Christian Fundamentalists and the Rise of the Radical Right
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 22:02
VIEWED: 9272
PAGE 7 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
Ok, I have a thought.
While there are currently more terrorists that are practicing Muslums than any other major religion (although a fair few argue it's more about Arab Nationalism than just religion, but I digress), I would also say that fundamentalist Christians have caused the deaths of hundreds of innocent people in their pursuit of an entry into Heaven, albiet in a far more subtle and insidious manner: the persecution and eventual suicide of those they deem to be "unclean sinners".
"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"
A point, and it would include gays who have been beaten up. On the other hand, their responsibility for those deaths - and I do believe that they HAVE responsibility - is balanced by stonings for adultery, homosexuality, and oppression in some of the more archaic Muslim nations.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace:
I absolutely love how Raptor flees when his loud bloviating gets refute-slammed by Mikey.
Rappy: Fact Fact Fact! Im right I win argument
Kwicko: Provides cites proving Rappy doesn't know wtf he is talking about
Rappy: *Crickets*
this is the kind of comedy I lurk around for, thanks guys!
I never get refuted based on any facts by Kwickie, or anyone here. That's what's so pointless in attempting to carry on any worth while dialog here. Kwickie takes inane, irrelevant non issues and tries to hold them up as some sort of counter to what I'm saying. It's like me saying the sun rises in the East, but Kwickie saying ' no, the Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth, but it's the other way around '. Yeah, and ? That's not the discussion at hand, but thanks for playing.
That I refuse to play this never ending game of mindless minutia w/ the likes of Kwickie, which offers you cretins free entertainment, is hardly me LOSING the argument. I know I won, I just don't feel the need to post 27 times, saying the same thing, over and over again.
" 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
OK, so u claim Hitler's war was not a religous war, Kwicko posts quote FROM HITLER about his religious motivations for his war, and u say nothing was refuted?
Must be nice to be on on planet Rappy. Is there free candy? I might relocate...
Oh, and posting the same thing 27 times in a row is EXACTLY WHAT U DO.
Scroll up and reread yourself, in this thread alone, u basically said the same thing about 4 or 5 times, claimed u won the argument, and that no one else posts any facts.
So in Rappy world, only what Raptor says is a fact, and anything posted or cited by anyone else is clearly a lie posted to manipulate....I see now
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, how nice. I put stuff up I hope might be of interest to someone, and to come back and see SIXTY posts always makes me feel good (as long as it isn't 30/30 Mike and Raptor having it out!).
As for me, just about everything you wrote, Frem. I've seen a few things that made me sick to my stomach, and some of the things I hear from candidates do, too. People who want to force their beliefs on me scares the pants off me when they start getting the power to DO so.Quote:
That about sums up a lot of what I believe.
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.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Happy, I'm sad you found the article offensive. It wasn't talking about CHRISTIANS, you understand, it was talking about people who claim they are "more" Christian than anyone else, yet think and behave in ways that are distinctly UNChristian. You're absolutely right about the Bible, that's part of my anger. What the Bible encourages is precisely the OPPOSITE of how these people act and think, just as the Q'ran is completely unrelated to those who use violence in its name. I can see where you would find the article offensive, but if you remember that the author is talking ONLY about people who take their "faith" to extremes and refuse to even consider that anyone who doesn't do and think as they do won't go to hell, you might find it less so. He's not talking about "Christians", he's talking about "Fundamentalist"--and as that terms has come to be used, it means "extremist", not someone who follows the fundamentals of their faith.
Your remarks about more effectively writing the article are valid, IF he was trying to get through to the groups themselves. But there's no getting through to them, and he's trying to warn others, if anything, about what might be coming, not convince any on the religious right to change.
I think the problem you're having is the "lumping" of a group of people. It's semantics, but let's see if I can help. Instead of "fundamentalist Christian" (of which there are many, and probably MOST don't conform to what he's discussing), let's try "religious right extremists". The kind of people who shoot abortion doctors, or who APPLAUD the shooting of abortion doctors. That's what he's talking about; the word "fundamental" can be translated many ways, and nobody (I think) has any problem with someone who believes in the fundamentals of Christianity. It's those who want to force their beliefs on others, who want political power to do so, and who are so set in their ways that they see nothing wrong in doing so. It's a small part of the population (jezus I hope so!), but they are very vocal, very hard-line and already have the money and power to start. He's talking about them getting MORE power and the implications for us all.
Happy, "hating Christians" isn't in vogue; hating and fearing extremists and the power they are increasingly gaining, AND their willingness to force others to do as they want, is "in vogue" if you will because it's frightening to anyone who thinks differently than them. I don't know anyone who hates Christians per se, but I know a lot of people who are frightened by what they see happening in this country because of religious extremists.
A couple of times you've said you seen things as more "human" than "Christian". But the two aren't mutually exclusive. The very point is that humans who are wedded to certain extremist beliefs about their faith act and think in ways that they would force on others if they could. That same thing can be said of ANY extremist about their religion, whether Islamic or Christian or any other. The debate is about those humans who follow extremist beliefs about Christianity...yes, any human can fit those profiles, whatever religion they follow, but today, right now, in our country, it's the extremist fundamentalists who pose a danger, and that's what he's addressing.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Had to go back and re-read the article to see if I could grasp why people find it so offensive. The first paragraph is to me totally accurate when it comes to people who are self-righteously "fundamental" and think and act in ways that ARE "incompatible with the world view that depends on the conclusions and implications of science that we (and they!) rely on daily to function in the modern world." I can't speak to the first three, but I've seen and heard a LOT that convinces me they DO deny the basic principles of anthropology, archaeology and astronomy. I knew a woman whose fundamentalist parents thought that even if you read your horoscope for fun, it was a bad thing, and if you actually took any of that seriously, it was the work of the "devil". And of course we all know about the evolution thing.
The anti-intellectual thing is more right wing than fundamentalist Christian, but the two go hand in hand in some people, and on the right there is DEFINITELY an anti-intellectual bias. It's reflected in things like candidates showing off their pickup trucks to convince people they're a "good old boy", the constant use of "eliteist" as a pejorative meaning people who went to university or something, and you can hear the bias in any hard right-wing candidate; sometimes it's subtle, sometimes it's terribly obvious.
I think the article could be about fundamentalist Muslims as easily as Christians, and I think both ARE the antithesis of what is good for civilization.
One of the things I've always disliked about ANY religion when people take it to extremes is "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." The idea of simple answers to complex problems (which you can see all over in politics, from abortion to gay marriage to many other things) is a serious problem with all religions, when people use them to excuse thinking for themselves.
So to is the black-and-white thinking, for some of the same reasons. If you give the power over what you think to someone else, it makes thinking for yourself unnecessary and tolerance impossible.
The "far right political, economic and social agendas" are right before our eyes; not all are from fundamentalists, but you only have to look at Bachman to see how it's being USED to gain power, and then supposedly use that power to "impose their political, social and economic philosophy, their standards of public conduct, and their moral values on the rest of society". You can't ignore it unless you choose to; the condemnation of everything they don't approve of is being translated into the power to FORCE others to do what they want. One only has to listen to these candidates, and either they're lying about their beliefs to buy votes or they intend to put those beliefs into practice once they have the power. Enough have done so that they are making strides at exterminating the ability of a woman to have an abortion, to get rid of what little power the working man still has (unions) and to go after minorities, immigrants and the poor. Ironically, I don't think there are too many "poor" fundamentalist Christians, tho' I'd like more information on that and will check it out.
I think the entire article can be summed up by the one sentence:Quote:
He's not speaking of regular, decent, compassionate Christians, he's speaking of extremists with cemented mentality and willingness to attack those who don't fit that mentality, whatever religion they may follow.
The self-delusion of the powerful when combined with a sense of theocratic mission and a lack of Christian humility and self-criticism is particularly dangerous in a political leader in a democracy.
http://i25.pho
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magons got it:Quote:
That's what he's talking about, and I don't think he has any grudge; I think he's seeing something many do not and trying to warn about it.
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
Wow, Magons. Just got to your long post, and it's wonderful. I agree. In fact I agree with about everything you wrote, especially Quote:
They tried with Bush but were only partially successful; now they're trying to influence EVERYONE on the right, elect candidates who will have the power to force their agenda on the rest of us, and it's dangerous.
They aren't just holding prayer meetings, they're lobbying hard, and they've got deep pockets which they don't mind digging into to support candidates who will support their hardline on the above issues.
And yes, "Muslims tend to act more on their beliefs, in violent fashion, than do Christians" is an asinine statement. Of course, he only wants to look at the NOW and ignore all of history, but the irony is that if these people get enough power, the future will show that they WILL act more on their belief, in violent fashion (not just the killing of a few abortion doctors, but torture and more) to the detriment of anyone who doesn't toe THEIR mark.
Also, yes dear, you SHOULDN'T bother responding to Raptor...read all his posts in this thread and you'll see why. He's not addressing ANYTHING or raising any valid points; he merely snarks--or SNARLS--at everyone he disagrees with, calls them names and puts them down. Nothing else. Nothing of value, and certainly nothing to engage or try to communicate with. He needs to say he won and mischaracterize everyone else as losers, otherwise, he has nothing to say.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahhh, and here comes Mike to do war with Raptor. Couple of good points there, Mike, thanx for coming in. And Blue, you nailed it perfectly. Anyone who's curious, re-read Raptor's posts and it will be very clear to you. He calls us all inane and cretins, yet nobody in this thread has been as dismissive and unpleasant about others as he. It's very easy to see; he's here to piss people off by making statements that are SO far outside the realm of reality that it triggers people into arguing with him and trying to get through to him. It's is game, he plays it every day, and it's the very definition of an internet troll.
I do get sick of you back-and-forthing with him, Mike, because it only encourages him and takes up space, while achieving absolutely nothing but letting him "win" at the ACTUAL game he's playing. However, that said I do TRULY appreciate your clarifying about Hitler, etc.
DEspite the idiocy Raptor is spouting, the fact is that either Bush THOUGHT he was going to war because it was what God told him to, or he was SAYING that because he did have a base of fundamentalist Christians (the good and bad kind) and wanted to keep them on his side. Regular Christians (as well as anyone else) could be swayed into thinking it was our "duty" or something to go after terrorists, and that, being "the other", Muslims were evil, but he had a stake in "playing" to the extreme right-wing religous types, too. The fact is he SAID IT, and it was definitely a bell-ringer to some.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hitler and his motivations have been documented and discussed far more times in the past 60 years than needs to be counted.
Spreading "Christianity " wasn't the focal point of Hitler's drive for military conquest, and it's pointless to drag all this up , once again, simply so Kwickie can claim to have scored some points in some message board contest.
Hitler died 65 years ago.
Jim Jones died 32+ years ago.
Neither of which had any remote comparison to the global terrorism which is being committed to by Islamic jihadists of today.
This whole thread has become a giant head fake to throw folks off topic, that being that Islamic fundamentalism is , by far, the more violent and pressing issue of the day.
" 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
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
One of the things I've always disliked about ANY religion when people take it to extremes is "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." The idea of simple answers to complex problems (which you can see all over in politics, from abortion to gay marriage to many other things) is a serious problem with all religions, when people use them to excuse thinking for themselves.
So to is the black-and-white thinking, for some of the same reasons. If you give the power over what you think to someone else, it makes thinking for yourself unnecessary and tolerance impossible.
That's what I like about Shadow Vajrayana - it DOESN'T provide answers, but rather focuses on questioning the answers you THINK you have, and heavily delves into shades of grey, and third option thinking.
In fact, part of the inherent tricksterism relates to the idea that breaking the spirit of a rule while keeping to the letter, or breaking the letter while keeping to the spirit, is a GOOD thing, because it broadens ones mind and viewpoint, allowing them to break out of that binary style of thinking and embrace whole new ranges of possibilities - this is likely where the supposed last words of Hassan-i Sabbah (leader of the Hashishin) evolved from, that specific tenet, in that the phrase (probably falsely) attributed to him on his deathbed was...
"Nothing is real/true, everything is permitted."
*IF* he said it, that would have been part of a longer statement regarding the dangers of clinging to the letter of a thing while losing the spirit of it, but he kicked off the mortal coil before he could finish, likely.
Anyhows, we're extremely anti-extremist, and fully aware of just how ridiculous that dichotomy is, having installed it ON PURPOSE just to lampshade the stupidity of it all and prevent the rational from taking it seriously - and I'll shut up now cause this is bordering on prosthelytizing, which is also a no-no.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME