Christian Fundamentalists!

[Liar]

Nobody should be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on anybody else, and that means fundies of any kind, including Muslim and Christian. If you can tell me an exampe of where Aetheist Fundamentlists have impose their will on anybody, I would include them.

Before doing so, however, may I point out that preventing one group from imposing their beliefs on others is not the same as imposing yours on anybody.

Well put. The problem is that who is imposing what on who, is a matter of subjective perception.

Is taking away the morning prayer from the classroom a way to prevent Christians from imposing their religion on non-Christians, or a way for Atheists to impose their views on believers?

Is prohibiting Creationism in science class to oppress those who believe in it, or is it to make sure that one religious beliief doesn't get special treatment?

To you and me, the answer is simple. But it's a battle where it's easy for either side to feel that their side is being trampled upon.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well put. The problem is that who is imposing what on who, is a matter of subjective perception.

Is taking away the morning prayer from the classroom a way to prevent Christians from imposing their religion on non-Christians, or a way for Atheists to impose their views on believers?

Is prohibiting Creationism in science class to oppress those who believe in it, or is it to make sure that one religious beliief doesn't get special treatment?

To you and me, the answer is simple. But it's a battle where it's easy for either side to feel that their side is being trampled upon.

It's only subjective to the Christian.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well put. The problem is that who is imposing what on who, is a matter of subjective perception.

Is taking away the morning prayer from the classroom a way to prevent Christians from imposing their religion on non-Christians, or a way for Atheists to impose their views on believers?

Is prohibiting Creationism in science class to oppress those who believe in it, or is it to make sure that one religious beliief doesn't get special treatment?

To you and me, the answer is simple. But it's a battle where it's easy for either side to feel that their side is being trampled upon.

I don't believe prayer has ever been banned in the classroom. What has been prohibited is group prayer led by an authority figure, such as a teacher. If students want to pray by themselves, they may, and I would fight for their right to do so. When group prayer was "optional" I wonder what would have happened to an Atheist teacher who refused to lead it.

Creationism in a science class might be a different matter, because it is a theory accepted and believed by many. Maybe there should be at least a passing reference to it, but it should never be treated as a viable alternative to Evolution.

 

[wmrs2]

It's only subjective to the Christian.

That is not an objective opinion.

 

[amicus]

BentSecrets, Post #50

"...Capitalism was not created by anyone--it merely arose naturally as a consequence of Liberty..."

~~~

It is so seldom that any one has a good word or two for the free market system that I wish to applaud you and single it out so that perhaps one or two more might read.

Be well...



amicus...

 

[Xelebes]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are "Christian Fundamentalists" a pejorative term to most Americans?

Fundamentalist anything is a pejorative in many places, in America and not. It implies unwavering dogma and a naivete peculiar to what is ascribed to that dogma. Fundamentalism also implies political activism in the same vein of their naivete.

 

[amicus]

There was a time when belief in God could be called universal although there have always been doubters.

I offer that the 20th century, with two world wars, the loss of faith, was replaced with an Existential pessimism that classifies all attempts to seek and embrace absolute faith in anything as pejorative.

It has become the 'trendy' this to iterate that, 'nothing is absolute', that every thing is relative and that nothing is worth dying for and maybe not even living for.

Thus enter the modern Hedonists to whom pleasure defines their existence.

Just a thought...

amicus...

 

[Xelebes]

The only absolute is what ever has been found to be agreed upon.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ami seems to be thinking of beatniks. That was forty-fifty years ago, dude.

 

[Dragonlipz]

The bikini barista at the expresso stand

yelled: "OH! MY! GOD! as I punched her ticket to ecstacy. Does that make her a Christian Fundamentalist? She has a great fundament!

 

[Xelebes]

yelled: "OH! MY! GOD! as I punched her ticket to ecstacy. Does that make her a Christian Fundamentalist? She has a great fundament!

This alien does not know how this robot thinks but enjoys the thought of a robot having a seamier line of thought than this alien. Truly, silicon-based lifeforms have much to share with each other!

 

[wmrs2]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101 View Post
Nobody should be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on anybody else, and that means fundies of any kind, including Muslim and Christian. If you can tell me an exampe of where Aetheist Fundamentlists have impose their will on anybody, I would include them.

Before doing so, however, may I point out that preventing one group from imposing their beliefs on others is not the same as imposing yours on anybody.

The obvious reply would be the USSR and Red China. These are tremendous examples of imposing their beliefs and will on others.

 

[amicus]

The only absolute is what ever has been found to be agreed upon.

~~~

That is so ludicrous as to be hilarious... a majority makes right...thas funking wunnderful


ami

 

[Dragonlipz]

That is so ludicrous as to be hilarious... a majority makes right...thas funking wunnderful

Ami, old sod, the majority nearly never makes right, but minority (those you idolize) never do.....my money's with the mob on this one....you can make your bed with the Rockfellas....like all the rest of the wannabe's

 

[wmrs2]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are "Christian Fundamentalists" a pejorative term to most Americans?

There are several reasons.
1. Christian Fundamentalists are labeled by a liberal press that does not welcome any type of Christianity.
2. There are not many radical Christians in America but these seem to receive the greatest publicity among all Christians.
3. Fundamentalist to Christians are those who believe the Bible is the main source of information about God whereas the liberals attempt to brand fundamentalist as a narrow minded sect making up the majority of Christians. Fundamentalism is just another religious belief. Some fundamentalist can appear to be very liberal in lifestyle as compared to radical Christian.

The difference between a fundamentalist Christian using revealed knowledge -the Bible- to know about God and a more liberal approach to learning about God might be found in "natural" theology where reason, logic, and nature teaches one about God. There are combinations of fundamentalists and natural approaches to learning about God. Some people do not argue for God from a Biblical point of view but use the Bible to verify their personal belief in God.

 

[ishtat]

I suspect that fundamentalism will always be with us so long as people remain convinced of the notion that there is a God.

The popular (and true) history is that New England was first settled by fundamentalist christians, at least the next lot of settlers felt so because they moaned about them and when they couldn't get their own way tootled off and founded Rhode Island.

But there are fundamentalist Moslems (Wahabis) Hindus (Janata) Catholics (Opus Dei) as well as the commonly recognised groups on the protestant flank of christianity. I suspect that a fundamentalist is someone who takes a very literal and uncompromising view of their own religious point of view and tries to "sell" it to others. As an aside I also suspect that one of the reasons Amicus gets a regular shellacking here is because he is perceived as a fundamentalist by the majority present (not though a religious fundamentalist).

Basically fundamentalists of all stripes are despised because of the discomfort they bring to their neighbors belief (or non belief) systems.

Karen Armstrong wrote an interesting book on Fundamentalism in all the major faiths. I was going to refer to it but realise it has been lent and not returned. GRRR

 

[amicus]

The great Catholic powers that were sentenced Gallileo to house arrest for the rest of his life for being a 'fundamentalist', in terms of the earth centric premise of the times...a heretic I say! Shocking!

When knowledge is given the tag of 'fundamentalist' and any adherent to truth is 'shellacked'...well...can oppression be far behind?

Just to illustrate how wrong you are Ishtat, at least about that issue.

I suppose that fellow who created/invented/recognized/discovered Geometry was a 'fundamentalist' too, eh?

ami

 

[Dragonlipz]

The bikini barista at the expresso stand

advises you trolls to stick to politics:
It's a subject you know nothing about but can't be faulted for.......

 

[Guest]

Trolls?

I'm getting tired of newbies using that term incorrectly.

 

[amicus]

wmrs2...a well put explanation/defense of Fundamentalist that might put the thread back on topic.

I suggest the hatred of the religious right stems from basically one issue, that of the rampant feminism that has infected the market place over the past half century.

At the core of that is the conflict of the sanctity of life, abortion, and the value of sexual intercourse, contraception, that the feminists consider a conflict with their rights to choose in a moral vacuum.

People refuse to acknowledge that most of the world still restricts the political and moral rights of the female to avoid the very dilemma western societies have run smack dab into.

A bit of a schism exists within the feminist ranks in regard to the conflict in the middle east between feudal Islam and modern western Christianity, that I find amusing.

On one hand the feminists deplore Fundamentalism at home, on the other they oppose the war to free women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not too consistent now, are they?

Amicus...

 

[Guest]

It always comes back to women demanding orgasms for you, doesn't it, ami?

Damn, you're predictable.

 

[amicus]

It always comes back to women demanding orgasms for you, doesn't it, ami?

Damn, you're predictable.

~~~

I have to chuckle...wrote a response that even included lyrics to a song, had to search to confirm the title...got back...post was gone...sighs...I hate it when that happens...

Song was My Funny Valentine, lyric was, "Don't change a hair for me...not if you care for me..."....as a follow up to urging you to actually read my posts and put aside your feminazi attitude and your ideology just once and realize that the issues involved are worthy of discussion even if you vehemently disagree.

Besides that...there is still research doubting that more than one in ten women ever experience orgasm, that they 'fake it', and that it has no procreational value aside from the purr gained by stroking a cat...

heh....(this one is better than the one lost in the ether )

ami

 

[wmrs2]

I suspect that fundamentalism will always be with us so long as people remain convinced of the notion that there is a God.

The popular (and true) history is that New England was first settled by fundamentalist christians, at least the next lot of settlers felt so because they moaned about them and when they couldn't get their own way tootled off and founded Rhode Island.

But there are fundamentalist Moslems (Wahabis) Hindus (Janata) Catholics (Opus Dei) as well as the commonly recognised groups on the protestant flank of christianity. I suspect that a fundamentalist is someone who takes a very literal and uncompromising view of their own religious point of view and tries to "sell" it to others. As an aside I also suspect that one of the reasons Amicus gets a regular shellacking here is because he is perceived as a fundamentalist by the majority present (not though a religious fundamentalist).

Basically fundamentalists of all stripes are despised because of the discomfort they bring to their neighbors belief (or non belief) systems.

Karen Armstrong wrote an interesting book on Fundamentalism in all the major faiths. I was going to refer to it but realise it has been lent and not returned. GRRR

Basically fundamentalists of all stripes are despised because of the discomfort they bring to their neighbors belief (or non belief) systems

To me the above statement is very telling. If non fundamentalist find fundamentalist threatening to non belief system, the question that follows is why. The non belief system should not be threatened by a God system that does not exist. The non belief system does not exist in a vacuum but accompanying it is a non logic system where there is no stable premise for deduction. Without a belief system, especially void of eternal truths like self-evident truths, there can be no reasoning. Just thinking anything that pops in your mind can not be considered logical reasoning. There must be a premise.

Fundamentalists have a premise and this is the fact that threatens non believers. Sometimes it takes a lot of deductions to arrive at a moral principle or scientific law. No matter how many times an apple hits an unbeliever in the head, he can not deduce an eternal, universal. self-evident law of gravity. No faith system = no logic system. The non believing system can not even attest to man's existence without the acceptance of universal law. If a non believer did not actually believe in universal law, he would never venture to walk across the street. That is why the non believer is threatened. Correct logic will do that each and every time. The feeling of being threatened comes from the threat that the universal does exist, not from fundamentalism.

 

[amicus]

Well said, wmrs2, very well said....not that they will comprehend the content, but one applauds your effort.



amicus...

 

[Xelebes]

[/I]

~~~

That is so ludicrous as to be hilarious... a majority makes right...thas funking wunnderful


ami

Often case yes, but for the most reductionist truth is derived from ALL can agree upon. Everything else is opinion and propositions.