Distorting other people's statement will not help forward the debate 'peter'.

Your attempt at insinuate quite wrongly that I am inviting people to denounce someone is flat wrong. Quite to contrary, I have gone to great lengths to claim that this was in no way a personal attack on 'thomas'. Read the posts again my friend.

My invitation strictly deals with a comment that was made in this thread, which addresses the topic in a most pertinent fashion.
CONDONE OR DENOUNCE, pro or con, yeah or neah, EXCLUSIVELY AIMED AT A COMMENT or position expressed, is the explicit question raised with any topic in any forum or debate.

I respectfully denounce your denunciation. :)

Now, do you ...

a) agree with,
b) denounce,

or

c) refuse to answer with respect to the following statement:

'... We don't like gays or Muslims because of their actions and the way they are trying to corrupt and destroy our religion. ...'

Why complicate things so???

What is this new christian belief of HATING, whether it is a sin or or any other form of hating??? When and where did Jesus teach to hate??? Sins or otherwise??? If anything, Jesus taught us all to love, to elevate ourselves ABOVE AND BEYOND THE PRIMITIVE INSTINCT OF FEAR AND HATRED in their form.

There is no moral, ethical, emotional or social need to hate period.

What's the point of HATING a behavior??? It is a waste of perfectly good energy, and will only give you ulcers in the long run.

If you are clear the adultery is not conducive to a life that works, and that you promote and stand for yourself and for others for a life that works, then just DENOUNCE THE BEHAVIOR as such. The hating part is overkill; totally unproductive.


Great!!! Here is your chance!

'Thomas', a good christian no doubt, made such a statement.

I have invited, and invite you again to address the situation, as you say, by DENOUNCING his statement.

There comes a point where owning up is of essence if one values maintaining integrity.

Why complicate things so???

What is this new christian belief of HATING, whether it is a sin or or any other form of hating??? When and where did Jesus teach to hate??? Sins or otherwise??? If anything, Jesus taught all to elevate ABOVE AND BEYOND

There is no moral, ethical, emotional or social need to hate period. What's the point of HATING a behavior??? It is a waste of perfectly good energy, and will only give you ulcers in the long run.

If you are clear the adultery is not conducive to a life that works, and that you promote and stand for yourself and for others for a life that works, then just DENOUNCE THE BEHAVIOR as such. The hating part is overkill; totally unproductive.

The simple answer to your question 'what can we do?' :

DENOUNCE HATRED, in all its hypocritical or outright first degree manifestations.

With respect to your closing statement/question,

'...Do the non-religious take this STAND...?'

Who cares about religious or non-religious nuances!!! Denounce ALL HATERS AND DISCRIMINATORS!!! Did Jesus ask himself these kinds of questions when faced with acts of filled with prejudice and hatred???

Respectfully and without turning it into a personal attack against 'thomas', I denounce the hatred that is expressed in his comments.

As 'thomas' might say himself, 'I don't judge him, for all I know, he's probably a good man with a good heart, but I sure as heck do not agree with, and strongly denounce the hatred laced and profoundly divisive nature of his words, leading to some hate consistent actions which he shared with us, where the focus becomes 'voting agaisnt' vs 'voting for'!!!

Intolerance and hatred invites more intolerance and hatred. I don't recall Jesus ever promoting or teaching these barbaric instincts. But I am confident, if I made the effort of looking it up in th bible, I would find several examples of Jesus DENOUNCING intolerance and hatred. VERY CONFIDENT!

The USA is a secular nation, assuring the right of practice of any faith or religion of choice, and the equal right of not practicing any faith or religion at all.

In such a secular, free and potentially tolerant nation, christian fundamentalism, and religious extremism represent a deadly virus. What Darrell Ray refers to in his book as 'THE GOD VIRUS'. What happens when fundamentalists distort the spiritual essence of god.

Since 'thomas' won't answer the straight 'on topic' question I asked him, I ask everyone else visiting this thread:

When 'thomas' speaks of the 'WE', as in

'... We don't like gays or Muslims because of their actions and the way they are trying to corrupt and destroy our religion. ...',

If you are reading this post, ARE YOU part of the '... 'WE' don't like the gays and the Muslims...'???

And if you are part of the 'WE', ... to what extent are you prepared to go to defend this delusional and totally 'FABRICATED' insurrection against YOUR RELIGION???

This is what this thread is about. Reflecting upon where we stand; our position, with respect to a very real phenomenon of christian fundamentalism and religious extremism taking place in OUR OWN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL BACKYARDS.

Are 'WE' blindly for some, and consciously for others allowing our very own 'christian Ayatollahs', to slowly and deceivingly introduce fear of others, intolerance, hatred, and a crusade like war against the 'fabricated' enemy???
- Kicking out of our schools the science that doesn't agree with our dogma!
- Targeting and discriminating against specific groups of our society as 'CORRUPTORS' and 'DESTROYERS' of a christian fundamentalist religious way of life?

Recommended reading: '... The Family, The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, by Jeff Sharlet.

The book exposed the christian right fundamentalist 'Family', and reveals its far-reaching impact on democracy. No future reckoning of American fundamentalism will be able to ignore it.

" Sharlet knows what he's talking about. He writes:
'Our refusal to recognize the theocratic strand running throughout American history is as self-deceiving as fundamentalism's insistence that the United States was created a Christian nation.' Those who want to be un-deceived (and wildly entertained) must read this disturbing tour de force."

--Frank Schaeffer, author of Crazy For God: How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back.

Again the question:

When 'thomas' speaks of the 'WE', as in

'... We don't like gays or Muslims because of their actions and the way they are trying to corrupt and destroy our religion. ...',

If you are reading this post, ARE YOU part of the '... 'WE' don't like the gays and the Muslims...'???

And if you are part of the 'WE', to what extent are you prepsred to go to defend this delusional and totally 'FABRICATED' insurrection against YOUR RELIGION???

'... Christian fundamentalism (extremists), not christians in general, but the 'fundamentalists', it is known, have no regard for the Constitution: 'SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH', and the laws of the land (privacy laws in this case), and are at the heart of the 'evil' that won't go away...'

The point was 'disowning'.

No one asks that you be responsible for someone elses' actions. But I don't believe it would cross your mind to excommunicate (disown) someone from being black, because of a crime he/she would have committed.

The topic of this thread is religious extremism getting out of control. The God Virus, the book which middleearthing suggested as a basis for this topic, deals specifically with christian fundamentalism gone out of control.

Pertaining to your strings of comments 'thomas', which clearly illustrate the author's point, I asked you a straightforward question, the answer to which would contribute to this topic.

Here it the context and the question again:

The hatred must stop 'thomas'. You wrote earlier :

'... We don't like gays or Muslims because of their actions and the way they are trying to corrupt and destory our religion. ...'

Given this personal perception you have of gays and Muslims, how far are you prepared to go to defend YOUR RELIGION against the 'corruptors' and the 'destroyers' 'thomas'?

'Recovering from extreme religiosity', is the topic of this thread, and there couldn't have been a better demonstration of 'The God Virus' than the comments made here by 'thomas'.

With all due respect to you personally 'thomas', and I know you certainly wouldn't be one to agree with Dr. Darrell Ray's perspective, almost every line you wrote above could have been taken out of 'The God Virus', as salient examples of evertyhing gone wrong with the christian fundamentalist movement.

I am not suggesting it is the case for you 'thomas', but in this statement alone:

'... This includes the homosexual lifestyle,other false religions and Gods,people who practice witchcraft,etc.People who claim they are Christians and are anything but,are worse in Gods eyes then people who don't believe in God at all...'

... one could easily conclude that once all the exclusions are made, one would be left with just that: a religion of 'one'!

The hatred must stop 'thomas'. You wrote earlier :

'... We don't like gays or Muslims because of their actions and the way they are trying to corrupt and destory our religion. ...'

Given this personal perception you have of gays and Muslims, how far are you prepared to go to defend YOUR RELIGION 'thomas'. If not you personally, whom among your 'friends' will stop the so-called 'corruptors' and 'destroyers' of YOUR PERSONAL GOD GIVEN RELIGION!!!

That is a statement which is difficult to address 'thomas', other than to say that it is very close to what Hitler would have been overheard saying about the jewish people: '... corrupting and destroying his 'pure god given arian race' and way of life...'.

