August 03, 2004
Enough with this talk of fundamentalism
I've been reading the 9/11 commission report. So far it seems that they think the enemy is "fundamentalist Islam."
I find this terribly funny considering that president Bush said that Christians and Moslems worship the same god. Now consider that Usama Bin Laden said the opposite. Both cannot be speaking the truth. I suppose they have some wiggle room considering that neither is a religious scholar.
So, the enemy is "fundamentalist Islam," not Islam itself. Funny, the enemy under president Clinton was "fundamentalist Christianity." I'm sensing a pattern here. Adherents of fundamentalist Islam destroyed some buildings. Adherents of fundamentalist Christianity destroyed some buildings. Christians disavowed the attackers and showed from their religious texts where the attackers were wrong. Moslems claimed that Islam is a religion of peace, but they never stated that the attackers would burn for their acts. That doesn't seem like a very emphatic disavowing.
Fundamentalist religions seem to be the problem here. Fundamental means base or essential. I suppose that means that any time someone is against a "fundamentalist" religion they are merely against the core of it - the trappings are nice and really don't matter. This means that the only time a religion poses a problem is when its adherents truly believe something and are not merely gathering to sing and talk. From now on I will omit the fundamentalist prefix when referring to religions groups. After all, isn't it a bit redundant?
Islam does not like western materialism. Christianity does not like western materialism. There are claims among both groups that many of their supposed adherents worship materialism instead of their true deity. Perhaps president Bush was right when he said that Islam and Christianity have the same god, just not in the sense that he probably intended.
I find this terribly funny considering that president Bush said that Christians and Moslems worship the same god. Now consider that Usama Bin Laden said the opposite. Both cannot be speaking the truth. I suppose they have some wiggle room considering that neither is a religious scholar.
So, the enemy is "fundamentalist Islam," not Islam itself. Funny, the enemy under president Clinton was "fundamentalist Christianity." I'm sensing a pattern here. Adherents of fundamentalist Islam destroyed some buildings. Adherents of fundamentalist Christianity destroyed some buildings. Christians disavowed the attackers and showed from their religious texts where the attackers were wrong. Moslems claimed that Islam is a religion of peace, but they never stated that the attackers would burn for their acts. That doesn't seem like a very emphatic disavowing.
Fundamentalist religions seem to be the problem here. Fundamental means base or essential. I suppose that means that any time someone is against a "fundamentalist" religion they are merely against the core of it - the trappings are nice and really don't matter. This means that the only time a religion poses a problem is when its adherents truly believe something and are not merely gathering to sing and talk. From now on I will omit the fundamentalist prefix when referring to religions groups. After all, isn't it a bit redundant?
Islam does not like western materialism. Christianity does not like western materialism. There are claims among both groups that many of their supposed adherents worship materialism instead of their true deity. Perhaps president Bush was right when he said that Islam and Christianity have the same god, just not in the sense that he probably intended.
Comments:
There is, of course, a profound difference between fundamentals (in Christianity and Islam).
Fundamental Islam appears to include killing muslims who renounce their faith, killing raped women (because they "committed adultery"), supression of all other religious teachings within an Islamic area, polygamy and holy-war to make sure that the area controled by Islam is global.
Fundamental Christianity includes spreading the good news of Christ's resurrection, confronting sinners with their sin, helping windows/orphans, feeding the hungry, mongamous marriage, and freedom to accept or reject what God has done for you (That is, you may be a Christian or not, within a Christian area).
Islam was spread through the sword and the tax-code. Christianity spread as Christians died rather than refuse to renounce Christianity. Islam spreads as a religion in power, Christianity spreads as a religion of the powerless.
As for materialism: If you mean the ammassing of material goods, then No. If you mean the obsession with the material to the abdication of the spiritual, then yes.
Fundamental Islam appears to include killing muslims who renounce their faith, killing raped women (because they "committed adultery"), supression of all other religious teachings within an Islamic area, polygamy and holy-war to make sure that the area controled by Islam is global.
Fundamental Christianity includes spreading the good news of Christ's resurrection, confronting sinners with their sin, helping windows/orphans, feeding the hungry, mongamous marriage, and freedom to accept or reject what God has done for you (That is, you may be a Christian or not, within a Christian area).
Islam was spread through the sword and the tax-code. Christianity spread as Christians died rather than refuse to renounce Christianity. Islam spreads as a religion in power, Christianity spreads as a religion of the powerless.
As for materialism: If you mean the ammassing of material goods, then No. If you mean the obsession with the material to the abdication of the spiritual, then yes.
By materialism I mean the pursuit of wealth at the expense of moral behavior. Treating employes poorly, using indecently clad models in advertisements, and a culture where he who dies with the most toys wins are all good examples of rampant materialism.
Increasing wealth is not, in itself, materialism. Indeed, wealth has often been considered a sign of favor from god.
Acts of violence have been perpetrated in the name of both Christianity and Islam. This often occurred on the Christian side when it went from being suppressed by the government to being supported. The difference comes down to they way they acted when they first appeared as religions.
Westernized Christianity and Islam are harmless and inoffensive. The core teachings of Christianity and Islam are offensive to modern liberal thinkers. The difference is that the core if Christianity is peace and freedom, while Islam is war and slavery.
Post a Comment
Increasing wealth is not, in itself, materialism. Indeed, wealth has often been considered a sign of favor from god.
Acts of violence have been perpetrated in the name of both Christianity and Islam. This often occurred on the Christian side when it went from being suppressed by the government to being supported. The difference comes down to they way they acted when they first appeared as religions.
Westernized Christianity and Islam are harmless and inoffensive. The core teachings of Christianity and Islam are offensive to modern liberal thinkers. The difference is that the core if Christianity is peace and freedom, while Islam is war and slavery.
<< Home