wasn't the Republicans so much that defeated Carter, but the fact that some democrats didn't see a southerner and a Bible-believer as deserving of their unqualified support.

If you think trying to write off the millions of American voters that read and believe in the Bible as a bunch of fundie ignoramuses and that somehow that will help the democratic party, or heck, help anyone, then you need to grow up a bit, and regain some of the humanity and compassion towards people, and dare I say, tolerance.

[Tansy_Gold]

72. Religion had very little to do with Carter's defeat. . . .

. . . if anything at all.

Carter was defeated by a stagnant economy and 444 American hostages in Iran -- and by a republican platform and campaign that fed the fears of working class Democrats.

It isn't religious ideas or ideals that many of us separationists want kept out of government; it's religious institutions. By that I don't mean organized congregations of faith, but the practicies and dogmas of spiritual elitism.

There's a thread over in LBN regarding the Oklahoma schools' decision to allow a 12-year-old Muslim girl to wear her hijab to school. I'm the only one suggesting this is a bad idea, and of course I'm getting hammered over there for my intolerance. So be it. But the point I tried to make there and will try to make here -- however vain that attempt may be -- is that when we allow the little "oh, it doesn't really matter" things to enter the sphere, the wall is broken down. Bit by bit. So today it's okay for Nashala (sp) to wear a hijab. What happens when someone else says, "My child can't go to school here unless you allow the Bishop to bless the building." What happens when someone else says, "My child doesn't have to attend science classes because we don't believe in evolution; you need to accommodate my beliefs by teaching creationism." What happens when one group of students demands certain days off for holy days in their faith, then another group demands other days off, then a third group demands still more days off.

As VM wrote earlier, the Black churches in the South that MLK and SCLC used to push through civil rights legislation were virtually the ONLY institutions American Blacks had. The only buildings where they could meet, the only leaders they had. Read Taylor Branch's absolutely riveting histories -- "Parting the Waters" and "Pillar of Fire" -- to get some hint of how fragmented and powerless the African American community was in the South in the 1950s. Watch the PBS documentaries "Eyes on the Prize." It's impossible, IMNHO, to compare the political use MLK and Fred Shuttleworth and others made of the Black churches to the present attempts by (financially) powerful and powerfully-connected fundamentalists to fuse their personal interpretation of one religion into the public sphere.

Anyone who wants to put their religion ahead of their humanity is, I suppose, free to do so. But where I and I think most other separationsts draw the line is at the point where the practice of their religion impinges on anyone and everyone else's freedom to do likewise.

To practice one's faith privately is sacrosanct, as far as I'm concerned. Wear your crucifix, but wear it discreetly; pray just before that history test you didn't study for, but do it silently, not wailing aloud on your knees in the middle of the aisle between the desks.

The fundamentalists aren't angry because they aren't being allowed to practice their religion; they're angry because they can't yet force everyone else to do so. Allowing one Muslim girl to wear her hijab is a backdoor way to get prayer back in the schools, Jesus on the wall over the flag, and the Ten Commandments (only two or three of which actually have anything to do with laws; the rest is religious) tattooed on the back of everyone's hand.

Tansy Gold, off to listen to Garrison Keillor

[beachman]

75. moslem garb

I don't see how allowing a girl to wear what her religion dictates is related to Christian fundemantalists supposedly trying to force everyone to be in their religion. Wouldn't the fundies oppose the Moslem girl if what they wanted was to coerce her to be Christian?

This is where you and I see separation differently. I think the concept of separation of Church and State, coined by the Anabaptists who suffered quite a bit from Catholics and Protestants, was put there to prevent coercion in religious affairs. Forcing the girl not to be able to freely practice her religion by wearing a hajib is the exact opposite of separation of Church and State. The concept of separation means the State cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion as stated in the 1st amendment, and therefore cannot restrict the girl from wearing what her conscience dictates.

I have not studied the case, but if as you seem to suggest, fundies defended the girl, then it seems they are the ones advocating true separation here by stating even a Moslem has the right to freely exercise their religion.

You seem to take an anti-religious stance that we should coerce people not to follow religion as much as possible because if we allow one to follow their religion, where does it stop?

Well heck, to use your examples, who cares if a bishop blesses a school, or if some kids take off for the holy days of their religion? I mean if an American Indian, or Jewish kid, says, look, this is important to my family's religion, by all means they should take off some holy days. I just don't get it.

I thought the idea was religious neutrality not religious hostility. The Moslem girl should be able to wear her hajib, or whatever, and as long as they have clothes on, they should be able to wear whatever religious symbols they want to, provided it is legitimately religious.

[Tansy_Gold]

78. First of all, you have to understand how the fundies operate

They have learned to be very devious. So, they let one Muslim girl wear her hijab; next they will allow Christian prayer in schools. Great leap of faith? Not really.

I grew up in a very religiously diverse family: protestants, catholics, jews, and the occasional weirdo atheist. But none of us wore our religion, or lack thereof, on our public sleeves. We knew that there are times and places to be religious and times and places not to be.

Because that is how a secular society works.

The practice of one's religion is not without limitations. The freedom of religion guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is not blanket: the old internet "Letter to Dr. Laura" spoofs the extremes of religious belief. There are Islamic sects that believe daughters who have sex outside marriage should be killed, and sometimes this actually happens. Should such honor killings be permitted? They are, after all, part of the "free" exercise of religion.

Now, I am very sure that you are going to argue that the wearing of a hijab or a yarmulke or other religious symbolism is hardly the equivalent of honor killing or female genital mutilation, another pseudo-religious practice. But the point I'm making -- or at least trying to make -- is that there are indeed limits on religious freedom. One hopes that such limits don't become oppressive, but one should also keep in mind that to those who sincerely believe a wayward daughter is a stain on the entire family's honor, such restrictions may indeed be oppressive.

My objection is to the "right" to wear an overt religious symbol in a public school, which is part and parcel of the secular society.

But I'm not anti-faith, as some accused me in that other thread. Nor am I against the wearing of religious paraphernalia in public. Here's an example:

Several years ago, I worked in a local Wal-Mart. There was a strict policy against the wearing of headgear of any kind on the job, except for those who worked outside the building and needed protection from the weather, including the sun, while out of doors; once inside, they had to remove the caps. One of our cash-room employees, who was rarely seen on the store's retail floor except for the few minutes a couple times a day when she collected cash from the cashiers, was Mennonite and wore the traditional white net cap. No one said a thing about it; few even really noticed, which was surprising since there are few Mennonites in this part of Arizona.

A few months later, however, the manager hired a Muslim woman to work in one of the retail departments. When she showed up for work wearing a hijab and refused to remove it on the grounds of her religious beliefs, she was fired for violating company policy on the wearing of headgear. No one seemed to see anything wrong in this until *I* pointed out to the manager that the girl in the cash room -- I don't even remember her name -- wore her Mennonite cap. *I* said it was discrimination to fire the Muslim woman but not the Mennonite. *I* suggested that there was anti-Muslim, pro-Christian bias on the part of our Southern Baptist Texas good ol' boy manager.

The Muslim woman was not re-hired, but the Mennonite woman was allowed to continue wearing her cap, until she quit voluntarily, for reasons I never knew. I was outraged; I was also powerless to do anything.

I don't think that kind of employment discrimination is appropriate at all, just as I don't think religious-based charities should be allowed to discriminate if they accept government funds.

As David Fromkin points out in his 1989 book "A Peace to End All Peace," one of the mistakes the post-World War I allies made in trying to partition the defeated Ottoman Empire was that they did not understand the nature of an Islamic "state." Where Christianity had evolved to be a separate sphere from the secular nation-state, Islam was intrinsic to the Arab-Turkish state. In essence, there was no secular government or even secular society; the empire and most of the states carved from it were theocracies. Some still are, perhaps more so than in 1922.

As far as I'm concerned, and again I acknowledge that I am probably in a persecuted minority, the church, the temple, the mosque, the synagogue all end at the schoolhouse door. The founders of the American secular experiment knew that, and those who oppose it are, in my never ever humble opinion, the purveyors of theocracy.

The fundie script runs something like this: "So, let the little Muslim girl wear her hijab, and next year we will use that same argument, freedom of religious expression, to get pictures of Jesus on the teachers' desks, Bible readings to open the school day, stone tablets with the Commandments in the courthouses. And because there are so many more of us than there are of the infidels, they will be intimidated. And if perhaps one of 'our' kids beats up on one of 'their' kids, we will be able to say that it wouldn't have happened if they looked and dressed and behaved just like us."

Remember that the fundies play on emotions. Just as they try -- and sometimes succeed -- to pass laws that protect the unborn victims of domestic violence and it sounds really, really good, they have ulterior motives. We who support a secular society do ourselves no good if we underestimate our enemy.

Sorry for the rant.

Tansy Gold

[beachman]

79. I think your analysis is hysteria.

You've got to come down to earth again, and not blow up these political differences to more than they are. Comparing the wearing of a hijab to genital mutiliation? And somehow there is this great fundie conspiracy to what? allow genitital mutiliation and honor killings?

Come on.

That's just warped thinking.

"My objection is to the "right" to wear an overt religious symbol in a public school, which is part and parcel of the secular society."

I see where you are coming from, but it's wrong. America is not meant to be a "secular soceity" in the way you think. America is meant to be a free society, both for secularists and religionists.

I've been in the kind of secular society you are talking about, ...in the old Soviet Union, and I had hoped we all understood that such a society is not what we are about, democrat, republican, green, or whatever.

A little girl wearing a hijab, or a Christian boy saying grace, aren't going to undermine anyone's right to be an atheist or a member of a different religion. Don't take this stuff too far.

There are limits on free speech too, by the way, but wouldn't you rather err on the side of liberty, as far as speech? I am sure you would. Well, we should do the same when it comes to religious customs. That's the only way to prevent the type coercion by religious or secular people trying to force others to be like themselves.

[seabeyond]

20. beachman i was in agreement in this post

but again i am not a literal kinda gal, why my interpretation of bible and christianity isnt literal, or fundamentalist. if you are doing a tit for tat comparison of the taliban or muslim fundamentalist i can understand your outrage, and respectfully too. i was agreeing more the dont think, follow and we will interpret for you. the allowing less than christian action for the greater good. the, there is only one way to interpret, only one way to live

my children go to a fundamentalist school in panhandle of texas and since bush has come into office i have felt a change in the feel. an urgency to brainwash and control. a feverish attempt in chants and ignoring the facts.

i love these people. they have taken care of my children for 5 years now, that is a huge thing for me, who i hand over my children to. and the last year has been interesting to me, yet uncomfortable what i am hearing being tauhgt to the children. now i have to decide, have they so walked away from the teaching to follow this administration, and is it time to pull children out of this comfortable loving enviroment and put them in public school.

it is not the action upon action comparison, it is the it is the taking away the individual thinking to be controlled

[janx]

22. May I ask you a personal question? Maybe I overstep here, but--

why did you put them in a fundamentalist school in the first place? I know that I had my kids in church preschools, etc., but they weren't fundamentalist ones. Is there an advantage to doing so, at least in Texas?

I know that the public schools in Texas and also in Florida (where my brother lives) aren't the best.

Was it a pragmatic, academic decision, or was it something else?

Again, it may be none of my business, but I'm curious.

[seabeyond]

23. the public schools, some of them

are bad, they dont get the money. others are excellent. i did private because i am so opposed to tass tests, and spending so much time studying for those and missing out on other education, and the area we live has a poor, ill supplied school. also my oldest boy, he is sweetness, slim, wears glasses and started reading encyclopedias at two. bully factor.

academically there were two schools par. the catholic school wasnt as high acemdically

the other school is for the elitist in town, and as a member of country club and seeing the way those kids behave told husband not a chance

this school, we walked into and was simply of love. academics are high. half the cost of the other private in town and has kids in all economic ranges. they take the poor children and subsidize, they are in a poor neighborhood and it is a old building.

the interesing though, from the beginning they have seen me, and extension family as pagen, but we are so happy and nice and kind and loving and good, they cant help themselves in embracing us, wink. i never promised to be a part of their religion, and they allow. but i also see it as an advantage for my boys to both learn the bible and experience these people, and see the hypocrisy in the teaching, yet learn the good in the religion and spirituality. and as i say, they are so full of love

to be able to recognize the sin, but love the sinner, a pure gift, especially for children

[seabeyond]

31. i got in there in 99

now i am hearing comments that only republicans are christians, ungodly public school kids, i am seeing an agressiveness with the families. they identify themselves as christian families, embracing exclusion like i havent seen

i am seeing the results of dominion in this enviroment the last two years especially this year. i am a believer in this with bushco and what they are doing with religious groups and government funding to religious org. i see the desire to bring all children to these private schools and over the last couple years seeing this area set upself up for this.

this is what i see as an awesome i would chose this school and then get to experience as it is happening to the nation. has been a wonderful experience in understanding what is up and how it is being created.

[Arianrhod]

62. A Fundamentalist is a Fundamentalist.

It was Falwell and Robertson who immediately blamed 9-11 on liberals. It was Falwell who sold the videotape "proving" the Clintons killed Vince Foster, and Robertson who proclaimed on his TV show that homosexuals ought to be executed. It was Terry who is now serving time for terrorism as a result of his penchant for blowing up buildings and shooting unarmed people in the back. It was Gish who forced Creationism into the school curriculum. It's Phelps who glorifies the oppression of homosexuals. It was the Baptists who announced that women are required to "submit graciously" to their men--men who, far too often, are unfaithful in their marriages while receiving no admonition from the church.

You can apologize for these anti-american traitors all you want. The fact is, they are no different than the Taliban, and I for one don't want them in the Democratic Party. I want to see their beliefs utterly rejected and destroyed by genuine people of faith, never to rise again anywhere on Earth.

They are a plague upon mankind.

[seabeyond]

64. ooosh, a bit harsh

personally i would just like to see them evolve like we are all meant to. we do it in our time, it is our journey to do. the fundamentalist at this point needs a father authority, and thru reflection and evolution, in the spiritual sense one moves from this stage to the new testament stage, liberal christians. from there are three other stages of evolution in spirituality

[Arianrhod]

67. Well, the poster I was responding to

seemed to think that we were unfairly comparing Christian Fundamentalists with Moslem ones. I merely pointed out to him the similarities.

Yes, my opinion of these anti-constitutionalists is a bit harsh. For that, I do apologize; I sometimes let my emotions get in the way. I'm working on this character flaw, but it takes time. Still, I see no reason to coddle those who would gladly remove all of my rights and throw me in prison, simply because I wear a Pentagram and don't worship Jesus. When they break out of the spiritual prison whose doors they've willingly locked on themselves, then I will be the first one to embrace their repentance with all the compassion I can muster. Until then, they are quite literally the enemy. I see no difference between them and the terrorists.

Those of us who love freedom must stand against them, as surely as we must stand against the administration that is catering to them.

[Tansy_Gold]

73. AMEN!

.

[mitchum]

24. The world needs more Christian fundamentalist martyrs...

a LOT more. I wish they would get on with it :)

[KittyWampus]

41. I Think Inadvertently, They May Take Many Others With Them

:(

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

48. I think Islamic fundamentalism is a little worse,

just because they are not generally in a liberal society to start with.

I think our society moderates some of the fundamentalism that isn't moderated in many Islamic countries.

That's just my sense, but its only an opinion.

[Geo55]

63. Reason, Logic and Skepticism

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."


-Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782)

[dand]

68. Good point,

its a method of manipulation, a protection racket for child rapists, rotten from the ground up.

[Hamlette]

71. Battle For God by Karen Armstrong

compares the fundamentalist groups in the three monotheistic religions: Christian, Islam and Jewish. She finds they are all the same. Armstrong writes the most interesting books on religion out there. She started as a nun but left after 7 years and spent most of her life studying religion.

[donhakman]

76. Karen

Is as illuminating as Joseph Campbell


Be careful not to lose your "grain of salt"...

it is tiny,
dissolves in BS
and, for some, vaporizes
at the invocation of the word of god

[seabeyond]

82. reality check....we do know the majority of muslims are not

fundamentalist, and these things we talk like the stoning and women not going to school or going to prison cause she was raped, much of this is in their uneducated and poor society and that the majority of the muslims dont believe in this behavior either. further they had real issue with the fundamentalist killing americans too, until bush went over and started missing things up

if, we had the same poor and uneducated like they do in the middle east countries with tyrants running the countries and hording the money and putting the poor into schools to sway and chant all day death to isreal, death to americans, would the fundie christian become more barbaric in their beliefs you think. not that all baptists, or christians would become that. in the lynching of the blacks, it was the poor and uneducated that adopted those practices, wasnt the educated

[Ms. Clio]

83. That's not correct

The "educated" elites--lawyers, doctors, merchants--often orchestrated and led lynchings, which were not just restricted to the south, you know.

Education is no guarantee of religious tolerance--most Puritans were extremely well-educated for their time, highly literate and intellectual people; so were the Spanish Jesuits, etc.

[nomaco-10]

84. Religous Fanaticism, Alcoholism and Obesity...

are all on the rise. The world has become such a troubled place, that many people are grasping and medicating with anything they can get their hands on to release some endorphins. Whether it be food, mood altering substances, religion, the Home Shopping Network or even sex. Anxiety and excess seem to be the order of the day in these times.

Luckily my only crutch is a few cold beers a couple of times a week.

[seabeyond]

86. hey beachman, i have really enjoyed your posts

this is my feel. we have a small handful of white male fundies. that is not indicitive of all fundie, they are the ones in power though and get the support from other fundies. which would be the way it should be for the most part except

bush really doesnt represent who they are as a people. they are supporting an illusion.

bush, being u.s. has power and control and we see, a scary amount over the whole world. there is a responsibility in that.

he is, and a small group of white males are, deciding the course of the world regardless of other beliefs or other desires of way to live..........a small handful of white males, has the power

now we are watching this same small handful of white males expand to the blairs, and now looking at canada, hope he loses.

this handful of males, i dont believe, will be successful in using a religion to dictate the world after nov 2004. i think they will fail.

you cant dismiss religion in this, not the fundie role.

this is why the u.s. has a responsibility to seperate christianity, from state/world policy.

africa, people are dieing because of the anti aboriton and this is purely a religious issue on anti abortion. people are dieing because we dont want them to use condoms. and they get away with that because of their abortion stance going after planned parenthood and other orginizations over abortion

equally people are dieing because we on the left dont want them to not use a poison that will kill mosquitos from malaria and other born diseases. obsurdity in both those arguements.

that is our power

personally and in love i look at the baptists and the catholics and i say. voting on a belief, regardless of the results from said belief, you just are not being responsible, unless you are willing to be well informed. promoting hypocrisy in stupidity sets on your shoulder. when you want to preach god to me, make sure i dont endure the hypocrisy, cause i wont buy your story

i dont need the illusion, i dont have to win jesus's love or prove my worthiness. i am not playing the same game. i respect the right, opportunity and need to live this life, i am just not there. look beyond to what is being created

and the fundies are creating a lot of hate, to bottom line. not a world i want to live in, and raising two boys, i want more for them. i have it in my personal space, i have it in life, i know it can be done, everything else falls short. ergo, i want more