That is what this thread is addressing through 'The God Virus' 'thomas'.

To what extent christian fundamentalists are going to be willing to go to 'defend' their righteous god, and personal beliefs, against the perceived threats of illusionary 'corruptors' and 'destroyers', whose only crime is to 'THINK' differently then the righteous christian fundamentalists and their personal interpretation of a book!!!

While I don't doubt that one must surely get a powerful sense of mission and purpose out of this role of soldier and defender of christ himself, but it is a delusion at best, a losing battle at worst, along with a possible case of multiple stomach ulcers from all the bad energy.

Cervantes, in his epic 'Don Quichotte de la Mancha', warned us all very clearly about the dangers of delusion.

In short, Don Quichotte is obsessed over books dealing with 'Chevalery'. The books so troubled his mind that he started to believe that he was a 'chevalier' himself, whose purpose and mission was to save and protect the oppressed throughout Spain. It could be said that his 'chevalrie' books were like his bible, and that his life was lived straight out of his books.

Later, near the end of his life, Don Quichotte gives up on reading 'chevalerie' books. He soon after regained his ability to think clearly and pragmatically, showing the greatest of wisdom, to the admiration of people surrounding him in his final years.

Recovering from 'The God Virus'??? Cervantes wrote all about it, it would seem, more than 400 years ago. We have yet to learn the lesson!

Christian fundamentalism (extremists), not christians in general, but the 'fundamentalists', it is known, have no regard for the Constitution: 'SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH', and the laws of the land (privacy laws in this case), and are at the heart of the 'evil' that won't go away.

Performing abortions in the US is a totally legal procedure. To deny that fact is subversive, counterproductive and downright evil.

Furthermore my defending the wisdom and right of a woman to chose, does not make me a 'baby killer'. It does not make me a PRO ABORTION.

No one is in favor of abortion outright. No one ever goes around enthusiastically 'promoting' abortion. Performing professionally sanctioned and legally available abortions is a modern society's moral obligation.

I'd be the first one to suggest that in an idea world, there would be no abortions. But ideal, our world is not, and abortions will take place whether it agrees with one's life principles, or religious beliefs.

Pragmatism and a sense of dignity and compassion must then direct our actions. It would be unacceptable for a modern society to hypocritically close an eye on the inevitable occurrence of unwanted pregnancies, and the dramatic human consequences if such were to be relegated to the back ally practices of old.

Call it a legally necessary 'evil' if you will, but LEGALLY NECESSARY FOR SURE!!! It will happen anyways, and only cause more harm!

That being the reality of the land, religious fundamentalists must be denounced for their deceptive tactics, attempting to make it both hard and shameful to access that which is legal and safe. They are only pushing for the re-emergence of back alley shops, and that for sure is nothing other than pure EVIL!!!

It is then the Nation as whole that will be put to shame.

Eljay, your personal views of what constitutes a (deserving) christian, even when you use your personal 'expert' interpretive skills of the bible as some sort of subjective authority for your position, doesn't change the fact that it is your personal opinion and interpretation. Another version of the 'god on my side' perverse way of ONE deciding what is right and wrong for ALL.

It is keeping a certain group locked into the old 'By choice or by birth' endless battle.
Or the infamous 'MY bible scriptures interpretation is right and yours is wrong' childish battle!!! Leading to insane notion that Catholics are not christians in some bible 'experts' eyes.

At that rate, the CHOSEN will be NONE!!! ... for the ONE whom might end up winning the 'I'M RIGHT, THEY'RE WRONG' ego contest, will be flushed for having judged all others!!!

Hitler was a catholic. Hitler was a christian. Hitler became radical in his christian views, then fundamentalist in his christian views, and finally, outright insane in his christian views!!! Supported throughout, by heavyweights of the christian church of the time.

And this bring US straight back to the heart of the topic.

What is your opinion 'the god virus'?

Since you and I agree on religious fundamentalism, and the general destruction it has on society at large, and surely you wouldn't be one to conveniently exclude christianity has having its own fringe of religious fundamentalists, it would be pertinent, given the topic of this thread, to hear your views on Dr. Darrel Ray's book.

Tossing out the whole christian 'fundamentalist' thing for sure!!!

If religious organizations, from the smallest to the largest, could demonstrate integrity, and become responsible for the harm they promote, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Furthermore, it occurs to me msharmony, that you might have a hard time reconciling yourself with the manner, the form, through which Darrel Ray presents his case: sort of a detox program for the religious.

Well, here is a suggestion that might help you move beyond that 'wall' and get the gist of Ray's worthwhile breakthrough.

Google up Dr. Frank Shaeffer, author of 'Crazy for God', and read up on some of his views.

Unlike Ray, Shaeffer is a devout practicing christian. And that doesn't stop him from denouncing the out of control christian evangelical and fundamentalist movement that is driving America straight into a concrete wall.

Here is what Shaeffer had to say about Ray's 'The God Virus':

“I am a religious person, a churchgoer. Nevertheless, this one-of-a-kind book [The God Virus] is a vital reminder of the fact that we must think objectively at what religion does to us.”

Throwing out the baby with bathwater?!?!? NO!

But getting rid of ALL the bad water!!! Absolutely!!!

HI RIGHT BACK Lady 'D'!!! :)

Glad to see working your magic. It is needed!!!

Hello Eljay, and let me wish you and yours the happiest of Christmas holidays!!!

Insulting people's intelligence?!?!?! Me!?!?!? Now! Now! Now! Eljay! You should know better than to go there!!!

Let me use a simple example to demonstrate where the insult to intelligence, if such was made, lies.
Since we are in the heart of Christmas Holidays, with all the family gatherings that we will all be plunged into, let me use the family as the perfect metaphor to clarify this 'state of belonging' with which you appear to have a serious issue.

Here goes the metaphor:

Two young couples meet in the local park of a new suburb where they have both recently bought their first homes. Among other things, they women discover that they are both pregnant with their first child and are both planning to have more children in the future.

Time passes, life is good, and our two families are spotted at the park again, as they have been doing for years, along with backyard family barbecues, camping trips, and a variety of other activities neighborhood families share together.

Paying attention to the discussion, though, all is not as well as it might have first appeared.

Mother 'B', is telling couple 'A', the latest episode of their '2' child. At 17, '2' child is purging his second jail term for drug trafficking, car jacking, and 7-Eleven store hold-ups.

In his early years, '2' was an exemplary young child. Without warning, somewhere in early adolescence, '2' started showing signs of minor delinquency. Escalating into full blown crime, laced with aggressive, rebellious and abusive conduct towards all.

'... I just don't know what happened!!!...', Keeps repeating Mother 'B'.
'... It is like I don't know him. It is as though he is not our son!!! ...'

'2' no longer behaves according to the family's values and principles. '2' doesn't live up to what a 'good' family member should be.

You get it Eljay?!?!?! Regardless of whether or not you live up to the 'subjective' ideal that 'family values' impose, '2' IS STILL THE SECOND CHILD OF THAT FAMILY. He still carries the name, is he's still an integral part of the fabric of that family.

Be ashamed of him all you wish, talk of disowning him all day long, '2' is still the delinquent son of that family.

Like it or not, that's what this family MUST OWN UP TO!!!

Likewise, that is what you and your christian family MUST OWN UP TO!!!

Excommunication from a family, biological, christian or otherwise, based on one's 'bad behavior', is not only cowardly and hypocritical, it is totally contrary to the most basic christian values.

It is time for all of us to put down our Pharisee's 'good behavior' checklists, and not only take responsibility for, but fully embrace the black sheeps in our respective families. That is the first lesson Jesus, whom you claim to serve, taught us all!!!

Now, the insult to anyone intelligence would be to keep peddling the 'good little christian morality checklist', like Mao's 'redbook', to arbitrarily judge who's 'in' the club! That is the insult to christians' intelligence IMO Eljay!!!

I'm afraid you have been misinformed 'chazster'.

The Japanese healthcare program is a universal program (intended to provide healthcare to all its citizens) is HIGHLY regulated by the government, and very much COMPULSORY for all RESIDENT of Japan.
(Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan)

As for the 'not part of the tax system' part! Again, you'll need to fire your information source.

The japanese government share of the healthcare system is roughly 32% of total costs. (reference: http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInJapan.html)

Government's only source of revenue, whether here or in Japan, is TAXES. And that is very much how the 32% governement cost share is funded!!!

Also, you'll be happy to know that the general outline of the US program, which Obama has succeeded to get through Congress early this morning, is very similar to the japanese program you seem to appreciate.
In the end, if all you can afford to contribute from your pay scale is an 8% co-payment share in Japan, that is most likely what you will end-up paying here in the US (or likely less) when you return.

Bon Voyage!

Sorry!

THE POST ABOVE IS REPLACED BY THE POST BELOW.

'SORRY ABOUT THE MISHAP!!!'




msharmony you wrote:






Although I understand the difficulty you have in discussing the specific issue of religious extremism, making general statements about all other forms of extremism is simply avoiding to engage in a constructive dialogue. We must all take responsibility for the potential shortcomings of our personal and collective actions. That's starts by acknowledging the shortcomings as such.

As a means of illustrating this point, I am a staunch defender of human rights throughout the globe, and I am proud that our western world countries are unanimous on such a luminous value.

That being said, our countries are not blemish free when it comes to human rights, and I'll be the first one to pay attention and denounce any violation we may be guilty of in this domain.

The notion of human rights is 'nearly' attack free. Nearly a perfect consensual universal principal, and held as such in our western societies.
But we must be ready to accept that our very own application of human rights principles is far from perfect.
Never mind our judgment of countries whom, from our perspective, baffle human rights as a way of life, we must remain vigilant and critical of our own shortcomings.

Denunciation, auto criticism, accountability and enforcement of corrective measures are a vital part of an ethical and thriving democracy.

So it is msharmony, in this dialogue middlehearthing is proposing. Much like I refuse to feel personally attacked when people from other countries point the finger at some of our human rights shortcomings, and see it rather as an opportunity to address what I stand for and defend within our own ranks, you might consider the shortcomings of your religion and denounce them within your own ranks.



And I suggest this god/relation 'collapse' is at the heart of the matter. Stopping you perhaps in engaging fully in this dialogue, due tot the critique made on the religion which you appear to collapse with your personal relationship with your god.

Your personal relationship to your god of choice is distinct from the religion which may or may not administer it.

The religion is very much a man made mechanism, intended to administer and promote the practice of a shared cult. Much like a form of governing body, or government of things of cult, religion is not 'FAITH' itself, as in your personal relationship to your god.

Addressing your religion shortcomings...
a man made organization, which must co-exist with, and take account and give account to all other man made organizations,
... is not addressing, much less attacking your personal relationship to your choice of god.

One's personal relationship to a god of choice, and the religion which administers a shared cult between a number, are very distinct domains. So much so, they are powerfully represented in our Western world constitutions and laws through the principle of SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH'.

The dialogue middlehearthing is inviting you and others to have here msharmony, is about the governing body of the christian religion, and religious zealousness; the devastating consequences organized christian 'religions' can have when it abdicates its responsibility towards the religious zealots that it helps create.

NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE'S PERSONAL FAITH IN GOD.

There are other types of zealots msharmony, I agree. But the zealots we are addressing here are the religious type. Let's address that serious issue together.

msharmony you wrote:



'middleearthing' wrote,
in the last paragraph of his latest post, quoting Monica Duffy Toft:



msharmony, you are a what I would consider to be a moderate, open-minded, intelligent, and well balanced person. Someone whom shows respect for others and deserves that respect be shown in return.

You happen to be a devout christian, and obviously, you apply FOR YOURSELF, and in your life, the principles that you hold dear.

It shows in the manner that you present yourself in these forums, and in the respectful, yet true to self manner that you interact with others in the different discussions in which you chose to partake.

What I find interesting in this particular exchange, is that the point middleearthing is trying to establish with this thread, dealing with religious extremism, does not apply to you in the least, and yet, because it touches on your religion, you appear, consciously or not, to defend or show a rather complacent attitude about 'religious extremism'.
I don't wish for you to take that as an attack on you personally, for there is no intention on my part to attack you personally.

I will admit that you and I don't share the same beliefs. I would suspect highly that you and middlehearting don't share the same beliefs either.
But interestingly, I would suspect that the three of us, and we could include numerous others, share similar values.

Our difference in religious or non-religious beliefs should not matter at all here. It will only divide us. Besides, why focus on that which divides us when there appears much that we share?

I reposted the last paragraph of middleearthing latest post. It establishes a direct link between 'RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS', and extreme actions, where reason is no longer at play.

If you have a problem with the statement 'all the wars', let's just reduce it to the current very contemporary wars that confronts us all today: the Israelo-palestinian conflict, the Iraqi invasion, and the near escalation towards open armed conflict with Iran under Bush, which was significantly deflated since Obama took office.

I think you will agree that there is no greater or more boiling world conflict than the one opposing the Israelis and Palestinians, fighting 'TO THE DEATH' over a piece of land promised to both of them by their respective gods!!! and some zealot christians siding with the Israelis, because THEIR god told them that Jesus was COMING BACK to the Jewish land to pick the 'chosens'!!!

As for the other current conflicts, I don't need to remind you of Bush administration's language to illustrate the religious zealot undertones: 'Axis of evil', 'You're with us or you're against us', 'We shall win the just war against terrorism'.

There cannot be better examples to support middleearthing's point and Monica Duffy Toft's findings about religious ZEALOTS and the potential extreme actions that can be taken as a consequence of such 'out-of-control' religious zealousness.

AGAIN, from Monica Duffy Toft:

"... Thus a secular actor (or state) can be coerced or deterred
by the threat of destruction; whereas a zealot (or theocracy) may be impossible to coerce or deter in the same way...".

Unless you are taking the position that your religion is pure, unblemished and without fault, and thus holds no responsibility whatsoever for the horrible things done in its name, (I don't think you would subscribe to such)

... you might admit that when religious ideology reaches zealousness, and religious right leaders are fueling it through political action, THAT A LINE IS BEING CROSSED!!! And that YOU msharmony, and all those like you, whom do not give into fanaticism, must speak up WITHIN YOUR RELIGIOUS RANKS, AND denounce this human insanity.

The distinction is :

You are clearly of
'... the group of PEOPLE CONTROLLING THEIR RELIGION...'

VS

this other group of religious zealots whom insist that RELIGION BE USED TO CONTROL PEOPLE, ALL THE PEOPLE!!!

If a dialogue along these lines cannot be had between you 'msharmony', a moderate and well balanced individual of the christian faith, and 'middlehearthing', another well balanced individual whom doesn't necessarily shares the same faith,

... then I would regret to admit, religion would truly not right for the human race!!!

I would agree with you 'massagetrade': the fact that he was a christian is irrelevant. It is rather that he was 'psychotic' and 'delusional', which is at the heart of this thread as I see it. Fundamentalism and extremism are the typical behavioral profiles of psychotics.

And I believe 'MiddleEarthing's point might be that when the fanatcism, fudamentalism and extremism aspects of any religion, christianity or any other, mixes with an advanced state of neurosis or worse, psychotis, it makes for a dangerous cocktail which religions, among other influencers, seem to have the secret recipe.

An example:
Some posters on these very forums, insist on spreading a church line, that such and such a public figure (guess who???) is a baby killer!!! ... all resting on the poster's personal faith based interpretation of one's position on abortion.

When confronted with the fact that this inflammatory language could be potentially dangerous concepts to spreads, if it were to reach the mental logic of a christian psychotic
(yes there are psychotics out there, and given that the US is largely christians, a lot of them are christian psychotics),
... our infamous posters go on to state that they would never bring harm to others, but '... god has his ways you know...' they would end up telling me.

Well this has nothing to do with god. It has everything to do with 'mass madness', fueled by religious beliefs and dogma, gone totally wrong in the words and actions of people sharing similar beliefs and dogma!!!

Psychotics, as Hitler, don't bother with the nuances of second degree concepts. They are no longer able to see the difference.

Neither would our christian psychotic with the 'baby killer' concept. He would take action against such 'killer'.

Is religious fundamentalism potentially dangerous???
History has thought us without any hesitation that it is.

That is why 'middleearthing' goes straight to '... religious extremism (fundamentalism) is dangerous...'. The potential has materialized too often to ignore it.