Posted on 11/23/2001 7:22:35 PM PST by Michael2001
Close. More than Islamism, it was FUNDAMENTALISM. I don't care what religious (or even atheistic) myth you believe in -- the fundamentalist element in them are always trying to enforce their narrow little vision. Usually with great brutality.
Down with fundamentalism!!!
You said it all right there.
Queen Noor was on Larry King speaking in support of Laura Bush. I believe she has a valid opinion as well.
Personally, it appears to me that the administration is trying to encourage those branches of the Islamic faith that are more open to better treatment of women. By making this treatment a tenet of the terrorists (which it was, at least in Afghanistan) and marginalizing it, Muslims are encouraged to moderate their views. Also, the Saudis might be re-thinking some of their ways as well.
Most Christians are MUCH more open-minded than most lib's and I would say also most are more open-minded than so-called free-thinkers/Atheists.
Battle cries of those who will not tolerate intolerance OR tolerance...;)
If you want to see serious squirming, watch any Muslim sitting through this speech, which I think we will hear repeated almost ad nauseum from Mrs. Bush, Mrs. Blair, and even Mrs. Putin in the days and weeks ahead.
And it is ironic to see some local religionists here complaining about the burqas enforced by the Taliban even as they agitate to ban nudie bars and porno shows.
The fundies always seem to know just how much skin we are supposed to be allowed to see -- and they will use whatever powers they have in hand to enforce that limitation.
The great thing about fundies is they are predcitable.
I mean, if you don't believe the fundamentals then why are you involved with the Religion or school of thought?
Seems like anyone who doesn't agree with the fundamentals would be a wishy-washy moderate by default.
Fundamentalists grab for power and they use it to enforce their religious views on EVERYONE. The Taliban and Islam is one pernicious example of same. It is hardly the only offender.
Thats really a pretty broad term there. I'd be willing to bet that more than half of the Freepers here would be considered "fundamentalist christian" and a good proportion more that aren't too far from that either. But what is wrong with fundamentals? Everyone has them. Every faith has its fundamentals...its core values from which it will absolutely not depart without committing what it views as heresy. If you go back to the history of christianity in this century alone at the turn of the century when the term "fundamentalism" starting becoming popular, it had to do with the distinction between those who believed in certain fundamental principles of the christian faith and those who were departing from those core values, which are called by many "liberal churches" today.
And of course, in Judaism you have various sects as well ( Reform Judaism, Conservative, Orthodox - Chassidic, the Chabad Lubavich, etc. etc. etc. etc... I suppose, you might as well kill off the Amish while your at it (Oh! yes they have beards too). Most people came to this country to worship as they choose. Many of our ancestors came for religious freedom, in case you didn't know.
I'll tell you what bothers me about this whole Taliban thing and the way in which people are thinking about it....
We cannot equate someone who has religious convictions with terrorism. If a particular religion believes in women covering their heads (which even protestant sects have those groups, not to mention the practice of Catholis nuns and even Eastern orthodox Christian) then that is their business and no state or world government or agency has the right to tell them otherwise.
In the U.S.A. you can choose to belong to a faith that believes in super strict fundamentals (which is really relative to the observer or society I suppose) or you can choose NOT to belong to such a faith or any faith at all.
I could go on with examples, but I think you get the point. Since when do we have the right to tell other countries how to worship?? But seeing how we have our own problem.... (WACO)
The issue is terrorism and the definition of it, not fundamentalism in general. Islamic Fundamentalists, in particular, are bent on conquest by the sword for Islam. There's no mistake about that. But think... If they ARE Fundamentalist, it means they are holding to the fundamental values and aspirations of their faith, does it not? The question to ask then, is, "is that faith itself, by its own fundamental values a violent and aggressive faith that seeks forceful conversion of all non adherents?" In the case of Islam one only need look at it's written texts, its historical scriptures and history to the answer to that question.
To put what I am saying in a nutshell...
It is Islamic Fundamentalism you should be shouting "down with". A Fundamentalism that breeds terrorism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.