NationStates Jolt Archive

((Ignore the connotations of my handle btw. I'm a guy, I just didn't realize that my nationstates country would be my message board name. I feel kind of stupid.. anyways.. Whats done is done.))

Islamic fundamentalism is deadly. Why? Because it spawns homicidal extremists by the hundred.

Christian fundamentalism doesn't have such teeth. Not in the modern day in first world, Western nations. Not on massive scales. Pushing a social point of view the legitimate and civilized way (like the 'Christian Right' and the 'Liberals' do here in America - through the political process, without violence or mayhem in the streets) is hardly extremism, whether those pushing the agendas are fundamentalist Christians or the most progressive liberals in the land.

There probably aren't a lot of Christian fundamentalists who want abortion to remain legalized (I'm not even a fundamentalist by common deffinition and I consider it infanticide because my religious beliefs render me incapable of seeing any other point of view) but you don't see them setting off IEDs or hosing AK-47 fire into the business places of those who support their political enemies. (you might have the occasional lone-bomber nutcase, but even his fellow 'fundamentalists' will usually disavow him)

Now on the subject of neo-cons (I find that an interesting lable for those guys... am I the only one that thinks of CON-ARTIST and not conservative when I hear or read that term?) ...well... I think they are dangerous, but they're not religious zealots; they're greedy, corporate fascists. I really do not believe that they see their 'faith' as anything other than a means to an end. That means is the consolidation of the largest voting bloc in America (the so-called 'Christian Right') and that end is continued power. However, both parties are owned by corporate interest, though. That's why both parties in Congress voted overwhelmingly for the Patriot Act (despite the fact that its a sleeping death sentence to our very Constitution); because the elite who hold the keys to power wanted them to do so. They care nothing for the rule of law or civil liberties and are basicly megalomaniacs who see us all as worker ants to be used or flies to be swatted. And, no, I'm not a socialist or a communist. I deffinitely believe in a free-market economy. However, the current system of corporatism is too politically influential. Many people will do anything for money and power.

I hope, however, that bloated argument helps to illustrate my basic point. Even with (at least, most of...) the neo-con politicos, I think religion is only a superficial matter at best. Corporatism (not capitalism), elitism, and imperialism play far larger roles in shaping their agenda than the Bible or the dogma of any church.

Not so for Islamic fundamentalists. What have they got to gain, monetarily speaking by flying air-planes into skyscrapers? Not a thing. So why do it? Because they think it will send them straight to paradise.

There's a clear-cut difference between violent Islamic extremism (which accounts for thousands of willing martyrs ready to face an enemy which is superior to them in every aspect except for sheer fanaticism) and Christian fundamentalism (which accounts for millions of people willing to work within a lawful political process to advance their beliefs; and not that Muslims aren't also willing to do so. Of course they are. Otherwise you wouldn't see Muslims voting in the US and Canada and other Western nations.. but Muslim terrorists obviously don't and they also obviously outnumber Christian terrorists)

This probably wont be a popular post, but its my opinion none the less...

I think it has something to do with Christians not being tricked into thinking they will be rewarded with plentiful virgins in the event of their causing murder and destruction to all those who do not believe in Allah. Also, Christian fundamentalists invade politics instead, á la the Christian right in America at the moment.

There are a couple of instances in which Christian fundamentalists have been doing similar things. During the Atlanta Olympics for instance.
Militant Islam seeks to kill any infidels, while fundamentalist Christianity seeks to convert them. Christians used to kill infidels with similar impunity, but that phase is behind us now, at least it being a mainstream movement.

I think the standard answer to this is: "Oh, it's just a few (a handful. a microscopic handful. No, really) ker-aaazy evil dudes "twisting" (read: following) certain Muslim beliefs for their own insidious ends."

What those insidious ends are I'm not sure. It seems to be revenge for their perceived slights on the Dar'al Islam (in the Qua'ran) or to spread Islam through force (in the Qua'ran, punishable by Hell for any Muslim who dosen't do it unless they're "lame").

If it isn't about budgies, I'm not interested. Islam isn't half as cute, and doesn't nibble millet like a good little bird ought to.

And it ignores the squeaky toy I bought it for Ramadan.

About the Atlanta bomber, that's the sort of lone-bomber crazy that most dedicated church-goers of any Christian denomination will disavow. Why? Because they don't believe that tossing a pipe-bomb into a crowd of innocent bystanders is a very Christian thing to do.

I think it has something to do with Christians not being tricked into thinking they will be rewarded with plentiful virgins in the event of their causing murder and destruction to all those who do not believe in Allah. Also, Christian fundamentalists invade politics instead, á la the Christian right in America at the moment.

I agree with the top part of your reply. But to be fair regarding a possible hole in my argument I'd like to add that there have been 'Christian' terrorist groups; the KKK in America for example - claims to be a Christian organization. I'm not sure if they actually attempt to quote passages from the Bible to support their bigotry and advocacy of murder (it would be very hard, given the general 'theme' of the New Testament tends to focus on forgiveness and it's certainly not a collection of documents supporting one ethnic group over another).

On the second part, I'm not sure how exactly Christian fundamentalists are "invading" politics. They certainly have mobilized into a powerful voting bloc in recent years. I'm not saying I agree with everything that the 'Christian Right' party-line advocates. But they certainly have a right to get involved in the political process through lawful means. Isn't that what civilized people of a belief-system should do if they want to see their values better implemented in government?

Anyways, have a nice day. Thanks for responding. : )

VD: Do a search for information on the Chrisitian Identity movement. The problem is on both sides of the fence.

The problem is with sects of most major religions that beleive that god told them to kill certain people. There are Christians who hold such hatefull beleifs, but they're mostly marginalized and carefully watched, so they stay hidden in their compounds in the woods and mainly just talk about revolution and race war. The violent Islamic sects, however, have numerous backwards nations at their disposal so they can spread their violent ideology more freely to idiots who are gullible enough to beleive them and they can train and operate more freely because they're protected from civilized people by remoteness of location and support from local tribal leaders.

its about power.

the power to convince some poor sot to strap explosives to his body and set it all off in a public place so that YOU can be the big dog. the more people you can convince, the more power you have.

they use islam because religion is the easiest way to manipulate people into dying for you when you are not near enough to them to die yourself. this "remote control" is what sets it apart from a garden variety revolutionary movement.

if all possible islamic grievances were settled, these leaders would just find more so that they could retain their power.

Islam is 1400 years old. When Christianity was 1400 years old heratics were being systematically tortured and killed.

It wasn't a pretty time. I'm sure if they had strap on explosives back then they would have used them.

I hope you'll forgive this geeky point, but in Dungeons and Dragons, there are three classifications for evil people: Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic. The Chaotic evil character runs amok in a violent and unpredictable manner, the Neutral evil character does whatever they can to fulfil their own desires without care for the consequences on others, while the Lawful evil character works with society, bending it to suit his wishes and thus letting him have legal justification for his actions.

Guess which one is the most successful?

Ultimately (incidentally, I do seem to use that phrase quite often these days...), my point is that beneath it all, the fundamentalist that we should be most wary about is that which strives to use society in its own favour. The Chaotic and Neutral evils, representing the Terrorists and Petty Criminals of the world, are obvious and doomed to inevitably be ratted out by the people. However, the Lawful evils have a far more sinister edge to them, and when any group infiltrates society with the aim of twisting it to suit their own interests, we must be very cautious indeed.

And to clarify, this does include both the Theocracies of the Middle East and those aspects of Christianity that would follow suit in their respective nations...

its about power.

the power to convince some poor sot to strap explosives to his body and set it all off in a public place so that YOU can be the big dog. the more people you can convince, the more power you have.

they use islam because religion is the easiest way to manipulate people into dying for you when you are not near enough to them to die yourself. this "remote control" is what sets it apart from a garden variety revolutionary movement.

if all possible islamic grievances were settled, these leaders would just find more so that they could retain their power.
Retain their power? How about expand their power. Don't you think Bin Laden would love to take control of a muslim nation and expand his territory and influence from there? Why do you think he's attacking the USA and it's allies who support and legitimize many of the Arab and Muslim governments?

There are a couple of instances in which Christian fundamentalists have been doing similar things. During the Atlanta Olympics for instance.
Militant Islam seeks to kill any infidels, while fundamentalist Christianity seeks to convert them. Christians used to kill infidels with similar impunity, but that phase is behind us now, at least it being a mainstream movement.


Not necessarely want to convert them. Go research a bit about the Christian militias in the Lebanon civil war, very gory stuff they did, like raping the women in front of their men, then killing everyone blablabla.

The thing we must not forget, in my opinion, is that there in this conflict, there arent Christians or Muslims. There are fanatics, and there are moderates. Period.

Retain their power? How about expand their power. Don't you think Bin Laden would love to take control of a muslim nation and expand his territory and influence from there? Why do you think he's attacking the USA and it's allies who support and legitimize many of the Arab and Muslim governments?
is he doing something that might end him up as head of some nation? it doesnt look that way to me. thats a different kind of hard work. he seems to me to want to be the head of all ISLAM by funding the groups that will "defeat" the west.

when you have such a weak definition of winning ... "we outlasted the americans in somalia" or "ive survived by living in a cave for 4 years"... its easy to win. all he has to do is convince the moslem world that he won, and he did. his audience is islam, not the west. the prize is being the biggest name in islam, to be the guy everyone looks to when they decide what their next action should be. by hurting the west in any way, he gains prestige.

will setting off a few bombs in london destroy the morale of the UK? they have dealt with much worse. its not going to change THEM. does it make alqaida look good to that element of islam? i can only assume that the answer is "yes, big time". is it going to bring down the house of saud? nope. it doesnt hurt them at all.

Well if you don't think christian can be fundemantalist. Look up the history just 10 years back in Rwanda and also in Uganda.

If you look at the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ as opposed Muhammod you will see stark contrasts. Jesus Christ taught and the Apostles taught Christians to be at peace with everyone, to be compassionate, loving, and merciful. The entire New Testament is full of this message. In instances where the message was not received Christians were advised to simply "move on" to somewhere that might be more receptive.

All but one of the twelve aposltes were executed for preaching this message. Jesus Christ himself was nailed to a cross for it. Even when he was being arrested one of his discples pulled a sword on a Roman soldier. Jesus quickly rebuked him "Put it away. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."...even in the midst of being lead away to his execution Jesus rebuked violence.

Looking at the New Testament of the Bible...the main authoritive book of our faith. There is no room for violence against unbelievers. There is no room for terrorism. If someone does not believe you are to do nothing other than continue to tell them of the Good News, treat them with love and respect. That is ALL there is in the New Testament.

Any person who claims to be a Christian and comits violence in the name of Jesus Christ is NOT a Christian.


Now lets look at Muhammod. He was a warrior. Islam for most of it life has been spread by the sword. Yes, there was a period of the church that was like this...but Islam STARTED like this. For over a thousand years Muslims controlled a greater part of the known world. Their beliefs and kingdom were expanded by one method...violence. Have you ever heard of an Islamic Missionary?

Throughout the Koran there are calls to violence. To Jihad against unbelievers. Yes...the Old Testament has some instances of violence...but these instances were actually few and far between and were usually in self-defense. The Kingdom of Israel was very small and was not constantly obsessed with expansion by invasion.

He preached and breathed violence. Jesus Christ did not.



As for "Christian Right" invasion of American politics...you seem to be a bit misguided. Did you know that 95% of the signers of the consitution were self-declared followers of Jesus Christ? Did you know that one of the very first acts of our Congress was the establishment of the American Bible Society? Did you know that John Adams was the first chairman of the American Bible Society? Did you know that George Washington required all of his troops to attend Sunday morning service or risk court martial? Did you know that for the first two hundred years of America's existence that the Bible was considered an important and required reading in public schools?

