[Gary Wassner]

Leiali, let's talk the murder of Theo Van Gogh. What was it the result of? Was this an over-zealous reaction to his criticisms? Was if caused by hatred born of religious conviction? Or was there some other reason for it?

[Leiali]

as I understand it, the murder was committed by a young muslim (I can't remember where he was from) man on a bicycle, who objected to a film directed by Van Gogh with a virtually nude woman in part 'hijab' discussing Islam. I must admit it did shock me when I saw a clip of it, but his murder was unacceptable. What right do people have to take that much pride that they must silence their 'adversary'? It always struck me that the seed of fundamentalism came from not being absolutely convicted of the truth and wishing to be able to prove some kind of conviction.

There is a growing unease amongst communities in Holland. There was here before the general election. It made my blood boil here. I spent a lot of time saying 'do you know I came here as a refugee?' and have people stare at me in surprise. Ignorance is infuriating at times.

[Gary Wassner]

In America, we are all refugees. It is important to remember why people flock to this country in the first place. Tolerance is what we hope for. Religious freedom too is a goal, whatever your religion might be. But the US constitution requires the separation of church and state in order to protect against the infringement of religious conviction upon secular issues.

Fundamentalism is not just a Christian issue, as I have tried to emphasize many times already in this thread. But it is an extreme perspective. Can one be fundamentalist and not be extreme? Does one entail the other?

Tex, maybe you can answer this? Do you consider yourself to be exclusionary in your beliefs? Does your fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture require that you see things as 'us' and 'them'? Would this be a fair representation of generic fundamentalism:

Generic fundamentalism refers to a global religious impulse, particularly evident in the twentieth century, that seeks to recover and publicly institutionalize aspects of the past that modern life has obscured. It typically sees the secular state as the primary enemy, for the latter is more interested in education, democratic reforms, and economic progress than in preserving the spiritual dimension of life. Generic fundamentalism takes its cues from a sacred text that stands above criticism. It sees time-honored social distinctions and cultural patterns as rooted in the very nature of things, in the order of creation itself. That means clear-cut and stratified roles for men and women, parents and children, clergy and laity. On the other hand, generic fundamentalism seeks to minimize the distinction between the state and the church. To hold that the state should operate according to one set of publicly shared principles, while individuals should operate according to multiple sets of privately shared principles, is morally pernicious and ends up harming everyone, believers and nonbelievers alike. Religious truths are no different from the truths of medical science or aeronautical engineering: if they hold for anyone they hold for everyone.

[Archren]

Well, Gary, it is pretty obvious that you can be a fundamentalist and not be extreme; after all, you're talking to Tex. If you think he's extreme, then you really haven't dealt with more fringe fundamentalists before. In Tex we are very lucky to have a thoughtful fundamentalist Christian who is willing to discuss beliefs with a lot of atheists and agnostics without proselytizing.

That said, the fundamentalist trend in political movements is a huge problem all around the world, I have to agree. I think this is where I most fully diverge from Gary and Scott's opinions around here: I don't have a problem with personal fundamentalist beliefs. I only see it as a problem when extreme beliefs start to manifest themselves politically. Scott and Gary seem to have a problem with anyone holding those beliefs at any time and for any reason. They see it as a threat even when the fundamentalist is just sitting at home practicing his/her own religion and not bothering anyone else.

BTW, in the interest of complete intellectual honesty on my part, I have to categorically state that I'm very much against any concept of "Submission" in marriage. I agree with pretty much everything alison said on the subject. Although I know a few happily married couples who subscribe to that sort of system, in too many cases it is an excuse for abuse and repression. It doesn't really seem healthy on either side, and it seems very arbitrary to declare that it is the female who must always be on the submitting side. If one partner is smarter than the other about certain things, why not have the dumber one submit on those issues regardless of gender?

Anyway, equality & respect in marriage is the single most important thing in my marriage; my spouse and I made sure to enshrine those concepts in our vows, and Submitting seems to undermine those principles dramatically.

Now will people stop assuming that I can be perfectly identified with Tex as if by defending him on certain issues I must agree with him on all issues? ;)

[Scott Bakker]

Now will people stop assuming that I can be perfectly identified with Tex as if by defending him on certain issues I must agree with him on all issues?

I don't think anyone ever assumed this. You so rarely reply to any of my questions I'm just not that clear what your views are.

I don't have a problem with personal fundamentalist beliefs. I only see it as a problem when extreme beliefs start to manifest themselves politically. Scott and Gary seem to have a problem with anyone holding those beliefs at any time and for any reason. They see it as a threat even when the fundamentalist is just sitting at home practicing his/her own religion and not bothering anyone else.

When have I ever said I had problems with fundamentalist beliefs? I could care less if people ascribe to what they think is a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible, so long as they're willing to admit that it's only their take on things and that they could be wrong. It's certainty I have a problem with, and for the very reason you mention. Once you're convinced you know what GOD wants, not just for you but for everyone, it becomes easy to think you're doing people a favour by imposing your beliefs on them. It's certainty that makes the political manifestation you mention not only possible, but inevitable. And now, somehow, it has become commonplace to hear people questioning the separation of church and state on mainstream media - which only happens to be a pillar of democratic society.

[Archren]

See, when you mention that certainty is the problem, I pretty much agree with you. However, y'all constantly conflate certainty and religious belief without allowing for the fact that your best and coolest religious believers constantly question themselves and their faith. I.e., you can have religious belief without the spectre of absolute certainty, although they sometimes do go hand-in-hand, it isn't necessarily so.

However, I'm not sure that the question of positive certainty has been resolved: certainty in the sellability of a certain product leads to entrepreneurialship, certainty that America should be independant of Britain leads to the Constitution of the United States, certainty that pacifism was the best way to shake off colonial Britain leads to Ghandi. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.

I know that we discussed this awhile back, but did we ever reach some conclusion?

[Gary Wassner]

If I were to claim, "I know what God wants!" tell me how you could refute that? Anyone?

[Archren]

If I claim "I love my spouse!" how could you refute that? Anyone?

[Gary Wassner]

Do you beat her, Archen? Does she tell her friends that you are cruel and that you don't love her at all? Are you having an affair with another woman? When was the last time you slept together? Did you forget her last birthday?

I think there might be a few ways.

[Archren]

Here's why I brought up the love thing: we judge the claim "I love you" by actions. We assume the reality of the idea of "Love."

With your claim of "I know what God wants" most people also end up judging the claim by the actions of the claimant. The claim has no bearing on the reality of the object "God" or "Love." No assumptions about the objects can be made by the evaluations of the claims above.

You evaluate the actions then against your standard of what "Love" is. You believe that no one who beats a spouse can love that spouse (and I would heartily agree, BTW). Other people would surely differ. So there isn't universal agreement as to what one would need to do to prove "Love."

You can see the parallels with God. Some people would say that if you murder in God's name, that puts you right out. Others would surely differ. There isn't any agreement as to how you would prove fidelity to "God."

Now here's the other thing: most people know that love exists for the sole reason that they have experienced it themselves, or experienced some feeling that they labeled "Love." Most people experience it in vastly and wildly different ways, yet the consensus is that there is something that exists that can be labeled "Love."

Similarly, most people that believe in God do so because they have experienced something that they label as divine. The experiences differ wildly, as Scott points out. But why, if there is consesus about the existence of "Love" even though experiences of it differ greatly, should the differing experiences of "God" rule out the possibility that "God" exists in some way?