Beware Christian Extremists.

[diamond geezer]

link (http://www.beholder.com/the_story.htm)

Mike and Diane Howard were a typical young couple with dreams of raising a family and starting a business of their own.* They open the first videocassette rental store in St. Louis in 1981.* It was a tremendous risk trying to balance a new baby and a new business, but they believed in the American Dream.* With hard work, their company grew into a multi-million dollar chain of stores.

During the growth of the company, the Howards were visited many times by a group of religious people called the Citizens For Decency.* The CFD insisted the Howards remove movies from their stores that they felt were "...obscene or a detriment to the community and its children."* Films such as Taxi Driver, Agnes of God, Blazing Saddles, Animal House, Mr. Mom, and many more were targeted.* The CFD also asked for the removal of the movie Splash, claiming the movie promoted sex with animals (bestiality) because Tom Hanks makes love to a mermaid.

When Martin Scorsese's controversial film, The Last Temptation of Christ, was released on video, the Howards were the only video stores in St. Louis unafraid to offer the film for rent.* The CFD declared war with pickets and boycotts.* They harassed the Howards and their employees with vandalized stores and cars.* The situation worsened when the couple received death threats to their little daughter saying she would be "... sent back to God to be reborn to parents who worship the Lord."

When the Howards refused to buckle, the CFD blackmailed the Prosecuting Attorney with information about the prosecutor's secret sex life.* The prosecutor had no choice but to ruin the Howards anyway he could.* He filed obscenity charges against the Howards and, misusing the RICO racketeering laws, he confiscated every movie from every store.* The prosecutor fed the media vague details about investigations concerning the Howards ties to organized crime.* The Howards friends distanced themselves and they were shunned as social outcasts.* The Howards won their court case, but the negative publicity and legal fees bankrupted the business and family.


Religious extremist be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu etc are the scourge of the world.

America should clean up its own backyard, before their neighbors.

[Giaguara]

true.


if even 20 % of that article is true, those christians should have a closer look on their own behaviour. they are terrorizing other people/

peace.

[kgarner]

Religious extremist be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu etc are the scourge of the world.

Amen! As a religous person, I can't believe some of the things those who claim to be "religous" will do to prove their point.

I especially liked the part about the little girl being sent back to God to be reborn ot better parents. I wasn't even aware of any Christian religions that believe in reincarnation. ;)

[Giaguara]

I wasn't even aware of any Christian religions that believe in reincarnation. ;)

FYI there were references in the bible (new test.) about reincarnations, but they were removed by a roman emperor around 300 a.d.

[kgarner]

That really interesting. I was, of course, aware that the bible today is not the same as when it was first written, but i had never heard of any references to reincarnation.

[Frohickey]

The prosecutor had no choice but to ruin the Howards anyway he could.* He filed obscenity charges against the Howards and, misusing the RICO racketeering laws, he confiscated every movie from every store.

Sounds like RICO is the problem here. That, and an unscrupulous prosecutor.

[mactastic]

Sounds like RICO is the problem here. That, and an unscrupulous prosecutor.

So if GWB has mis-used the military, should we get rid of it or should we fix things so it can't be misused?

You're just looking for anything to justify getting rid of RICO. I think you like mobsters.

[Frohickey]

So if GWB has mis-used the military, should we get rid of it or should we fix things so it can't be misused?

You're just looking for anything to justify getting rid of RICO. I think you like mobsters.

If its misused, then maybe it should be shrunk or phased out. Even Apple knew to not throw good money after bad when the Cube came out. :eek:

[diamond geezer]

If its misused, then maybe it should be shrunk or phased out. Even Apple knew to not throw good money after bad when the Cube came out. :eek:

What laws aren't misused?

[Neserk]

:confused:

FYI there were references in the bible (new test.) about reincarnations, but they were removed by a roman emperor around 300 a.d.

[jefhatfield]

a christian belives in christ and that he died for our sins

a christian extremist may or may not believe that, but they do what they feel complelled to do without love or understanding...the devil resides in them and i believe it is what satan wants to do to discredit christianity

but there is nothing in common with a peaceful loving christ and extremists christians who are full of xenophobia, homophobia, and hate...there is no difference beween the hearts of an extremist christian and a member of al qaeda

and i doubt al qaeda are in in line with mohamed's heart

[Frohickey]

So if GWB has mis-used the military, should we get rid of it or should we fix things so it can't be misused?

You're just looking for anything to justify getting rid of RICO. I think you like mobsters.

Bwahahaha.

RICO was made in order to counteract the effects of criminal mobsters.
What are criminal mobsters? The other term for that is organized crime.
What started the phenomenon of organized crime?
Prohibition, which was a law that banned production, sale and use of intoxicating substances.
Sure, prohibition was back in the 1920s, but we still have drug laws, don't we.

[mactastic]

If its misused, then maybe it should be shrunk or phased out.

Really? Frohickey is advocating shrinking the military and perhaps 'phasing it out'? And you think liberals are soft on terrorism... :eek:

[JamesDPS]

The problem is not the law, the problem is the lawmaker. That a DA would (1) be involved in a "sex scandal" situation is bad, but (2) giving in to blackmail about it? worse! Sleazy politicians need to know when to stand up for themselves -- if the Meatheads Against Indecency or whatever they were called actually "blew the lid off the sex scandal story", big deal! Politicians need to realize they can just ADMIT to these things, apologize, and the public has an attention span of a 5-year-old, it'll be forgotten.

The other (bigger, probably much more important in the scheme of things) problem is the twisting of any religious doctrine into something as messed up as death threats (in this case) or terrorist acts, or anything like that. And people get away with it far too much; it's becoming acceptable in this country to force religious views on other people -- just look at the entire ant-gay marriage issue! That is essentially rooted in the same religious conservatism that got the pilgrims kicked out of England in the first place! And the Janet Jackson thing? (sarcasm) We're all going to hell because we saw part of someone's boob! Oh no! Think of the children! What if they grow up NOT feeling guilty about the human body? (/sarcasm).

I'd better just end my rant there, I guess.

[timmyOtool]

O.K. let me get this straight. They knew that a D.A. was in a sex scandal and rather than exopes this they used it to run a small mom and pop store out of buisness. It seems to me that sex scandal involving a public offical would be more important to christians than the video shop would be. Where are thier priorities. I guess some people truely can't see the forest for the trees.

[mactastic]

Bwahahaha.

RICO was made in order to counteract the effects of criminal mobsters.
What are criminal mobsters? The other term for that is organized crime.
What started the phenomenon of organized crime?
Prohibition, which was a law that banned production, sale and use of intoxicating substances.
Sure, prohibition was back in the 1920s, but we still have drug laws, don't we.

You really think the Mafia, the Yakuza, and the Russian Mob are all products of American prohibition?

Bwahahahaha! Try again.

(AFAIK, the Italian Mafia has been around since the 15th century... long, long, long before America was even founded let alone enacted prohibition.)

[Frohickey]

You really think the Mafia, the Yakuza, and the Russian Mob are all products of American prohibition?

Bwahahahaha! Try again.

(AFAIK, the Italian Mafia has been around since the 15th century... long, long, long before America was even founded let alone enacted prohibition.)

Organized crime in America got a big boost with Prohibition.

[mactastic]

Organized crime in America got a big boost with Prohibition.

Come on, that's not even close to what you claimed before...

What started the phenomenon of organized crime?
Prohibition, which was a law that banned production, sale and use of intoxicating substances.

[skunk]

(AFAIK, the Italian Mafia has been around since the 15th century... long, long, long before America was even founded let alone enacted prohibition.)

Ahem. The Americas were first invaded in the 15th century, if I remember correctly. Hard to say "America was founded".... :)

[mactastic]

Ahem. The Americas were first invaded in the 15th century, if I remember correctly. Hard to say "America was founded".... :)

I don't mean 'found' as in discovered, I mean 'founded' as in 'declared independance from England and claimed the status of a nation.' This happened in 1776. The 18th amendment to our constitution was adopted in 1919, far after the emergence of the Italian Mafia.

[skunk]

Only kidding....

[Opteron]

Christian Extremists are wore than any others, look at northern Ireland, or the Crusades in the 12thC.

[Dippo]

link (http://www.beholder.com/the_story.htm)Religious extremist be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu etc are the scourge of the world.

America should clean up its own backyard, before their neighbors.

They were just expressing their 1st admendment rights.

If the owners would have just removed the video from their store, they would have been fine, but they didn't and they suffered for it.

[Thanatoast]

They were just expressing their 1st admendment rights.

If the owners would have just removed the video from their store, they would have been fine, but they didn't and they suffered for it.Excuse me?

I don't consider death threats and vandalism to be first amendment rights. Nor blackmailing a DA into wrongfull prosecution. In fact, I'm pretty certain these things are illegal. And if these religious wackos are willing to use such despicable means to pursue the glorious ends of ridding St Louis of a Martin Scorsese film, I shudder to think what else they might do. This group should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If they don't wan't to watch a movie, they don't have to. Denying others the right however, is not only un-American, it shows how weak in their faith they really are.

:mad:

[zimv20]

They were just expressing their 1st admendment rights.

If the owners would have just removed the video from their store, they would have been fine, but they didn't and they suffered for it.
ha! i have to assume you're joking, 'cuz no one is really that confused in real life. right?

right?

[mactastic]

If the owners would have just removed the video from their store, they would have been fine, but they didn't and they suffered for it.

And if those Christians had just stifled themselves and quit forcing their morals on everyone else things would have been fine too.

Why is your solution better?

[diamond geezer]

They were just expressing their 1st admendment rights.

If the owners would have just removed the video from their store, they would have been fine, but they didn't and they suffered for it.

Spoken like a true book-burner.

[Frohickey]

Come on, that's not even close to what you claimed before...

Organized Crime (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/orgcrim_TheProhibitionEra.asp)

The Prohibition increased enormously the power of gangsters. There was an economic mutation: the alcohol being banned, the prices went up and there were high risks in running an alcohol shop. (http://www.skyminds.net/civilization/organized_crime_prohibition.php)

[Frohickey]

They were just expressing their 1st admendment rights.

If the owners would have just removed the video from their store, they would have been fine, but they didn't and they suffered for it.

I think you are wrong on this point.

Forcing the owners to remove the video from their store would fall under multiple types of crimes.
If it was done forcefully, then that would be considered assault or robbery.
If it was done coercively, then that would be considered extortion.
Besides, the owners have private property rights that stump the 'outsiders' desire to have the video removed from the store.

The zealots can picket in public property around the video store.
The zealots can canvass the area with leaflets to drive customers away. The zealots can try to seek redress of their complaints with their representatives.

All of these are 1st Amendment activities.

Vandalizing the stores is not.
Vandalizing cars is not.
Sending death threats its not.
Blackmailing the prosecutor is not.

We should have tort reform, loser pays. That would have solved this situation. Innocents being vindicated in court, but having to expend their personal treasure to prove their innocence, is akin to punishing the innocents.


Prohibition is responsible for the growth of organized crime in this country.
The War on Drugs is an extension of Prohibition.

[trebblekicked]

They were just expressing their 1st admendment rights.

If the owners would have just removed the video from their store, they would have been fine, but they didn't and they suffered for it.

where's the emoticon for "tsk tsk tsk" and shaking your head?


oh well. i guess :mad: will have to do.

[mactastic]

Organized Crime (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/orgcrim_TheProhibitionEra.asp)

The Prohibition increased enormously the power of gangsters. There was an economic mutation: the alcohol being banned, the prices went up and there were high risks in running an alcohol shop. (http://www.skyminds.net/civilization/organized_crime_prohibition.php)

Frohickey, I understand what you are trying to say and yes, I agree with you. Prohibition did indeed exacerbate the problem of organized crime in this country. But you claimed Prohibition caused organized crime in your rant against government powers. That is an outright falsehood, and I called you on it. You can supply all the evidence you want that organized crime was given a boost by prohibition, but that doesn't validify your claim. If you wish to retract that portion of your statement, then we are in agreement. Or you can prove that organized crime did not exist before 1900. ;)

[Frohickey]

Organized crime was not a interstate problem prior to the effects of Prohibition. Now, we have lots of effort spent trying to combat the after-effects of Prohibition that did not have to be if government just stayed in its place and did its job of protecting people from others, instead of protecting people from themselves.

None of us signed on to the Nanny State. If you did, maybe you should be still living at home sucking on your pacifier and wearing diapers.

[pseudobrit]

Organized crime was not a interstate problem prior to the effects of Prohibition. Now, we have lots of effort spent trying to combat the after-effects of Prohibition that did not have to be if government just stayed in its place and did its job of protecting people from others, instead of protecting people from themselves.

None of us signed on to the Nanny State. If you did, maybe you should be still living at home sucking on your pacifier and wearing diapers.

