Post Reply
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Tolerating Extremism?
6 years ago  ::  Dec 19, 2007 - 2:13AM #1
Brønwyn
Posts: 1,312
I just got through watching a show on Frontline about the religious tension between extremist Bushites and extremist Shi'ites.

Here I am trying to make a resolution to myself to show more religious tolerance, lol, and then I watched that show. :o

I don't think I can do it. Help.

To be religious tolerant, must one have to tolerate that sort of insanity? How can I tolerate a religion that could lead so many hundreds of thousands of people to be in agreement with such insanity?

Is it really extremism of a religion, or is it a case of having a mental disorder, that one can truly believe that a God of peace is really a God all out for war and that this is okay to continue to believe and act in this fashion...at said God's current prophetic discretion?

When will the Gods of war cease????

All the land of the earth has been taken and filled up!

What kind of God is this?: Bushite -- "God told me to strike Saddam, and I did."

What is going on here????

I'm having a difficult time tolerating this....
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 19, 2007 - 11:36AM #2
gillyflower
Posts: 5,325
There are a whole lot of crazy people that aren't institutionalized. Unfortunately, they glom onto religion very often and there you go; extremists. There really is no rational discussion with them - they are warped, I'm afraid, past healing or helping, especially when they go undiagnosed and/or are off their meds.
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 20, 2007 - 1:49PM #3
Shelterkeep
Posts: 81
Well, before we get too far into this, let's make sure we're distinguishing between religion, even most devoutly practiced, and fanaticism. Fanaticism can either be about a genuine but misguided attempt to follow a supposedly more "pure" form of a faith, or it can be about some other agenda that religion is used to cover. I think our current war involves both types. In fact, even if someone starts with one, the other will likely be involved by the time very many people are participating. Everybody who joins in wants something. Which slant they take depends on their personal agenda. Either way, however, a person's right to swing their arm still ends at the tip of other people's noses, to paraphrase a quote. So, imposing this sort of thing on everybody else is not okay. I believe that's where the limit of tolerance lies. As a person of conscience, you can handle that as you believe is best in a given situation or in general, so long as you're careful not to become what you oppose in the process.

A bit of writing on the subject:
A Warning Against the Extreme http://wayshelter.com/Basica/Warning.htm
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 20, 2007 - 11:50PM #4
John_T_Mainer
Posts: 1,658
I am Asatru, sworn to Odin who is called Battleglad and Feeder of Ravens, so my own god does not seek peace, but preservation of the people by whatever means necessary.  Having said that, Odin teaches of the necessity of war in the defence of the folk.  Note the last phase "In defence of the folk".

My own lord loves well the battlefield and the bright souls harvested thereon, but knows that war is only just in the service of the people.  Odin gathers warriors against the end of days, he has no earthly quarrels, and asks no earthly crusades; rather he gathers the warriors who serve their folk nobly and selflessly unto himself when they fall.

There is no call from the gods to war upon each other.  The gods war against the end of all, they struggle for the preservation of life on this fragile orb, they do not call for its endangerment.  The cause of war on earth is men and women.  Some use cold economics, some patriotism, some waive ancient wrongs, political philosophy, national destiny, while plotting to build their dreams of human bones.  The worst are those who call out to the people that their gods want them to kill others in their name.

Are there gods so weak and feeble that cannot kill for themselves?  Can the gods whose will biult mountains and oceans not snuff a mortal life if it please them?  The gods need no killings from us.  It is NOT your gods that call you to murder, but your priests.

The next time you hear a self serving priest rise up before his alter and call for the blood of others to be shed in the name of the god you share, whip the lying cur from his place of preaching and drive him into the streets where mad dogs belong.  Let your gods see that you hear their words, not the blind hatred of little men who see you only as tools for their petty malice to exploit. 

I serve Odin all the days of my life, but I kill only at the command of Her Majesty the Queen and her elected Parliament.   No greater comfort has a soldier than to know that when they fall the gods will gather them home, but it is the service of their people, their civilians, their family, that brings them to the battlefield, not the commands of their god.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 24, 2007 - 7:42PM #5
friendofsaints&angels
Posts: 1,327
Iv'e actually talked with a few different gentlemen from the middle east on this very issue right after sep/11/01. I had asked a couple of opinions about this situation from a few different gentlemen. 1. They are all living here in america, so who knows if theyre being honest with me, or just telling me what I wanted to hear to save themselves some grief. I asked them to show me a Bible (I was referring to the kurahn of course) excuse me if I didn't spell that correctly, Thats not the Bible I read. How could a Bible tell you to strap explosives to yourself, and blow up innocent women and children, and consider that a good thing?  The explanation I recieved back every time is, there is no such Bible. That is extremist brain washing. I think that religion has more problems than that though. I was told that the prophet mohamed married a 14 year old virgin, when he was like 70. that in itself seems a little strange don't ya think? I do understand that something had to be done over in iraq, and saddam needed to be taken out, But on the other hand atleast the people were so scared of him, that there was actually law in iraq when he was ruling. The whole thing is such a big mess, that I don't know what to make out of all of it. Those people were screwed before we arrived, they are screwed now, and they will be screwed after we leave. I do find it kind of ironic though that this country has had infighting in it since biblical times, and here we are a 200 year old country thinking that we have all the answers.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 25, 2007 - 7:44PM #6
Brønwyn
Posts: 1,312
Okay, I've settled down a bit since I last wrote here....

I want to acknowledge each of you who have written. I enjoyed immensely all the words you have written. I found John's post to be very interesting in that his God Odin does not ask of people to murder. That is a fine religion to look at, IMO.

I have had some things running through my mind about all of this....

I keep saying to myself, "Is it the religion or the people?", and of course, somehow I feel that it would help if there were religions where the lore or sacred text gave specific details about the idea of war and murder...in that the texts could say it is not something to be tolerated or performed, not intentionally, anyway....that perhaps the world would be different today if that were the case. But then, everybody would have to be religiously into following strictly their code of text, and not everybody is....

and, besides, we can't go into somebody else's sacred text and make sure that is what is being said. What is written is written, for the most part anyway. So, back to square one, "Is it the religion or the people?"

I began to think of people who are patriotic....but, more for their religion than for their country, though the two could very well be a part of it all as well.....

I thought, this is not religious extremism, this is religious patriotism, but that could not be correct either because 'patriotism' means love for one's country. I had to find a different word, a word that might mean "a love for one's religion"....but that word is very hard to find, believe it or not.

I began to think of character...all these people couldn't possibly be all mentally ill, no....they could not all be mentally ill. No, they are just very patriotic, but patriotic within their religion. Okay....

I found no word to describe what I was seeing....

I kept seeing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as someone not patriotic for his country, but patriotic for his religion.

I kept seeing President George W. Bush as someone not patriotic for his country, but patriotic for himself!

So, these words eventually came together for me to understand what it is I'm seeing. For me, it's not religious extremism.

It's religious national egoism.

It's not "national egoism". It's not "religious egoism". All three words have to be together: religious national egoism.

For example, the Muslim suicide bombers are not being altruistic. They very much are doing it for their own self interests of rewards. But it's on religious connotations that those rewards will be achieved. It's a national thing as well because it pertains to the Nation of Islam. This is religious national egoism. But, those are words I came up with for myself to understand this better.

friendofsaints&angels wrote:

I do find it kind of ironic though that this country has had infighting in it since biblical times, and here we are a 200 year old country thinking that we have all the answers.


It's interesting what you wrote, because you used the word "we" in talking about a country that is being represented by a president who has thought to himself (outloud) that he wants to find the solution to the Middle East crisis.

I understand what you're saying, it's just that there are quite a few people living in this country that would never want to do what this president has wanted to do. It's not that this country thinks it has all the answers, but that certain rulers (presidents) have thought they could have all the answers...well, at least some.

Anyway...it all seems so strange when trying to figure out all of this.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2007 - 11:03AM #7
jbthegeezer
Posts: 4

Brønwyn wrote:

I just got through watching a show on Frontline about the religious tension between extremist Bushites and extremist Shi'ites.

