NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, how do you palce yourself here?

Just trying to find out if extremists would outnumber moderates, as suggested in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433245)

I think I am moderate in most of the issues, but others can call it leftist. usually, they are the ones that I think as radical right, but they call themselves "reasonable majority". obviously, thy wrong but it still depend in the terminology.

edit: I didn't thought you ask it only on the theism issue. in that case I am etheist, but still give some respect to the religion (until it start to be tool of the religious fanatics).

What do you consider the difference between a moderate and a fundamentalist Christian?

Meh, the extreme views tend to be the loudest and most apparent, but in the end, they wouldn't be a majority and they probably wouldn't consider themselves extreme...

I'm in limbo here really, as I'm unwilling to compromise on certain things and hold quite conservative views (except economically), but at the same time I don't want to associate myself with the judgementalism and forcing views of the extremists.

What do you consider the difference between a moderate and a fundamentalist Christian?

Difficult question ;)

I'm just trying to gather evidence to prove to Evilness and Chaos that the majority of religious or non-religious people are still moderate and that extremists and fundamentalists are not really the largest number.

Difficult question ;)

I'm just trying to gather evidence to prove to Evilness and Chaos that the majority of religious or non-religious people are still moderate and that extremists and fundamentalists are not really the largest number. If by "extremist" and "fundamentalist" you mean Jerry Falwell-style neo-pharisees, then I agree, there aren't as many of them.

In Britain, the problem is the opposite - the Church of England is too weak and, indeed, too moderate - as Dostoyevsky said: "In Europe, Protestantism is sliding into atheism and variable ethics".

If by "extremist" and "fundamentalist" you mean Jerry Falwell-style neo-pharisees, then I agree, there aren't as many of them.

In Britain, the problem is the opposite - the Church of England is too weak and, indeed, too moderate - as Dostoyevsky said: "In Europe, Protestantism is sliding into atheism and variable ethics".

Ethics have always been variable.... things that could marked you as pure evil and could get you hanged 150 years ago are regarded as normal, and not even the most conservative Christian could wish them back again...

I suppose i should really be a fanatical atheist but damnit i just dont see eye to eye with marx over religion

Ethics have always been variable.... things that could marked you as pure evil and could get you hanged 150 years ago are regarded as normal, and not even the most conservative Christian could wish them back again... Agreed, but it's this precise wateriness of thinking and practise (and it's not just me, the COE has little youth following in Britain now and low attendance) that's endangering it's existence… I don't know, I'm pretty much like John Paul II in my thinking, whether that makes me an extremist or a moderate I don't know.

Agreed, but it's this precise wateriness of thinking and practise (and it's not just me, the COE has little youth following in Britain now and low attendance) that's endangering it's existence… I don't know, I'm pretty much like John Paul II in my thinking, whether that makes me an extremist or a moderate I don't know.

Hmm... you're saying the church of England would have more followers if it didn't allow women to be priests and would still insist on hanging witches and homosexuals?

Hmm... you're saying the church of England would have more followers if it didn't allow women to be priests and would still insist on hanging witches and homosexuals? Actually I'm referring to its lack of outspokenness - that does NOT mean extremism - and its lack of strong centralised leadership. In case you're wondering, I don't think witches or homosexuals should be hanged. I've said I'd like to disassociate myself from "that" group.

Burn The Witch!

Burn The Witch! The Emperor protects.

If this poll is in reference to my thoughts in the other thread, my words were that 'extremists/fundamentalists are the fastest growing faith groups in the world today'. I don't think anyone has suggested they are in the majority.

Actually I'm referring to its lack of outspokenness - that does NOT mean extremism - and its lack of strong centralised leadership. In case you're wondering, I don't think witches or homosexuals should be hanged. I've said I'd like to disassociate myself from "that" group.

So, what exactly do you mean by outspokeness? Can you give an example?

Agreed, but it's this precise wateriness of thinking and practise (and it's not just me, the COE has little youth following in Britain now and low attendance) that's endangering it's existence… I don't know, I'm pretty much like John Paul II in my thinking, whether that makes me an extremist or a moderate I don't know.

You forget to consider the the culture. We've long been moving towards greater individualism. Political parties hold little appeal to the youth. Unions are dying. Churches are nothing special in that respect.
People feel the church is either too restrictive (and often full of prejudice). They'd rather make sense of their own feelings on the subject... It's individualism. Neither a great suprise, nor a great mystery. It's also why the late pope had so much success in Africa, but didn't have any luck in western europe. People just aren't likely to take an interest in organised religion anymore. And it doesn't help when the guy says you can't use condoms and can't screw before you're married ;)

Personally, I think it's brilliant we're becomming more autonomous. I don't see what right any religion has to dictate people's lives. It's their lives, not the church's. They can bloody well make up their own rules, instead of following some 2000 year old code of conduct.

So, what exactly do you mean by outspokeness? Can you give an example? Well, it's tied into its lack of unity. Gay priests, female bishops, there isn't an actual unified CoE line on either of those issues, so it can't make a stand either way on either issue.

I consider myself a moderate atheist, because I don't hate religion, and I don't tell people they're stupid for being religious. However, I'm not wishy-washy atheist/agnostic either. I'm atheist, absolutely and completely with no doubts...which can seem a bit radical to some...

I consider myself a moderate atheist, because I don't hate religion, and I don't tell people they're stupid for being religious. However, I'm not wishy-washy atheist/agnostic either. I'm atheist, absolutely and completely with no doubts...which can seem a bit radical to some... Good. Strong beliefs are a good thing. The world needs more strong beliefs tempered by decency (so lack of bombs in other words).

Crap. Put me down for moderate atheist, not fanatic.

I might be extreme philosophically (nihilist), but this poll seems to be about vocalness, which places me with the rest of the moderate atheists.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being devout in your religion. Forcing it upon others is another thing. I've met very few of these "Chrisitan fanatics" in my life. Islamic Fundementalists are much, much worse. We don't kill people for being Gay. We forgive them.

"extremist other"

I consider myself a moderate atheist, because I don't hate religion, and I don't tell people they're stupid for being religious. However, I'm not wishy-washy atheist/agnostic either. I'm atheist, absolutely and completely with no doubts...which can seem a bit radical to some...

Hey, pal, there is nothing "wishy-washy" about my agnosticism! I firmly believe in my own lack of ability to ascertain the true nature of any god or gods! ;)

hmmm... I guess I'm a General Theist, because though I was raised Roman Catholic, I follow my own spiritual beliefs(mix of deist, buddhist, humanist and greco-roman polytheist practices/philosophies) but I definintely believe in a god.

On the religion issue, I'm only an extremist when it comes to keeping religion and law seperate. None should be forced to live under legislated religous morals, the law should not be based on religous morality, etc...

Oh, and on the extremist issue, I thought I should bring something up. Though admittedly it's not entirely on topic, starting a thread about extremism makes me think this has a place, however remote in this thread. When the extremist thing cropped up, I remembered something I had read recently on the subject that kinda sums up a good perspective on the whole extremist/moderate issue -

"You spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of the extremist. I started thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency made up of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, have been so completely drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation, and, of a few Negroes in the middle class who, because of a degree of academic and economic security, and because at pointsthey profit by segregation, have unconsciously become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness, and hatred comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up over the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. This movement is nourished by the contemporary frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination. It is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incurable "devil." I have tried to stand between these two forces saying that we need not follow the "do-nothingism" of the complacent or the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. There is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I'm grateful to God that, through the Negro church, the dimension of nonviolence entered our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, I am convinced that by now many streets of the South would be flowing with floods of blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rouses" and "outside agitators" those of us who are working through the channels of nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of frustration and despair, willseek solace and security n black-nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come. This is what happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom; something without has reminded him that he can gain it. Consciously and unconsciously, he has been swept in by what the Germans call the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa, and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, he is moving with a sense of cosmic urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. Recognizing this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand public demonstrations. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations. He has to get them out. So let him march sometime; let him have his prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; understand why he must have sit-ins and freedom rides. If his repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history. So I have not said to my people "get rid of your discontent." But I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channelized through the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. Now this approach is being dismissed as extremist. I must admit that I was initially disappointed in being so categorized.

But as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist for love -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist -- "Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice--or will we be extremists for the cause of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill, three men were crucified. We must not forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thusly fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. So, after all, maybe the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
- The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., Letters from Birmingham Jail

It's a good thing to remember when throwing around the word "extremist," that not all extremists are of the same feather. There are extremists for hate and evil, and there are extremists for love and good. Extremist should not be a dirty word when dealing with the latter.

Just my(and MLK's) two cents. Carry on.

Just my(and MLK's) two cents. Carry on.

A wonderful reminder that one person's (or era's) extremism is another's common sense. Well done.