I doubt you're arguing with any teetotalers here, so I'm not sure at whom the indignant anger in your last statement is directed.

[mactastic]

Organized crime was not a interstate problem prior to the effects of Prohibition. Now, we have lots of effort spent trying to combat the after-effects of Prohibition that did not have to be if government just stayed in its place and did its job of protecting people from others, instead of protecting people from themselves.

None of us signed on to the Nanny State. If you did, maybe you should be still living at home sucking on your pacifier and wearing diapers.

Spin spin spin.... Frohickey, are you trying to argue that you never said Prohibition caused Organized Crime?

[mactastic]

...if government just stayed in its place and did its job of protecting people from others, instead of protecting people from themselves.


So if it's government's job to protect people from others, does that include protecting people from noxious chemicals being produced by others in a residential neighborhood?

[IJ Reilly]

Spin spin spin.... Frohickey, are you trying to argue that you never said Prohibition caused Organized Crime?

I just said this another way in another thread, but it bears repeating here. It should be completely clear by now that Frohickey isn't interesting in arguing much of anything. His tactic is to lay down a barrage of vague and even contradictory allegations for the purpose of sowing confusion and therefore undermining intelligent discussion.

[Frohickey]

I just said this another way in another thread, but it bears repeating here. It should be completely clear by now that Frohickey isn't interesting in arguing much of anything. His tactic is to lay down a barrage of vague and even contradictory allegations for the purpose of sowing confusion and therefore undermining intelligent discussion.

Sounds like you are describing yourself, eh?

[Frohickey]

So if it's government's job to protect people from others, does that include protecting people from noxious chemicals being produced by others in a residential neighborhood?

Sure. Thats included in the protecting people from other people. Of course, there needs to be proof that the noxious chemicals are really noxious, and that in the concentrations presented, it represents a harm.

You can't just say, my neighbor dumped some lead in the well I drink from, and lead is known by the state of California to cause birth defects, so he owes me big time for damages, if the only thing your neighbor did was wash off a piece of Hershey's Kiss chocolate that he dropped on the ground and was washing off so he can eat it without dirt on it.

[pseudobrit]

Sounds like you are describing yourself, eh?

Why can't you admit you were wrong? It's very clear you dropped a load of BS in the beginning of this thread.

I'd respect you so much more.

[mactastic]

Sure. Thats included in the protecting people from other people. Of course, there needs to be proof that the noxious chemicals are really noxious, and that in the concentrations presented, it represents a harm.

You can't just say, my neighbor dumped some lead in the well I drink from, and lead is known by the state of California to cause birth defects, so he owes me big time for damages, if the only thing your neighbor did was wash off a piece of Hershey's Kiss chocolate that he dropped on the ground and was washing off so he can eat it without dirt on it.

So IOW, now you do recognize the police power of zoning and land use law? Last time this came up you said property rights trumped all else.

[Ugg]

Organized crime was not a interstate problem prior to the effects of Prohibition. Now, we have lots of effort spent trying to combat the after-effects of Prohibition that did not have to be if government just stayed in its place and did its job of protecting people from others, instead of protecting people from themselves.


Hmm, I think if you look at the timetable of organized crime in the US you would see that the automobile and interstate highways gave interstate organized crime its biggest boost, NOT Prohibition. Prohibition simply followed close on the heels of the auto. Repression of minorities, especially Italians also ranks above Prohibition.

Methinks you are simply for the destruction of government and for ignorance, some people say it is blissful but not in this forum.

[Awimoway]

I'm late to the party, but I want to disagree with the main gist. It's not religious extremists we need to beware of. It's any extremist. Racist extremists. Environmental extremists. Anarchist extremists. Communist and fascist extremists. They are all bad.

To single out religion is to betray a hidden agenda...

[IJ Reilly]

I'm late to the party, but I want to disagree with the main gist. It's not religious extremists we need to beware of. It's any extremist. Racist extremists. Environmental extremists. Anarchist extremists. Communist and fascist extremists. They are all bad.

To single out religion is to betray a hidden agenda...

Good point, well taken. The first organized thought I had on 9-11 was that most of the misery in the world is caused by people who are too certain about what they believe.

[mactastic]

The first organized thought I had on 9-11 was that most of the misery in the world is caused by people who are too certain about what they believe.

Are you certain of that? :p

[Frohickey]

So IOW, now you do recognize the police power of zoning and land use law? Last time this came up you said property rights trumped all else.

Zoning and land use law hampers the property owner prior to any harm being done. It represents a taking from the property owner in regards to what the property can be used for.

[mactastic]

Zoning and land use law hampers the property owner prior to any harm being done. It represents a taking from the property owner in regards to what the property can be used for.

So then you are modifying your belief that the government is there to protect the people from others?

[Neserk]

I'm late to the party, but I want to disagree with the main gist. It's not religious extremists we need to beware of. It's any extremist. Racist extremists. Environmental extremists. Anarchist extremists. Communist and fascist extremists. They are all bad.

To single out religion is to betray a hidden agenda...


Not really. Extremesits usually use religion as there foundation for their actions. The KKK are suppose to be Christians, so were the Crusaders and so are abortion clinic bombers. The force behind the 9/11 attacks were supposedly Islamic, and stereotypically so are *most* modern terrorists. I've having a really difficult time thinking of any extremist group that does not use religion to justify their actions.

[Awimoway]

Not really. Extremesits usually use religion as there foundation for their actions. The KKK are suppose to be Christians, so were the Crusaders and so are abortion clinic bombers. The force behind the 9/11 attacks were supposedly Islamic, and stereotypically so are *most* modern terrorists. I've having a really difficult time thinking of any extremist group that does not use religion to justify their actions.

I think you have to distinguish extremist groups with religious affiliation from religious groups for whom religion is their foundation. For example, I don't think the KKK is fundamentally a religious organization. I think it's a racist organization that appeals to anything that they think bolsters their image. They blend Christian and Nazi (an atheist/paganist organization) symbols without any sense of the inherent irony. They're not a religious group. Their concern, misguided as it is, is racial purity and heritage. It is not fundamentally religious.

And I can think of extremist groups that have no religious base. The environmentalists who burn down ski lodges. The Unabomber. Timothy McVeigh's group was not fundamentally religious, though it might have had some incidental affiliation.

I don't think you're trying hard enough.

Just curious, are you suggesting that all religion is bad/dangerous?

[IJ Reilly]

Zoning and land use law hampers the property owner prior to any harm being done. It represents a taking from the property owner in regards to what the property can be used for.

The Supreme Court first decided that zoning was not a taking in 1928, and have reinforced this decision at every opportunity since that time.

But again, I have to issue a distraction alert.

[Ugg]

I think you have to distinguish extremist groups with religious affiliation from religious groups for whom religion is their foundation. For example, I don't think the KKK is fundamentally a religious organization. I think it's a racist organization that appeals to anything that they think bolsters their image. They blend Christian and Nazi (an atheist/paganist organization) symbols without any sense of the inherent irony. They're not a religious group. Their concern, misguided as it is, is racial purity and heritage. It is not fundamentally religious.

And I can think of extremist groups that have no religious base. The environmentalists who burn down ski lodges. The Unabomber. Timothy McVeigh's group was not fundamentally religious, though it might have had some incidental affiliation.

I don't think you're trying hard enough.

Just curious, are you suggesting that all religion is bad/dangerous?

Personally I think that as long as religions are permitted by governments to discriminate against certain segments of society, religion will continue to be the bastion of terrorism. Until we get religion out of government, whether here, in Israel or in Saudi Arabia, terrorists will continue to dominate the world stage.

[Awimoway]

Personally I think that as long as religions are permitted by governments to discriminate against certain segments of society, religion will continue to be the bastion of terrorism. Until we get religion out of government, whether here, in Israel or in Saudi Arabia, terrorists will continue to dominate the world stage.

Religious terrorists do indeed dominate the world stage. But most of these conflicts are ethnic and cultural as much as they are religious. When we fixate on religion as the curse of society, as something that must be rid entirely from government, we run afoul of "baby with the bathwater" issues. For example, ethics and values traditionally stem from religion. Must those be shut out of secular government? What's left? Religion itself is not a problem. I would venture to say that Shia (sp?) Islam or fundamentalist Christianity (despite how much I dislike it) is not inherently hateful and dangerous, just the extreme forms of them. Religion is not inherently extremist, but much extremism does come from religion. However, social ills like racism and genocide cannot be solely blamed on religion or even religious extremism. Xenophobia, culture clash, illiteracy, scarcity, economics, etc. are all sources of violence and instability and should not be overlooked in favor of bigotry against all religion just because secularism is so trendy in the western world.

[zimv20]

ethics and values traditionally stem from religion. Must those be shut out of secular government?
clearly, an announcement of stricter separation would not suddenly render murder, for example, legal.

i'm curious as to what changes in law would be made, crime-wise, should the US enforce such a restriction. are there currently laws based on (let's for now say Christian) religious dogma that are not also wrong on an ethical, moral or freedom basis?

or are you saying that all ethics and morals are inherently religious in nature?

[Ugg]

Religious terrorists do indeed dominate the world stage. But most of these conflicts are ethnic and cultural as much as they are religious. When we fixate on religion as the curse of society, as something that must be rid entirely from government, we run afoul of "baby with the bathwater" issues. For example, ethics and values traditionally stem from religion. Must those be shut out of secular government? What's left? Religion itself is not a problem. I would venture to say that Shia (sp?) Islam or fundamentalist Christianity (despite how much I dislike it) is not inherently hateful and dangerous, just the extreme forms of them. Religion is not inherently extremist, but much extremism does come from religion. However, social ills like racism and genocide cannot be solely blamed on religion or even religious extremism. Xenophobia, culture clash, illiteracy, scarcity, economics, etc. are all sources of violence and instability and should not be overlooked in favor of bigotry against all religion just because secularism is so trendy in the western world.

Isn't fundamentalist Christianity itself an extreme form of Christianity? So only the extreme forms of the extreme forms, ad infinitum are to be considered?

I think much of religious teaching whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim is hateful. I take that back, if we look at the teachings of the major prophets, the vast majority is peaceful and of the love thy neighbor type, but the farther one gets from the source the more hate is a central part of the message. It's not only a matter of splinter groups either. The catholic church during the reign the current pope has been unprecedented in its suppression of those who dare to disagree with its interpretation of Christ's lessons.

I disagree with you when you say that religion is not inherently extremist. According to Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachings, there is only one way and every one else is a heathen. That is extremist in my mind in that it allows no room for an alternative viewpoint and that it justifies in many people's minds the killing of those not of the true faith.

You're right in that religion is not the only reason for terrorists, but if we look at the Kingdom of Saud, the birthplace of Al Qaeda then we have few other reasons. The Saudis have it pretty good compared to those in the Sudan or El Salvador or N. Korea but the most heinous crime of this century was committed by a group of well educated, middle and upper class discontents whose lives were ruled by an extremist form of Islam.

I still maintain that as long as our government is in the hands of those who like that woman in Tyler, TX, said "god made me do it" then we are in deep doo doo.

[Awimoway]

Isn't fundamentalist Christianity itself an extreme form of Christianity? So only the extreme forms of the extreme forms, ad infinitum are to be considered?
I don't think we're going to get anywhere with name calling. As I have said, I am no fan of fundamentalist Christianity, but I disagree that it's extremist. Some of it is. Most of it isn't. Why do you make a blanket statement about it this way? How do you define it, and how does that make it extremist? It's all about perception. It's opinion. They call themselves that because they see themselves as going back to the fundamentals, not because they are extremists. In what way are they extreme?

So, no, I don't think that "only the extreme forms of the extreme forms, ad infinitum" are to be considered. I think most religion is not extremist and is not a threat to society or government.


I think much of religious teaching whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim is hateful. I take that back, if we look at the teachings of the major prophets, the vast majority is peaceful and of the love thy neighbor type, but the farther one gets from the source the more hate is a central part of the message. It's not only a matter of splinter groups either. The catholic church during the reign the current pope has been unprecedented in its suppression of those who dare to disagree with its interpretation of Christ's lessons.
That's a pretty sweeping generalization. It implies that any religion that isn't in the same time and place as its prophets is extremist. You've just implicated everyone except maybe Mormons and Christian Scientists, who had major prophets in the last 200 years. And your evidence is not especially convincing. "Unprecedented in its suppression of those who dare to disagree?" I hardly think that anything the Catholic church has done during Pope John Paul's reign can hold a candle to the Conquests, the Inquisition, etc. What are you referring to, specifically? And does it really rise to the level of "extremism"?


I disagree with you when you say that religion is not inherently extremist. According to Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachings, there is only one way and every one else is a heathen. That is extremist in my mind in that it allows no room for an alternative viewpoint and that it justifies in many people's minds the killing of those not of the true faith.
This gets at the very heart of what I dislike about most secularist at-large criticism of religion. It's utterly hypocritical. It criticizes religious groups for the folly of believing they are right and everyone else is wrong while at the same time unwittingly buying into the same conceit--all religions are wrong, but moral relativism and secularism is right. Well that's just one more brand of faith, isn't it? Just because there is no personified deity at the head of it, just a set of principles, doesn't make it any less an act of faith, and it doesn't make it any more legitimate. Yet secularists think that their brand of government should somehow be privileged over any other. They are just the same, they simply can't admit it.


You're right in that religion is not the only reason for terrorists, but if we look at the Kingdom of Saud, the birthplace of Al Qaeda then we have few other reasons.
Sure. So what's your point? How, in any way, does this reflect on ALL religion?


The Saudis have it pretty good compared to those in the Sudan or El Salvador or N. Korea but the most heinous crime of this century was committed by a group of well educated, middle and upper class discontents whose lives were ruled by an extremist form of Islam.
"This century"? You mean the last four years? That's not much of a window. Or did you mean the last 100 years? Because if so, the worst crimes against humanity were committed by atheistic (Stalin, communism in general) and anti-religious (Hitler, fascism in general--not counting the a minority of paganistic crackpots) movements.


I still maintain that as long as our government is in the hands of those who like that woman in Tyler, TX, said "god made me do it" then we are in deep doo doo.
Aside from the occasional crackpot in the House or Senate, I have never heard anyone in our government claim "God made me do it." I'm no fan of the people who run our government right now, but I don't see what religious extremism has to do with our government's culpability for the unemployment problem or the boondoggle in Iraq.

[takao]

religous fundamentalism was bad (crusades,holy armies etc.), is bad (terrorism) and will be bad forever ...
but 'religion is bad' a priori ? you can't say that ... religion _can_ be misused by the wrong people just like press/tv can misused

i guess the problem with the higher presence of islamic motivated terrorism is that the 'splitting up in sub beliefs' and organisation of the islam itself isn't as clear as in other religions (AFAIK but my knowledge is rather slim)

i was raised as a catholic but i never really was religious but i'm still influenced by ethics/moral aspects just like i'm influenced by german proverbs (do a google search on german proverbs and you will know why ;) )

[Thanatoast]

Aside from the occasional crackpot in the House or Senate, I have never heard anyone in our government claim "God made me do it." I'm no fan of the people who run our government right now, but I don't see what religious extremism has to do with our government's culpability for the unemployment problem or the boondoggle in Iraq.At one point W said that god told him to invade Iraq.

link (http://www.thenation.com/outrage/index.mhtml?pid=1241%22)

He told the Palestinian leadership and the Canadian PM that he was on God's mission. I'd say that speaks pretty strongly to the dangers of religious extremism.

I personally find religion to be a ****ty way to run a society. Fear of the disapproval of an imaginary omnipotent being is no way to convince people to do what's right. Not if you want a lasting peace.

[skunk]

At one point W said that god told him to invade Iraq.
Is he going to plead insanity?

[Ugg]

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with name calling. As I have said, I am no fan of fundamentalist Christianity, but I disagree that it's extremist. Some of it is. Most of it isn't. Why do you make a blanket statement about it this way? How do you define it, and how does that make it extremist? It's all about perception. It's opinion. They call themselves that because they see themselves as going back to the fundamentals, not because they are extremists. In what way are they extreme?

So, no, I don't think that "only the extreme forms of the extreme forms, ad infinitum" are to be considered. I think most religion is not extremist and is not a threat to society or government.

That's a pretty sweeping generalization. It implies that any religion that isn't in the same time and place as its prophets is extremist. You've just implicated everyone except maybe Mormons and Christian Scientists, who had major prophets in the last 200 years. And your evidence is not especially convincing. "Unprecedented in its suppression of those who dare to disagree?" I hardly think that anything the Catholic church has done during Pope John Paul's reign can hold a candle to the Conquests, the Inquisition, etc. What are you referring to, specifically? And does it really rise to the level of "extremism"?

This gets at the very heart of what I dislike about most secularist at-large criticism of religion. It's utterly hypocritical. It criticizes religious groups for the folly of believing they are right and everyone else is wrong while at the same time unwittingly buying into the same conceit--all religions are wrong, but moral relativism and secularism is right. Well that's just one more brand of faith, isn't it? Just because there is no personified deity at the head of it, just a set of principles, doesn't make it any less an act of faith, and it doesn't make it any more legitimate. Yet secularists think that their brand of government should somehow be privileged over any other. They are just the same, they simply can't admit it.

Sure. So what's your point? How, in any way, does this reflect on ALL religion?

"This century"? You mean the last four years? That's not much of a window. Or did you mean the last 100 years? Because if so, the worst crimes against humanity were committed by atheistic (Stalin, communism in general) and anti-religious (Hitler, fascism in general--not counting the a minority of paganistic crackpots) movements.

Aside from the occasional crackpot in the House or Senate, I have never heard anyone in our government claim "God made me do it." I'm no fan of the people who run our government right now, but I don't see what religious extremism has to do with our government's culpability for the unemployment problem or the boondoggle in Iraq.

When people force their religious-based morals on those outside their own religion and in some cases on those within their own religion then I would consider it to be extremist. In my most humble view, most fundamentalists pick and choose from the teachings of the bible, koran, etc. to suit their own agenda and gloss over that which doesn't suit their idea of what religion should be like.

The basic teachings of the major prophets are mostly very good and if we could all live our lives according to those teachings, then the world would be a pretty nice place IMHO. It's the endless "interpretation" of those teachings that brings us extremists, and fundamentalists. Why the need to endlessly interpret that which needs no interpreting? There is no possible way to misinterpret, "Thou shalt not kill thy neighbor" and if they are returning to the fundaments of religion then all the bs of the last few centuries should be stripped away and .... anyway, I don't have a very high view of organized religion of any flavor as I'm sure you can tell, but in the end, intolerance through tolerance seems to be the end result of many religious groups in the US today. We could argue forever but in the end it's that club mentality that causes us to kill our neighbors even though every single religion expressly forbids it.

The genocide in Rwanda, the tens of thousands of children and adults who have been sexually abused by priests, the untold numbers of women (millions) around the world who are unable to plan their families due to the lack of birth control and abortion rights. Many of those unplanned for children die as a result of starvation or lack of prenatal care. Sure the horrors of the Inquisition may be more hollywoodesque but the sheer number of people who have been made to suffer under this pope is unprecedented.

Religions aren't wrong but they should be private and personal, Christ was never one to stand on a soapbox and preach hellfire and brimstone, he went out there and made a difference. He cared for the poor and sick and lame instead of increasing their numbers through bad policies. Rome should be ashamed of itself.

Ok, so four years isn't very long but even if we were to go back a hundred or so years Hitler and Stalin were reacting against the hold of religion on public life. Religions had become too powerful and communism was a direct result of the oppression of the masses during the Industrial Revolution. The church cooperated with the industrialists to ensure a docile and cheap labor force the "godlessness" that followed was only to be expected. Hitler and Stalin weren't only trying to root out those they thought didn't belong in their "new" societies, they were also trying to instill in those who were left a new religion, a cult of one.

yeah, gw has made it perfectly clear that he is guided by the man above and more or less has a direct line to the guy.

Once again, religion should be a highly personal experience not forced down the throats of those who don't want or need it.

[skunk]

Good post :)

[Neserk]

I think you have to distinguish extremist groups with religious affiliation from religious groups for whom religion is their foundation. For example, I don't think the KKK is fundamentally a religious organization. I think it's a racist organization that appeals to anything that they think bolsters their image. They blend Christian and Nazi (an atheist/paganist organization) symbols without any sense of the inherent irony. They're not a religious group. Their concern, misguided as it is, is racial purity and heritage. It is not fundamentally religious.


The Nazi's claimed to be Christian, too.


And I can think of extremist groups that have no religious base. The environmentalists who burn down ski lodges. The Unabomber. Timothy McVeigh's group was not fundamentally religious, though it might have had some incidental affiliation.


Haven't heard of anyone burning down ski lodges. The Una/ibomber is a good example.


I don't think you're trying hard enough.

Just curious, are you suggesting that all religion is bad/dangerous?

no, religions are inherently good. It is the people who follow them who are the problem, imo.

[Neserk]

I think much of religious teaching whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim is hateful. I take that back, if we look at the teachings of the major prophets, the vast majority is peaceful and of the love thy neighbor type, but the farther one gets from the source the more hate is a central part of the message.

This is *so* important I wanted to make sure people saw it.