In following a link in the thread "Hate pamphlets distributed in US Mosques" I came across the following:

Freedomhouse (http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2004/bn-2004-11-22.htm)

Because of various threads referencing "Fundamentalists" I thought it of interest. There are good people everywhere. Unfortunately there are some not so nice people. It just as wrong to make blanket statements about people who disagree with us as it is wrong for them to do it to us.

I get angry at many of the things that the "Right Wing Conservative Christians" say and it is easy to throw terms around that just aren't correct.

You arrive at certain problems whenever your mix politics with religion. There's simply no way around it, because the two are inherently different. One relies on man's thought, where the other relies on belief. A truly religious man's thought and common sense will end where his religion begins. There is a very good reason why Europe long ago came to the realization that the separation of the Church and the State (or politics, if you will), is vital to normal operation of things. The Church running politics has brought nothing but grief to the history of Europe (not that secularism what that much better, but at least things weren't done in the name of God).

What matters most, as far as I'm concerned, is not whether someone if a fundamentalist, but how his practice of religion affects others. The Amish, for example, don't bother anyone. Are they OK by standards of the majority? Check. Dervishes? Check. Buddhists? Check.

Jehovah's Witnesses? Starts getting complicated. They intrude on our lives by actively trying to convert us. Still relatively OK as they're harmless people, but they annoy most of us sometimes. From here on, you have a bunch of sects and major religions who intrude into your life more and more violently. Some not in an organized way, but simply by having people in high places who happen to practice their religion as they see fit (Bush, for example, who said he talked to God and that God told him to attack Iraq, among other things). Now something like that is a major problem for some of us. Unlike Osama bin Laden, Bush doesn't set out to kill, but he still practices his religion in politics. And the same could be said of Osama bin Laden. So the difference is really only in the extremity of their religion's beliefs, or these men's interpretations of their religion. I imagine very few Muslims would agree that smashing planes into skyscrapers is a way to deal with issues. But then again, how many priests of whichever branch of religion Bush follows would agree that God really talks to him and that God advised him to invade Iraq?

Some food for thought. I agree with some things in that article, and disagree with more. As far as I'm concerned, it contains too many contradictions. So the only thing I'll say I do agree with is that more tolerance wouldn't hurt anyone, and that wide generalizations are bad. But then, we have all this in the rules here. A good theory is relatively easy to come by. It's practicing it that is always an ongoing effort.

If you are religious, you believe in a deity, you must believe that this deity exist to believe in it. If this religion is monotheistic you believe there is only one god, thus your god exist and all others do not. This means that you are right and good and that others are wrong and if they oppose you, as you are good, they must be evil.

This is a simplified explanation why I disagree with the author of that article when he stated that the people he listed in the beginning was wrong. I believe they are absolutely correct.

I know Bush has said some absurd things but did he really say that God told him to attact Iraq? What did the religions leaders of the USA say about this? I thought this would be a dangerious thing to say in front of 'believers'.

Are we forgetting Mormons? We get them every year around here and they keep trying to push their religion as well as American politics. There is only so many times you have to tell them to 'go away' (or words to that effect!).

I also forgot to mention that tacky 'silver ring thing' that is pushed here even though we have a low rate of HIV and STD than the US does.

I know Bush has said some absurd things but did he really say that God told him to attact Iraq?Yes. Don't have the link right now, but Google and you will find.

What did the religions leaders of the USA say about this?Waddyathink? "w00t w00t" maybe?

We have already been through the "God speaks to GW issues".

http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/34/76.html#000003

No one could provide proof of it then, and I seriously doubt anyone will now.

This is just another one of those issues that one side kept saying over and over again until it became accepted as fact.

America is a religious country, that was founded by Christians, and they wrote the laws and constitution from a certain standpoint, and it included Christian values. The majority of Americans are still Christians to some degree or another, and really have no issue with Bush's beliefs that God plays an active role in his life, and that his perspective is from that of a born again Christian. Most of the Christians I know (which is a lot, including most of my family, I am a black sheep because I don't go to church) don't believe that God speaks to them in a manner such as hearing a voice in their head or seeing an entity in front of them. They do believe that God "speaks" to them in little ways, nudging them this way, providing opportunity that enables them to move in a manner God approves, and that type of thing. It is subtle, and they believe that they are free to make other choices, but if they are supposed to do something, and they put it in God's hands and it works out, they believe that it is a "calling". This is much the way I interpret the words that Bush has said regarding his faith.

This is quite different from extreme forms of fundamentalism, where the "righteous" believe that they are empowered to kill or enslave those who do not follow their beliefs. The history of Christianity is full of this type of behavior, as is that of Islam, however, I have not seen any evidence of this in the US gov't or our programs. There have been occasions where individuals or small groups have taken upon themselves to behave in the manner, but the US gov't has generally distanced itself from these organizations.

Well there was a report on 'Fighting Satan' in the BBC.

"A lot of the marines that I've had wounded and killed over the past five months have been by a faceless enemy. But the enemy has got a face.

He's called Satan. He's in Falluja. And we're going to destroy him."

That sounds like the ramblings of an extremist.

Holywater, holyfire, metal crosses, wooden crosses, Bibles, incense, chantings and Exorcisms? -nah just leave these behind because Lt Col Brandl has found Satans ONLY weekness - ordinary bullets and rockets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4037009.stm

Darkwolf, we really don't need to make stuff up... Here's the original report: Haaretz article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y) (which is the most reputable Israeli newspaper, from what I hear)

... According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."To my knowledge, this has never been denied by Bush or anyone in his administration. A few newspapers in the US commented on it, but that was it. It went away very fast as if it had never happened. And I'm sure Bush spent a few hours with his advisors after it, who explained to him that he should never, EVER say that he is acting as the Hand of God again.

Cesard,

There are 28,000 Lt Colonels/Commanders in the US military, the statements of one of those 28,000 hardly indicates an extreme fundamentalist movement. I can understand the concern, but the behavior doesn’t match up with the rhetoric (if they really believed that Satan inhabited Falluja, it would be a nuclear parking lot now).

As far as the Haaretz article, if I used something like that to prove that Hillary, or Kerry said something I would be trashed for being swayed by a third party report from a dubious source. If this type of behavior is so common for President Bush, it would be easy to find multiple direct quotes in the mainstream media, rather than having to rely on hearsay evidence.

Sorry, but I am not ready to place such a broad and damaging tag on someone based upon such flimsy evidence.

Edit, forgot to address the denial angle.

This is a fringe article (at least in the US) that has received no press in the US. The President would only be lending credence to it by acknowledging it, so of course he wouldn't deny it. If Barbara Wawa asked him about it, he would have to address it, but otherwise it is better to just let it fade away.

Uh, what? Haaretz is the source from the negotiations. Obviously as it happened in Israel, you won't get direct quotes from US newspapers, they weren't there. But many reported about it and gave Haaretz credit for the news, as they were apparently the ones who got the scoop.

As for this being "a third party report from a dubious source", say what? Every report is third party be default, and the newspaper is supposedly the most trusted in Israel. So how is it a more dubious source than the majority of newspapers in the US who openly favour Bush? If anything, the newspaper could have the agenda to protect Bush (Israel has a sky-high approval of Bush according to the polls).

I don't think anyone has posted links to any sites here in the past that had direct quotes from any politician that would turn out to have been faked, so your analogy is completely false. One thing is to post an opinion about something, but posting a false direct quote is something else altogether.

Edit:

This is a fringe article (at least in the US) that has received no press in the US. The President would only be lending credence to it by acknowledging it, so of course he wouldn't deny it. If Barbara Wawa asked him about it, he would have to address it, but otherwise it is better to just let it fade away.Ah, of course. So if the quote is correct, Bush doesn't need to address it anyway (because it didn't get enough coverage in the US), and if it's wrong, well, no need to address it either. Brilliant logic there. The truth... is out of fashion. And Bush is just lucky that he has the US press on his side.

[ February 04, 2005, 17:10: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Haaretz didn't report that Bush said this; they qualified their report by stating that it was "according to Abbas". This is what makes it third party. The article does not state the GW stated "x", they are reporting what someone said was said by a third party. We all know how every time something is passed from one person to another it is changed, thus one of the reasons that Haaretz qualified their report by stating "according to Abbas".

Again, these are baseless charges with no credible evidence (that I have seen) to support them. It is unjust to make such accusations based on hearsay evidence. If someone wants to say that they think that Bush thinks he has a direct line to God based upon the way he acts, that is their opinion. It is a totally different thing to state that Bush does think God speaks directly to him because everyone knows he has said so, but then not be able to present a single shred of direct evidence. This is slanderous and libelous (at least philosophically).

To add a tangent to the tangent about whether Bush said god told him to go to war, I am reminded of the Khrushev quote "We will bury you" which Americans chose to believe was a statement of active hostility in a time of cold war. However, it turns out that, in Russian parlance, it was not active at all, but simply meant that the USSR would be around after the US fell into the dust (more passive than active, and a good laugh considering what subsequently happened). Point being that when two people speak and one is not using his native language, inconsistencies may arise without the need for a lie or misrepresentation. Bush may have said something like having god on his side, which Abbas interpreted to mean god told him to strike. I don't know if it's true, but it might explain why this is the only quote on topic.

(And yes, Chandos, I know that you think that, between Abbas and Bush, there were no native English speakers -- :D )

And the Abbas quote doesn't jive with Bush's stated theology from every other time that he has described his Faith...

1. Third-party quotation
2. Inherent language translation issues
3. Unsupported by other reports
4. Inconsistent with what GWB has expressed as his Faith

C'mon...it doesn't even "sound" like W.

I don't see how anyone can believe from this source that Bush claims to talk to God. Absurd. He's not even what is considered a Christian Fundamentalist.

Here is the proof that Bush is talking to God, his inbox (http://www.mpam.gr/fun/comics/bush_inbox/images/bush_inbox.jpg) . Just see how many e-mails he has received from God. :p

(Yep, I know that this is a serious discussion but I could not resist.)

I started this thread to link to an article about tolerance not about whether God spoke to Bush or didn't speak to Bush. Now it belongs in AoLS and I am feeling slightly intolerant. Please let us all show a little tolerance. I'll try if you will.

Sorry about that Nakia, we got carried away a bit... but the article does comment on Bush as well. I should have known better than to mention him, but the damage is done now. :doh: Still, it doesn't belong into AoLS, it's not really about politics, religion is of more concern here.

Darkwolf, Abbas might have reported it a bit differently, but I doubt he invented the God connection. Of course, as there were no other reports we'll never be able to know whether he in fact said exactly what was reported or not, so you can be content by believing he didn't... but as I've heard Bush make similar statements about his link to God in the past, I don't think Abbas was that far off the mark. So I guess I'll choose to believe the "slanderous and libelous hearsay evidence", as you call it. In the end, you can always treat it as just another opinion...

[ February 05, 2005, 01:06: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Someone needs to determine which persons were responsible for hijacking this thread and send them a harshly worded warning.

A note on tolerance...funny, but I think I've experienced the highest level of "religious intolerance" from fellow Christians...but then again I've never stared down the AK47 of a fanatical islamist.

I agree with the article that Christian Fundamentalism emergered from the pamplets "The Fundamentals" which were originally penned by non-fundamentalists...but today I think that the term "Christian Fundamentalists" refers to members of the numerous denominations that have more recently emerged in rejection of the churches that began subsequent to the Protestant Reformation (or as I call it, the Protestant Rebellion).

I must confess though, there were many things in the article that I simply didn't understand.

Is this thread back on topic now?

You're a life saver.

America is a religious country, that was founded by Christians, and they wrote the laws and constitution from a certain standpoint, and it included Christian values. Most of this is true. But like the article itself, generalizations without the specifics are not helpful here. But the Constitution makes no mention of God. When asked after the Constitutional Convention was over, Hamilton remarked: "No mention of God? I guess we just forgot."

Whether or not the major founders - Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin and Madison were pious, religious men is an open question among historians and others who try to look closely at their lives and their writings. Certainly, they thought that Chirstian virtue was what everyone should aspire to. But whether they were Christians in the modern sense of the word is difficult.

I would define all of them as rational Christians, tempered by the Enlightenment. Jefferson referred to himself as a religion of one; Adams is thought to be an agnostic by many, but I think he was always trying to see both sides of any issue, even with God. Washington hardly ever spoke of God, except in abstract terms: "The Divine Being" or the "Supreme Being of Providence." But I think he believed in a personal God.

The thing is, most of the rank-and-file Christians of the Middle Ages were probably more pious than these men were. They were fiercely independent, brilliant men, who relied on their own abilities and powers.

So, the real question is: Was America more Christian than Europe in 1776? Perhaps, because it was smaller, with far less people. And the Chruch was the "great leveler" in early American society. Some of the formation of American government grew out of the town meetings halls in religious communities in places like coastal New England.

What this article fails to mention, is that what one sees as one looks closely at them, is that the Founders moved political power away from the religious leaders and the church, very deliberately towards men of civic and public minded virtues. They would be more inclined to read Cicero, rather than St. Paul. To be sure they knew their Gospels, but they were ultimately men of government, and they saw it as their own sphere, not that of the chruch's.

[ February 05, 2005, 06:34: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Right... My very first post & I'm in at the deep end!

I read the article, and have to say that it was a mixed bag. Certainly, though, I see where the author's coming from with the issue of secularity as a religion. In some cases it's certainly behaving as one. French schools are probably the best example that I can think of at the moment: that whole issue of banning religious symbols seemed rather over-the-top. I think it's a textbook case of secular principles inflating to the point where people feel they need to take on some of the characteristics of religious intolerance as practiced by religions past. Certainly, banning the Muslim headscarf was unnecessary.

I know France sees separation of Church & State as sacrosanct, but it is entirely different to be neutral to someone's beliefs - i.e. by allowing everyone to wear their respective religious dress - and seeking to suppress it.

I think they over-stepped the mark toward the latter with their proposals there.

Secular Fundamentalism: discuss...

Welcome to the boards, Magpie!

Thanks! Having made an appearance I'm flying off now... Mr. Sandman's tugging at my lids with a-vengeance!

*head collapses forward onto keyboard with a meaty THUD*

[ February 05, 2005, 12:30: Message edited by: The Magpie ]

Thanks Tal and the rest of you.

Welcome. Magpie, to the best and craziest board on the Internet.

You arrive at certain problems whenever your mix politics with religion. There's simply no way around it, because the two are inherently different. One relies on man's thought, where the other relies on belief. That's only true for lip service believers. Religious faith is naturally tied with someone's morals, ethics and related principles, as well as it affects his view of the world. This way it isn't inconsistent with thinking. Nay, it's intertwined. Plus, religion is a social matter and one involving morals. Social matters involving morals have a lot to do with politics. Therefore, it's impossible to separate your faith from your politics and be a good believer. Question is, if you can still be a good politician if you separate your practical politics from your beliefs, especially if you profess such moral and ethical beliefs in public, especially when fighting for the electorate's votes, while you don't let them interfere with your decisions. In my opinion, that's bad politics as well as bad faith.

In the Catholic Church, there are plenty of religious dogmas and Papal edicts which, as far as I'm concerned, go against common sense and are a remnant of an age and mode of thinking long gone in the modern world. But, of course, this is a matter of opinion...

It is similar with certain branches of Judaism, Tal, and, IMHO, any carry-over fundamental religion shares certain characteristics: intolerance of other religions, dogmatic reliance on rules created at a different time and for different circumstances, and and unwillingness to adapt fully to the modern world. (There are degrees of each, depending on the religion.)

I differentiate these fundamental religions from modern cults like Scientology only because the modern cults were created to deal with modern circumstances and sucker people out of their money or self-determination (or both).

So, to look at what I am familiar with - Orthodox Judaism - you have a bunch of people who don't think anyone else is right (including other braches of Judaism), who desperately cleave to such outdated laws as Kosher food (originally created because a desert lifestyle without refrigerators made it difficult to keep certain foods around without spoiling and later expanded and adapted to help insulate the community against perceived abuses by gentile food-mongers), and who will in no way fully come into the 21st century (although they will pick and choose the parts that they want so long as it doesn't run afoul of the strict religious laws they follow).

To contrast, we can look at the Amish. They are generally more tolerant of other people's beliefs, but they really want to be left alone. They really strictly follow the religious laws and they absolutely will not partake of modern day technology, with certain limited exceptions.

Neat stuff.

I can't recall anything nonsensical in the dogma, but there's been quite a number of lesser quasi-religious beliefs that shouldn't even have made it. Just think of Galileo Galilei or the charges against St Jeanne d'Arc, or Moses with horns like a Satyr ("horn" and "ray" sound similar in Hebrew). There's been quite a lot of mistaken but popular beliefs, including traditions which contradict each other. Even the current Pope has had to peel through quite a lot of those.

Still, it's not good for a politician to put his morals and ethics aside or for a believer to conduct his politics inconsistently with his beliefs.

With people such as John Kerry, the problem is as follows:

Facts:

1. The RCC states openly: abortion is murder.
2. The RCC teaches believers can't stay silent in face of murder.
3. John Kerry considers himself as a Catholic in good standing.
4. John Kerry advertises himself as a Catholic in good standing.
5. John Kerry believes abortion should be legal.
6. John Kerry says he privately agrees with everything the RCC teaches on abortion etc.
7. The RCC says believers (and all people of good will etc etc) should not vote for candidates promoting abortion, stem cell research, human cloning and a couple of others.

Inference:

1. John Kerry privately believes abortion is muder.
2. John Kerry both believes abortion is murder and promotes its legalisation.
3. John Kerry believes Catholics cannot stay silent in face of murder and he still promotes allowance of what he (privately) considers murder.
4. Following 6 and 7, John Kerry believes that Catholics should not vote for candidates promoting abortion, stem cell research etc.

Conclusion:

1. John Kerry believes he should not get votes (inference 4 from fact 6 and 7).
2. Either John Kerry's pronounced beliefs are inconsistent with his internal beliefs or John Kerry's beliefs contain numerous irreconcilable contradictions (ignorance is not a possibility).

Therefore, questions arise:

1. To what extent will John Kerry's professed beliefs - used to present himself to the electorate and thus gain votes - will reflect on his policies?

2. To what extent will John Kerry uphold his professed policies if he openly admits to believing privately in something entirely opposite?

3. How can anyone, right or left, pro-abortion or pro-life, ever trust someone who beliefs that something he privately considers to be murder should be legal?

Therefore, I'd rather vote for someone who genuinely believes that abortion is not murder, since such a person would at least not be legalising murder in his own eyes.

Privately, I have made friends with people who believe abortion should be legal because they don't consider it murder. However, I stay away from people who believe it's murder but should be allowed on the grounds of freedom of conscience. Really, I have a worse opinion on such people than I have on people who believe killing of an innocent could be justified by the killer's rights.

This being said, I believe people it's bad both for a politician and for a believer to do like Kerry does. Give me someone who's on either side of the fence. Sitting on the fence itself is bad for one's nether regions. Leaders should have cojones. Even if they are female.

Before you ask, I'm not picking on Kerry. There's a couple of politicians who say the exact same or close, such as e.g. Sen. Ted Kenedy.

Also before you ask, Bush considers himself a newborn Christian, while lying about the evidence of WMD in Iraq is a clear violation of VIII, if I've ever seen one. Using God's name to support one's own morally dubious action can't be reconciled with II. Torture (not enough evidence to blame Bush for anything except negligence, although guys in his administration typically claim to be Christians) typically goes against V. If there's oil in question, V and X come in. According to some news from Iraq, VI and IX are not popular, either. This pretty much makes 7 out of 10 unless we infer that putting certain things before God's commandments is idolatry (I), increasing it to 8 out of 10.

So no vote for Bush, either.

[ February 05, 2005, 20:26: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Good lord Chev, still bashing Kerry? You're a dying race, you know... :shake: And in case you haven't noticed, we've tried our best to get back on topic and leave recent politics out of this thread. :rolleyes: