In America, the POTUS is a religious fundamentalist who believes in the book of revelation and the second coming of Christ. Onthe other side the Islamist movements around the world beleive armageddon will lead to a worldwide muslim government.
If both sides believe in a coming rapture in which those that cling to the same views as themselves will be carried away to heaven and the non believers shall be condemned to hell, just because of two or more works of ancient fiction (even if they were meant to be non fiction when written), Will these two opposing but related worldviews lead us all into extinction?
Consider the following quote from Sam Harris’ book “The End of Faith”
We have to challenge phrases such as “One nation under god” before they are the death of us all.
Doomsaying is a pet peeve of mine. I’m going to say no. Fanatics can be a major nuisance and have killed plenty of people, but let’s be sober about this. If they didn’t kill everybody when they were controlling most of the world’s governments and the armies of Europe and the empires and such, they won’t do it now. I know, I know, “America has enough nuclear bombs to whatever whatever, and Pakistan has the bomb and what about Iran,” but it’s not going to happen. Not only do fanatics not possess the ability to kill everyone in the world, they don’t really want to. They’re willing to have other people kill and be killed for their craziness, but for some odd reason they’re never eager to do it themselves. Call it a coincidence if you like. As much as these people believe in and talk about heavenly kingdoms, they don’t cut to be first in line to check them out. Even in medieval Europe every war that was justified for religious reasons probably had an obvious earthly benefit to its architects.
I’m against that junk because I’m concerned about the separation of church and state, not because of paranoia.
I'm against that junk because I'm concerned about the separation of church and state, not because of paranoia.
It’s not paranoia, it is only a matter of time before a terrorist group gets it’s hands on a WMD of some kind and causes massive death tolls. Even if it is not an actual state carrrying out the attack, the injured nation will be looking for a counterstrike of some kind. The question is who do you nuke in retaliation?
The problem with any fundamentalist religious belief is that if you are absolutely certain of an afterlife the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that kept the peace during the cold war is no longer a deterant.
They don’t need to kill everyone, a single assasination started WWI.
So does every Christian, one way or another- That doesn’t mean we have a responsibility to imminentize the Eschaton. G
Let’s see a cite that George W holds to a “Left Behind” Rapturist Apocalypse-Now scenario.
Last week I heard Whitley Streiber whining to Art Bell about how the circle around Bush were dangerous Rapturists, THEN in his next breath, they suddenly became dangerous Reconstructionists. Two radically different views of the future of the world & the place of C’nity in that future.
Having believed both scenarios at different times of my life, I guess I must be the most dangerous of all- a dreaded Raptconstructionist!
If I was quick about it, I’d be a Velociraptconstructionist.
Whether Bush himself actually believes that all good Christians will soon be whisked up to Heaven, leaving behid only their boxer shorts and cofused secular humanists, is open to debate. What’s certain, though, is that his speeches are carefully written to play into the beliefs of the apocalyptic set, with all sorts of words, phrases, and ideas that fit very well with the brand of nonsense popularized by folks like LaHaye. This article has a good take on the issue.
As for the OP, it depends on the conditions. The reason why Muslim fundamentalists find new recruits willing to undergo anything, even death, is that conditions in that part of the world are so awful. When you have tens of millions of people living in desparate poverty, ruled over by a band of super-wealthy fascist oligarchs such as the House of Saud, you have a ripe breeding ground for nuts. In America, by contrast, the Fundamentalists mainly live in at least reasonable comfort and security. While they may claim that their lives are dedicated to Jesus, that dedication isn’t generally strong enough to make them get off their asses and do anything serious, anything that might really disrupt their lives. On the other hand, if conditions in the U.S. go downhill, through an economic catasrophe or some other disaster, then we, too, will become a perfect breeding ground for violent religious movements.
