No difference between Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists.

JuliusCaesar · 11-10-2014 9:13am #1

Here

Interesting point that European Muslims tend to be more fundy than US Muslims due to their lower socio-economic status - which would imply that we as a society should try harder to help educate and integrate our immigrants.

On a side note, I'm totally opposed to Direct Provision as I can't think of a better way of ensuring psychological torture and ensuring the creation of a resentful underclass.

wretcheddomain · 11-10-2014 12:18pm

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Interesting point that European Muslims tend to be more fundy than US Muslims due to their lower socio-economic status - which would imply that we as a society should try harder to help educate and integrate our immigrants.

So basically you're saying it's our fault?

pH · 11-10-2014 12:53pm

Glasgow airport attack 2007 - those known to (or strongly suspected) be involved:

Dr. Bilal Abdullah, 27, born in England, and moved to Iraq as a child.[54] Alleged attacker, arrested immediately at Glasgow International Airport. Convicted at of conspiracy to murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment
Kafeel Ahmed, aka Khalid Ahmed,[55] born in India, studying for a PhD in engineering. Taken to hospital after the attack and treated for burns over 90% of his body surface.[56] Died from his injuries, 2 August 2007.[14]
Dr. Mohammed Asha, 26, from Jordan.[54] Arrested on the M6 motorway.[56] Later found not guilty of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions, currently fighting deportation.[57]
Marwah Dana Asha, 27, from Jordan. Wife of Mohammed Asha and arrested with him on the M6 motorway.[56] Was later released without charge.[58]
Dr. Sabeel Ahmed, 26, born in India. Arrested in Liverpool. A doctor who works at Halton Hospital in Cheshire. Brother of Kafeel Ahmed.[56]
Dr. Mohamed Haneef, 27, from India.[57][59] Detained at Brisbane Airport, Australia[56] and later charged with recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation, charges which have now been dropped. Currently appealing cancellation of his work visa by the Australian government. Second cousin of Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed.
Unnamed 28-year-old Saudi man, arrested in Houston, Renfrewshire. Reported to be a medical student working at Royal Alexandra Hospital.[56] Released without charge.[60]
Unnamed 25-year-old Saudi man, arrested in Houston along with unnamed 28-year-old. Also reported to be a medical student at the RAH.[56] Released without charge.

Read more about low socio-economic status people here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack

Vinnie L · 12-10-2014 8:31pm

What exactly is a fundamentalist anyway ?
I think the origional meaning, if there ever was one, has lost all meaning at this stage.

recedite · 12-10-2014 9:25pm

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

their lower socio-economic status

The average Irish person is probably most likely to meet a muslim when they finally get to see the doctor in the local hospital.

Any proof that European muslims are more fundamentalist than, say, middle eastern ones?
If its true, its more likely to be because they want to accentuate the attachment to their ancestral country. I'm sure we all know Irish people who became markedly more nationalistic and discovered a new interest in trad music after they emigrated.

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2014 11:30am

pH wrote: »

Glasgow airport attack 2007 - those known to (or strongly suspected) be involved:

Dr. Bilal Abdullah, 27, born in England, and moved to Iraq as a child.[54] Alleged attacker, arrested immediately at Glasgow International Airport. Convicted at of conspiracy to murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment
Kafeel Ahmed, aka Khalid Ahmed,[55] born in India, studying for a PhD in engineering. Taken to hospital after the attack and treated for burns over 90% of his body surface.[56] Died from his injuries, 2 August 2007.[14]
Dr. Mohammed Asha, 26, from Jordan.[54] Arrested on the M6 motorway.[56] Later found not guilty of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions, currently fighting deportation.[57]
Marwah Dana Asha, 27, from Jordan. Wife of Mohammed Asha and arrested with him on the M6 motorway.[56] Was later released without charge.[58]
Dr. Sabeel Ahmed, 26, born in India. Arrested in Liverpool. A doctor who works at Halton Hospital in Cheshire. Brother of Kafeel Ahmed.[56]
Dr. Mohamed Haneef, 27, from India.[57][59] Detained at Brisbane Airport, Australia[56] and later charged with recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation, charges which have now been dropped. Currently appealing cancellation of his work visa by the Australian government. Second cousin of Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed.
Unnamed 28-year-old Saudi man, arrested in Houston, Renfrewshire. Reported to be a medical student working at Royal Alexandra Hospital.[56] Released without charge.[60]
Unnamed 25-year-old Saudi man, arrested in Houston along with unnamed 28-year-old. Also reported to be a medical student at the RAH.[56] Released without charge.

Read more about low socio-economic status people here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack

Could you please clarify if you were intentionally misleading or you simply were unable to understand the above which you posted?

At the very least can you clarify who these people who have been cleared without any charge are now "suspected by"? Beyond you, of course.

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2014 11:32am

wretcheddomain wrote: »

So basically you're saying it's our fault?

So religious fundamentalism comes down to it being "our" fault or their (exotic, oriental, backward immigrants) fault? It couldn't possibly be more nuanced than this?

Mr. CooL ICE · 13-10-2014 1:49pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you please clarify if you were intentionally misleading or you simply were unable to understand the above which you posted?

At the very least can you clarify who these people who have been cleared without any charge are now "suspected by"? Beyond you, of course.

Why would they arrest them if they weren't suspects?

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2014 1:52pm

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Why would they arrest them if they weren't suspects?

Can you explain the difference between "weren't" and "aren't". By your logic the Guildford and still "kinda" guilty...

Mr. CooL ICE · 13-10-2014 1:57pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you explain the difference between "weren't" and "aren't". By your logic the Guildford and still "kinda" guilty...

They were suspected, found not guilty and released. They were suspects. Now, they aren't suspects.

Yet again, you are purposely trying to be offended by something and looking for an argument when there isn't any room for one. I'm outta here.

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2014 2:12pm

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Now, they aren't suspects.
.

Good man.

Now read your statement above and with that in mind read the statement I was responding to "those known to (or strongly suspected) be involved:"and see if the penny drops...

Mr. CooL ICE · 13-10-2014 2:20pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Good man.

Now read your statement above and with that in mind read the statement I was responding to "those known to (or strongly suspected) be involved:"and see if the penny drops...

Wait - you're a grammar nazi now? At least you're branching out.

robindch · 13-10-2014 3:21pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Good man.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you please clarify if you were intentionally misleading or you simply were unable to understand the above which you posted? [...] Beyond you, of course.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

[...] (exotic, oriental, backward immigrants) [...]

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Wait - you're a grammar nazi now? At least you're branching out.

Nicolas - no need for the grammar nazi comment.

BB - can you please try to discuss something calmly for a change?

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2014 3:31pm

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Wait - you're a grammar nazi now? At least you're branching out.

It has nothing to do with grammar and has everything to do with the concept of innocent until proven guilty; a pillar of any civilised society. Most of those people listed didn't even have a case to answer.

Mr. CooL ICE · 13-10-2014 4:12pm

I don't know where the confusion lies.

Your issue originally seemed to be with the wording of pH's statement, but now you are talking about being innocent until proven guilty (which from what I can see, is what happened). Perhaps you can elaborate a bit.

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2014 4:32pm

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

I don't know where the confusion lies.

Your issue originally seemed to be with the wording of pH's statement, but now you are talking about being innocent until proven guilty (which from what I can see, is what happened). Perhaps you can elaborate a bit.

Sure. PH accused People Who have Been found not guilty and cleared of all charges of involvement in attempted murder. Obviously These are false allegations against what are by Any reasonable and civilised definition innocent People. I wanted them to clarify whether this was a genuine mistake or an intentional effort to mislead.

Mr. CooL ICE · 13-10-2014 4:39pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Sure. PH accused People Who have Been found not guilty and cleared of all charges of involvement in attempted murder. Obviously These are false allegations against what are by Any reasonable and civilised definition innocent People. I wanted them to clarify whether this was a genuine mistake or an intentional effort to mislead.

pH didn't accuse anybody of anything. You are just trying to put words in his mouth.