Here I am trying to make a resolution to myself to show more religious tolerance, lol, and then I watched that show. :o

I don't think I can do it. Help.

To be religious tolerant, must one have to tolerate that sort of insanity? How can I tolerate a religion that could lead so many hundreds of thousands of people to be in agreement with such insanity?

Is it really extremism of a religion, or is it a case of having a mental disorder, that one can truly believe that a God of peace is really a God all out for war and that this is okay to continue to believe and act in this fashion...at said God's current prophetic discretion?

When will the Gods of war cease????

All the land of the earth has been taken and filled up!

What kind of God is this?: Bushite -- "God told me to strike Saddam, and I did."

What is going on here????

I'm having a difficult time tolerating this....


God didn't start the war why would a God stop it that is mans job. And yes you count right where you are.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2007 - 6:26PM #8
Shelterkeep
Posts: 81

friendofsaints&angels wrote:

I was told that the prophet mohamed married a 14 year old virgin, when he was like 70. that in itself seems a little strange don't ya think?


Although he said it was allowed, he was known to have generally discouraged the practice (already a longstanding tradition amongst his people) of marrying multiple women, because he considered it impossible to treat all the wives equally. However, he was also known to feel responsible for the families of those loyal to him who were killed in battle on his behalf and that of Islam, and so he married the women to make sure they were secure and well cared for. I'd suggest putting what you heard in that context, even though what you were told is about an age gap and not numbers of wives.

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

Some good source material:

The Koran
translation by N. J. Dawood
Penguin Books

Islam - the Straight Path
by John L. Esposito
Oxford University Press
ISBN 0-19-504399

What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam
by John L. Esposito
Oxford University Press
ISBN 0-19-515713-3

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2007 - 7:52PM #9
friendofsaints&angels
Posts: 1,327
Hey Bronwyn.I'm Not disagreeing with you just to disagree, But I think I'm gonna have to disagree wiyh you. I didn't even vote for George Busch, But I feel sorry for him. If anything bad happens in the world, It seems that its his fault automatically. Many democrats voted to go too war, And now many of them same democrats are badmouthing Busch, For what they voted for in the first place. I especially love how many people blamed Him for hurricane Katrina. Your living under sea level, Theres a category 5 hurricane coming at you, and you have a weeks notice too leave. HELLO!!!!  I also get a big laugh when people try to make Bill Clinton out to be some kind of saint, And the arguement they usually have too defend him is, Atleast the econemy was in good shape when He was in office. He almost single handidly ran this country into the ground. If you want me too write a book on here explaining all of His mistakes, Just ask and I will reply. What people seem to overlook is that republicans built up the econemy, Then Clinton came in and rode the wave.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Dec 28, 2007 - 6:56PM #10
MasterOfSparks
Posts: 3,166
I never cease to be amazed by the level of stupidity among conservatives. They didn't get that dumb by themselves but I don't see a single reason to tolerate them. If they were only hurting themselves I'd say fine. But its the rest of us who have to pay for their stupidity and listen to the disgusting lunacy. At the very least we should double taxes on Bush voters until they have paid for their mistakes. I keep trying to stay in a Thom Hartmann frame of mind when I deal with them but its hard not to fall back on my Mike Malloy approach.

The thing I find most irritating about conservatives isn't just that their opinions so rarely have any basis in reality. It's not even their incessant refusal to change those opinions when presented with irrefutable facts and logic. But rather it's their complete bewilderment that anyone else might think they should.

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

There's nothing at all new about the venomous anti-Obama sentiment coming from the right. Its just what happens when an effective and popular Democrat leads the country in a positive direction. Kennedy and Johnson had the John Birch Society. Carter and Clinton had their lunatic detractors. What has changed, however, is that the Birchers and Clinton Death List crowd used to be the extreme fringe and the GOP saw them as an embarrassment. Now the crazies are the top GOP leadership and only a few Republicans are calling for sanity. Why? Because Republicans have no ideas and nothing else to sell.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook