NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going to try to show that Fundamentalist Christians are more like Fundamentalist Muslims than like their fellow Christians. I'm trying to remember some old school Socrates style of debate.

Fundamentalist Muslim (FM): The west is a hotbed of licentious behaviour. People have no respect and live in a state of drunken debauchery and only care about money.
Fundamentalist Christian (FC): Our current society has forgotten morality. Look at what women wear, and the lack of family values. All these single parents, children with no parent at home. We need society to recover it's family values.
Moderate Christina (MC): Young people of all generations rebel a bit. They're just being kids. People need to find their own place in this world.

FM: We need to implement Sharia law. Women need to wear the Burkha, and Sodomy is wrong.
FC: Abortion and Prostitution and being Gay must be illegal. We need to be tough on crime. Evolution must not be taught in school.
MC: Jesus taught tolerence. Let people have their individual rights. Making something illegal wont stop it.

FM: The enemies of Islam must all die.
FC: All terrorists must die.
MC: Killing innocent people is wrong. Both of you fundamentalist nut jobs are killing heaps of innocent people.

This is just a start. But in summary. To me it seems that the Fundamentalists actions and stated aims of each of the religions I've mentioned have much more in common with one another, than other more moderate members of the same faith.

We don't call them the American Taliban for nothing. *nods*

I'm going to try to show that Fundamentalist Christians are more like Fundamentalist Muslims than like their fellow Christians. I'm trying to remember some old school Socrates style of debate.

Fundamentalist Muslim (FM): The west is a hotbed of licentious behaviour. People have no respect and live in a state of drunken debauchery and only care about money.
Fundamentalist Christian (FC): Our current society has forgotten morality. Look at what women wear, and the lack of family values. All these single parents, children with no parent at home. We need society to recover it's family values.
Moderate Christina (MC): Young people of all generations rebel a bit. They're just being kids. People need to find their own place in this world.

FM: We need to implement Sharia law. Women need to wear the Burkha, and Sodomy is wrong.
FC: Abortion and Prostitution and being Gay must be illegal. We need to be tough on crime. Evolution must not be taught in school.
MC: Jesus taught tolerence. Let people have their individual rights. Making something illegal wont stop it.

FM: The enemies of Islam must all die.
FC: All terrorists must die.
MC: Killing innocent people is wrong. Both of you fundamentalist nut jobs are killing heaps of innocent people.

This is just a start. But in summary. To me it seems that the Fundamentalists actions and stated aims of each of the religions I've mentioned have much more in common with one another, than other more moderate members of the same faith.

I believe your absolutely right! Would you like to join the OACF? (Organization against Corrupt Fundies) I think I already asked the Nazz

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506020

I agree with your contention that fundamentalists are more like each other than others in their same faith. I think this is explained by a model of stages of spiritual growth proposed by James Fowler. ( see http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/fowler.htm ). Fundies are at similar stages in spiritual growth whatever the content of their faith.

I think you are confusing fundamentalist with extremist.

I think you are confusing fundamentalist with extremist.

Pity extremies doesn't sound quite as silly as fundies. :(


Oh well.


Oh, and your OP needs a Moderate Muslim, surely?

Its the inbreeding

Fundamentalists and radicals are all the same, regardless of their religions, race, tribe, nation, political views, etc.

Pity extremies doesn't sound quite as silly as fundies. :(


Oh well.


Oh, and your OP needs a Moderate Muslim, surely?

being a fundamentalist Christian I don't like being associated with every nut job who claims it.

there are fundamentalists and there are extremists, and extremists might also be fundamentalists but all fundamentalists are not extremists.

being a fundamentalist Christian I don't like being associated with every nut job who claims it.

there are fundamentalists and there are extremists, and extremists might also be fundamentalists but all fundamentalists are not extremists.

I don't blame you. Don't worry Smunkee, we know you're not a nut-job. Well, not all the time anyway ;) :fluffle:

Absolutely.

I don't blame you. Don't worry Smunkee, we know you're not a nut-job. Well, not all the time anyway ;) :fluffle:

I am okay with the use of the word "fundie" though, as long as people realize that in my mind the "e" on the end represents extremist........

[/nut job]

Pity extremies doesn't sound quite as silly as fundies. :(


Oh well.
The extremies are what fundies hate. :D

I'm going to try to show that Fundamentalist Christians are more like Fundamentalist Muslims than like their fellow Christians. I'm trying to remember some old school Socrates style of debate.

Fundamentalist Muslim (FM): The west is a hotbed of licentious behaviour. People have no respect and live in a state of drunken debauchery and only care about money.
Fundamentalist Christian (FC): Our current society has forgotten morality. Look at what women wear, and the lack of family values. All these single parents, children with no parent at home. We need society to recover it's family values.
Moderate Christina (MC): Young people of all generations rebel a bit. They're just being kids. People need to find their own place in this world.

FM: We need to implement Sharia law. Women need to wear the Burkha, and Sodomy is wrong.
FC: Abortion and Prostitution and being Gay must be illegal. We need to be tough on crime. Evolution must not be taught in school.
MC: Jesus taught tolerence. Let people have their individual rights. Making something illegal wont stop it.

FM: The enemies of Islam must all die.
FC: All terrorists must die.
MC: Killing innocent people is wrong. Both of you fundamentalist nut jobs are killing heaps of innocent people.

This is just a start. But in summary. To me it seems that the Fundamentalists actions and stated aims of each of the religions I've mentioned have much more in common with one another, than other more moderate members of the same faith.

More often than not, radical godbaggery is just a thin cover for an individual's desire to oppress the snot out of other people. More often than not, the people being oppressed just happen to be female, and the people trying to oppress them are the kind of punks who can only get women to put up with them by making it illegal for women to do otherwise.

In otherwords, radical superstitious organizations are generally just about rapists trying to use God as an excuse for why they get off on raping.

i've sayinf that for ages. all religious fundamentalists are the same. i'm propably inbetween fc and mc. even though not religious.

Extremists tend to all have very many things in common, whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist. They are all incredibly intolerant and angry, and should really learn to get ahold of their anger.

In otherwords, radical superstitious organizations are generally just about rapists trying to use God as an excuse for why they get off on raping.

Right. Because it would take far more effort to admit that rape is wrong and do something about it, than to just let men behave like animals.

Right. Because it would take far more effort to admit that rape is wrong and do something about it, than to just let men behave like animals.

Rape is a subset of the behavior Bottle is describing--it's the expression of sexual dominance over women and men considered effeminate. But it's not limited to sexuality. It's a quest for complete dominance and control, even down to the ways women are allowed to wear their hair and dress themselves. It's infantilizing.

I think you are confusing fundamentalist with extremist.

Indeed.

Plenty of fundamentalists (including fundamentalist Muslims) who are not harming anyone.

What does fundamentalist mean? I'm not saking what the conotations are, I'm asking what the word means. It means one who supports or believes in the fundamentals or the basics.

So, let's look at a house. What does a house have? A foundation (of some sort) walls and a roof. It may or may not have indoor plumbing, it may have electricity, it may have furniture. But none of those things make the house a house.

So, the basics or fundamentals are what make something what it is. So without the fundamentals of Christianity (Trinity, deity of Jesus, infallibility of Scripture, original sin, etc.) you don't have Christianity.

A lot of people who claim the term fundamentalist are not really fundamentalists: they begin to pick and choose, making themselves as the "fundamentalist" pick-and-choosers of Islam. But the so-called moderates do the same thing: it's no longer Christianity because they take out everything that separates it as a different religion. And the same with Islam.

But the religions themselves, and the true fundamentists of both religions, are very far from one another.

Yes and no.

Both are doing it for the same reasons. Using religion to gain/hold power.

While Muslim fundie leaders are more than willing to brainwash and kill, thier Christian counterparts only annoy. Sure they brainwash and attempt to get power, but they are typically smacked down by the people when they get too much power.

Fundamentalist Christian (FC): Our current society has forgotten morality. Look at what women wear, and the lack of family values. All these single parents, children with no parent at home. We need society to recover it's family values.

FC: All terrorists must die.
I agree that fundamentalists of both Islam and Christianity are alike, but the first phrase here is not all that fundamentalist, and the second could easily be said by an atheist.

People who hold firm beliefs on any question of religion more resemble each other than they resemble those who hold no beliefs.

Fundamentalists, explicit atheists, and strong agnostics are all logically similar.

there are fundamentalists and there are extremists, and extremists might also be fundamentalists but all fundamentalists are not extremists.

QFT. In many ways I am a fundamentalist but I never fly a plane into a building or anything like that.

People who hold firm beliefs on any question of religion more resemble each other than they resemble those who hold no beliefs.

Fundamentalists, explicit atheists, and strong agnostics are all logically similar.Tell yourself that if it helps you make it through the night, but you're wrong. I'm not going to hijack the thread and turn it into yet another "atheism is/isn't a faith position" argument, but there's a universe of difference between atheists and agnostics and fundamentalists of any religious belief.

Tell yourself that if it helps you make it through the night, but you're wrong. I'm not going to hijack the thread and turn it into yet another "atheism is/isn't a faith position" argument, but there's a universe of difference between atheists and agnostics and fundamentalists of any religious belief.
That universe being the difference between believing in something without any supporting evidence and believing in the absence of something without any supporting evidence.

Either way, unjustified beliefs. I think you're the one telling yourself something untenable in order to make it through the night. Both of you (all three if I add strong agnostics) have abandoned any claim to the reasoned position.

That universe being the difference between believing in something without any supporting evidence and believing in the absence of something without any supporting evidence.

Either way, unjustified beliefs. I think you're the one telling yourself something untenable in order to make it through the night. Both of you (all three if I add strong agnostics) have abandoned any claim to the reasoned position.

There are thousands, maybe millions of things that don't have evidence against that you're not compelled to believe in, from Zues, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a tea cup orbiting Pluto. Not believing in any of these is not unreasoned any more than your disbelief that I have a giant invisible bunny named Harvey that gives me advice. Unless you're ready to accept that Harvey might exist, you're unreasoned by that line.

I saw a great quote about an hour ago by I think Dawkins, to the effect that if we're to call atheism a belief we might as well call not collecting stamps a hobby.

There are thousands, maybe millions of things that don't have evidence against that you're not compelled to believe in, from Zues, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a tea cup orbiting Pluto. Not believing in any of these is not unreasoned any more than your disbelief that I have a giant invisible bunny named Harvey that gives me advice. Unless you're ready to accept that Harvey might exist, you're unreasoned by that line.
Absolutely I'm willing to accept that.
I saw a great quote about an hour ago by I think Dawkins, to the effect that if we're to call atheism a belief we might as well call not collecting stamps a hobby.
Dawkins does deviate from pure reason more than I think he should.

Wha? I was under the impression that a fundamentalist, in the non-extremist fashion, essentially follows the Bible/Koran to the letter. Can someone enlighten me on this?

Wha? I was under the impression that a fundamentalist, in the non-extremist fashion, essentially follows the Bible/Koran to the letter. Can someone enlighten me on this?

Post #21 for my opinion.

Post #21 for my opinion.
Okay, I see what you mean. But how many Christians don't believe in Jesus as a deity, anyway? I don't see those things you mentioned as really being left out of their beliefs by moderates. What are the fundamentals of Islam, anyway? If it's Sharia law, then Islamic fundamentalists are dangerous. Because Sharia law sucks.

Its the inbreeding

You win the internet.

Okay, I see what you mean. But how many Christians don't believe in Jesus as a deity, anyway? I don't see those things you mentioned as really being left out of their beliefs by moderates. What are the fundamentals of Islam, anyway? If it's Sharia law, then Islamic fundamentalists are dangerous. Because Sharia law sucks.

That was my point that, strictly speaking, fundamentalists are the only true adherents of the respective religions. There are most definitely those who are more moderate than others, but when society speaks of moderate Christians, they are usually speaking of people like Desmond Tutu who are not Christian at all.

I can't really speak for the Muslim side of things.

That was my point that, strictly speaking, fundamentalists are the only true adherents of the respective religions. There are most definitely those who are more moderate than others, but when society speaks of moderate Christians, they are usually speaking of people like Desmond Tutu who are not Christian at all.

There is nothing Christian about violating Christ's instructions and engaging in judgement, granting too much power over religion to the government, and intollerance.

Fundies are poorer Christians than "Moderate" Christians.

There is nothing Christian about violating Christ's instructions and engaging in judgement, granting too much power over religion to the government, and intollerance.

Fundies are poorer Christians than "Moderate" Christians.

Again, I am talking about fundamentalists (as defined by the word) not Fundamentalists (as called popularly by the media and themselves).

That universe being the difference between believing in something without any supporting evidence and believing in the absence of something without any supporting evidence.

Either way, unjustified beliefs. I think you're the one telling yourself something untenable in order to make it through the night. Both of you (all three if I add strong agnostics) have abandoned any claim to the reasoned position.

I'll say this once and drop it, because I'm not going to hijack this thread. I don't not believe in God. The default is that there is no God, that there is, indeed, nothing. My senses perceive the universe, so I have proof that it exists insofar as I can trust my senses. Until there is empirical evidence that a God exists, I see no reason to move from the default position. It's not a matter of belief--it's a matter of there being no reason to believe something I have not perceived. That's the universe of difference. When you've wrapped your mind around it, we might have something to talk about.

Absolutely I'm willing to accept that.
That has an air of dishonesty about it. There are perfectly reasonable reasons to not accept things that don't have any justification other than someone else believes them. To not do that seems to surrender your reason. I seriously doubt that you put much stake in the existence of a tea cup orbiting Pluto.

Dawkins does deviate from pure reason more than I think he should.

This does not challenge the statement but rather Dawkins.

Fundamentalists and radicals are all the same, regardless of their religions, race, tribe, nation, political views, etc.

Just want to make sure that every body knows what a radical is ('cause I like to use it as a positive word). This is from the Webster website, the definition of radical, I just cut out the first definition, because it's about plants and math.

"2 : of or relating to the origin : FUNDAMENTAL
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
4 slang : EXCELLENT, COOL"

"3d" is what you're talking about but, that's not the only type of radical. By my opinion Martin Luther King Jr. was a radical, a "3a-c" radical.

oh, here's the etomology "Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root"

That was my point that, strictly speaking, fundamentalists are the only true adherents of the respective religions. There are most definitely those who are more moderate than others, but when society speaks of moderate Christians, they are usually speaking of people like Desmond Tutu who are not Christian at all..

Fundamentalists are NOT the only 'true' adherents of their religions. They only think they are. They think this because they think that the literal historical treatment of a sacred text is the only possible way of treating said text. This says more about their lack of imagination than the authenticity of their faith.

Fundamentalists are NOT the only 'true' adherents of their religions. They only think they are. They think this because they think that the literal historical treatment of a sacred text is the only possible way of treating said text. This says more about their lack of imagination than the authenticity of their faith.
It also says something about the quality and honesty of their translation and exegetical skills.

More often than not, radical godbaggery is just a thin cover for an individual's desire to oppress the snot out of other people. More often than not, the people being oppressed just happen to be female, and the people trying to oppress them are the kind of punks who can only get women to put up with them by making it illegal for women to do otherwise.

In otherwords, radical superstitious organizations are generally just about rapists trying to use God as an excuse for why they get off on raping.


That would make it a cult then wouldn't it?

That would make it a cult then wouldn't it?

Personally, I think the only real difference between a religion and a cult is the size of the group.

Fundamentalists are NOT the only 'true' adherents of their religions. They only think they are. They think this because they think that the literal historical treatment of a sacred text is the only possible way of treating said text. This says more about their lack of imagination than the authenticity of their faith.

Again, what does fundamentalist mean? It means one who supports or believes the basics. Without the basics, you aren't whatever you claim to be.

Again, I'm talking about what fundamentalist means, not the connotation it has. Read my whole post, please.

Personally, I think the only real difference between a religion and a cult is the size of the group.

Where is the cutoff point? I personally think that groups such as Al-Qaeda are cults. There are potential for ten of thousands of members.

I'll agree with the idea that fundamentalists of many religions are the same, because they see a return to religion as the cure for many of society's ills, just looking at Islam and Christianity as a starter.

-In the Islamic world, the Middle East in particular, they believe that Islamic governments will get rid of the godlessness, corruption, elitist control, injustice and poverty that they feel is the fault of the secular dictatorships that have controlled much of the region. Of course, they haven't succeeded in that endeavour (see Iran), so some fundamentalists adopt more extreme measures (see al-Qaeda or Islamic Jihad etc.)

-I can't really talk much about America, but I presume that they feel that the secularisation of society is leading to godlessness, a greater poor/rich divide, problems such as drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, crime etc. By going back to religion, America will presumably become a better place.

What is to note is that fundamentalists, though not always, often differ from traditionalist schools of religious thought, who they feel are tainted with worldly corruption. What they want is to go to the 'true' traditions. Most Islamist movements do not stem from the conservative ulema, but more populist sources e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami. I suppose in the same sense fundamentalist Christians may not like the Catholic Church or other big, traditionalist branches of Christianity.

And of course, in many people's eyes, the aims of fundamentalists are seen as being oppressive to those who don't share in their vision.

Where is the cutoff point? I personally think that groups such as Al-Qaeda are cults. There are potential for ten of thousands of members.

For me, the difference is only a semantic one.

Wha? I was under the impression that a fundamentalist, in the non-extremist fashion, essentially follows the Bible/Koran to the letter. Can someone enlighten me on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalists

The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals"[3]:

* Inerrancy of the Scriptures
* The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
* The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
* The bodily resurrection of Jesus
* The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming)[4]

That would make it a cult then wouldn't it?
I do not distinguish between "religions" and "cults." I usually choose to use the word "religion" because I don't want to seem like I'm intentionally antagonizing the superstitious (since most religious people will strongly object to having their own faith termed a "cult"), and I don't want every discussion to be sidetracked by a debate over these words. But, in my opinion, the only difference between a religion and a cult is age; cults are the newfangled superstitions that haven't been given their Religion Badge by the existing faiths yet.

That has an air of dishonesty about it. There are perfectly reasonable reasons to not accept things that don't have any justification other than someone else believes them. To not do that seems to surrender your reason. I seriously doubt that you put much stake in the existence of a tea cup orbiting Pluto.
I don't need to put much stake in it. I just need to stop short of discounting the possibility entirely.

I'll say this once and drop it, because I'm not going to hijack this thread. I don't not believe in God. The default is that there is no God, that there is, indeed, nothing. My senses perceive the universe, so I have proof that it exists insofar as I can trust my senses. Until there is empirical evidence that a God exists, I see no reason to move from the default position. It's not a matter of belief--it's a matter of there being no reason to believe something I have not perceived. That's the universe of difference. When you've wrapped your mind around it, we might have something to talk about.
That position presupposes an implicit trust in your own perception. If you believe that you perceive the world accurately, your position makes perfect sense.

But you have no reason to believe that.

There are definately aspects of fundamentalism that spans religions or political beliefs. There is a withdrawing from mainstream culture, and a rejection of that culture as being corrupt, either morally, politically or otherwise, and the belief that living in a specific way is the only way to escape that. There are fundamentalists who judge others according to their own beliefs, but there are also fundamentalists who do not...who simply live according to their fundamental beliefs in spite of the pressure to assimilate.

I've heard of people being shot for not being sufficiently Communist, or not sufficiently Nazi, and for not obeying Islamic law

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/12/06/international/i075229S56.DTL

Can anyone name a country in the 20th or 21st Century where the official religion was some form of Christianity, and people were executed for not demonstrating sufficient piety?

I've heard of people being shot for not being sufficiently Communist, or not sufficiently Nazi, and for not obeying Islamic law

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/12/06/international/i075229S56.DTL

Can anyone name a country in the 20th or 21st Century where the official religion was some form of Christianity, and people were executed for not demonstrating sufficient piety?
Well, the lines were somewhat blurry, but ... Bosnia/Kosovo.

That civil war broke down along ostensibly religious lines. The religious divide was also an ethnic one, so the atrocities were called "ethnic cleansing," but since all the warring ethnicities looked alike, their religious difference was the main identifier for one group to attack the other, and the war propaganda reflected that. Overall, the primary war criminals were the Christian governments (such as they were) attacking Muslim civilians.

It's not quite the same as the Communist/Nazi examples, but it is a recent example of a Christian power killing people for not being Christian.

Well, the lines were somewhat blurry, but ... Bosnia/Kosovo.

That civil war broke down along ostensibly religious lines. The religious divide was also an ethnic one, so the atrocities were called "ethnic cleansing," but since all the warring ethnicities looked alike, their religious difference was the main identifier for one group to attack the other, and the war propaganda reflected that. Overall, the primary war criminals were the Christian governments (such as they were) attacking Muslim civilians.

It's not quite the same as the Communist/Nazi examples, but it is a recent example of a Christian power killing people for not being Christian.

Question: in that conflict, were any Christians executed for not going to church?

Find me something that parallels the example I provided.

I don't need to put much stake in it. I just need to stop short of discounting the possibility entirely.

I'm not willing to surrender that much of my reason, as it crosses the line from openness to gullibility.

Question: in that conflict, were any Christians executed for not going to church?

Find me something that parallels the example I provided.
In the 20th-21st century? No, I don't know of any. That is perhaps purely coincidental to the complaints by various churches during the same period of too much secularization of society and government, and of the people turning away from the church.

So what do we conclude from that?

We might conclude that Christianity is less extremist or Christian fundamentalists are less extremist than other religions.

Or we might conclude that Christianity kills fewer people because its extremists are not in positions of sufficient power. Bosnia/Kosovo is an example of what extremists who call themselves Christians do when they get the power. Not much different from what religious extremists of other religions do in other places.

In the former Yugoslavia, they started in on non-Christians -- what guarantee do we have they would have stopped there if their war had not been interrupted? What makes us think those extremist leaders would not have turned to "purifying" their own ranks once all the non-Christians were dead? The patterns of history tell us they probably would have done so. We can compare that to Darfur, where both non-Muslims are being wiped out by Muslim extremist leaders, and at the same time those same extremists wage wars of puritanism within the rest of Sudan, against their fellow Muslims. I see no reason to assume that the Christian extremists of the former Yugoslavia would have done differently, again if they had not been interrupted. Both had the same motivation -- concentrating total social control into their own hands by any means and at any cost.

I agree with the OP that fundamentalists are more like each other than they are like moderate members of their own religions. I also think that extremists are more like each other -- no matter what their philosophy is -- than they are like anyone else. All fundamentalists think their religion needs reformation by return to what they consider "fundamental" principles or practices. All extremists are obsessed with getting their way to the points of irrationality and violence. It doesn't matter what their label or what their context -- they all behave the same.

In the 20th-21st century? No, I don't know of any. That is perhaps purely coincidental to the complaints by various churches during the same period of too much secularization of society and government, and of the people turning away from the church.

So what do we conclude from that?

We might conclude that Christianity is less extremist or Christian fundamentalists are less extremist than other religions.

This is my conclusion.

This is my conclusion.
Closed-minded, eh?

Account then, please, for the existence of violent Christian extremists, such as the leaders currently/recently on trail in Bosnia/Kosovo and those individuals who murder abortion doctors, etc.

Closed-minded, eh?

Account then, please, for the existence of violent Christian extremists, such as the leaders currently/recently on trail in Bosnia/Kosovo and those individuals who murder abortion doctors, etc.

I suggest you count them, and compare numbers.

I'm not talking about people of one religion who kill non-believers.

I'm talking about people of one religion who kill members of their OWN religion for what is perceived as a minor lack of piety (such as not praying enough).

I'm not willing to surrender that much of my reason, as it crosses the line from openness to gullibility.
You're only being gullible if you accept it as true.

And it's reason that leads me here. I can only draw reasonable conclusions, and reasonable conclusions require conclusive evidence.

That position presupposes an implicit trust in your own perception. If you believe that you perceive the world accurately, your position makes perfect sense.

But you have no reason to believe that.Sure I do. It's my universe, after all. Doesn't matter if I'm perfectly sane or a maniac or a rock--my perception is the only one I can count on. I certainly can't trust yours, because I can't experience it.

I suggest you count them, and compare numbers.
Why would I waste my time on such a shallow and superficial point of measure? Numbers change depending on social circumstances. You asked for examples from the last 100 years, but if we look at the matter in a useful context -- the context of modern history, which covers almost 1000 years -- we will see that your precious Christianity is just as blood-soaked and intolerant as any other major religion in the world, and that it was a leading player is several reigns of terror covering several centuries. Just because now it is the turn of the Muslims to be the pain in everybody ass, that does not cleanse your religion's reputation, karma, or character. Nor does it give me an reason to feel safer around Christian extremists than I would around any other kind of extremist.

I'm not talking about people of one religion who kill non-believers.

I'm talking about people of one religion who kill members of their OWN religion for what is perceived as a minor lack of piety (such as not praying enough).
Your argument only makes sense if you cherrypick which facts and trends you want to judge by and leave out everything else. The fact is that oppression outside the group and oppression inside the group are never separated in actual practice. One either follows the other or they occur simultaneously. Always. This is because when you combine fundamentalism with extremism, the most important measure becomes "how much like 'us' are you?" and this measure is applied to everybody all the time. Thus, a religion attacking anyone who is perceived as "not us" for being "not us" -- whether it is within the group or not -- is a legitimate measure of the extremism of that religion.

You are trying to create an artificial measurement that ignores the way reality works. You want to say that a religion is not extremist if it doesn't attack its own members. That is nonsense, first because you have no reason to think that a religion that attacks outsiders doesn't/won't also attack its own, and second because it ignores or, worse, accepts extremism against others. Applied to reality, your argument would say that the Christians who committed atrocities against Muslims in Kosovo were not extremists because they didn't do it to other Christians.

Why would I waste my time on such a shallow and superficial point of measure? Numbers change depending on social circumstances. You asked for examples from the last 100 years, but if we look at the matter in a useful context -- the context of modern history, which covers almost 1000 years -- we will see that your precious Christianity is just as blood-soaked and intolerant as any other major religion in the world, and that it was a leading player is several reigns of terror covering several centuries. Just because now it is the turn of the Muslims to be the pain in everybody ass, that does not cleanse your religion's reputation, karma, or character. Nor does it give me an reason to feel safer around Christian extremists than I would around any other kind of extremist.


Your argument only makes sense if you cherrypick which facts and trends you want to judge by and leave out everything else. The fact is that oppression outside the group and oppression inside the group are never separated in actual practice. One either follows the other or they occur simultaneously. Always. This is because when you combine fundamentalism with extremism, the most important measure becomes "how much like 'us' are you?" and this measure is applied to everybody all the time. Thus, a religion attacking anyone who is perceived as "not us" for being "not us" -- whether it is within the group or not -- is a legitimate measure of the extremism of that religion.

You are trying to create an artificial measurement that ignores the way reality works. You want to say that a religion is not extremist if it doesn't attack its own members. That is nonsense, first because you have no reason to think that a religion that attacks outsiders doesn't/won't also attack its own, and second because it ignores or, worse, accepts extremism against others. Applied to reality, your argument would say that the Christians who committed atrocities against Muslims in Kosovo were not extremists because they didn't do it to other Christians.


I'm saying that it's pretty obvious that fundamentalists will kill non-believers. It's what they do.

When Communists take over, they generally line up the intelligentsia who are non-believers, and shoot them in the head.

Same for a lot of religious groups.

So, the major different I see is "who shoots their own?"

It's like asking, "who eats their own dead?"

That, to me, makes them far more "extreme". It's not cherrypicking - I bet I could post examples from the news of Islamics doing this every day.

I'm saying that it's pretty obvious that fundamentalists will kill non-believers. It's what they do.

When Communists take over, they generally line up the intelligentsia who are non-believers, and shoot them in the head.

Same for a lot of religious groups.

So, the major different I see is "who shoots their own?"

It's like asking, "who eats their own dead?"

That, to me, makes them far more "extreme". It's not cherrypicking - I bet I could post examples from the news of Islamics doing this every day.
The bolded part is where you are right, but it undermines everything else you've said about Christianity.

You say that fundamentalists will kill non-believers. I would qualify that by saying extremist fundamentalists will kill non-believers. (Not all fundamentalists are extremists.)

As true as that statement may be, it in no way implies that there is no such thing as a Christian extremist fundamentalist. You have not shown anything that indicates that there is anything about Christianity per se that makes it immune to extremist fundamentalism. I gave you two examples -- Kosovo and abortion doctor murderers -- of Christian extremists who resort to violence, crime and atrocities against others and claim to do so under the banner of their religion. You cannot deny that these examples are factual. Therefore, you cannot deny that Christianity also can be infested with violent extremism.

As I said, just because it is Islam's turn for such an infestation to break out, that doesn't mean your religion is free of it. I maintain that Christianity is just as prone to extremism as Islam. It has proven itself to be so in the past, and its nature has not changed in any way that would prevent it from becoming so again. Therefore, your apparent attempt to imply that there is something inherently fundamentalist and extremist in Islam that does not exist in Christianity cannot help but fail.

This is because fundamentalism and extremism are mindsets that arise on their own and are not dependent on a given context.

Oh, and by the way, the questions "Who shoots their own?" and "Who eats their own dead?" are not in the least bit alike. That comparison made no sense.

As I said, just because it is Islam's turn for such an infestation to break out, that doesn't mean your religion is free of it. I maintain that Christianity is just as prone to extremism as Islam. It has proven itself to be so in the past, and its nature has not changed in any way that would prevent it from becoming so again. Therefore, your apparent attempt to imply that there is something inherently fundamentalist and extremist in Islam that does not exist in Christianity cannot help but fail.


I believe there were fundamental philosophical issues that were worked out in Christianity during the wars of the Reformation that changed Christianity significantly that would prevent a lot of this "eating your own dead" kind of behavior.

Add to that the fact that Christianity largely exists in countries strongly influenced by the Enlightenment, and you have a very different recipe for human behavior on a large scale.

I believe there were fundamental philosophical issues that were worked out in Christianity during the wars of the Reformation that changed Christianity significantly that would prevent a lot of this "eating your own dead" kind of behavior.

Add to that the fact that Christianity largely exists in countries strongly influenced by the Enlightenment, and you have a very different recipe for human behavior on a large scale.

So I just imagined all the Catholic-Protestant violence in Ireland over the last hundred years? Huh.

So I just imagined all the Catholic-Protestant violence in Ireland over the last hundred years? Huh.

Like I said - show me some Catholics who shot Catholics who didn't go to confession often enough...

Like I said - show me some Catholics who shot Catholics who didn't go to confession often enough...

That's a bullshit comparison. There's as much difference between Catholic and Protestant as there is between Sunni and Shi'a.

That's a bullshit comparison. There's as much difference between Catholic and Protestant as there is between Sunni and Shi'a.

You need to read the link I posted.

There were Sunnis killing Sunnis who didn't pray five times a day.

being a fundamentalist Christian I don't like being associated with every nut job who claims it.

there are fundamentalists and there are extremists, and extremists might also be fundamentalists but all fundamentalists are not extremists.

Smunkee is fundamentalist!?! :eek: :D

To the OP.. As a fundamentalist Christian, I would take issue with any fundamentalist who said (even paraphrased and heavily precised) "All Terrorists must die". A true fundamentalist christian (even one with extremeist views should take the position "all terrorist should be loved, shown God's love, and converted before they burn in hell. (Nevertheless, if it looks like he's going to pull the trigger, the rip cord, the detonator, stop him)."

So, I don't think Socrates would have been impressed, because you've molded your premise to suit your conculsion - and not the other way around.

You need to read the link I posted.

There were Sunnis killing Sunnis who didn't pray five times a day.
So are you trying to use on extreme example to make a claim about the religion as a whole? Dangerous ground to tread there.

Smunkee is fundamentalist!?! :eek: :D

To the OP.. As a fundamentalist Christian, I would take issue with any fundamentalist who said (even paraphrased and heavily precised) "All Terrorists must die". A true fundamentalist christian (even one with extremeist views should take the position "all terrorist should be loved, shown God's love, and converted before they burn in hell. (Nevertheless, if it looks like he's going to pull the trigger, the rip cord, the detonator, stop him)."

So, I don't think Socrates would have been impressed, because you've molded your premise to suit your conculsion - and not the other way around.

I'm a fundamentalist Christian as well, and last I checked, I haven't killed anyone for not being fundamentalist enough.

Haven't prayed for any gays, haven't done the "hate the sin not teh sinner", haven't bombed an abortion clinic, - a long list.

Hate to break the misperception that fundamentalist Christians are somehow all crazy violent people out to fuck the world over.

I believe there were fundamental philosophical issues that were worked out in Christianity during the wars of the Reformation that changed Christianity significantly that would prevent a lot of this "eating your own dead" kind of behavior.

Add to that the fact that Christianity largely exists in countries strongly influenced by the Enlightenment, and you have a very different recipe for human behavior on a large scale.
I disagree with you. I do not think those philosophical issues were worked out at all. I think there is still debate raging among Christians over what Christianity is or should be, or means or should mean. I think you don't have to look far beyond current events in the US and Europe to see that.

I recommend a very interesting book that talks about long-standing unresolved issues in Christianity, called [i]The Cousins' War: Religion, Politics, & the Triumph of Anglo-America[/u] by Kevin Phillips. It's wicked long and pedantic (weighs a ton even in paperback), but worth the effort. Phillips traces not only the issues but the individual political players from the 17th century English Civil Wars through the British colonization of North America, the American Revolution, and finally, through to the US Civil War, tracing how the exact same religious philosophical disputes remained unresolved among the exact same parties over several centuries and two continents, and were driving forces behind several wars. Those same issues survived the US Civil War and have yet to be resolved in the US today. I hear them aired every day in the propaganda of the so-called "culture wars" of US politics. There can be no mistake that these issues revolve around the definition of religion-based social values and the connection between social identity and religion.

Another objection to your assertion is that it assumes that members of a religion all think the exact same way as each other, like the Borg. Let's assume for the moment that 250 years ago, church leaders did reach a consensus about Christian philosophy (even though they did not). Hasn't Christianity grown and changed since then? Hasn't it brought in billions of new converts over the years? Hasn't it spread to new countries and into new cultures and been exposed to new pressures and challenges? Haven't new sects arisen? I have heard an unconfirmed statistic that there are as many as 40,000 distinct Christian sects in the world today. You're telling me they are all in philosophical agreement with each other? Please, give me a break.

Hate to break the misperception that fundamentalist Christians are somehow all crazy violent people out to fuck the world over.
I think most of the people with that perception of fundamentalists are the straw men fundamentalists erect to knock over.

I think most of the people with that perception of fundamentalists are the straw men fundamentalists erect to knock over.

I've read some of the older threads here that would make some of those strawmen real.

Like I said - show me some Catholics who shot Catholics who didn't go to confession often enough...
You're right back to using your fantasy yardstick to measure extremism. First you wanted examples of Christians killing Christians. You get one, and now you want to split the hair finer; now you want Catholics killing Catholics. Soon you'll be demanding examples of Opus Dei killing Opus Dei for not wearing scratchy-enough underwear before you'll admit that Christianity is just as prone to extremism as any other religion.

That has an air of dishonesty about it. There are perfectly reasonable reasons to not accept things that don't have any justification other than someone else believes them. To not do that seems to surrender your reason. I seriously doubt that you put much stake in the existence of a tea cup orbiting Pluto.



This does not challenge the statement but rather Dawkins.

Then allow me...

From a purely rational perspective, Dawkins statement is a great soundbite, looks like a killer winning arguement stuffed into a single sentance. It's also a load of bunkum.

Let's split the sentance into it's constituent parts.

Calling atheism a belief = calling a not collecting stamps a hobby

Now, we all no know that collecting stamps IS called a hobby. And we can all see that NOT collecting stamps would be called NOT a hobby. By virtue of the fact that if you negate the definition (stamp-collecting=hobby), you'd have apply the negative to both phrases in order for it to continue to make sense (out of context - in context, saying... ".. I don't collect stamps as my hobby" could either mean you were being funny, or you were disputing a contention that you do collect stamps as a hobby).

However, atheisem is defined as a DISbelief in God. Is a disbelief a belief? Yes, of course it is. In this case, I am not move the negative from one side to another, without changing the meaning... But rather from one term to another. i.e.

Atheisem = belief in no God.

Atheisem = disbelief in God (not that as per the stamps/hobby example if I remove the negative from both sides I end up with Theisem = belief in God. So, that's the proof that the construct is replicable).

For Dawkin's sentance to make, he'd have to say.

I contend (believe) that Atheisem is such a logical position of fact... But he has to leave belief in there. His sentance as it stands is plain wrong because Atheisem is a belief, or a faith based position. Whether he likes it or not. No doubt he'll go on trying to PROVE his position so that it's not just a question of belief, just as his opponents will go on trying to PROVE the existance of God.

It's my contention that neither side will find the proof. You cannot prove or disprove God's existance as you can the presence of an isotope, or an apple, or a period at the end of this sentance. It's the very nature of the spiritual that it's not provable.

I'm a fundamentalist Christian as well, and last I checked, I haven't killed anyone for not being fundamentalist enough.

Haven't prayed for any gays, haven't done the "hate the sin not teh sinner", haven't bombed an abortion clinic, - a long list.

Hate to break the misperception that fundamentalist Christians are somehow all crazy violent people out to fuck the world over.
Yet, you have no problem spreading the same misperception about Muslims. I have stated very clearly that fundamentalist =/= extremist. I have made it clear that it is extremists who cause the problems, not fundamentalists. You seem to want to accept that distinction for your own religion but not for Islam.

As long as we are breaking things we hate to break -- I hate to break it to you that you are not the measure of your religion. The fact that you have not done any of those extremist things does not mean that no Christians do them. Fundamentalist Christians don't do them, but extremist fundamentalist Christians do. Fundamentalist Muslims do not kill other Muslims for not being fundamentalist, but extremist fundamentalist Muslims do. The two are the same.

Then allow me...

From a purely rational perspective, Dawkins statement is a great soundbite, looks like a killer winning arguement stuffed into a single sentance. It's also a load of bunkum.

Let's split the sentance into it's constituent parts.

Calling atheism a belief = calling a not collecting stamps a hobby

Now, we all no know that collecting stamps IS called a hobby. And we can all see that NOT collecting stamps would be called NOT a hobby. By virtue of the fact that if you negate the definition (stamp-collecting=hobby), you'd have apply the negative to both phrases in order for it to continue to make sense (out of context - in context, saying... ".. I don't collect stamps as my hobby" could either mean you were being funny, or you were disputing a contention that you do collect stamps as a hobby).

However, atheisem is defined as a DISbelief in God. Is a disbelief a belief? Yes, of course it is. In this case, I am not move the negative from one side to another, without changing the meaning... But rather from one term to another. i.e.

Atheisem = belief in no God.

Atheisem = disbelief in God (not that as per the stamps/hobby example if I remove the negative from both sides I end up with Theisem = belief in God. So, that's the proof that the construct is replicable).

For Dawkin's sentance to make, he'd have to say.

I contend (believe) that Atheisem is such a logical position of fact... But he has to leave belief in there. His sentance as it stands is plain wrong because Atheisem is a belief, or a faith based position. Whether he likes it or not. No doubt he'll go on trying to PROVE his position so that it's not just a question of belief, just as his opponents will go on trying to PROVE the existance of God.

It's my contention that neither side will find the proof. You cannot prove or disprove God's existance as you can the presence of an isotope, or an apple, or a period at the end of this sentance. It's the very nature of the spiritual that it's not provable.
The only way you can win the argument is by defining the terms as you wish. And it's the same old tired argument, just as misleading as ever.

Yet, you have no problem spreading the same misperception about Muslims. I have stated very clearly that fundamentalist =/= extremist. I have made it clear that it is extremists who cause the problems, not fundamentalists. You seem to want to accept that distinction for your own religion but not for Islam.

As long as we are breaking things we hate to break -- I hate to break it to you that you are not the measure of your religion. The fact that you have not done any of those extremist things does not mean that no Christians do them.

I haven't said that "no" Christians do them.

I think it's pretty obvious that a simple count of today's news events would show that Christians are slacking off by comparison.

I haven't said that "no" Christians do them.

I think it's pretty obvious that a simple count of today's news events would show that Christians are slacking off by comparison.
Slacking off from their usual standard, you mean?

Slacking off from their usual standard, you mean?

If history is any indication, it's a trend of slacking for a long time now.

If history is any indication, it's a trend of slacking for a long time now.

You've already had your arse handed to you by Murvyets. What more do you want?

You've already had your arse handed to you by Murvyets. What more do you want?

That's your opinion. I fail to see where Muravyets has shown that Christians today are engaged in the same level of violent extremism as Muslims.

That's your opinion. I fail to see where Muravyets has shown that Christians today are engaged in the same level of violent extremism as Muslims.

That has only just become your argument, when your original argument about inherent extremism became untenable. No doubt your argument will continue to shift in order to always have you in the right.

Don't recall? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12045773&postcount=57)

If history is any indication, it's a trend of slacking for a long time now.
You must use a non-standard measure for "long," too. Christianity was a source or major player in bloody conflicts and oppression throughout Europe and other parts of the world from the conversion of Constantine straight through to the Enlightenment. Longer if you include localized but still vicious and long-term conflicts such as the Troubles in Ireland and the civil war in Bosnia/Kosovo.

But even if we exclude those (which I personally do not do), your trend has been slacking for only about 230 or so years out of a history of just over 1000 years. And this is Christianity's first period of slackage, so we have no data to suggest that this trend is permanent, rather than a temporary slowdown. On the contrary, if we compare Christianity's history to longer histories of older subject groups, and to the histories of subjects with faster turnaround times, we see it is more likely that the trend will reverse itself eventually, especially as the internal nature and make-up of the Christian religion continues to develop.

In truth, you are merely speculating that Christianity has out-grown violent extremism, and your speculation is based on your personal bias in favor of Christianity. It fails to convince me.

You must use a non-standard measure for "long," too. Christianity was a source or major player in bloody conflicts and oppression throughout Europe and other parts of the world from the conversion of Constantine straight through to the Enlightenment. Longer if you include localized but still vicious and long-term conflicts such as the Troubles in Ireland and the civil war in Bosnia/Kosovo.

But even if we exclude those (which I personally do not do), your trend has been slacking for only about 230 or so years out of a history of just over 1000 years. And this is Christianity's first period of slackage, so we have no data to suggest that this trend is permanent, rather than a temporary slowdown. On the contrary, if we compare Christianity's history to longer histories of older subject groups, and to the histories of subjects with faster turnaround times, we see it is more likely that the trend will reverse itself eventually, especially as the internal nature and make-up of the Christian religion continues to develop.

In the absence of such data, you are merely speculating that Christianity has out-grown violent extremism, and your speculation is based on your personal bias in favor of Christianity. It fails to convince me.

230 years (your figure, not mine) is quite a long time. Sounds like a trend to me.

You've already had your arse handed to you by Murvyets. What more do you want?
Some people seem to like having me hand their asses to them. They make me do it over and over. Sometimes I feel so used.

Some people seem to like having me hand their asses to them. They make me do it over and over. Sometimes I feel so used.

Then again, you could be overly imaginative.

230 years (your figure, not mine) is quite a long time. Sounds like a trend to me.
Not a single one of your arguments works unless you take it out of any relevant context whatsoever. Try responding to my WHOLE post, including the parts where I told you that you do not have any data indicating that the trend is permanent but plenty of data indicating that it is more likely temporary. A temporary slowdown in violent activity does not mean your religion is free of violent tendencies.

Then again, you could be overly imaginative.
That was a joke, dear. Don't get distracted by it.

That was a joke, dear. Don't get distracted by it.

Well, you are funny.

Well, you are funny.
So are you.

It's coffee time. I'm going to take a break and catch up with this tonight or tomorrow morning. I look forward to your reasoned and unassailable arguments in support of your position. In fact, I look forward to finding out what you'll claim your position is next.

Later.

Sure I do. It's my universe, after all. Doesn't matter if I'm perfectly sane or a maniac or a rock--my perception is the only one I can count on. I certainly can't trust yours, because I can't experience it.
Now you're unnecessarily applying an excluded middle. Sure, you can't trust my perceptions, but it doesn't follow from that you should trust yours.

As the OP, I thought I better say something. Muravyets has pretty much debated the point better than I ever could.

To sort out any confusion, I was using the common media usage of Fundamentalism, which, when discussing Muslims, always includes extremism. I also chose to use a Moderate Chritian, due to the audience being predominately from Christian counties. The moderate Muslim would have said similar sentiments to the moderate Christian.

Now you're unnecessarily applying an excluded middle. Sure, you can't trust my perceptions, but it doesn't follow from that you should trust yours.

It is the only perception that you can possibly trust. If you don't trust your own perception, you have no other choice but insanity.

To anyone but themselves, fundamentalists of Christianity and Islam seem almost identical. Hell, you could probably extend that to most religions.

To anyone but themselves, fundamentalists of Christianity and Islam seem almost identical. Hell, you could probably extend that to most religions.

You could extend it to secular extremists, too. When we consider actions and rhetoric objectively, it becomes very hard to tell the difference between a religous extremist and a political one.

You could extend it to secular extremists, too. When we consider actions and rhetoric objectively, it becomes very hard to tell the difference between a religous extremist and a political one.

I've already extended it to some Communists and Fascists.

As the OP, I thought I better say something. Muravyets has pretty much debated the point better than I ever could.

To sort out any confusion, I was using the common media usage of Fundamentalism, which, when discussing Muslims, always includes extremism. I also chose to use a Moderate Chritian, due to the audience being predominately from Christian counties. The moderate Muslim would have said similar sentiments to the moderate Christian.
Thanks. I'd also like to highlight what I think is a key point: People are fundamentalists or extremists because that's the way they think in general, not because of anything inherent in the religion they practice. Religious fundamentalists will always seek the the "purest," most correct form of whatever belief system they follow. Extremists will always be impatient, demanding, self-centered, and destructive/self-destructive people, no matter what they are doing with their lives or what groups they belong to.

So it is wrong to say that a religion is extremist. I've done that in some of my posts, but only for convenience. I want to make clear that I do not think any religion is inherently extremist. I think that people are extremist, and that they express their extremism through their religion. If moderates were to expel extremists from a religion, the religion may suddenly seem more moderate, but those extremists would not disappear -- they would just transfer to another belief system and continue being extremist. They can switch groups over and over, and they will be extremists within every group. They will never become moderates.

Belief systems do not manufacture extremists. Extremists warp belief systems.

I've already extended it to some Communists and Fascists.
Oh good, you're still here. Where are your reasoned and unassailable arguments in defense of your position from last night? Are you done spellchecking them yet?

I'm going to try to show that Fundamentalist Christians are more like Fundamentalist Muslims than like their fellow Christians. I'm trying to remember some old school Socrates style of debate.

Fundamentalist Muslim (FM): The west is a hotbed of licentious behaviour. People have no respect and live in a state of drunken debauchery and only care about money.
Fundamentalist Christian (FC): Our current society has forgotten morality. Look at what women wear, and the lack of family values. All these single parents, children with no parent at home. We need society to recover it's family values.
Moderate Christina (MC): Young people of all generations rebel a bit. They're just being kids. People need to find their own place in this world.

FM: We need to implement Sharia law. Women need to wear the Burkha, and Sodomy is wrong.
FC: Abortion and Prostitution and being Gay must be illegal. We need to be tough on crime. Evolution must not be taught in school.
MC: Jesus taught tolerence. Let people have their individual rights. Making something illegal wont stop it.

FM: The enemies of Islam must all die.
FC: All terrorists must die.
MC: Killing innocent people is wrong. Both of you fundamentalist nut jobs are killing heaps of innocent people.

This is just a start. But in summary. To me it seems that the Fundamentalists actions and stated aims of each of the religions I've mentioned have much more in common with one another, than other more moderate members of the same faith.

:p :p :p -It’s funny how you left out moderate Muslims in your list, its either bad Muslims or no Muslims at all.

It is the only perception that you can possibly trust. If you don't trust your own perception, you have no other choice but insanity.

Recognizing that NO ONE'S perceptions are completely trustworthy does not necessarily lead to insanity. It ought to lead to humility when we recognize that we just might be wrong.

Deciding what is (probably) 'true' is a mixture of our own perceptions, consensus, reason, internal consistency, authority, social conditioning etc etc. In other words, it's complex.

It is the only perception that you can possibly trust. If you don't trust your own perception, you have no other choice but insanity.
Insanity? That's a complete non sequiter.

Belief systems do not manufacture extremists. Extremists warp belief systems.

Not quite. Belief systems are a convenient justification for an entire range of violent behavior.

Not quite. Belief systems are a convenient justification for an entire range of violent behavior.
Really oversimplified example of what I mean by "warping":

Belief system: "God is love."

Extremist: "God is love and if you don't believe that, I'll torture you until you do. I do it because I love you and want you to feel God's love, too. So start feeling, unbeliever!"

My contention is that this same extremist would make this same speech, with slight edits, for any belief system you can think of, no matter what its original message is.

So you are right -- the belief system is just a cover for what the extremist would do anyway. But I'm also right -- by using the belief system, the extremist warps it.