Fundamentalism

[Slim]

Interesting poll - for many reasons. The correct answer is all of the above.

There are other types of fundamentalists out there; in one form or another they all pose a threat.

There is no correct answer. It's an opinion poll.

[Gav]

To quote an oft used phrase "The poll is flawed."

You ask: "Which flavour of religious fundamentalism do you feel is most threatening to you?"

You give me the option of: one of two types, neither or both.

Depending on the situation one might be more of a threat than the other:

(These are just examples and should not be taken as an exhaustive list)

Islamist suicide bomber - when they detonate they are more of a threat than absent Christian or Buddhist fundamentalists.
Christian Fundamentalists - are more of a threat if I live in a society where they are capable of influencing societal laws.
Neither is a threat if it is the imposition of secular laws that is most threatening.
Both are a threat to the world order.

In short it depends on what you mean by threat, when is that threat evaluated and what my perception of threat is. You question doesn't quantify that.

At various times all of those options have been true and so, in answer to your question, all of the above.

And Slim I was making a little joke - making fun of polls is de rigeur here.

[esskreemr]

To quote an oft used phrase "The poll is flawed."

You ask: "Which flavour of religious fundamentalism do you feel is most threatening to you?"

You give me the option of: one of two types, neither or both.

Depending on the situation one might be more of a threat than the other:

Gav, you are absolutely correct in a specific context. I was considering, over my lifetime, which group is most threatening. I chose the Christian Fundamentalist because they have the greatest potential to negatively (IMO) affect policy as well as daily quality of life. There is no denying that Christianity is an integrated part of my culture. I don't have a problem with most Christians, I can even take a certain amount of proseletizing once in a while. It is the well-funded, well-connected political arms of the 'militant' Christians who are actively attempting a political 'coup' in order to change both the Constitution and how it is effected. It is the 'militant' Christians who seek to lable ANY type of sex bad and dirty. It is the 'militant' Christians who are successfully attempting to halt scientific progress. It is the 'militant' Christians who are successfully enforcing their draconian views towards indecency.

The 'militant' fanatics of Islam brought the World Trade Center crashing down killing nearly 3,000 people.

How many deaths would be caused if the fanatic right was successful in blocking an effective HPV vaccine? How many teens will be be at an increased likelihood of disease, early pregnancy, and/or death because of Bush's increased funding of ineffective and misleading 'Abstinence Only' 'sex education'? How many people with many other conditions will suffer and die because the Religious Right has condemned stem cell research?

[epeeisky]

They did this thinks in your country........? So they have wrong ideas about Christianity.God do not want violence. They are far away from the True Path.
Eppesky can I ask you something? Have you evidence about all of this? Maybe they did it heretics or something like that. Please respont. cu.

I have plenty of evidence. In my local area Christian Fundamnetalist(who are in the minority where I live) are greatly against drinking. So to put there values on the rest of the town they got the city council to approve an ordinace that banned the selling of all types of alcohol on Sunday from 12:01AM to 11:59PM. Other things like abortion they are vehemently opposed to on the outside and try to oppose that belief on anyone, but when their daughter becomes pregnant goes who is getting an abortion? Recently in Congress Right wing party members that identify themselves as evangelical have succesfully passed a bill prohibiting certain types of abortion and did not leave a clause in for the lif of the mother. Some of the Far right Christian fundamentalists cannot except that people may disagree with them and have blown up abortion clinics, and put together hit lists of abortion doctors then published them on the WWW.

In Florida a law was passed that before a baby was put up for adoption or aborted the unwed mother must put her name and the babies name along with contact info in the paper before she may proceed. Many of the Fundamentalists(Christian) are attacking from within. They vote as a block and get their candidate elected to impose their will on the rest of the people. A great example of this is Intelligent design. Many fundamentalists elected pro Intellgent design school board members to the School board to kick out Darwinian evolution and put in a belief system. They are dangerous simply because they are trying to destroy seperation of church and state, which ould in turn destroy the peace that Americans have so long enjoyed.

[Slim]

IThey vote as a block and get their candidate elected to impose their will on the rest of the people....

You mean they actually vote, and the candidate or referendum questions with the most votes wins?

Rather than moaning about it, how about you organize and get behind a candidate to defeat them, so that you can impose your will on them?

[epeeisky]

You mean they actually vote, and the candidate or referendum questions with the most votes wins?

Rather than moaning about it, how about you organize and get behind a candidate to defeat them, so that you can impose your will on them?

Before you start telling me what to do to change, maybe you should ask what I have done to help change the situation. While I am only 17, I worked for a local politician and also help bring elderly voters to polls on election days when I am off school. When I actually can vote I will do much more and hopefully help sign up people to vote as well.

[Slim]

Before you start telling me what to do to change, maybe you should ask what I have done to help change the situation. While I am only 17, I worked for a local politician and also help bring elderly voters to polls on election days when I am off school. When I actually can vote I will do much more and hopefully help sign up people to vote as well.

Excellent. My hat is off to you for participating, and showing interest in the democratic process. Most kids your age are playing X-box, so this is refreshing to hear. But, please dont be surprised or upset when well organized group can gets what they want. If you start organizing now, next year you'll have a chance to change the outcome.

But, that's how it goes. The majority usually rules. (Bait for comments regarding the 00 and 04 presidential election)

[epeeisky]

Excellent. My hat is off to you for participating, and showing interest in the democratic process. Most kids your age are playing X-box, so this is refreshing to hear. But, please dont be surprised or upset when well organized group can gets what they want. If you start organizing now, next year you'll have a chance to change the outcome.

But, that's how it goes. The majority usually rules. (Bait for comments regarding the 00 and 04 presidential election)

The majority should rule, but it is usually the squeakiest wheel gets to rule. Evangelicals are not a majority in this country by any means yet they seem to influence every corner of American society. Why? Because they complain alot and people usually give in if people complain non-stop.

[mrbiggs]

Of course they're BOTH dangerous, but the poll asked which is most dangerous.

I'd have to say the Christian, simply because they're closer to home. The Islamic fundamentalists may make an occaisional terrorist attack, but what does that do? We're down 5,000 Americans, but we still have our system of government and our way of life. It's a tragedy, I'm not denying that. But in terms of affecting me personally, the christian fundamentalists are much more likely.

[Inquartata]

And your evidence is what? That they've been so successful doing it so far?

[Have At You]

I think it's funny how people can feel truly threatened by the fundamentalist Christians. To fear that fundamentalists really are hell-bent (ha) on ending our Constitutional freedoms and ruining the country, just tickles me no end.

Come on, they don't go around bombing people to get their way (and no, the minuscule number of wackos who bombed abortion clinics do not speak for anyone but themselves, don't generalize from them). The worst things these people have ever done is to b!tch and moan and pontificate and get legislation passed.

The wonderful thing is, if they were to get a law enacted that happens to be unconstitutional (say, mandatory school prayer), such a law would be overruled at once by any judge with half a brain. If the constitutionality were borderline (or the judge forgot that his role is to apply the law rather than his own beliefs), well that's what the appellate courts are for.

But it's not like they have any effect on your life, really.


(Aside: What they do have -- and by fundamentalist Christian I should clarify that this term is used to refer to literalist evangelical Protestant sects within the United States -- what they do have is a strong sense of community and a strong culture of political participation, which leads to a powerful grass-roots organization potential for any political campaign that can get them on board. The Democrats used to have the fundamentalists in their hip pocket, using their organization to win state and local elections for generations, only to do whatever they pleased after the election. Only since the late 60s has their voting tendency shifted to the Republicans. And I suspect it's mainly because the Democrats started showing so much disdain for them. Not exactly the way to win people over to one's side, and very bad strategy.)

[L.O.A.S.]

I think it's funny how people can feel truly threatened by the fundamentalist Christians.

Fly me into a building, blow me up, cut off my head, but don't you dare tell me that the God of Creation is going to judge me.

[pigeonmeister]

I think it's funny how people can feel truly threatened by the fundamentalist Christians. To fear that fundamentalists really are hell-bent (ha) on ending our Constitutional freedoms and ruining the country, just tickles me no end.

There have been Christian fundementalist Terrorists in Uganda (lord's resistance army), Burma (God's army). Also last year Christian Terrorists Killed 44, Wounded 118 in Attacks in Northeast India. I seem to remember a certain civil war in Lebanon in which Christian terrorists were particularly brutal as well. I think we could probably add the KKK and other supremacist groups, not to mention the UVF, UDA, LVF and UFF in Northern Ireland.

But as they don't often kill Americans it probably doesn't matter. I think Christian fundemtalists have done particular damage in Africa as well, encouraging homophobic attacks and spreading rumours that condoms will kill you.

Basically in my opinion any kind of fundementalism poses a threat. Both are probably overplayed though.

[jBirch]

Seems to me that Islamic Fundamentalists have been influencing US policy for a while now...

James.

[telkanuru]

Did everyone forget the abortion clinic bombings and the like?

Revolution dosn't have to be violent. Evangelical Christiandom is merely going through "appropreate" channels, and this is in some ways even more insidious because it's much harder to see happening.

What happens when all the judges have been appointed by legislators appointed by said Christians?

[Epee_Pox]

Did everyone forget the abortion clinic bombings and the like?

You can't believe that abortion clinic bombers are remotely representative of Christian fundamentalists. Those bombers were individual wackos, whose actions were roundly condemned by the fundamentalists. They are no more representative of Christian fundamentalists than the unabomber is representative of mathematics Phd's. (Also, those bombers have tended to be Catholic, and fundamentalists tend to distance themselves from Catholics.)

Revolution dosn't have to be violent. Evangelical Christiandom is merely going through "appropreate" channels, and this is in some ways even more insidious because it's much harder to see happening.

What happens when all the judges have been appointed by legislators appointed by said Christians?

Outrageous. You say it is "insidious" to try and effect change through the lawful, appropriate processes? Outrageous!

How else do you propose people try to effect changes they desire?


Your comment about judges makes it sound like you fear that, should they get unconstitutional laws passed, they won't be overturned because the judges will share their politics.

That shows your lack of understanding. First of all, legislators don't appoint judges. They're either elected by the general public, or they're appointed by executives. Secondly, the judges who tend to rule based on personal politics, instead of ruling on the law, are judges whose rulings are overturned on appeal if such judges are right-wing (such as that 10 Commandments judge in Alabama), or if left wing are judges loudly opposed by the fundamentalists.

But your larger point is the worst one: that somehow it is bad for judges -- who try to interpret and define the rules by which society operates -- to be chosen by the properly elected representatives of the members of said society. On the contrary, what could be better?

[Gav]

You can't believe that abortion clinic bombers are remotely representative of Christian fundamentalists.

But they are Christian Fundamentalists. You say that it's mostly catholics; is catholicism not a christian religion? Besides it is not just catholics who are anti-abortion in the extreme; plenty of other denominational members are - or are these also exempted from your defintion of fundamentalism.

Just as you assert that extreme pro-pro lifers are not representative of christian fundamentalists, so suicide bombers are not representative of other Islamic fundamentalists. Or are the christian relgions special in some way?

If your religious fundamentalists have a disproportionate say in the running of your country and they kill many people using the engines of warfare, for essentially exteme religious reasons, are they better than the suicide bombers?

[Epee_Pox]

Gav,

Re Catholic vs. Fundamentalist, this sums it up:

... by fundamentalist Christian I should clarify that this term is used to refer to literalist evangelical Protestant sects within the United States...

Re Christian Fundamentalist vs. Moslem Fundamentalist, Christian fundamentalism does not have as a central tenet of faith that killing infidels is laudable and wonderful, whereas Moslem fundamentalism calls from the pulpit for murderous attachs and suicide bombing of nonbelievers as fulfilling the will of God and guaranteeing reward in the hereafter.

Re "disproportionate say" -- all they do is vote and speak up. If indeed their proportionate influence in politics is greater than their mere numerical proportion of society (which I'm not convinced is the case), that is not to say that their proportionate influence in politics is greater than their numerical proportion of those who actually vote and speak up. If you're going to say that this really is unfair, then it is unfair that old people, environmentalists, and other special interests with numerical minorities should have political influence disproportionate to their mere population simply because they participate in the process. Honestly.

[RITFencing]

I just think fundamentalism, or any sort of zealotry or fanatacism, religious or otherwise, is obnoxious. That sort of thing happens when people stop using their minds and just do/think whatever some other nut job says. We have frontal lobes for a reason, and if you don't want to use them, just turn on the TV instead of blowing something up or chanting inane slogans on a street corner.

[pigeonmeister]

Gav,



Re Christian Fundamentalist vs. Moslem Fundamentalist, Christian fundamentalism does not have as a central tenet of faith that killing infidels is laudable and wonderful, whereas Moslem fundamentalism calls from the pulpit for murderous attachs and suicide bombing of nonbelievers as fulfilling the will of God and guaranteeing reward in the hereafter.

There are differences within all types of fundementalism. Some Christian fundementalists do have a central tenet of faith that justifies killing Catholics (N. Ireland), Muslims (India) or abortionists, Jews, Blacks and Homosexuals (USA). I think we agree that the Christian evangelicals close to the Bush administration do not hold these views.

But it is unfair to state that ALL Muslim fundementalists call for the murder of infidels and suicide bombings. It's all about the polticisation of fudementalism. It's not as simple as many in America think: Muslims hate life, Christians value life. Yet it is a fact that there are more Muslim fundementalists willing to justify suicide bombings than Christian fundementalists willing to justify the killing of Asians, Jews, Gays etc. But then that is, in my opinion, as much part of a political/environmental dynamic as well as a religious dynamic.