Christian Fundamentalists and the Rise of the Radical Right
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 22:02
VIEWED: 9272
PAGE 9 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh, you forgot William Krar, Mikey, another classic example.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_poison_gas_plot
Of course, given WHO the intended victims were, I can see some folk around here lauding him as heroic...
Sick, ain't it ?
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
Wait a minute... "white supremacist"? Why, that doesn't even sound *a little bit* Muslim, does it?
How can this be? Rappy seems to believe that all terrorists are Muslim, and all Muslims are terrorists.
Hope you don't severely damage his worldview, again. ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Uh, I know that it's hard for you guys to see, but as I said, a lot of stuff in that first post is NOT fundamentalist Christian, it's regular Christian.
It's an attack essay from a Humanist, against religion in general, parts of Christianity, and just happens to make some points in specific about Christian fundamentalists. But the whole essay is less about forcing legislated morality and more about the belief itself. I take issue with that.
I was responding to Happy's assertion that there were attacks on Christianity per se by posters on this board. I haven't seen them.
And although the author is a humanist, I don't believe they describe all beliefs systems held by all Christians. Then again, I think Christians tend to be much more moderate, and even humanist in their beliefs in this country. Most Christians I know don't believe in the black and white, good vs evil. They don't believe that non Christians go to hell. They actually have more subtle, thoughtful views and are more concerned with how they live their lives rather than what happens after death. Most people in Australia would consider themselves basically Christian, but don't tend to follow the doctrine of a particular church. So, as far as I can see, Byte the author isn't attacking all Christians. They are trying to explore reasons why a religion allegedly of peace could lead to violent action. And as Niki has stated, they aren't aiming their article at people with strong religious views. We can already see the typical defensive response here on the board that they could expect to get from that body of people. I see this as a warning to those who don't share those views in that way, a cautionary tale about the impact of societies where religion and power are enmeshed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just found it ironic that the argument against Raptors assertion that Islamic extremism is the most dangerous threat nowadays was a counter assertion that Christian Extremism is more violent and numerous, when AURaptor has made it clear he's Atheist and doesn't think highly of any religion. Then I vocalized it in a sarcastic theory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I just found it ironic that the argument against Raptors assertion that Islamic extremism is the most dangerous threat nowadays was a counter assertion that Christian Extremism is more violent and numerous, when AURaptor has made it clear he's Atheist and doesn't think highly of any religion. Then I vocalized it in a sarcastic theory.
So what? Once again you miss the point - it's not about arguing against Christianity. It doesn't matter that Rap is an atheist, a buddhist, he could follow the lizard king for all I care. It's about his assertion that Islam is a more violent religion, and that Muslims are more prone to acting out their violence. With Rappy it's all in the inference, isn't it? He didn't talk about the current rise in Islamic fundamentalism, or discuss the whys and wherefores of that. He makes black and white statements, which a number of us have gone to rather pointless lengths to counter.
The whole point of the thread, of the article at least, was about extremism in religion. In my view, it's pointless doing a body count of who has done what to whom, only that it is sufficient to say that there has been some horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion by extremists, and that therefore we should be wary of a rise in exremist religious views with in our society. The fact that you can't stomach this basic premise demonstrates how worrisome the situation may be in the USA.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
...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.
If you were to apply this comment to only the 'Zen' Buddhists, or only the 'concervative' African-Americans, or only the 'blue dog' Democrats, would it be okay? I mean it's not like you're negatively branding the entire race, religion or party right?
It's just disappointing to me that so many who claim to be against discrimination based off of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, etc... are so approving of this stereotyping.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ISo in your world view, it would be prejudical to criticise Nazism, or communism under Stalin, or the Kmer Rouge, because you'd be branding an entire people or belief system. Are we not able to criticise anything? We just have to accept whatever offensive views or actions perpetuated by a group?
And for the record, unlikely though it might be - if Zen Buddhists developed a violent rhetoric and became politically powerful, I'd have a go at them as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Huh. I don't think I ever encountered any Christians who don't believe in hell.
I mean, the justification is in the book, because the old testament talks about something more like the Greek Hades called Sheol, and because of the whole Jesus sacrificing himself and removing original sin thing, releasing all the trapped souls during his three day foray into the underworld and allowing supposedly everyone their chance. The most mention in the stories is in Revelations, when the dead wake and some demons drag the wicked into cravasses in the earth, but revelations was probably added fairly recently compared to the older books.
And Dante, which has become fanon, suggested non-believers go to limbo instead of hell outright. But most of the people I met haven't done that much research.
Even still, I wouldn't consider that fundamentalist. I mean, someone yelling at me that I'm of the devil, and going to hell, that's not exactly forcing me to do anything. It doesn't affect me because I don't believe what they do.
The creationist/Intelligent design thing gets a little closer, but then I realized the only reason they act this way and are pushing for the inclusion is because they feel that evolution has been pushed on THEM. And I think the intrusion has been so offensive to them that they can't even bring themselves to consider the reaction of other religions with no God or creation myth and how alienated they might be.
Ultimately, my thinking is, so long as no one complains, people can do what they want. Then create a safe environment to complain, like people asking to be excused with no repercussions. It's not like they'd be missing anything, and it's not like christian kids haven't left during sex ed or evolution themselves. I figure Intelligent Design simply doesn't matter.
The only laws that I really consider the product of religious effort are marriage laws and anti-homosexuality, but those are getting overturned. I just don't see these people as a threat.
Quote:
they aren't aiming their article at people with strong religious views.
Er? I guess we can't see eye to eye on it. I don't see how that article can be read without taking it parts of it as condemnation of belief without evidence.
And sure, I don't really like irrational belief either, but after I got out of highschool, where I was constantly the target of all the Utah mormon christian nonsense and it chaffed at me, I began to realize that there's not a lot of point trying to dissuade people from this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You really are so blinded by your own agenda you can't even read the posts that have been made on this board.
Sweet, ad hominem.
Quote:
In my view, it's pointless doing a body count of who has done what to whom, only that it is sufficient to say that there has been some horrible atrocities committed in the name of religion by extremists, and that therefore we should be wary of a rise in exremist religious views with in our society.
I would argue that behind every 'religiously motivated atrocity' is a person who made a conscious decision and effort to cause harm. We can be wary of the root 'human' causes of this kind of behavior, or we can take the easy what out and blame it groups of people we don't like, respect, or care to understand.
Quote:
The fact that you can't stomach this basic premise demonstrates how worrisome the situation may be in the USA.
Are you even interested in speaking with me, or would you rather talk at me? I haven't insulted your intelligence. If you'd like me to continue to reply, I would appreciate the same courtesy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I just found it ironic that the argument against Raptors assertion that Islamic extremism is the most dangerous threat nowadays was a counter assertion that Christian Extremism is more violent and numerous, when AURaptor has made it clear he's Atheist and doesn't think highly of any religion. Then I vocalized it in a sarcastic theory.
Actually, I was countering Rappy's claim that radical Muslim terrorists have killed more people in the last 5 years than Christians have in the last 300 years. He's 100% factually wrong, and I proved it quite easily.
Rappy *claims* atheism, but he can't walk the walk. He will always, ALWAYS, leap to the defense of Christianity, no matter what new evil it attempts to rationalize. And he goes to church and takes communion, odd acts for an alleged "atheist".
You had sarcasm, but you had no theory. Christian anti-intellectual anti-science types generally have a hard time figuring out what a THEORY really is. ;)
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:Quote:
...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.
If you were to apply this comment to only the 'Zen' Buddhists, or only the 'concervative' African-Americans, or only the 'blue dog' Democrats, would it be okay? I mean it's not like you're negatively branding the entire race, religion or party right?
It's just disappointing to me that so many who claim to be against discrimination based off of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, etc... are so approving of this stereotyping.
But you participated in just such stereotyping yourself, when you claimed that
Quote:
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.
You're stereotyping all Christians as "victims" of the hate which you claim is "in vogue". You offer no evidence that there's a widespread pattern of such behavior.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME