NationStates Jolt Archive

Since so many people like to call most americans "religious fanatics" or "religious maniacs" or "savage religious fundies," Id like to see what qualifies a person as such.

Take Jessusaves, add VoteEarly, and divide by a billion. That's the threshhold for religious fnaticism.

None of those. Those things only make you a devout member of the faith. Better to be totally obedient unto God, than to be a hellbound heretic and not keep all the laws of God.

Number 7, and possibly number 8, IMO.

Number 7, and possibly number 8, IMO.

Thats what I would say.

Justifying the very things your religion says are bad.

Justifying your doings by religion.

People have brains, they should use them and think by themselves and decide by themselves, not just following orders because they hear voices.

4-8 with the possible exception of 5 if you have a non religious reason for opposing gay marriage.

In my book, you can do all those things and range from normal relgious type to extremist.

You cross the line to fanatic however, once you start killing in the name of religion.

I would say #7 and #8. I'll vote for #7, for that is obviously the worst.

Take Jessusaves, add VoteEarly, and divide by a billion. That's the threshhold for religious fnaticism.
You're almost there. I'd say

Religious fanaticism = (Jesussaves+VoteEarly+Servus Dei)/1,000,000,000

;)

None of those. Those things only make you a devout member of the faith. Better to be totally obedient unto God, than to be a hellbound heretic and not keep all the laws of God.
Even #7?

number 10 :D:D

because every1 says God...like "oh, for gods sake"

i liked the killing one two :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

they really should legalize murder.

Opposition to gay marriage is based only in religious mania.

Everything else is acceptable when a person is simply religious.
(People kill eachother for lots of reasons, seldom if ever are they purely religious anymore)

Trying to infect the state with religion is bad, but there are sufficient safeguards to prevent it, and even honest religious people have an impulse to see their beliefs acknowledged by the government.


But opposition to gay marriage is completely indefensible and rests only on the delusions of religious lunatics.

It is the outright denial of civil rights to a minority group without any reasonable or rational basis. Nothing is harmed or hurt by gay marriage, it is simply 'against god's will' according to certain religions. Only a maniac justifies legal sanctions on the basis of "god's will."

I would say #7 and #8. I'll vote for #7, for that is obviously the worst.


You're almost there. I'd say

Religious fanaticism = (Jesussaves+VoteEarly+Servus Dei)/1,000,000,000

;)

ohhh, man, how could I forget good ol' Servus? ....but the problem with this formula is that the more fanatics we have, the higher the threshhold is. :confused:

You are officially a fanatic, if you start interepting your own religion to such an extreme, that it is not the original thought of the religion anymore.

Take Jessusaves, add VoteEarly, and divide by a billion. That's the threshhold for religious fnaticism.



Don't be mixing me in with Catholics, okay?

Meh, Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, Hindu, fundamentalism is all the same.
It's not really about religion. It's about power and compensating for your own inadequacies.

Well, integrating religion with politics makes one a fundamentalist, but I don't think it makes one a fanatic. I think at the point where one becomes vocal and verbally abusive due to religion and, of course, escalating up to the point of committing violent acts, the term fanatic can begin to apply.

Meh, Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, Hindu, fundamentalism is all the same.
Come now.. putting Catholics and Protestants in the same category? You're just looking for a fight there. By the way, nice joke I heard today:
How many Protestants does it take to screw in a light-bulb?
None. They live in eternal darkness!

Irish Catholics are funny. :)

Opposition to gay marriage is based only in religious mania.

Everything else is acceptable when a person is simply religious.
(People kill eachother for lots of reasons, seldom if ever are they purely religious anymore)

Trying to infect the state with religion is bad, but there are sufficient safeguards to prevent it, and even honest religious people have an impulse to see their beliefs acknowledged by the government.


But opposition to gay marriage is completely indefensible and rests only on the delusions of religious lunatics.

It is the outright denial of civil rights to a minority group without any reasonable or rational basis. Nothing is harmed or hurt by gay marriage, it is simply 'against god's will' according to certain religions. Only a maniac justifies legal sanctions on the basis of "god's will."

What about they gay's couples kids does it hurt them, "mommy, why cant i have a daddy every one else does - i have 2 mommies" What about two guys with a little girl whats gona happen to the little girl.

I think there is no one single term for relgious fantic. In my opinion it can be one of those people that stands in the street say they skys gona fall on out heads were al dammes, we must repent and be saved, There is also the loonies that will kill sucide bombers for there religion but those people are more just brain washed and confused.

they really should legalize murder.

It's rather like sharing a secret.

If you legalize it then it isn't murder, merely the worlds fastest shrinking spectator sport. It would shrink excitingly though.

What about they gay's couples kids does it hurt them, "mommy, why cant i have a daddy every one else does - i have 2 mommies"

Ok, so then let's ban marriage that lasts longer than 4 years to prevent "why can't you two get a divorce like Suzie's partents, HER daddy bought HER a pony."

What about two guys with a little girl whats gona happen to the little girl.

She'll be the most stylin' girl at school and the envy of all her friends.

I think there is no one single term for relgious fantic. In my opinion it can be one of those people that stands in the street say they skys gona fall on out heads were al dammes, we must repent and be saved, There is also the loonies that will kill sucide bombers for there religion but those people are more just brain washed and confused.

Anyone who has a religious reason for placing people in a catagory that justifies treating them as inferior is a fanatic. The many millions who have non-religious reasons for doing so are merely assholes.

I find hard to believe that you people would just slander another person who may simply oppose gay marriage on moral grounds as a savage fanatic. HOw many of these people advocate banning homosexuality altogether? How many people support civil unions instead? Rather rash generalizations made about these people. A fanatic in my mind is EXTREME to THE MAX. saying you don't support gay marriage doesn't make you EXTREME TO THE MAX... really.. there are so many worse things a religious fanatic can do. gay marriage isn't the entire world, you know... but hey, I don't really care. I think people should marry whoever they want. but classifying someone as insanely fanatic for a simple position such as opposition to gay marriage seems stupid. it doesn't take into account anything else about that person.

I agree. When you begin killing in the name of your religion (burning witches at stake, blowing yourself up for Allah), you've crossed the line. "Religious fanatic" is the new buzzword slapped onto people you dislike. Blow up a bus? Religious fanatic. Oppose gay marriage? Religious fanatic. Turn down my mother's pumpkin pie? Religious fanatic. It's just so easy, I think I might want to do it all day! We still haven't figured out how PETA can be chalked up to religious fanaticism, but if we try, we can make it appear as though their abandonment of "people ways" (such as pollution, meat-eating, pets, and toilets) includes abandonment of religion and their acceptance of animals as equals qualifies them for a whole new one. This is great fun, indeed!

I find hard to believe that you people would just slander another person who may simply oppose gay marriage on moral grounds as a savage fanatic. HOw many of these people advocate banning homosexuality altogether? How many people support civil unions instead? Rather rash generalizations made about these people. A fanatic in my mind is EXTREME to THE MAX. saying you don't support gay marriage doesn't make you EXTREME TO THE MAX... really.. there are so many worse things a religious fanatic can do. gay marriage isn't the entire world, you know... but hey, I don't really care. I think people should marry whoever they want. but classifying someone as insanely fanatic for a simple position such as opposition to gay marriage seems stupid. it doesn't take into account anything else about that person.

There are no moral grounds upon which to oppose gay marriage, only maniac religiosity.

There are no moral grounds upon which to oppose gay marriage, only maniac religiosity.

Tradition is a reason that can be considered entirely secular.

Opposition to gay marriage is based only in religious mania.

but then again, the reason marriage came about was because of religion

so why do you just cut your self out of the whole thing

Well, integrating religion with politics makes one a fundamentalist

out of curiosity where do you draw that line?

I didn't vote, because a few of those applied. My definition of a religious fanatic: Anyone who takes their religion too seriously and becomes aggressive about it.

I didn't vote, because a few of those applied. My definition of a religious fanatic: Anyone who takes their religion too seriously and becomes aggressive about it.
Define "too seriously." Does someone who interprets their religious text literally "take their religion too seriously"? Does someone who reads their religious text daily "take their religion too seriously"? Personally, I take great exception to "Easter and Christmas" Christians, people who don't "take their [nominal] religion seriously."

And how precisely do you define "aggressive"?

4, 7 and 8. You should have made it multiple choice.

Don't be mixing in with Catholics, okay?
Well, since you are not a Catholic á la c.1400 AD, Servus Dei believes you to be a hell-bound "heretic".

Killing in the name of religion.

Runs through thread, screams "Allah Akbar!", and blows it up.

Don't be mixing in with Catholics, okay?

If it weren't for the Catholics, you wouldn't have a Bible to thump. *coff*

Runs through thread, screams "Allah Akbar!", and blows it up.
They're religious fanatics if they scare me. :D

You don't scare me. :p

Their religious fanatics if they scare me. :D

You don't scare me. :p

Dang ..... must try harder ...

What qualifies a religious fanatic? You missed the correct (fairly obvious) answer...

believing *literally* what is written in a (supposedly) revealed text
-or-
believing *literally* what a pope/guru/teacher/marja says

- no matter what it is, or whether it bears any relation to common sense.

Runs through thread, screams "Allah Akbar!", and blows it up.

Akbar is God. :)

What qualifies a religious fanatic? You missed the correct (fairly obvious) answer...

believing *literally* what is written in a (supposedly) revealed text
-or-
believing *literally* what a pope/guru/teacher/marja says

- no matter what it is, or whether it bears any relation to common sense.

So believing a *literal* text that explicitly says do not kill is fanatical?

I would say that none of the answers fully define a fanatic. A fanatic is someone who will do whatever their religion tells them to, regardless of things like common sense and reasoning.

i would say killing for your religion is pretty fanatical

Akbar is God. :)

:D :p

I would say 4, 7, and 8.

Tradition is a reason that can be considered entirely secular.

Slavery and disenfranchisement of women is "traditional" as well, as is the slaughter of tutsis by hutus.

It isnt a valid reason.

So believing a *literal* text that explicitly says do not kill is fanatical?

Well, yes. Because maybe someday someone looks more carefully at the translation and discovers that it actually says *do* kill. Do you change what you were doing then?

Incidentally, do you know what the sixth commandment actually says in Hebrew? You might be surprised.

Similarly, there is a huge fight over the meaning of "jihad" in Islam... it would be "struggle for self-improvement" or it could be "war of religious conquest".

Incidentally, do you know what the sixth commandment actually says in Hebrew? You might be surprised.

Yes, it says "thou shall not murder." I find nothing surprising about that; what is your point?

Yes, it says "thou shall not murder." I find nothing surprising about that; what is your point?

Well, the King James Bible and numerous (mostly older, but some modern too) versions say "thou shalt not kill", which has been used by the clergy to preach absolute pacifism for centuries, especially to the poor peasant class (btw along with "turn the other cheek", which is actually a parable about not responding with violence *to an insult*, not to an attack). The Hebrew version of the commandment says "ratsach" which is mostly criminal murder, but in same cases may mean negligent manslaughter (with lower penalties). So *nobody* has it exactly right. And if you happen to be of the KJV-only crowd, you'd have it completely wrong, and not even know that.

Another interesting passage that is widely mistranslated is Exodus 21:22-25 http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8060568#post8060568 . Check out the discussion in that thread, or compare King James, New American Standard Bible and (for example) the New Revised Standard to see exactly how wrong some well-respected translations get it. This should serve, at a minimum, as a cautionary tale regarding blind obedience to any "revealed" text.

Don't be mixing me in with Catholics, okay?

Trust me, we don't want to be with heathen Calvinists like yourself.

they really should legalize murder.

I feel like going on a killing spree right now :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

You missed the "Aggressively tries to convert everyone" option