NationStates Jolt Archive

???

why does it have to be islamic fundies? what about Christian fundamentailsts and exremeists? there are several Christian Fundamenalist movements that are equally violent as any Islamic movement and one or two Jewish movments that aren't real nice. Fundies of any religion are just bad news.

Yeah I agree with Samaran. Fundamentalists of any kind=bad.

I think that what is commonly called an "Islamic Fundamentalist," a term that isn't quite accurate, is doing everything they can to keep the Middle East in their very own Dark Age. I think that they are damn close to identical to the old world European "barbarians" in that they are brutal, dogmatically violent, morally bankrupt, and pervasively ignorant. I have very little qualms about smashing their pathetic bastardization of culture out of existence and replacing it with something more civilized. If any ideologically blind moral relativists care to defend them they can kiss my hind quarters.

The question isn't IF they're bad, its WHY you don't like 'em. :rolleyes:

i dont disslike eny 1 i hope ;) death to all :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :D

I'm an atheist and I find it odd that people can believe in something so hard. But on the other hand you got to respect someone who is willing to die for their believes. I find Christian fundmentalist to be far worse, in my expeirence. In my expeirence they tend to be hypocrats but thats not to say that all are. I haven't met a muslim fundamentalist yet, but from what I see on tv (I.E. terrorist attacks) they tend to believe enough in their religon to kill themselves(and many other innocents). Now I find Buddest fundamentalist to be the most interesting. But as an atheist I find them all quite odd. My personal believe is that if their was no religon a lot (not ALL) our problems would be fixed.


Anyway to probe my believes I am going to strap exploves on me, mail a bomb to an abortion clinic, and dous myself is gas and "show" the world my beliefs where I will be met in heaven by 72 virgens(your know people from virginia, or perhaps the virgen Islands?)..... I don't mean to offend please don't burn down my non-church(house)........

Well, technically there's nothing wrong with being an Islamic Fundamentalist. Nor a Christian Fundamentalist, either. It's when the Islamic ones start bombing churches and the Christian ones start burning people at the stake that it's morally objectionable.

Actions count more than words or belief.

yeah but can you walk on water? WITCH WITCH!!!!!!!


GOODY PROCTOR IS a WITCH!!!

I'd say that the problem is that they are violent. I don't care if a group of people get together and decide they want to be bound strictly by Religion X's laws. Let them be a Theocracy if they truly want that. I don't even care if they feel I should be bound by those laws, because that's their opinion. I'm sure as hell not listening to them, but hey, they have a fundamental right to hold that opinion. They only really cross the line when they advocate violence to achieve that goal. I don't care if it's Neo-con fundies in the US, ultra-zionists in israel or Wahabbi(sp?) fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, the problem with them is not their opinions, but that they act violently on those opinions.

godo point the amish are fundamentalist and they are cool, man those carriages are soooooo coool!

Yeah I agree with Samaran. Fundamentalists of any kind=bad.
Gotta go with that.

Why does religion rule the world?

yeah but can you walk on water? WITCH WITCH!!!!!!!


GOODY PROCTOR IS a WITCH!!!

Somebody's been reading too much Arthur Miller.. :rolleyes:

They are normal people like us but they believe in different things some Islamics are stupid like us and some are smart and normal islamics like we are

I don't like them because they don't like me. Simple as that.

I think that what is commonly called an "Islamic Fundamentalist," a term that isn't quite accurate, is doing everything they can to keep the Middle East in their very own Dark Age.
If that is how they choose to live, why should that concern you?

I think that they are damn close to identical to the old world European "barbarians" in that they are brutal,
How so? Please explain in what way they are "brutal".

dogmatically violent,
Again, could you please explain how these people are "dogmatically violent"?

morally bankrupt,
Once again, could you explain how these people are "morally bankrupt"?

and pervasively ignorant.
How are these people "pervasively ignorant" and how does that affect you?

I have very little qualms about smashing their pathetic bastardization of culture out of existence and replacing it with something more civilized.
Hmmm very interesting. Why do you suggest that their culture is bastardized, why do you find it pathetic, and exactly what would you replace it with?

How do you propose "smashing their culture out of existence"?

If any ideologically blind moral relativists care to defend them they can kiss my hind quarters.
Is today your first day playing God?

Whow, really one more of this high-factual discussions. *g*

@Ekland: As a European I tell you the word "Barbarian" was invented in the antique Greece and was nothing as a prejudiced designation for people who did not speak the language of the Greek Emperors.

I think any kind of fundamentalism, may it be political, religious or another kind of distorted world view comes automatically from ignorance against others. You only can live with an ideology when you're able to ignore the fact that a perfect world is impossible. So you hate people who remember you that perfection is no aim in this life. And... did anyone recognize that ideologists hate any kind of Individualism? A became-true-ideology is IMHO the dead of every creativity and communication.

why does it have to be islamic fundies? what about Christian fundamentailsts and exremeists? there are several Christian Fundamenalist movements that are equally violent as any Islamic movement and one or two Jewish movments that aren't real nice. Fundies of any religion are just bad news.
What Christian fundamentalist group is as violent as the islamist terrorists? You can point to a handfull of abortion clinic bombings and a few doctors shot, but their body count pales in comparison to groups like Abu Sayyaf and Al Quaeda.

I don't like fundies of any religion because they always seek to make everyone live by their religious laws. Muslim fundamentalists also seem to have no problem with using violence to further their religious/political agenda.

Why does religion rule the world?
Because people need a simple, black and white view of right and wrong, and to believe that they actually have a purpose.

Why restrict the question to just Islamic fundies? I can't stand the Christian ones either.

Because if they spent any time reading the book they go crazy over and kill people in the name of, they would find out that it stresses non-violence. In other words, they are not even Muslims even though they call themselfs it! It's pretty much the same for Christian Fundementalists: "Thou shall not kill." I guess they skipped that line. ;)

Truly tolerant people are tolerant of all, not just people who aren't labeled as fundamentalists. Instead of hating their enemies, they try to think like them and see things from their point of view, before coming to a decision. That is what I have done, and this is the conclusion I have come up with:

Isn't ethics (and therefore law) fundamentally (no pun intended) based on personal beliefs? Who are we to say that we're right and they're wrong when it comes to various social, economic, or political issues? Are we fundamentally superior to them (talk about fundamentalism!)?

I believe there is a place for everyone at the table of debate, and everyone should have their concerns and issues addressed (in porportion to the amount of people concerned) when it comes to the issue of what our laws should be. Of course, their concerns must not trample upon the rights of belief and expression, since those are fundamental vehicles for having concerns addressed, but I believe that aside from a few fundamental rights, countries should have a lot of leeway in the laws they create and enforce. I believe that were saudi arabia to become a democracy tomorrow, it would be much more motivated by fringe groups than it is now, but as far as I'm concerned, that's okay(although shutting women out of elections is not). They are having their issues addressed, and maybe they won't have to turn to violence to acheive their goals.

The justification of such evil as we witnessed on september the 11th is truly the product of some very warped minds. These are minds warped by years of tyrranny and oppression. They are frustrated with their government for not listening to them, and they are frustrated by the overwhelming influence of large, foreign powers, such as the US. I believe they have a point. They have the right to democracy, just the same as everyone else. They also have the right not to be bullied about by powerful nations such as the US. Once we are finished In Iraq, we should LEAVE. The ball is now in their court. Will they turn to democracy and peace and get along for a change, or will they submit themselves to the whim of oppression, of violence, and of terror? That is a question only they can answer. The US absolutely has the right to confront the enemies who attacked it, and that has been done. And of course the search for Ben-Laden must continue. But in a broader sense, we must give thought to its borders and domestic defense and stop worrying so much about what's going on overseas. Goodness, the sheer amount of money they've spent of this! What would have happened if even a third of that capital had been devoted to refining our domestic security measures?

We should also stop holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, too. Either charge them, or release them to their respective countries. Their intel is worthless (its been how long? Three years?), their rights are being violated, and even if they become terrorists again once released, so what? They are only a few leaves in a forest of people who want to kill Americans, and with any luck we can enter their fingerprints into a database and kick them back to their respective countries with little or no trouble.

Because if they spent any time reading the book they go crazy over and kill people in the name of, they would find out that it stresses non-violence. In other words, they are not even Muslims even though they call themselfs it! It's pretty much the same for Christian Fundementalists: "Thou shall not kill." I guess they skipped that line. ;)
I haven't read the whole Koran. I have, however, seen portions of it which seem to advocate violece, and some which seem peacefull. I've heard that the peacefull verses are older, and therefore abrogated by the violent ones.

Once again, I haven't studied the Koran, but I must ask if you have. You have stated that it's a religion of non-violence. How do you know?

