Cant argue with that
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Main reasons you wouldn't get an EV?
Muslim extremism. Do they know something we don't?
- Thread starter JHatman
- Start date
I like you. No reason to be afraid. Cheer up. 2010 is coming.
Necuno
Court Jester
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 58,566
- Reaction score
- 3,437
Rubbish. Where's the proof the U.S military serves a fanatical religious ideology and not the elected civilian government.
Last time I checked they weren't running around blowing up markets full of civilians in the name of mass murdering non believers .
Seems we've got terrorist supporter/sympathizer on our hands. Bin-Laden is in a shallow ditch somewhere along with most of his lieutenants. Al Qaeda couldn't even win on "home turf" in Iraq against a half arsed U.S effort ffs.
Last edited:
Nanfeishen
Executive Member
Clash of Ideologies, such an age old, boring situation.
On the one side a political ideology of western economic Democracy claiming to be upholders of the peace offering freedom in exchange for economic gains and goals, on the other a religious ideology offering martyrdom and spiritual gains for its followers and believers.
If it was as simple as two political ideologies, such as fascism v socialism, or democracy v communism, it would be simple situation , resolvable even possibly, however in this instant we have a political system versus a religious system, it will remain unsolvable.
Religious fundamentalism and extremism, are not eradicable.
Religious belief has survived the Roman empire, Nazi Germany, Communism in the USSR, and still survives in China to date, it cannot be eliminated, and wherever you have followers of a religion, you will find extremism and fundamentalism, they are synonymous with religion.
There will always be someone somewhere who is willing do kill and die for their belief.
Its a fact of life.
If it doesnt affect you personally dont bother with it , live your life and enjoy every moment, the rest can go to hell.
On the one side a political ideology of western economic Democracy claiming to be upholders of the peace offering freedom in exchange for economic gains and goals, on the other a religious ideology offering martyrdom and spiritual gains for its followers and believers.
If it was as simple as two political ideologies, such as fascism v socialism, or democracy v communism, it would be simple situation , resolvable even possibly, however in this instant we have a political system versus a religious system, it will remain unsolvable.
Religious fundamentalism and extremism, are not eradicable.
Religious belief has survived the Roman empire, Nazi Germany, Communism in the USSR, and still survives in China to date, it cannot be eliminated, and wherever you have followers of a religion, you will find extremism and fundamentalism, they are synonymous with religion.
There will always be someone somewhere who is willing do kill and die for their belief.
Its a fact of life.
If it doesnt affect you personally dont bother with it , live your life and enjoy every moment, the rest can go to hell.
So you're just supposed to ignore the slaughter and hope your turn never comes. Hedonism will lead to ruin.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
People thought the Japanese religious devotion to their emperor was an insurmountable obstacle as well. They were wrong
Nanfeishen
Executive Member
All things considered, its the most logical, realistic of paths to follow.
Why concern yourself with matters beyond your control?
Its an age old conflict of one group of men wanting to impose their values and lifestyle on another who have no desire to be ruled over by the other.
Just as communism of the "cold War" era ran its course as being public enemy no1, so terrorism will over time run its course, and slowly be replaced by "extremism", which will most likely be replaced by some other evil sounding phrase and so and so on.
It is simply another conflict in a long line of conflicts that make up the legacy of the human race.
It was more nationalism than religion, and was ingrained into daily Japanese life, just as apartheid was ingrained into our lives, through the education system and state controlled propoganda press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/shinto/geness.html
I disagree completely. The Soviet Union was completely a-religious. They had no religion at all. The State Ideology was controlling all aspects of life while the Russian Orthodox Church was banned, priests murdered or sent to Siberia and churches and books destroyed. There was no religion in the USSR.
The idea that religion breeds extremism and fundamentalism is Nafenshen's opinion and a wrong one at that.
Balstrome
Banned
I would suggest that Communism is in fact a religion, as it had all the characteristics of one, Authority from on high, Worship those who rule, usually one supreme leader, faith the party knew what was best, rituals and ceremonies to divert the general populace from the failings of the party and it's leaders.
I don't see how saying that Shintoism was declared a 'non-religion' makes it a non-religion. Not at all, Shinto was and still is a religion. The fact that it was used, in the same way that priests blessed soldiers in wars in Europe and even in England you had your "For God, King and Country" slogan are quite synonymous to the Japanese situation. In fact that was all nationalism, pardon the incorrect semantics used but the State systems in Europe were nationalistically based, similar to Japan, an isolated, island society - much like Great Britain. It should be said that isolation of being an island breeds more nationalist baggage. The Japanese will say they are not very religious though but they are very superstitious and they tend to adopt many foreign religious aspects - so to say have a mix of religions. Most people are Buddhist however which doesn't stop them from praying to the Christian God and then visiting a Shinto shrine. Of course, in Japan, the militarists had taken over, the Emperor despite being 'divine' did not have much to say. He certainly did not undertake the decisions the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and other despots. You could compare him more to Queen Victoria in the 19th century with the British parliament and ministers taking the decisions which mattered. The Emperor is still highly revered over there, more so than here. There may be useful and pragmatic reasons for this too - a monarch, Emperor, Kaiser or King is a great way of assuring stability and continuity. In the onslaught of the perceived negative influence on isolationist Japan in the Meiji Era the Emperor was great for stability. Hence we find the UK and Japan keep their monarchs, albeit at ceremonial level. Political parties change but the monarch and his blood line continue.
As for nationalism that I think is a more fanatical and extremist form of ideology than any mainstream religion. Nationalism cannot change and is quite natural - people are afraid of that they don't know and also identify with their own. The history of Europe is one of national conquests and subjugation - virtually all the wars in Europe were fought along ethnic/language lines. This was sometimes masked by allegiances among powers, but everywhere in the world where countries border each other and people are different ethnically - there were and still are wars. True sometimes religion was thrown in but the fundamental reasons for the distrust among the people on the ground was not religion but race/language/nationality/ethnicity.
One thing to remember, no matter how noble - people will always find ways to bend and pervert ideologies and religions. Democracy is no exception.
It is human nature which does that. It may even be an innate thing as some contend there is no such thing as a noble savage. Steven Pinker wrote a book about this not long ago - The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature - you can buy it on Amazon.
Last edited:
Rather selfish attitude. If everybody focused solely on themselves each individual would go down like a domino.
Why wait in blissful ignorance until it's your turn? Sounds totally illogical to me. You don't ignore crime, disease etc until it only affects you. If people did society would fall apart.
If you focus solely on yourself you'll inevitable lose your freedom to an individual or group more powerful than you. An individual like you in areas affected by Muslim extremists would be doomed to summit to their will. Not something to enjoy I'm sure.
That's life. There will always be conflict. If you want to live a better way of life you're going to have to defend it.
The Japanese had a fanatical devotion to the emperor. They certainly were no less devoted to their cause than Islamic extremists today.
Lightscribe
Banned
An irrefutable post. Ultimately, you make your choices and, in spite of its flaws, the American system is superior.
Another consideration is that democracy should be regarded as an (imperfect) ‘work in progress’. An evolutionary step on the scale – democracy is more evolved than an ayatollah directing you to ‘believe in a myth otherwise we will chop off your head’. Even your ‘brainwashing’ point demonstrates evolution. A system where the brainwashed accepts and supports national policy (similar to the frog-in-the-pot syndrome) has got to be more advanced than a system where the brainwashed are kept in line by religion, intimidation and fear.
Democracy is all we have and is the most advanced concept wielded by a powerful promoter. Things are not ideal but they could be a lot worse.
Things are not ideal, but they're punted as such. Brainwashing on a mass scale occurs in the most democratic of societies. People follow politicians blindly. Look at the support for Obama Barrack at the beginning and look at it now. So many disappointed people who thought that the Second Coming had occurred but now have to deal with the realities. The new guy, on average, is no better or worse than any of the previous guys.
People are blind sheep. Even this new religion bashing movement, that's in vogue since the 70s - even that is just sheep following buzzwords and hype.
People need to become realistic and pragmatic. Separate religion from state and don't believe any of the bull$hit the politicians punt, especially your favourites. That's why countries like Britain have monarchs - for the appearance of continuity and stability. The politicians come and go, the scandals come and go and what was hip this year will be spat upon the next as disillusionment sets in from over-expectation. The more democratic and sensible the society, the smaller the voter turn outs - as they all know, the next lot will be just as bad as the previous. So, why bother, if they're all useless?
As for democracy being work in progress, I don't know. We've had democracy since the Greeks invented the concept. To suggest it will be different is to somehow change human nature. I don't think we'll get there - it's as laughable as sci-fi depictions of future societies where people have so evolved socially that accumulation of material wealth is no longer a driving force and money no longer exists.
Last edited:
Your suggestion is wrong. Communism or rather Marxism was not a religion. It was a social-political ideology. Using your logic, we could reduce democracy to a religion too, capitalism to a religion, social liberalism a religion and so on.
Religion is a spiritual affair. It attempts to satisfy man's thirst for knowledge of the the unknown after death. Communism is a system of collectivism where all control was in the hands of the Party which thought it had the peoples' best interests at heart and took decisions of them. Not surprising, it was impossible to think about the individual person, but in terms of the nation state as a whole. Communism or Bolshevism as the latter is what occurred in reality in the USSR and other pro-Soviet states was no different to fascism. A select group of guys took control, themselves led great lives and controlled all aspects of everyone else's lives. It wasn't a religion. The only similarity to religion I can think of is the imagined control people perceive in religious movements. This control occurs when countries are ruled by Ecclesiastic Laws - ancient Israel was like this - the Church and State were one and laws were based on those of the Talmud. This control does not occur in modern West, not since the Popes lost all political power - sometime back in the 1400-1500s. Even then, the Papal states had little power - the Pope was usually at the mercy of the Holy Roman Emperor or other monarchs.
The Bolsheviks eradicated all vestiges of religion in the USSR. It was forbidden to go to church, to pray, to celebrate religious festivals. There were no churches. Anything which diverted power from the state in some way was forbidden. Hence, pornography and drug use were also forbidden and we still see China following those rules. They don't ban drugs and porno in China because they're bad for the youth, they ban them because they offer alternatives to the hegemony of the State.
Festivals in the USSR etc - were not done to divert the people away from the failings of their leaders - well not more so than they hype and punditry ruling parties release - they were a way to strengthen faith in the system. People were indoctrinated from primary school into the propaganda and ideology. There was no freedom, because the people in charge, thought they knew better.
Last edited:
Your Republican underwear is showing. The electorate **HOPED** that Obama could make a difference. He was the best candidate out of a poor bunch. If Obama has failed it has been against massive odds and he failed elegantly. With any other candidate (especially Republican), the failure would have been more rapid and catastrophic.
The same applies, even more, to religion that's been in vogue for the last 2000 years. They even have sheepish buzzwords – flock, lambs, etc.
Nanfeishen
Executive Member
Inaccurate
The regime's efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests. Official policies and practices not only varied with time but also differed in their application from one nationality to another and from one religion to another. Although all Soviet leaders had the same long-range goal of developing a cohesive Soviet people, they pursued different policies to achieve it. For the Soviet regime, the questions of nationality and religion were always closely linked. Not surprisingly, therefore, the attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church
It is more than an opinion,
: any time you have any believer of any faith, who under the guise of that faith perpetrates or participates in any act of violence in the name of that faith, (however distorted) you have a case of extremism/fundamentalism.
Anytime you find Separatism, Exclusivity, and Other-Condemnation being punted in religion, or by any sect of a particular religion, you have the potential for the development of extremism and fundamentalism.
Israel Opens Investigation Into Religious Extremism in Its Ranks During Gaza Invasion:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/03/2...-extremism-in-its-ranks-during-gaza-invasion/
Christian Extremism - A Neglected Topic in the American Media
http://ezinearticles.com/?Christian-Extremism---A-Neglected-Topic-in-the-American-Media&id=1845492
Book Review:
The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookreviews/bkrev_fundamentalsofextremism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism
You don't know my political stance, and I'm not American so I can't wear 'Republican underwear'. Secondly, you're a prime example of a sheep - a blind follower and buyer of BS. Thanks for illustrating my post with a great example. You'd be one of those people following Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and the rest - because you have heroes - heroes who are infallible. Believe in yourself because you know yourself, believing in others is folly.
Simple people used simple analogies - "flock, lambs, etc". These are hardly buzzwords. They illustrate simple messages in simple terms.
The Greeks came up with a ‘plain vanilla’ ‘Representative Democracy’ which (with minor modifications) the world practises (this means the electorate votes for ‘representatives’ [read fatcats] to represent their interests).An evolutionary step in democracy would comprise:
With advances in technology it has become possible to have ‘Participatory Democracy’ (Democracy+) where each individual can vote directly on their interests. The ‘Representative’ fatcats will fight this tooth & nail because it will erode their power. Politician’s power will be diminished considerably when a referendum on almost anything can be held frequently and cheaply (and accurately, with little corruption).
IMO democracy is on the threshold of a ginormous evolutionary step. It will be implemented via cell phones. The requirement for this enhancement to democracy+, would be significant cell phone penetration, a sophisticated infrastructure and the knowledge (and political will) to implement the system. SA might have the penetration but it lacks the other requirements. It will probably occur first in a Northern European country (Nokia, Ericson, progressive electorate etc.).
Consider – one vote per cell phone (protected by a PIN), a centralised database verifying that the number belongs to a citizen of the country (and other voting requirements). A computerised count of the votes (minimises corruption) and (the future main duty of politicians) an announcement of the results – even this can be delegated to the cell phone with the politician expected to simply implement the results.
The advantage here is that there is a path of graceful degradation. If a society cannot practise the technology enhanced Democracy + they degrade to the standard, plain vanilla democracy.
I don't see why you're saying I'm inaccurate. My point is made. Of course they didn't send every religious person in Russia to Siberia or executed them - almost 99% of Russians were believers. You're inaccurate. Religion was banned when the Bolsheviks took over and they destroyed churches. Religion may have been gently tolerated later on, but definitely under Lenin and Stalin, it wasn't. The only times it had reprieve was when the Germans were on Moscow's doorstep. Installing their own Metropolitans was also a way of subverting and controlling. Officially party members could not be seen in a church either, also not if you wanted to advance. Read more about it and you'll see I'm 100% right.
Speak to any Russian person in SA about religion in SA and they'll tell you.
Wow - a world without religion would be so perfect. Again I disagree. You're merely attributing aspects of human nature to religion and saying it is the root of evil. It hardly is, as religion was not used in Europe for hundreds of years. The Protestant vs Catholic conflicts were conflicts between monarchs who formed alliances and not all Catholic nations persecuted religious minorities - these conflicts chiefly occurred in Britain - where the thing was 100% politics, France, Holland and Germany (Holy Roman Empire). In the rest of Europe these did not happen. Secondly again these were political actions.
There were more bloody conflicts in Europe before the Reformation and afterwards - all about power, land and money. Even the Crusades were a war between white Europeans and their Holy Roman Empire (precursor of the EU)
and the Arabs, later the Ottomans. Later nationalism took over as old wounds of distrust among neighbours took over - human nature.
Israel is more of a national state than a religious one. What drives Israeli self-determination is not religion (although that helped keep the Jews unique and uniform while separated from Israel) BUT nationalism. They want a state of their own. The religious Right is a minority in Israel and hardly has any power.
Well left wing politics are just as extreme. I don't see anything here.
Did you read that book or just the review? What is it based on?
Last edited: