NationStates Jolt Archive

Fundamentalist Christians are going to scream about this, but honestly, I don't care. I've had it with them. So here's the flame worthy comment right up front.

There is no discernable difference--socially speaking--between the teachings of Jerry Falwell and of Mullah Omar, between Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden, between James Dobson and Ayman al Zawahiri. They've all got the same agenda, and here it is in five basic tenets.

(P.S. I'm getting much of this information from an article by Davidson Loehr in an article he wrote for UU World (http://www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html).)

1. Pluralism is bad. By that I mean that they believe in a single, received truth that should be used to codify personal conduct the world over. Dissent is not allowed, and anyone who disagrees with their received truth is a heretic, an infidel, an outcast, unclean, etc. You get the point.

2. Men are the bosses. They're bigger, faster, stronger, and most importantly, make the rules. Women are to be subservient, and are defined as having very narrow roles in society, primarily as birthers of children and family caregivers.

3. There's no room for social evolution. Since these rules are received from divine sources, they are not subject to change based on cultural desires or understanding. Therefore, it is imperative that they be passed down exactly from generation to generation so there can be no falling away from them. This requires a closed society so that outside influences cannot infect individual members and give rise to dangerous ideas.

4. Modern bad, past good. Fundamentalists are always in search of some golden age that never really existed except in their fantasies. I'm going to include a fascinating quote from the article here:Several of the scholars observed a strong and deep resemblance between fundamentalism and fascism. Both have almost identical agendas. Men are on top, women are subservient, there is one rigid set of rules, with police and military might to enforce them, and education is tightly controlled by the state. One scholar suggested that it's helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. The phrase “overcoming the modern” is a fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941.Fundamentalist societies fit this description to a tee.

5. Fundamentalists deny history, by which I mean that they refuse to accept that culture--especially when it comes to discussing their holy texts--colors and shapes everything it touches. They act as though their holy writings--no matter how ancient--are still as applicable today as they were in the time in which they were written. This ties into their argument against social evolution.

Now when I say that socially, James Dobson and his ilk are no different from the Taliban, what I am saying is that they all hope to accomplish the same thing societally speaking--the five tenets listed above. It doesn't matter what the religious arguments are--the end result is the same.

There's more to the article than what I've written here, and it's important to read, but I figure this will give enough of a start for a discussion/flame war/whatever.

UU World?

Are you also a Unitarian?

Small world...though I've been on the whole 'building your own Theology trip' for many years now, and haven't attended a service since...1991? Wow, time flies.

UU World?

Are you also a Unitarian?

Small world...though I've been on the whole 'building your own Theology trip' for many years now, and haven't attended a service since...1991? Wow, time flies.
Actually, I'm not--I'm a recovering Jehovah's Witness (out of the church for ten years). Of the various Christian sects, though, I think the UU church is pretty damn close to actually getting what Christ was trying to teach, a lot closer than the fundies I mentioned above, that's for damn sure.

Hear, hear!

Fundamentalism and its institutionalised form, theocracy, looks the same the world over. Be it the US, Iran, Israel, a central African despot's fiefdom, the difference is purely one of scale, of extent, rather than of kind.

Incertonia, you do realize you are doing the same things those people are, right? You have a belief in a definitive “right” just as much as they do. The only difference is what you despise. Hell, you even believe in a divine right as much as they do.

Several of the scholars observed a strong and deep resemblance between fundamentalism and fascism. Both have almost identical agendas. Men are on top, women are subservient, there is one rigid set of rules, with police and military might to enforce them, and education is tightly controlled by the state. One scholar suggested that it's helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. The phrase “overcoming the modern” is a fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941.

Firstly, where did you get that quote? Secondly, you do realize there the NAZIs and the Fascists were quite different, right?

Fundamentalist Christians are going to scream about this, but honestly, I don't care. I've had it with them. So here's the flame worthy comment right up front.

There is no discernable difference--socially speaking--between the teachings of Jerry Falwell and of Mullah Omar, between Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden, between James Dobson and Ayman al Zawahiri. They've all got the same agenda, and here it is in five basic tenets.

(P.S. I'm getting much of this information from an article by Davidson Loehr in an article he wrote for UU World (http://www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html).)

1. Pluralism is bad. By that I mean that they believe in a single, received truth that should be used to codify personal conduct the world over. Dissent is not allowed, and anyone who disagrees with their received truth is a heretic, an infidel, an outcast, unclean, etc. You get the point.

Sort of. Mullah Omar for instance believed in installing Sharia law in all areas. This was a code of law, not necessarily a code of conduct. It is true that dissent from this law was not allowed, but that is true with any code of laws. As for fundamentalist Christians, they also merely propose to institute religious law. The degree of magnitude for the dissenters is also an issue. Those who disputed the Sharia in Afghanistan were killed, whereas the Christians would rather just condemn them morally.


2. Men are the bosses. They're bigger, faster, stronger, and most importantly, make the rules. Women are to be subservient, and are defined as having very narrow roles in society, primarily as birthers of children and family caregivers.

Sorry, but this shows a lack of understanding in the traditional Islamic (Wahhabist) of women. Women are viewed as a temptation, and one that must largely be resisted. Women are still a very important part of the culture, it is just a very different traditional role. Women to the christian fundamentalists are more alike to the 50s house wife. Again, its just a culture difference.


3. There's no room for social evolution. Since these rules are received from divine sources, they are not subject to change based on cultural desires or understanding. Therefore, it is imperative that they be passed down exactly from generation to generation so there can be no falling away from them. This requires a closed society so that outside influences cannot infect individual members and give rise to dangerous ideas.

Again, these are like a code of laws. In fact, you could claim our laws do not change, it is merely the interpretation that changes. The same is true in Islamic law. The fatwa one Imam gives might be one another would completely condemn. The Islamic fundamentalists believe in a certain interpretation, the same as Christian fundamentalists believe in a certain interpretation of the Bible, and civil law. However, to claim the two are largely the same (in the context of an outside view) is laughable.


4. Modern bad, past good. Fundamentalists are always in search of some golden age that never really existed except in their fantasies. I'm going to include a fascinating quote from the article here:Fundamentalist societies fit this description to a tee.

Not really. The writer of this article doesn't appear to truly understand the situation. The idea in Fundamentalist Islam is not that the modern world is wrong and we must return to the past, its that we must use past references (the life of Muhammed, the organization of Mecca, etc) and apply them to today. Fascism was a much more vicious idea, a totalitarian state of a completely different magnitude. Whereas fundamentalist Islam is applying a certain interpretation of Sharia, Fascisms was a deliberate control over all aspects of people's lives for an ideological reasoning. Ideology and religious interpretation may appear the same, but in reality the broad base of belief show them to be two entirely different creatures. As for Fundamentalist Christians, again comparing them to Fascism doesn't work, however, saying they are anti-modern is true in many ways.


5. Fundamentalists deny history, by which I mean that they refuse to accept that culture--especially when it comes to discussing their holy texts--colors and shapes everything it touches. They act as though their holy writings--no matter how ancient--are still as applicable today as they were in the time in which they were written. This ties into their argument against social evolution.

Sorry, this is absolute trash. In Fundamentalist Islam's case, the idea is to apply Sharia (religious law) to modern society, to provide a traditional code of law and beliefs into a modern world devoid of them. The fact is they are shaped by the culture you claim they don't believe exists. Many of the fundamentalist Islamisists were taught their belief in Wahhabi mahdressas. This is the cultural view of Saudi Arabia, and the promoters of its faith. Their application of Islamic law to modern society is totally applicable, in that it is using ancient exemples as a basis for modern organization. What do you think our democracy is based on? As for Christian Fundamentalists...again one could argue this is slightly more truthful, as they aren't looking to apply quite the same type of law/conduct code into modern society. However, to say their texts are not applicable is again laughable. To say the Ten Commandments don't make sense today is extremely faulty. Some laws may no longer apply to our culture, however interpretation has always been the key, and that ability, to interpret, will always give Fundamentalists an adaptable platform.

[/QUOTE]
Now when I say that socially, James Dobson and his ilk are no different from the Taliban, what I am saying is that they all hope to accomplish the same thing societally speaking--the five tenets listed above. It doesn't matter what the religious arguments are--the end result is the same.

There's more to the article than what I've written here, and it's important to read, but I figure this will give enough of a start for a discussion/flame war/whatever.[/QUOTE]
Again, the Taliban implemented an interpretation of religious law and applied it to their society, much as Saudi Arabia has done. Dobson and his ilk hope to apply a set of Christian morals and ideas to our modern laws. The difference is hard to see, but it is definitely quite important.

Fundamentalism is a sad example in hypocrisy, as it tends to miss the "fundamentals".

I am a fundamentalist in that I believe in all Jesus said, and that government should ideally be religious influenced - but never controlled. The fundamentalists would do VERY well to remember that the Jews expected Jesus to be a king in finery… and he wasn't. He didn't even try to seize power.

Hear, hear!

Fundamentalism and its institutionalised form, theocracy, looks the same the world over. Be it the US, Iran, Israel, a central African despot's fiefdom, the difference is purely one of scale, of extent, rather than of kind.The extended argument that the article makes is that this is not a modern phenomenon either. This extends back through recorded history and beyond--it's an alpha-male dominance of society, defining roles for individuals, determining territorial control, and demonizing anyone or anything that isn't part of the group. It's really sad that we haven't evolved socially all that much from the sexually dimorphous terroritial groups we were a hundred thousand or even a hundred million years ago.

To be fair, Christian fundamentalists, while authoritarian, don't believe in mandatory burqas or dictatorship. American oppression is much more subtle. It would be nice if it were obvious, but thesedays, it never is.

Actually, I'm not--I'm a recovering Jehovah's Witness (out of the church for ten years). Of the various Christian sects, though, I think the UU church is pretty damn close to actually getting what Christ was trying to teach, a lot closer than the fundies I mentioned above, that's for damn sure.

Wow, well good luck on that. I've known of one or two people who've decided to leave the JWs - and I know it's never easy, made all the more so because of their tactics, like shunning.

Good for you! The solitary path may be a difficult one to tread, but it's eminently rewarding, Incertonia. The UUs are a good-hearted bunch, very accepting, very supportive. UUism not necessarily a Christian sect anymore, though. It's still evolving, in a way that I admire. Who knows what it might become one day?

Sort of. Mullah Omar for instance believed in installing Sharia law in all areas. This was a code of law, not necessarily a code of conduct. It is true that dissent from this law was not allowed, but that is true with any code of laws. As for fundamentalist Christians, they also merely propose to institute religious law. The degree of magnitude for the dissenters is also an issue. Those who disputed the Sharia in Afghanistan were killed, whereas the Christians would rather just condemn them morally.


Sorry, but this shows a lack of understanding in the traditional Islamic (Wahhabist) of women. Women are viewed as a temptation, and one that must largely be resisted. Women are still a very important part of the culture, it is just a very different traditional role. Women to the christian fundamentalists are more alike to the 50s house wife. Again, its just a culture difference.


Again, these are like a code of laws. In fact, you could claim our laws do not change, it is merely the interpretation that changes. The same is true in Islamic law. The fatwa one Imam gives might be one another would completely condemn. The Islamic fundamentalists believe in a certain interpretation, the same as Christian fundamentalists believe in a certain interpretation of the Bible, and civil law. However, to claim the two are largely the same (in the context of an outside view) is laughable.


Not really. The writer of this article doesn't appear to truly understand the situation. The idea in Fundamentalist Islam is not that the modern world is wrong and we must return to the past, its that we must use past references (the life of Muhammed, the organization of Mecca, etc) and apply them to today. Fascism was a much more vicious idea, a totalitarian state of a completely different magnitude. Whereas fundamentalist Islam is applying a certain interpretation of Sharia, Fascisms was a deliberate control over all aspects of people's lives for an ideological reasoning. Ideology and religious interpretation may appear the same, but in reality the broad base of belief show them to be two entirely different creatures. As for Fundamentalist Christians, again comparing them to Fascism doesn't work, however, saying they are anti-modern is true in many ways.


Sorry, this is absolute trash. In Fundamentalist Islam's case, the idea is to apply Sharia (religious law) to modern society, to provide a traditional code of law and beliefs into a modern world devoid of them. The fact is they are shaped by the culture you claim they don't believe exists. Many of the fundamentalist Islamisists were taught their belief in Wahhabi mahdressas. This is the cultural view of Saudi Arabia, and the promoters of its faith. Their application of Islamic law to modern society is totally applicable, in that it is using ancient exemples as a basis for modern organization. What do you think our democracy is based on? As for Christian Fundamentalists...again one could argue this is slightly more truthful, as they aren't looking to apply quite the same type of law/conduct code into modern society. However, to say their texts are not applicable is again laughable. To say the Ten Commandments don't make sense today is extremely faulty. Some laws may no longer apply to our culture, however interpretation has always been the key, and that ability, to interpret, will always give Fundamentalists an adaptable platform.

Again, the Taliban implemented an interpretation of religious law and applied it to their society, much as Saudi Arabia has done. Dobson and his ilk hope to apply a set of Christian morals and ideas to our modern laws. The difference is hard to see, but it is definitely quite important.
You missed the larger point--in the end, fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam have the same goals--the differences are of style, not substance. In either society, assuming the fundamentalist groups are the dominant ones, you wind up with the same situations: women are subjugated and forced into traditional gender roles, dissent is not tolerated, there is a constant desire to return to a nostalgic golden era that never really existed, anyone outside the "in group" is an enemy, and all of this is determined by received knowledge from a higher source rather than by logic or reason.

To be fair, Christian fundamentalists, while authoritarian, don't believe in mandatory burqas or dictatorship. American oppression is much more subtle. It would be nice if it were obvious, but thesedays, it never is.
I would argue that the difference between a man who forces his wife to wear a burkha and the man who doesn't allow his wife to explore her own life is merely stylistic--the end result is the same. The woman is trapped in a subservient position and is defined by the male in her life.

And as to the dictatorship issue, I would strongly disagree. They may dress it up and call it democracy, but any government run by theocrats would be a dictatorship run by the group who claims to have the ear of god.

Incertonia, you do realize you are doing the same things those people are, right? You have a belief in a definitive “right” just as much as they do. The only difference is what you despise. Hell, you even believe in a divine right as much as they do.



Firstly, where did you get that quote? Secondly, you do realize there the NAZIs and the Fascists were quite different, right?First off, no, I don't believe in a definitive "right" or correct way of thinking. I'm very much the multi-culturalist, and am very interested in the ways other cultures view the world. I certainly don't believe in a divine right considering that I'm not even certain that God exists.

As to the quote, it came from the article I linked in the original post. It's from a discussion of a study done in the mid-nineties by religious scholars from all faiths worldwide. And where on earth do you get the Nazis from? I certainly didn't bring them into this discussion, and I don't believe they're mentioned in the original article.

You missed the larger point--in the end, fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam have the same goals--the differences are of style, not substance. In either society, assuming the fundamentalist groups are the dominant ones, you wind up with the same situations: women are subjugated and forced into traditional gender roles, dissent is not tolerated, there is a constant desire to return to a nostalgic golden era that never really existed, anyone outside the "in group" is an enemy, and all of this is determined by received knowledge from a higher source rather than by logic or reason.
Again, you are claiming that because two things resemble each other, they are the same. This is just not the case. Any number of things can have the same conditions, without actually being the same.

For example:
Fascism versus Communism. You can say "oh they are both totalitarian states". However, does that make them the same? No. Both religious states are fundamentalist. Does this make them the same? No.

People in both Fascism and Communism were subjugated to intense micro-management by the government. Both had state owned industry. Etc, etc.

Would you claim that Fascism=Communism? No. The conditions may mirror each other but in reality they are totally different entities all-together.

Fundamentalism is the same way.
Islamicists: Implement Sharia (a code of religious law) as national law, and interpret it as is needed to apply to modern situations. Women must follow said law, or they are breaking the law and need to be punished accordingly. Other groups breaking this law must also be punished. Muhammed's example of the way to live needs to be applied to this world, and we should work to that end. Applying our traditions to the modern world. Not reversion, adaptation. (VERY IMPORTANT) In a truely Islamic state (see: New Turkish government, Saudi Arabia) other beliefs should be treated as Sharia suggests. They must pay a tax, but beyond this they are to be allowed to believe as they will, so long as they don't do it publically. (The Taliban did not believe in this, but the reasons for that are hard to get into if you don't understand Wahhabism, Pushtan culture, and really Afghanistan as a whole).

Christians: Keep modern democratic processes, however, implement Christian morals and ideas when creating modern laws. Christian values are to be expounded, with various groups performing what those values preach for them. Those who dissent from these morals should be condemned morally by us but (IMPORTANT) beyond this they are too be tolerated, if not liked. The idea is to go back to Christ's teachings, and apply them to today. The teachings were use are ones that the majority believes in, and for this reason they are acceptable.

Both of these groups are extremely utilitarian in their government ideas. What is best for the majority, is what shall be done. You have to understand cultural differences. We have our views of women, but not everyone agrees that they ARE anything but child-makers and rearers. We say that everyone must be included in government, they are utilitarian and say no, only the majority matters. Its all a difference in tradition and culture. Because some conditions are similiar, that does not make them substantially the same thing. In all reality it makes them stylistically similiar if anything. You've really got the two badly reversed.