[snip]
Oh, sweetie pie. You're such a little CUUUUTIE! Much love! :fluffle:

I haven't read the whole Koran. I have, however, seen portions of it which seem to advocate violece, and some which seem peacefull. I've heard that the peacefull verses are older, and therefore abrogated by the violent ones.

Once again, I haven't studied the Koran, but I must ask if you have. You have stated that it's a religion of non-violence. How do you know?

I had to study it for Global History class this year, twice. Although it's been several months since I studied it, I still remember the important parts.

http://www.alrisala.org/Articles/papers/nonviolence.htm

This webpage has a speech presented at the Symposium on Islam and Peace sponsored by Non-Violence International and The Mohammed Said Farsi Chair of Islamic Peace at the American University Washington D.C., that can obvivously explain it better than I can (There was a certain Arabic word to describe the vow to non-violence, but I cannot remember it).

Note that "jihad" actually refers to non-violent "struggle" in most cases.

Note that "jihad" actually refers to non-violent "struggle".
But not always, right? Otherwise the verse where Muhammad, upon returning from battle, says that he's returned from the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad (struggle to be a good muslim) doesn't make any sense.

But not always, right? Otherwise the verse where Muhammad, upon returning from battle, says that he's returned from the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad (struggle to be a good muslim) doesn't make any sense.

Yea. It means "Struggle". It can be violent, but usually isn't.

Yea. It means "Struggle". It can be violent, but usually isn't.
Ok, just verifying whether you made an honest mistake with your previous post or whether you were one of those who denys that jihad can ever mean violent struggle.

I'm suprised you need to ask the question.

I dislike fundamentalists of any stripe. Why?
Well, basically I think that we need to be, at least to some extent, tolerant of each other's beliefs so we can have a proper dialogue. If you think the whole world should share your religion you're not going to convince everyone by name calling and threats.

Then there's the fact that extremism often leads to violence, and it's pretty easy to dislike someone who, for example, thinks that flying a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people is an appropriate way to make a point.

What Christian fundamentalist group is as violent as the islamist terrorists? You can point to a handfull of abortion clinic bombings and a few doctors shot, but their body count pales in comparison to groups like Abu Sayyaf and Al Quaeda.

You realize that you are only looking at the last 20 years or so? Can I point you to the Crusades, the Inquisition and various church sponsored wars? Fundamentalist violence is not something limited to only the 20th and 21st century you know.

It might have something to do with the fact that they want destroy my way of life and want to kill me.

It might have something to do with the fact that they want destroy my way of life and want to kill me.
fact? you? Yes, everyone wants to kill YOU. Everyone is out to get YOU, Nixon. And how is that different from the Christian or even Jewish (Zionist) fundamentalism anyway?

They made this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16051_Voodoo_Antisemitism_in_Saudi_Arabia&only

fact? you? Yes, everyone wants to kill YOU. Everyone is out to get YOU, Nixon. And how is that different from the Christian or even Jewish (Zionist) fundamentalism anyway?

The original post addressed a specific group. My answer then applies to that group. Simple enough. Do you want to ask me about some other group?

You realize that you are only looking at the last 20 years or so? Can I point you to the Crusades, the Inquisition and various church sponsored wars? Fundamentalist violence is not something limited to only the 20th and 21st century you know.
Yep, I'm only looking at what's happened within my lifetime. At some point you've got to let the past go. Should I blame North African muslims and the French for having occupied Sicily, the land of my ancestors on my father's side?

Christianity has grown into a modern, peacefull religion for almost all the followers. Islam still has alot of crazies who want to spread the koran at the point of a sword.

The term 'lot of crazies' is rather misleading. Usually it is a select few who stir up their followers to a fever pitch. The same could also be said for the Christian church. Particularly when you consider how certain conservative Christian people (I am not certain if they are affiliated with the church) have called for death over people who have contradicted their wishes. One particular case that comes to mind is the case of Terry Schiavo and the judge who presided over her case. Was it not too long ago that some people called for the judge to be removed and worst?

You might say that it is a drop in the bucket in the 21st century of violence, but is it really?

And you say that Christianity has grown into a peaceful religion for many. The same can also be said for Islam. It is simply because of the extreme scare mongering by the US government and media attention that it seems that there are so many of them. If one were to look at the number of radical Christians who advocate violence and their Muslim counterparts you might actually find that the number is actually the same.

In summary, it would seem that the problem is humans than any particular dogma. The dogma is simply a vehicle which has been seized to provide a means of movement for hatred. And hatred is a human trait not restricted to any particular group.