What do you expect. Many people are stupid, and stupid people will support dumb-ass things like this.

Thankfully, most religious people are good people whose views don't fall in line with fanatical, discriminatory organizations such as this one.

__________________

Great point. If only more people would focus on the positive teachings rather than the negative ones.

__________________

These people are extremists and I know no Christian that agrees with this bs.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I am a christian and i believe there are dangerously radical parts to our faith. it is a disgrace to our faith to go around just feeling like you are better than everybody else. now i am against homosexuality, but saying there should be the death penality is insaine. I may not agree with them but i'm not going to go say they need the death penality. I believe that these if you will Radical Christians are wrong. and it is a shame for moderate christians like me to see such a disgrace. in the bible it says love one another. not go around bashing them because they dont believe what you believe. its no longer a matter of whos right or whos wrong its a matter of whats ethical. i believe homosexuality is immoral but i certanly do not believe that it is ethical to say kill em just because they dont believe what you believe thing way with jouvi kids, they messed up give them another shot. this 4 day meeting you discussed is a disgrace to christians all over the world. i believe this nation was founded on christian principals but people always have to take it too extreems and it is certinaly uncalled for.

Well, I'm an honest Evangelical Christian, and I belive in the name of Jesus being above all names. That itself puts me at odds with some of these Christian progressives. (This is, of course, assuming that what I believe is true) My politics are still quite leftist, though, even if the theology is traditional.

The dominionists are doing the work of the devil. They want the United States to be like Saudi Arabia, except that one is trading Sharia law for Old Testament law. Their actions and opinions are unacceptable in this Constitutional Republic, and they should never be taken seriously, no matter how choose to mask themselves.

~Ben

Never seen a crazy extremist Buddhist, though. Just saying.

I must say, the extremism of that Buddhist was justified.

__________________

Personally, I don't think religious extremism of any stripe is justified.

I will say that there is a huge difference between that Buddhist's expression of his extremism and the extremisim of strapping on an explosive vest or starting a movement to execute homosexuals.

The point of my post, though, wasn't whether extremisim is right or wrong, justified or unjustified.

Chang Wufei said that he had never "seen a crazy extremist Buddhist" and I think that whether or not you agree with that particular Buddhist's motives or method a case can clearly be made that his expression is at least extreme, if not also crazy.

It's also interesting to note that the actions of these self-immolating monks, in conjunction with many other factors, led to a situation in Vietnam similar to the situation we created in Iraq a few years ago. To wit, a strong, autocratic ruler was overthrown and neither the United States nor the home nation were able to find a replacement capable of fending off a catastrophe.

Thats a famous event. I first saw it on Rage Against the Machines album. Anyway, self-immolation is a form of protest.
ouch.

__________________

Yeah, it wasn't a Buddhist extremism thing, it was an extreme thing performed by a guy who happened to be Buddhist.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Christian fundamentalism such as this should be seen as the subculture/minority at it is.

That said, it isn't fair to demand that all moderates take up arms against every i'll defined and extremest group. What is the benefit of demanding a that a moderate be fanatically moderate - a millitant non-fanaticism?

People of great faith are invariably gentle, quiet - not-seeking-the-spotlight types so if you find someone in the spotlight that reason enough to question them as a bastion for their faith.

There is a Christian Left, and a Christian Right but those are political terms and mask the issue. For the marks of a true Christian (what the apostle James called "pure religion") is purity and looking after the poor, is love, joy, peace, kindess and gentleness. Things neither spun to the left nor right.

Thus, a Christian Fanatic is almost a contradiction in terms. Fanatic Gentleness? Fanatic Peace? It doesn't work.

But here is the problem, if I as a Christian apporach a fanatic nutjobr and say (as I have) gently "Excuse me Sir, with all due respect and love, what you believe is your 'politicial calling' is nothing but your old bigotries in sanctimonious clothes, you have laundered your hate and ambition in the Language of faith. You should repent and you should stop." They don't listen.

Saying that louder doesn't help the conversation it just gives a compromised man leverage decry all the quiet faithful christians who seek to love other in gentle humility and honesty.

But perhaps i can decry something, just like my Muslim brothers who decry the bogotted ignorance that is the hallmark of western conversations about the religion of Islam, perhaps I can decry anyone who is ignorant enough to look at a loud, fanatical "christian" hategoup and say "That is what Jesus taught, that is how jesus lived."

While I agree with you that these folks ARE crazies.

Lets ask ourselves what kind of things our society is doing or has done lately to ACTIVATE such lunacy.

I'll tell you what it is. It's the opposite kind of lunacy that is being foisted at us by "progressives" and "secular humanists".

Things tend to balance themselves out. When one side becomes too loud, aggressive, strong and pushy the other side evolves into what is required to bring things back to the common sense center.

That is a highly romantic and idealistic portrayal of the religious left. They have considerable power and influence, and hold power in all of the oldest mainstream Protestant denominations on the US and Europe. They are certainly as openly allied with political movements as any conservative Christian organizations - except they are supportive of Democrats rather than Republicans.

They do strongly support both homsexuality and abortion, which means they are strongly supported in turn by the media. This does not, however, go over well in other nations where Christians tend to hold to traditional beliefs - especially in Africa, Asia and South America.


As for helping the poor and feeding the hungry, traditional and conservative Christians, both evangelical and Roman Catholic orgainzations are just as involved as any left-wing Christian denomination - indeed, most of the large scale efforts are by groups you might associate with conservatives.

I must admit that I found your post frustrating and depressing: there are so many false stereotypes....but I also have to remember this is USPOL.....*sigh*

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

theClerk, nice post. It does make one wonder, however, if religion is in fact all about those things you say, - love, joy, peace, kindness and gentleness. I think you're right that fanatic gentleness or peace are quite meaningless, and we all know that, since lots of people get lots of meaning out of religion, fanatics and non-fanatics alike, then it can't be all that meaningless.

So, here's what I ponder. I humbly consider myself to be loving, joyous, peaceful, kind and gentle. In fact, I humbly consider myself to have much the same morals, values and etiquette as anyone else who is considered to be morally well-behaved. What I don't have is religion. I'm as atheistic as an atheist can be. No religion whatsoever. So what's the difference, except religious faith? Could it be that religion borrows some quite ordinary concepts and makes them its own teachings? Concepts that are simply human, period. And if so, what is left except the passion that is faith? A passion that, like other passions such as sports, cars, politics, cooking, angling etc., is excellenty and naturally suited to become fanatical about?

So I guess what I want to ask is this: If all religious teachings are in fact merely properties that we all possess or, at least, learn to possess with or without religion, aren't all religious people a bit fanatical? And is someone who becomes, perhaps, too passionate better understood by someone who shares the same passion, except perhaps in a less passionate kind of way, so that the critique of the too passionate person becomes much more rare and casual than the critique of those who don't share the passion at all?