I find it funny that fundamentalist Christians were all afraid of like a gay revolution and voted for Bush while Cheney has a lesbian daugther.

First off, I do not like fundamentalism in any religion. However, only when these zealotist sects act in ways deletarious to minorities or women are they a threat to mankind. So I say, let the corrupt weirdos worship however they wish, just don't do anything drastic. (Yeah, I'm infringing on certain religious rights, but hey its just my opinion.)

Again, you are claiming that because two things resemble each other, they are the same. This is just not the case. Any number of things can have the same conditions, without actually being the same.

For example:
Fascism versus Communism. You can say "oh they are both totalitarian states". However, does that make them the same? No. Both religious states are fundamentalist. Does this make them the same? No.

People in both Fascism and Communism were subjugated to intense micro-management by the government. Both had state owned industry. Etc, etc.

Would you claim that Fascism=Communism? No. The conditions may mirror each other but in reality they are totally different entities all-together.

Fundamentalism is the same way.
Islamicists: Implement Sharia (a code of religious law) as national law, and interpret it as is needed to apply to modern situations. Women must follow said law, or they are breaking the law and need to be punished accordingly. Other groups breaking this law must also be punished. Muhammed's example of the way to live needs to be applied to this world, and we should work to that end. Applying our traditions to the modern world. Not reversion, adaptation. (VERY IMPORTANT) In a truely Islamic state (see: New Turkish government, Saudi Arabia) other beliefs should be treated as Sharia suggests. They must pay a tax, but beyond this they are to be allowed to believe as they will, so long as they don't do it publically. (The Taliban did not believe in this, but the reasons for that are hard to get into if you don't understand Wahhabism, Pushtan culture, and really Afghanistan as a whole).

Christians: Keep modern democratic processes, however, implement Christian morals and ideas when creating modern laws. Christian values are to be expounded, with various groups performing what those values preach for them. Those who dissent from these morals should be condemned morally by us but (IMPORTANT) beyond this they are too be tolerated, if not liked. The idea is to go back to Christ's teachings, and apply them to today. The teachings were use are ones that the majority believes in, and for this reason they are acceptable.

Both of these groups are extremely utilitarian in their government ideas. What is best for the majority, is what shall be done. You have to understand cultural differences. We have our views of women, but not everyone agrees that they ARE anything but child-makers and rearers. We say that everyone must be included in government, they are utilitarian and say no, only the majority matters. Its all a difference in tradition and culture. Because some conditions are similiar, that does not make them substantially the same thing. In all reality it makes them stylistically similiar if anything. You've really got the two badly reversed.
You're really understating the case for fundamentalist christianity. Many, perhaps most christians would agree with you, but I'm talking specifically about the fundamentalist sects led by the likes of Pat Robertson who said--and it's quoted in that article--that while the President swears on a Bible to uphold the Constitution, he also ought to swear on the Constitution to uphold the Bible.

Most muslims don't agree with the teachings of Mullah Omar or Bin Laden--just the crazy fundamentalist minority. Most christians don't agree with Robertson--just the crazy fundamentalist minority. But those are the groups I'm talking about here and now.

Of the various Christian sects, though, I think the UU church is pretty damn close to actually getting what Christ was trying to teach...As Nietzsche said: 'The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding--at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.'

As Nietzsche said: 'The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding--at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.'

For the win.

I've never had much against Christian fundamentalists... I'm just scared of evangelists (sp? not really sure how to spell, I admit). I don't have anything against them or find them to be evil or something, but as a former Jew, I would feel embarrased (I really can't spell :D ) having a rabbi or someone preaching or attempting to convert people to Judaism. It should really be someone's choice. One shouldn't have ot be persuaded that religious aspects are what is really "right."

You're really understating the case for fundamentalist christianity. Many, perhaps most christians would agree with you, but I'm talking specifically about the fundamentalist sects led by the likes of Pat Robertson who said--and it's quoted in that article--that while the President swears on a Bible to uphold the Constitution, he also ought to swear on the Constitution to uphold the Bible.

Funny. Never thought about it that way. One hopes this wil never happen.


Most muslims don't agree with the teachings of Mullah Omar or Bin Laden--just the crazy fundamentalist minority. Most christians don't agree with Robertson--just the crazy fundamentalist minority. But those are the groups I'm talking about here and now.
*blinks*
What makes you think it is a minority?
In most of the islamic world... they simple ARE civil society, and the moderates are the crazy minority.
*shrugs, and points to articles in the IHT www.iht.com*
The moderates get shunned, and ignored.
One light as well talk about a crazy minority of Nazis in germany, ca1940
Until the US sees things in that particular light, it will not be effective in shaping it's policies in the ME.

-snip-
Yes, this is quite true - I will criticize any and all fundamentalists, not pick-and-choose (IE Islam good, Christianity bad, vice versa, etc) like some people I've seen on this board

Funny. Never thought about it that way. One hopes this wil never happen.



*blinks*
What makes you think it is a minority?
In most of the islamic world... they simple ARE civil society, and the moderates are the crazy minority.
*shrugs, and points to articles in the IHT www.iht.com*
The moderates get shunned, and ignored.
One light as well talk about a crazy minority of Nazis in germany, ca1940
Until the US sees things in that particular light, it will not be effective in shaping it's policies in the ME.
Well, there are over a billion muslims worldwide, and unless you're telling me that more than 500,000,000 are of the psycho version, instead of the thousands there seem to be, then I'd say the psychos are in the minority.

Well, there are over a billion muslims worldwide, and unless you're telling me that more than 500,000,000 are of the psycho version, instead of the thousands there seem to be, then I'd say the psychos are in the minority.

And what's the moral of this story? Who knows, but isn't the media wonderful?

Well, there are over a billion muslims worldwide, and unless you're telling me that more than 500,000,000 are of the psycho version, instead of the thousands there seem to be, then I'd say the psychos are in the minority.


*blinks* what makes you think its only a couple of thousands?

*blinks* what makes you think its only a couple of thousands?
What makes you think I meant a couple? Even if there are a hundred thousand of them, that's less than 1% of the entire Muslim population. Hell, even if there are a million, that's less than 10%.

What makes you think I meant a couple? Even if there are a hundred thousand of them, that's less than 1% of the entire Muslim population. Hell, even if there are a million, that's less than 10%.

I suppose that this is the kidn of posting that made you Honorary Spam Forum Owner?
Be they 100, 10.000 or a million, we want them dead.
Nothing else matters.

I suppose that this is the kidn of posting that made you Honorary Spam Forum Owner?
Be they 100, 10.000 or a million, we want them dead.
Nothing else matters.
No--most of my posts are along the lines of the original post on this thread.

And for the record, we do not want them dead. You may, but don't presume to speak for me. Personally, I'd rather society worldwide was more open and accepting, especially among the fundamentalist societies, but I don't want them dead, no matter what their religious beliefs.

The extended argument that the article makes is that this is not a modern phenomenon either. This extends back through recorded history and beyond--it's an alpha-male dominance of society, defining roles for individuals, determining territorial control, and demonizing anyone or anything that isn't part of the group. It's really sad that we haven't evolved socially all that much from the sexually dimorphous terroritial groups we were a hundred thousand or even a hundred million years ago.

It’s perfectly human to press your thoughts on others. Also, your post indicates you have serious self-esteem problems.

First off, no, I don't believe in a definitive "right" or correct way of thinking. I'm very much the multi-culturalist, and am very interested in the ways other cultures view the world. I certainly don't believe in a divine right considering that I'm not even certain that God exists.

You are pressing your damned opinions on everyone else – you want to make everyone embrace multiculturalism; this would create “one culture”. And, obviously, you believe you have something similar (as, obviously, I didn’t mean you literally felt you had a divine right) to a Divine Right as you believe those who don’t accept your view are, most likely, something similar to scum.
- essentially, go absorb some culture and knowledge by reading some of Nietzsch'es writings.

It’s perfectly human to press your thoughts on others. Also, your post indicates you have serious self-esteem problems.

You are pressing your damned opinions on everyone else – you want to make everyone embrace multiculturalism; this would create “one culture”. And, obviously, you believe you have something similar (as, obviously, I didn’t mean you literally felt you had a divine right) to a Divine Right as you believe those who don’t accept your view are, most likely, something similar to scum.
- essentially, go absorb some culture and knowledge by reading some of Nietzsch'es writings.
Wow--you couldn't possibly be more wrong. I can't even get into how completely wrong you are on pretty much every count.

Please explain how I am wrong.