If you want to be pedantic about his statement which you highlighted in red, then it is grammatically incorrect and could be interpreted either way. From what I can tell, pH isn't the one assuming anybody of being guilty until proven innocent. It's you.

Brown Bomber · 13-10-2014 4:47pm

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

pH didn't accuse anybody of anything. You are just trying to put words in his mouth.

If you want to be pedantic about his statement which you highlighted in red, then it is grammatically incorrect and could be interpreted either way. From what I can tell, pH isn't the one assuming anybody of being guilty until proven innocent. It's you.

But it cannot be interpreted either Way. They gave a list of People and made the claim that they ARE involved or suspected of being involved in a specific terrorist attack. This is completely false. The majority of those lister are NOT suspected at all. IF they are and I am wrong then WHo is it that is doing the suspecting and on what grounds?

weisses · 14-10-2014 10:26pm

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

pH didn't accuse anybody of anything. You are just trying to put words in his mouth.

Of course he didn't ..

Posting a bunch of names without adding the proper context in a Muslim/christian fundamentalist thread is how you have a discussion?? don't think so.

jaffusmax · 16-10-2014 2:50pm

The only difference between a Muslim and a Christian fundamentalist is that whichever one feels more threatened then begins to act more illogically and with more savagery!

jank · 18-10-2014 2:44am

No difference? Tell that to the 3000 people slaughtered at 9/11.

Brown Bomber · 18-10-2014 3:16pm

jank wrote: »

No difference? Tell that to the 3000 people slaughtered at 9/11.

or the million in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

shruikan2553 · 19-10-2014 12:48am

The entire religions are pretty much the same, just a different book. Reminds me of this picture

jank wrote: »

No difference? Tell that to the 3000 people slaughtered at 9/11.

Because Christians have never done anything to kill others.

jaffusmax · 19-10-2014 8:56am

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The entire religions are pretty much the same, just a different book. Reminds me of this picture

Because Christians have never done anything to kill others.

I wonder what do female suicide bombers get rewarded in the afterlife? 72 Virgin Men?

As for the lady on the left I wonder if she has read past the Introduction page of the book she is holding!

fisgon · 19-10-2014 9:52am

There is little difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists in terms of mindset.

It is exactly the same way of looking at the world, based on ignorance, insecurity, a hatred of "the other", a fear of modernity, a fear and hatred of sexuality and other basic elements of humanity, and a desire to impose your doctrine on society as a whole. Oh yeah, an insistence on being absolutely right, despite the utter lack of evidence for this claim.

The main difference is that Christian fundies exist mainly in Western countries, where there is at least some tradition of secularism, where there is separation of church and state, and where we have had an Enlightenment to dilute the crazier elements of religion. The Muslim world does not really have any tradition of secularism, and so Islam is allowed to grow unchecked. Secularism is the only thing that can keep the inevitable violence and oppression of religion in check.

jank · 19-10-2014 2:30pm

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The entire religions are pretty much the same, just a different book. Reminds me of this picture

Because Christians have never done anything to kill others.

Did the lady on the right blow themselves up in a civilian area? If not, then tis not the same thing.

jank · 19-10-2014 2:40pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

or the million in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That quote you linked has been debunked.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-denies-bushs-mission-from-god-remark/2005/10/08/1128563027485.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/usa.jamessturcke

DarkyHughes · 19-10-2014 4:34pm

jank wrote: »

No difference? Tell that to the 3000 people slaughtered at 9/11.

Or the 1000 Roman Catholic civilians slaughtered by Protestant fundamentalist Christians in the North of Ireland. For God & Ulster. Oh that's right the Protestants don't have dark skin so their not as bad.

DarkyHughes · 19-10-2014 5:45pm

jank wrote: »

Did the lady on the right blow themselves up in a civilian area? If not, then tis not the same thing.

Your right it's not the same. The suicide bomber murderer dies, the non-suicide bomber gets to live & carry out more murders.

Brown Bomber · 19-10-2014 7:26pm

jank wrote: »

That quote you linked has been debunked.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-denies-bushs-mission-from-god-remark/2005/10/08/1128563027485.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/usa.jamessturcke

Thanks for the clarification.

hfallada · 19-10-2014 7:34pm

I think the different between Muslim and Christian Fundamentalists is that Christian Fundamentalists will kill their own people eg Americans killing other Americans. The best example is Christians who see that they are doing "gods work", by blowing up abortion clinics and murdering abortion doctors. They arent treated in extremist camps in the middle east. They teach themselves. They also are a higher risk,as they arent being monitored by the US Government. But probably the most frightening is that they act usually solely as one person. They arent a group like most Muslim Fundamentalists.

But Christian Fundamentalists in the US are powerful lobbyist. Their voices are heard and policies are put into law which follow that. Where as Muslim Fundamentalists are often ignored by Government in their home country

Brian Shanahan · 19-10-2014 8:43pm

hfallada wrote: »

They arent treated in extremist camps in the middle east. They teach themselves.

You'd be suprised, quite a number of US domestic terrorists sprung from far right christian groups like the militia and survivalist movements in the US, and prior to that the KKK. Timothy McVeigh was well up in the Militia Movement in the '90's for example.

Hotblack Desiato · 19-10-2014 8:55pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Or the 1000 Roman Catholic civilians slaughtered by Protestant fundamentalist Christians in the North of Ireland. For God & Ulster. Oh that's right the Protestants don't have dark skin so their not as bad.

The Provisional IRA killed more catholics than that, in the name of "Irish Freedom".

DarkyHughes · 19-10-2014 10:43pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The Provisional IRA killed more catholics than that, in the name of "Irish Freedom".

Your point being..........?

Peregrinus · 20-10-2014 2:38am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You'd be suprised, quite a number of US domestic terrorists sprung from far right christian groups like the militia and survivalist movements in the US, and prior to that the KKK. Timothy McVeigh was well up in the Militia Movement in the '90's for example.

While there are Christians in the militia and survivalist movements, they are not Christian (or indeed religious) in inspiration, ideology or membership; they are secular. Timothy McVeigh was from a Catholic background, but as an adult identified as an agnostic, and said that science was his religion.

Which raises the point; granted that there is no difference between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, is there any difference between religious and secular fundamentalists? A suggestion that the Bushista invasion of Iraq should be ascribed to Bush's Christian fundamentalism is debunked early on the previous page of this thread; if in fact the Bushista invasion was motivated by an entirely secular materialist fundamentalism focussing on oil and the power and wealth it brings and the rightness of enlightened westerners possessing or controlling same, would that make us view the fundamentalism behind the invasion any differently?

Peregrinus · 20-10-2014 2:39am

hfallada wrote: »

I think the different between Muslim and Christian Fundamentalists is that Christian Fundamentalists will kill their own people eg Americans killing other Americans . . .

The overwhelming majority of victims of Islamist fundamentalist violence are themselves Muslims.

Brown Bomber · 20-10-2014 11:25am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of victims of Islamist fundamentalist violence are themselves Muslims.

And the people losing their lives fighting ISIS, Nusra are Muslims too in Syria, Pakistan Iraq and so on.

laurinjames · 20-10-2014 8:37pm

What exactly is a fundamentalist these days, in any subject ?

Brown Bomber · 20-10-2014 9:49pm

laurinjames wrote: »

What exactly is a fundamentalist these days, in any subject ?

Whatever it is it is not measured by how violent + religious someone is. That is a common error.

laurinjames · 20-10-2014 9:51pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Whatever it is it is not measured by how violent + religious someone is.

who says ?

In reality, is there even such a thing as a fudamentalist/sterotypical atheist/christian/muslim and what are they ?

PopePalpatine · 20-10-2014 10:14pm

laurinjames wrote: »

What exactly is a fundamentalist these days, in any subject ?

Typing "define fundamentalism" into Google returns "the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines" as its top result. For Islam, you would have the likes of Wahhabists and for Christianity you would have the likes of creationists and the Tea Party.

Brown Bomber · 20-10-2014 10:21pm

laurinjames wrote: »

who says ?

In reality, is there even such a thing as a fudamentalist/sterotypical atheist/christian/muslim and what are they ?

MI5 for a start.

• Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1

Also, Dr Robert Pape, the world's foremost expert on suicide bombings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM

laurinjames · 21-10-2014 1:29am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Typing "define fundamentalism" into Google returns "the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines" as its top result. For Islam, you would have the likes of Wahhabists and for Christianity you would have the likes of creationists and the Tea Party.

Saudi and America ?

Not a very satisfactory definition at all given how widespread and prevailent these people are supposed to be.

Peregrinus · 21-10-2014 2:10am

laurinjames wrote: »

What exactly is a fundamentalist these days, in any subject ?

Good question.

The word is a modern one; it dates only from the 1920s. (And, despite often being characterised as “medieval” or in similar terms, the phenomenon seems to be a distinctively modern one; it requires a modern mindset to be a fundamentalist.)

Originally it referred to a Christian movement or trend, involving insistence on certain selected tenets as being absolutely true, and treating that as a hallmark of orthodoxy. Note that these religious fundamentalists weren’t violent, and they weren’t necessarily oppressive, or even politicised. But within a generation, the term had extended beyond Christianity - people spoke of fundamentalist Islam or fundamentalist Hinduism and, initially, these references too carried no implications of violence. And by the 1960s it had transcended religion altogether, especially in US English. Webster’s Dictionary 1961 edition defines a “fundamentalist” as an extreme conservative, especially one who “attacks any deviation from certain doctrines and practices he considers essential (as to a religious, political, or educational system)”. “Fundamentalist” could also mean an advocate of a back-to-basics approach; in 1973 the Economist used the term to describe share analysts who “look at a company's product, balance sheet, record and management before deciding whether the stock market has put the right value on the shares”.

The association of fundamentalism with violence in the Western mind probably dates from the late 1970s/early 1980s, when the Iranian revolution was perceived to be (a) fundamentalist, and (b) violent. Western media, and particularly the US media, tended to assume that it was violent because it was fundamentalist; the possibility that the violence of the revolution might be a reaction to the western-led systematic oppression and exploitation of Iran for decades past was regarded as a fringe left position, especially after the Tehran embassy crisis occurred. And the simplistic linking of fundamentalism and violence continues to this day; it is comforting to think that the persistent sh1tstorm that is the Middle East is all down to their lust for religious purity and not at all to our lust for oil, and the wealth, power and prosperity it brings us.

laurinjames · 21-10-2014 2:49am

its funny how the word is now used to describe any type of violent/objectionable extremist, instead of one who holds to the actual fundamentals of a particular subject. i wonder is this intentional or unintentional. I'd say the confusion arose when certain groups who claimed they were 'fundamentalists' , where in fact anything but fundamentalists

Peregrinus · 21-10-2014 3:54am

I’d almost take the opposing view. It seems to me that if you’re sufficiently convinced of the truth of some idea to be prepared to kill people, and to risk death yourself, in reliance on that idea, you can reasonably be called a “fundamentalist” adherent of that particular idea. I just don’t see the sense in using that label if the idea is a religious notion, but not if it’s a secular notion.

And of course the truth us that it’s very often both. Back in post #23 we have a picture of a lass holding a rifle and a bible, and standing in front of an American flag. There’s three iconic symbols in that image; two are secular and the religious one is much the least prominent. This strikes me as an image of a woman whose faith is not in Jesus Christ or in the enlightenment values of the American republic, but in the gun. She looks to violence, the forcible exercise of power, to take and defend what she regards as hers, and so to give her the existential security she craves, and she makes both religious and secular claims in support of her faith. The scary element in this picture, obviously, is not the bible. I’m very happy to describe this as an image depicting a fundamentalist, but the notion that she’s only a fundamentalist because she’s holding a bible would strike me as just silly.

Akrasia · 21-10-2014 11:25am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

MI5 for a start.

Also, Dr Robert Pape, the world's foremost expert on suicide bombings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM

Sorry but that's a load of bollox.

Last night the BBC had a documentary about the taliban in Afghanistan. Their religion is central to everything they are fighting for.

The Islamic State are blatantly motivated by religion above everything else.

Al Qaeda are blatantly islamic and at war with the west in order to spread islam...

The islamic fundamentalists are focusing hugely on education to breed the next generation of fanatics. Schools are taken over, (male) children are brainwashed to believe in the version of islam that is most violent and the most opposed to western values. Girls are removed from education and told that they are worthless other than as the posessions of their husband

Akrasia · 21-10-2014 11:36am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’d almost take the opposing view. It seems to me that if you’re sufficiently convinced of the truth of some idea to be prepared to kill people, and to risk death yourself, in reliance on that idea, you can reasonably be called a “fundamentalist” adherent of that particular idea. I just don’t see the sense in using that label if the idea is a religious notion, but not if it’s a secular notion.

And of course the truth us that it’s very often both. Back in post #23 we have a picture of a lass holding a rifle and a bible, and standing in front of an American flag. There’s three iconic symbols in that image; two are secular and the religious one is much the least prominent. This strikes me as an image of a woman whose faith is not in Jesus Christ or in the enlightenment values of the American republic, but in the gun. She looks to violence, the forcible exercise of power, to take and defend what she regards as hers, and so to give her the existential security she craves, and she makes both religious and secular claims in support of her faith. The scary element in this picture, obviously, is not the bible. I’m very happy to describe this as an image depicting a fundamentalist, but the notion that she’s only a fundamentalist because she’s holding a bible would strike me as just silly.

For the US. conservative right, america and the bible go together. They view the real america as a christian nation. (regardless of what the governenment says) The bible and the flag are not seperate, they are the same.

The state of american culture is actually pretty worrying. Jingoism on the scale seen in parts of america is almost indistinguishable from the kinds of nationalism seen in fascist spain, germany, italy etc... All it takes is the wrong confluence of events and we could see a breakup of the union into democratic, and theocratic/fascistic states

Brown Bomber · 21-10-2014 2:13pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Last night the BBC had a documentary about the taliban in Afghanistan.

Lets put this into perspective.

The BBC, who operate under Royal Charter released a documentary about the the enemies of the British military whose head is the very same Queen, whose own grandson was fighting against this enemy (in their homeland). The same British armed forces whose every single member takes an oath of allegiance to this same Queen.

If every government film released during war time of an enemy was true...well you know the rest...

Peregrinus · 21-10-2014 2:54pm

Akrasia wrote: »

For the US. conservative right, america and the bible go together. They view the real america as a christian nation. (regardless of what the governenment says) The bible and the flag are not seperate, they are the same.

I have to point out that there were plenty of atheist and secular conservatives supporting the Bushista invasion of Iraq, for example. Are you suggesting that they weren't fundamentalist because they weren't religious, or that their fundamentalism was somehow of a different and less damaging quality? Because, you know, the lethality of the bombs they dropped did not depend on whether the principle evoked by those who dropped them were religious or non-religious.

People who put their faith in power, wealth and violence may claim a religious motivation for doing so, but they may equally claim a non-religions motive for doing so, and historical examples abound. You can have Stalinists organising nationwide famines who invoke largely secular ideals to justify what they do, Islamist suicide bombers who invoke largely religious ideals, or Americans dropping atom bombs on undefended civilian targets and then oing on to spend spending billions of dollars to acquire the capacity to destroy all life on the planet who invoke a combination of religions and secular ideals for doing so. I'll take some persuading that those who cite religious principles to justify their violence are less harmful, less threatening or less "fundamentalist" than those who cite non-religious principles.

fisgon · 24-10-2014 9:57am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The scary element in this picture, obviously, is not the bible.

Absolutely disagree, and that's the point that you are missing.

A Holy Book may not literally kill people, but they have been used for all kinds of barbarity and insanity throughout history. IS are motivated by sections of their holy book to murder people, and American Christians are also motivated by their book to try drag human knowledge and education back to the dark ages.

No difference between Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists.

Comments