This is all documented, historical FACT. The "Christian Right" has been in control of politics for the greater part of Americans history. It has only been in the last 50 or so years that liberal progressives have had any control. This "invasion" of the Christian Right is only return of American tradition that reaches back to the very beginning of our existence when Puritans set foot at Plymouth rock hundreds of years ago.

Also, just to point something out. The crusades (arguably the most used example of "Christians hypocritical evangelism through violence") was not about spreading Christianity. It was about reclaiming land that had been stolen. Pointing out that they were Christians is like pointing out that the soldiers in Afghanistan were Americans. At that point in history if you lived in a certqincountry you WERE that religion. Not the most spiritually mature times for Christians (they called those the dark ages for a reason) but definitely not an example of Christians killing in the name of God.



Also, those of you who think islamic extremist terrorists are a small handful of people don't quite understand how far reaching their interpretation of the quiran is. Nearly 20% of all muslims in the world believe that the verses taht say to kill unbelievers is to be taken literally. That equals hundreds of thousands of people who want to kill me because I am a Christian. The number of muslims who actually pick upa gun or a pipe bomb to do it is a smaller fraction, but if it came down to it, the rest would have no problem picking up that AK...

Jesus did not teach peace nearly so zealously as people tend to think. Remember all that "come to bring the sword" talk? Remember when he sentenced a fig tree to death for not having any fruit? Remember when he told his followers that if they didn't hate their parents they didn't believe in him?

"That is ALL there is in the New Testament."
You must have done a fairly light reading.

Few if any lasting religions are, morphologically speaking, either peaceful or violent in nature. Most religions have been held up as beacons of both in different circumstances. The idea that The Crusades were simply about reclaiming lost land is ludicrous. The Crusades went far into land never taken by The Moors and the dominance of Christianity was often a prime objective.

Not all the Apostles were executed for this, or even all but one. Some were killed by other parties, such as Paul and his folks, and still others we don't know of.

While it is true that Mohommad was a warrior, the same thing could be said about Paul, who certainly gave birth to what we call Christianity in a serious way. Islam has not been spread exclusively through violence, or even mostly through violence. It is Islam that gave birth to a great amount of rationality in the middle ages, not to mention many developments in both science and philosophy.

I am constantly amazed by the quality of erroneous and fallacious statistics on these sorts of boards. 95% of the framers were Christians? 20% of Muslims are murderous?

Who is doing these studies? In truth, many of the foundering fathers existed outside of Christianity. Both Masonry and Deism ran strong, along with a great deal of rational agnosticism and atheism. Moreover, many of the admittedly church going founding fathers were loose and lazy in their faith at best. While Washington attended church regularly, he never received communion and would sit in the back as to exit before it was offered.

Islamic fundamentalism is awful. But it is neither widespread nor is it theologically based. It is about social and historical conditions which are funneled through religious excuses. The laws of Jihad are EXTREMELY limited to self-defense, in much the same way as the "few" references to violence are in The Bible. Even this sort of violence is about as crucial a tenant to Islam as evangelizing is to Christianity, i.e., though some sects make it a HUGE issue, most believe it to be a beaver-tail.

Christianity is not as innocent as the initial post of this topic states. There have been numerous Christian terrorist groups in the last few decades that have wrought much violence: Right hand of The Lord and The IRA as only small examples. Anti-abortionist groups have often gladly taken part in violence against abortion facilities, and often spoken with great esteem for those who "martyr" themselves in these proceedings. Thousands of people showed up at Mathew Shepard's funeral to praise his death in much the way of those Muslims who praise terror attacks.

Religion only helps to affirm what people already want to think. If they want to think that liberals or Christians or Muslims or the west or Jews or racial minorities or whatever are evil, they will read that into their faith. The same thing goes for those who empathize with philanthropy or pacifism. The factuals errors in the posts on this topic only go to prove that point.

Chocolate, it's all about chocolate.