Real World Event Discussions

Christian Fundamentalists and the Rise of the Radical Right

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 22:02
VIEWED: 9272
PAGE 2 of 15

Monday, July 11, 2011 11:02 PM

hmmmmm- history is replete with examples that prove you otherwise, as the article Niki posted demonstrate.

Believing in absolutism, and having your beliefs backed up by an all powerful being leads people down the path to not only stupidity, but violence in the name of your beliefs...that is what the article warns about. This kind of thinking is potentially dangerous, no matter who does it. You might feel comforted that the growth in fundamental lunacy in the states kind of reflects your beliefs, but for others who don't hold that view, its just more kinds of dangerous.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
hmmmmm- history is replete with examples that prove you otherwise, as the article Niki posted demonstrate.




We're living in the here and now. More people have died from Islamic extremism in the last 5 years than the last 100 or even 200 years of Christian extremism.

Hell, make it 300 years. It's not even close.

So spare me the game of equivalence. I'm not buying it.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2011 11:59 PM

That simply is not true. Not in any way true. This ridiculous statement demonstrates your lack of knowledge of history as well as current events. It's not even true that Muslims have currently killed more Christians. We're beating them by huge margin. How many dead as a result of 2 US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan - which they see as a religious war and which given Bush's fundie support is at least partially true? Compared to a few thousand as a result of some home made car bombs. It's laughable.

There is nothing inherently more violent about the Muslim faith than the Christian faith. Both can be followed peacefully, and both can be used as an excuse to enact violence on non believers. The issue is not about the faith, but about the kind of people who are fanatical about their beliefs.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:26 AM

I think that we can all agree that extremism can be really dangerous and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I saw the agenda in that article too Byte. It did, towards the end, have some points though that I agree with, the misuse of power and the truth of how one can claim to be following God and then in the next move do horrid things that I would never imagine God approving of.

And Puritans? Yeah, they scare me too. And the idea of anyone going along with Hitler to get their way grosses me out.

I noticed that most of the bias stuff was at the beginning of the article, thoughts?

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:06 AM


Well, I tend to agree more than prolly the rest of you with the original post, having come face to face with some of the real ugliness of that belief, not the least of which is the Assembly of God bastards and the fact that taxpayer money is funneled hand over fist into their coffers and then used to fund Hellcamps, and other nefarious business, under the paper thin fiction of faith based charity, of which in actuality they offer none.

Not to mention the tax breaks, which other beliefs do not get, not to mention the motherfucking blue laws, not to mention the legal enforcement of moral codes that not everyone subscribes to...
Or the rabid crusaderism among both our own military, and the mercs we hire (Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy), which also serves to further inflame folks who already have some pretty legit gripes against us...
Not to mention scumbags like Dobson encouraging people to abuse and mistreat women and children...
Not to mention the wholesale assault on womens rights...

Ok, PERSONALLY, you and me, that's you and me - if I know you, as a person, and you don't support that shit nor consider them a part of your belief, fine.

But so long as these dicks are accepted and condoned by the greater part of that belief, then they ARE that belief - and every bit the monsters I call them out to be, which only stands to reason when they're serving a horrible creature which feeds on human misery like a junkie feeds on heroin.

Which is how I feel - you don't have to agree with me, mind you, but that I am offended by them, and their behavior towards humanity isn't something you got any say over save at a personal level - believe me, some of my strongest allies have self-identified as Christian, which considering how monstrous I consider most of their so-called "values" to be, always struck me as ironic given that compassion and empathy don't seem to be among them for most folk.

Individually, that's a personal thing - but AS A GROUP, AS A COLLECTIVE...
To me, they're an enemy of humanity and it's potential.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:08 AM

My thoughts are that the author is prejudiced against fundamentalists. But I guess that's okay, cause they are Christians, and hating them is kind of in vogue.

The author could have made an effective point on how extremism and the assumption of divine authority can be a dangerous combination. It could have challenged these various fundamentalist groups to re-evaluate how violence relates (or more accurate doesn't relate) to their beliefs and what it accomplishes. But, as is clearly evident, the author has an axe to grind with the Christian Fundamentalist, labeling them as 'anti-intellectual' and basing the argument on hypothetical situations and outdated sources from a more violent time in our world's history.

I'm not fundamentalist, least aways not by the functional pop-definition of it, but I am pretty sure the book we both read does not instruct us to rebuke science and burn witches. More over, it does not instruct us to judge others or to 'fight evil.' It does not advocate violence of any kind. It tells us to love, to forgive, and to not forget how deserving we aren't of the gifts we've been freely given.

Frankly, I find the article arrogant and offensive.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:18 AM

MD, you're flat out wrong.

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were not, in any way, religiously motivated. So you claims are completely invalid.

More muslims have killed muslims in Iraq than western forces have killed muslims. That's a fact.

The current fanaticism of muslims in undeniably more violent than anything found across the world w/ christians.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
My thoughts are that the author is prejudiced against fundamentalists. But I guess that's okay, cause they are Christians, and hating them is kind of in vogue.


This is immensely disingenuous on your part. It's a bit like saying that you dislike Obama because that is the vogue, or that you are prejudiced against demoncrats. It is entirely possible to dislike an organisations because of it values, beliefs and actions and it not be prejudical - which implies unreasonable or unfounded dislike.

Quote:

The author could have made an effective point on how extremism and the assumption of divine authority can be a dangerous combination. It could have challenged these various fundamentalist groups to re-evaluate how violence relates (or more accurate doesn't relate) to their beliefs and what it accomplishes.


You mean like this

Quote:

What is the appeal of these fundamentalist religious groups? They are strikingly similar once you get beneath the surface and their shared characteristics may help explain their wide and growing appeal.

Their “closed" belief system provides simple answers to complex political and social problems, but more importantly fundamentalist provides simplistic answers to ultimate questions of meaning and existence. Simplicity helps their adherents resolve the ultimate “problem” of being human, what Existentialists call angst (or ultimate anxiety). Angst means the consciousness of death-- the awareness of being human, of mortality, of non-being. It is comforting to have answers to life’s deepest questions and Fundamentalism provides relief from angst by postulating that there is some form of continued existence in an afterlife after death.



or this

Quote:

Religious fundamentalists -- whether Islamic, Jewish or Christian -- seem to have few scruples and no moral difficulty using political and police power to force citizens who do not agree with them to live by their social, political or religious rules. Some of the more extreme among them have no difficulty using and justifying the use of force (including deadly force and torture) against those who oppose them or their objectives or whoever they determine to be their enemies.

There is little to distinguish the bomb thrower at a family planning clinic in Atlanta, from the Israeli settler tossing a bomb into the home of a Palestinian family, or the Sunni bomber blowing up a Shiite mosque in Iraq..



or this

Quote:

The lesson here is that for someone with religious authority and political power to believe that he knows the will of God and that he/she is the instrument of God to confront evil and to build god’s kingdom on earth is the product of arrogance and self-delusion. In Christian theology, that self-delusion is precisely what is meant by the concept of sin.



Quote:

But, as is clearly evident, the author has an axe to grind with the Christian Fundamentalist, labeling them as 'anti-intellectual' and basing the argument on hypothetical situations and outdated sources from a more violent time in our world's history.

Yes, and quite an important axe to grind give Christian fundamentalist agendas of anti evolution and other scientific thinking, preferring instead to believe (and promoting the beliefs) of mythology and fairytale as fact.

Quote:

I'm not fundamentalist, least aways not by the functional pop-definition of it, but I am pretty sure the book we both read does not instruct us to rebuke science and burn witches. More over, it does not instruct us to judge others or to 'fight evil.' It does not advocate violence of any kind. It tells us to love, to forgive, and to not forget how deserving we aren't of the gifts we've been freely given.

The Bible says a lot of things. It's a collection of writings from over thousands of years. Amongst other things, it outlines rules for living that were social norms of a desert people who lived several millenium ago, and in

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
MD, you're flat out wrong.

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were not, in any way, religiously motivated. So you claims are completely invalid.

More muslims have killed muslims in Iraq than western forces have killed muslims. That's a fact.

The current fanaticism of muslims in undeniably more violent than anything found across the world w/ christians.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "



Really, I'd get more sense having a discussion with my dog.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1:53 AM

Quote:

Yes, and quite an important axe to grind give Christian fundamentalist agendas of anti evolution and other scientific thinking, preferring instead to believe (and promoting the beliefs) of mythology and fairytale as fact.



See, maybe this is inadvertant, but even as an atheist who used to absolutely hate Christianity and to get in fist fights with the jocks at my school mouthing off, this seems too much to me.

People want to believe in stuff like that, it's their prerogative, I think. And yes, I object to fundamentalists forcing their beliefs on others, but I don't object to them believing those beliefs.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME