No difference between Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists.

Peregrinus · 28-10-2014 1:51am

Well, I apologise if I’ve misunderstood you, fisgon. But to recap, and hopefully to clarify, when I said in post #46 that

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

your response in post #51 was

“ . . . absolutely disagree, and that’s the point that you are missing.”

I think I was justified in concluding from this that you considered the bible to be the scariest element in the picture and, if follows, to be scarier than the assault rifle in the picture. And your explanation for your position was

“. . . A Holy Book may not literally kill people, but they have been used for all kinds of barbarity and insanity throughout history.”

Weapons of war do literally kill people - large numbers of people. That’s pretty much their intended purpose. And they have been used, much more directly and consistently than bibles, much more often than bibles, for all kinds of barbarity and insanity throughout history. They get used both by those who claim to be motivated by holy books and by those who claim other motivations. On any rational view, they are a bigger threat.

jank · 28-10-2014 2:15am

marienbad wrote: »

No I would have thought it was obvious - I presume you don't believe JD Salinger had any responsibility for the behaviour of Chapman ?

Are you actually trying to downplay the influence Karl Marx has had on 20th century politics by using an isolated instance of someone who was mentally ill?

Karl Marx is arguably the most influential thinker of the 19th century and the person who's writings and thoughts shaped the subsequent 20th century more than anyone else. Without his two most famous books the last 100 years would have looked very different. His writings was used as a basis for social engineering and economic central planning by various states which more or less enslaved billions of people, gave rise to some of the most totalitarian governments the world has know, gave birth to god like status of socialists and communist leaders, destroyed communities and families, locked whole countries behind an iron curtain and left them poorer than the evil 'capitalist' west. In many cases you ended up deported to a far flung outpost where the ultimate release was death. Up to 100 million died under these regimes.

I do not blame Marx personally for this but history should be objective and recognise that his writings and ideas did spawn these regimes. What is some what depressing that in 2014 some people still revere him as much as if it were 1914 but today we have 100 years of experiments that clearly states that his ideas on practical terms cannot be implemented because of the human condition. Even around where I live there are often posters and newspapers advocating a 'New' Marxism pontificating about 'evil' corporations and capitalists. Thankfully they are an extreme minority popular mostly with students of the liberal arts where they can do no widespread harm. Now, if these students were advocating a New Fascism, and held the writings of Hitler as some sort of doctrine, people would be horrified and rightly so. However, Marxists and Communists get a free pass mostly. This hypocrisy never makes sense to me.

marienbad · 28-10-2014 7:59pm

jank wrote: »

Are you actually trying to downplay the influence Karl Marx has had on 20th century politics by using an isolated instance of someone who was mentally ill?

Karl Marx is arguably the most influential thinker of the 19th century and the person who's writings and thoughts shaped the subsequent 20th century more than anyone else. Without his two most famous books the last 100 years would have looked very different. His writings was used as a basis for social engineering and economic central planning by various states which more or less enslaved billions of people, gave rise to some of the most totalitarian governments the world has know, gave birth to god like status of socialists and communist leaders, destroyed communities and families, locked whole countries behind an iron curtain and left them poorer than the evil 'capitalist' west. In many cases you ended up deported to a far flung outpost where the ultimate release was death. Up to 100 million died under these regimes.

I do not blame Marx personally for this but history should be objective and recognise that his writings and ideas did spawn these regimes. What is some what depressing that in 2014 some people still revere him as much as if it were 1914 but today we have 100 years of experiments that clearly states that his ideas on practical terms cannot be implemented because of the human condition. Even around where I live there are often posters and newspapers advocating a 'New' Marxism pontificating about 'evil' corporations and capitalists. Thankfully they are an extreme minority popular mostly with students of the liberal arts where they can do no widespread harm. Now, if these students were advocating a New Fascism, and held the writings of Hitler as some sort of doctrine, people would be horrified and rightly so. However, Marxists and Communists get a free pass mostly. This hypocrisy never makes sense to me.

I agree with you 'history should be objective'. Marx is no more responsible that Plato Malthus Rousseau or Hegel.

Mein Kampff is very different . By the way I don't agree with Marx, but he is not even as loathsome as Wagner

BuilderPlumber · 29-10-2014 8:49am

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Fundamentalism is a byword thrown out there in the Western media since the 1979 mess that was the Iranian "revolution". In reality, that revolution was much the same as the 1933 rise of Hitler: a fascist, militaristic junta controlled by a shadowy paramilitary army who happened to hide behind priests and use religion as the ultimate tool to repress. How a country with so much of a future a few years earlier could fall so low in 1979/80 beggars belief. To this day, Iran has suffered from fascism and - while not all the Iranian govt is bad or poor - evil has often predominated or stalled the true revolution of Iran which was supposed to be about getting rid of a monarchy that STILL exists (the Rev Guards junta hide behind a pro-junta priest who occupies the same role as the Shah whom the junta need to not have Iran seen as the military dictatorship it really is).

Iran's 1979 peasant paramilitaries were very like the Khmer Rouge. Not as bad as these but you can see the inspiration. Now, the Iranian regime is tame compared to what was about to evolve in fascist controlled Taliban Afghanistan and fascist controlled parts of Somalia, Mali, Libya and now Syria and Iraq. Unfortunately, Revolutionary Guards-led Iran has since the 1990s looked one of the more decent and progressive states. And that shows just how messed up the rest are: from the Taliban to Saudi Arabia to the war ravaged Iraq, Syria and Yemen, voodooism, poverty, terrorism, war and fascism are a 4 pronged attack on the people. In Iran, they are only left with the voodooism, poverty and fascism which is a big step up!!

Nodin · 29-10-2014 3:18pm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Fundamentalism (...........), poverty, terrorism, war and fascism are a 4 pronged attack on the people. In Iran, they are only left with the voodooism, poverty and fascism which is a big step up!!

Why do you plague threads with your bizarre version of Iranian history?

DarkyHughes · 29-10-2014 7:45pm

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.

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

I don't know about Nazi's but the American right-wing Christian conservative movement does remind me a lot of the Francoists in Spain alright with their objection to anything left-wing, their wanting to institutionalize Christianity & then rule with brute force.

Mike747 · 29-10-2014 7:54pm

Lets see if there's any real difference

Christian fundamentalist:

try to convert people
protest the funerals of homosexuals

Muslim fundamentalists:

try to convert people
fly planes into skyscrapers
blow up trains
blow up nightclubs
Kidnap woman and schoolgirls and sell them into slavery
beat and murder women for not wearing the veil, going to school etc
behead hostages
wage a war of conquest in the name of Allah

Yep pretty much no difference!

DarkyHughes · 29-10-2014 8:22pm

Mike747 wrote: »

Lets see if there's any real difference

Christian fundamentalist:

try to convert people
protest the funerals of homosexuals

Muslim fundamentalists:

try to convert people
fly planes into skyscrapers
blow up trains
blow up nightclubs
Kidnap woman and schoolgirls and sell them into slavery
beat and murder women for not wearing the veil, going to school etc
behead hostages
wage a war of conquest in the name of Allah

Yep pretty much no difference!

All religions try to convert people.
The IRA drove a truck into Manchester & blew the center of the city to pieces. The UVF did something similar with cars in Dublin.
The IRA & UVF/UDA blew god knows how many pubs & nightclubs.
The IRA & UVF kidnapped people, tortured & killed them.
The UVF/UDA murdered women & men simply for being Catholics.
The Shankill butchers decapitated people.
Loyalists & republicans waged similar names in the names of different beliefs.

So we've covered all those with some slight cultural changes & we haven't even got of this island yet.

Mike747 · 29-10-2014 8:28pm

DarkyHughes wrote: »

All religions try to convert people.
The IRA drove a truck into Manchester & blew the center of the city to pieces. The UVF did something similar with cars in Dublin.
The IRA & UVF/UDA blew god knows how many pubs & nightclubs.
The IRA & UVF kidnapped people, tortured & killed them.
The UVF/UDA murdered women & men simply for being Catholics.
The Shankill butchers decapitated people.
Loyalists & republicans waged similar names in the names of different beliefs.

So we've covered all those with some slight cultural changes & we haven't even got of this island yet.

Wow you sure showed me. Almost forgot, Muslim fundamentalists are quite fond of mutilating little girls.

BuilderPlumber · 29-10-2014 11:23pm

Nodin wrote: »

Why do you plague threads with your bizarre version of Iranian history?

Nothing 'bizarre' about it. The guys who took over Iran in 1979 showed poor, tunnel vision leadership and nosedived what could have been a superpower into abject poverty for years. Yes, the regime was poor compared to the Arab nationalists next door who had previously been considered poor compared to the monarchies. But, Iran's regime soon began to look good compared to the Taliban, Saddam's Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. ALL have shown poor leadership and all have killed (using religious or nationalist reasons) to protect this poor leadership. From monarchy to warlordism, the poor leadership has continued to get poorer. That's the only consistent thing. The people of the Middle East deserve better and it is unfair one set of people have to endure Neo-Nazism while the West is as free as possible. All people deserve freedom surely. Iran may now be the best country in the Middle East: that does NOT mean they should be proud of that. It is a voodoofascist dictatorship with poor government: only thing is its neighbours are much worse voodoofascist dictatorships with no functioning govts often and war as well.

BuilderPlumber · 29-10-2014 11:54pm

Mike747 wrote: »

Wow you sure showed me. Almost forgot, Muslim fundamentalists are quite fond of mutilating little girls.

ANY type of fascist fanatic is evil and violent. The Islamic ISIS, the communist Khmer Rouge, the racist nationalist Nazis, or the Christian Lord's Resistance Army are ALL pretty much the same: violent, intolerant, greedy and manipulative. ALL would kill, torture, put planes into buildings, belittle a sector of population with awful laws, plant bombs in cities, etc. for sure.

Mike747 · 30-10-2014 12:12am

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

ANY type of fascist fanatic is evil and violent. The Islamic ISIS, the communist Khmer Rouge, the racist nationalist Nazis, or the Christian Lord's Resistance Army are ALL pretty much the same: violent, intolerant, greedy and manipulative. ALL would kill, torture, put planes into buildings, belittle a sector of population with awful laws, plant bombs in cities, etc. for sure.

Would still rather take my chances with hardcore Christians than extremist Muslims.

jank · 30-10-2014 3:24am

marienbad wrote: »

I agree with you 'history should be objective'. Marx is no more responsible that Plato Malthus Rousseau or Hegel.

Mein Kampff is very different . By the way I don't agree with Marx, but he is not even as loathsome as Wagner

As a book how is Mein Kampff different than say 'The Communist Manifesto'? Both are used as a pretex to build authoritarian regimes.

Peregrinus · 30-10-2014 3:34am

jank wrote: »

As a book how is Mein Kampff different than say 'The Communist Manifesto'? Both are used as a pretex to build authoritarian regimes.

In that case, how are either of them different from the Bible?

It's pretty much the definition of "pretext" that almost anything can be used as a pretext for something wholly unrelated, so the fact that a particular book is used as a pretext for something doesn't actually tell us very much about the intrinsic qualities of the book. Mein Kampf, Das Kapital and the Bible have all been used as pretexts, but they are three profoundly different works, as anyone who actually take the trouble to read them will immediately see.

marienbad · 30-10-2014 9:56am

jank wrote: »

As a book how is Mein Kampff different than say 'The Communist Manifesto'? Both are used as a pretex to build authoritarian regimes.

in the same way that Adam Smith is not responsible for Gordon Gekko or Rousseau for Robespierre . It is what others make of these works that is the problem Marx would turn in his grave at the thought of what Stalin did .

I think Mein kampff is slightly different in that it is autobiographical and Hitler said it in what he was going to do ,if only anyone had listened . Even then it might be a bit of a stretch as it is possible if he had sold a few more paintings and his mother loved him more he might have followed a different path.

Hotblack Desiato · 30-10-2014 9:55pm

marienbad wrote: »

it is possible if he had sold a few more paintings and his mother loved him more he might have followed a different path.

Or if a WWI bullet had followed a slightly different path... Millions died but he was spared. Thanks a bunch god.

Brian Shanahan · 31-10-2014 1:03am

DarkyHughes wrote: »

I don't know about Nazi's but the American right-wing Christian conservative movement does remind me a lot of the Francoists in Spain alright with their objection to anything left-wing, their wanting to institutionalize Christianity & then rule with brute force.

There is a very good book on this very premis written by Chris Hedges called American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

A very good, and very angry look at the take over of many christian denominations within the US, written from the perspective of a deeply religious, and deeply secular man.

jank · 31-10-2014 2:15pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

In that case, how are either of them different from the Bible?

It's pretty much the definition of "pretext" that almost anything can be used as a pretext for something wholly unrelated, so the fact that a particular book is used as a pretext for something doesn't actually tell us very much about the intrinsic qualities of the book. Mein Kampf, Das Kapital and the Bible have all been used as pretexts, but they are three profoundly different works, as anyone who actually take the trouble to read them will immediately see.

Did I say they were different to the bible in that context?

Peregrinus · 03-11-2014 2:46am

jank wrote: »

Did I say they were different to the bible in that context?

No, you didn't. Your asked how Mein Kampf was different from the Communist Manifesto, given that both had been used as pretexts to build authoritarian regimes. My point in response was point out that the fact that A has been used as a pretext for B tells us nothing at all about A; it's a "pretext" because there is in reality no necessary connection between A and B. The fact that both the books you mention have been used as pretexts for the same purpose tell us nothing at all about the books. In particular it does not tell us that they are "no different" from one another. I illustrate this by pointing out that, if this means the are no differnet from one another, then it follows that they are also no different from the Bible (the Koran, the Declaration of the Rights of Man . . . ).

No difference between Christian and Muslim Fundamentalists.

Comments