WWI had a lot of causes, that was just the event that triggered it. By contrast, September 11th killed 2900 people and there was no Armageddon. Nobody was nuked. The response was pretty measured. And just to introduce an example to support my point from the last post, the fundamentalist Taliban were not willing to die to defend Al Qaeda; they tried to distance themselves before the war, might’ve been willing to hand him over, and some are still missing.
That’s why I don’t believe it, but there’s nothing unconstitutional about fantasy. It’s the separation of church and state that matters.
This isn’t a cold war, since Al Qaeda has already attacked the United States and vice versa. The whole point of being a stateless terrorist is to have no homeland that can be threatened or attacked as a deterrent.
But your main point here seems to be ‘if you believe in heaven, the threat of death is not a deterrent.’ I disagree, and not just because something like 4/5ths of the people in this country believe in an afterlife. Some terrorists may be that way, but people with power become less radical, which is why I don’t see this President or any behaving in the way you describe. I think your statement falls a bit short: the problem is not just that MAD doesn’t apply. It’s that Al Qaeda’s members believe it is their duty to kill infidels, and that they will be rewarded for doing so and dying in the process. You’re right, that’s very difficult to deter - although they don’t seem to be lining up to all do it at once. While some of Bush’s supporters are religious nuts and his language scares me sometimes, I just don’t see the evidence that he is that fanatical. I don’t know of any Christians who believe they will go to heaven for killing unbelievers. If the fanaticism is not reciprocated I don’t think the situation can get as bad as you say.
Ok I stand corrected on the Bush issue. I will also concede that I may have overstepped the mark by implying that armageddon was imminent, but in response to this statement
This is only part of the problem, there are poor people all over the world, not all of them want to destroy the west. The muslim fundamentalists want to detroy the west because there are many statement in the Koran exhorting them to do this.
For example:
“Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition…We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers… The fire shall be their home.” (3:149-51)
There are many other examples too numerous for me to type out now.
I hope the bringing democracy to the middle east will hope, but I fear that this type of religious fundamentalism is the antithesis of democracy. Any democratic process in the region will almost inevitably lead to control by a religious group intent on promoting their philosophy. I really hope I’m wrong about this, we’ll just have to wait and see.
But there are vast regions of the Muslim world that haven’t spawned radical, violent anti-western movements: Turkey, the Phillipines, Mali and elsewhere in West Africa. Extreme poverty causes violence, not always violence directed at Westerners, but consider enumerating the poorest regions of the world. Within the last generation:
Southern and Western Africa have seen constant revolutions, ethic strife, and civil wars.
Latin America has had its share of rebellions and revolutions.
Various rebel grous are active in southeast Asia.
The fact that the Arab world (which is not the same as the Muslim world) has focused its antipathy on the West probably stems from the fact that western nations, particularly the United States, have mucked about with the government of Arab countries constantly since the end of WWII. If we tried to set up a puppet government in Mozambique, we’d probably face terrorists from there as well. People don’t like being controlled from the outside.
To answer your points in order, who says there is not an anti western movement in the Phillipines? There is a recent example (will find a cite) where an entire village of christians were forcibly circumcised by muslim extremeists.
Turkey, while being secular is a strongly Islamic nation and recently tried to have adultery made a criminal offence, fortunately it was not passed, but only because they are desperate to become part of the European Union.
Can’t argue with you on the subject of African politics.
South American rebels of whatever pursuasion have never to my knowledge used suicide bombers or attempted to use WMD’s on the countries they are living in and trying to liberate/take power in.
Of the various rebel groups in southeast asia many are Islamic and condone suicide bombing, the only non Islamic suicide bombers that I am aware of are the Tamils who are predominately Hindu.
I agree that some of the sentiment against the west is due to the tendencies of our governments to meddle in others politics for our usually financial benefit, but I maintain that the types of terrorism and the possibility of using WMD’s is in the main due to the literal reading of the Koran by fanatics.
Any literal reading of holy books such as the Bible, Torah and Koran all lead to radical views that boil down to “burn the heretic, kill the unbeliever”. Radical Islam is just the current most prominent example of this, but the Zionists in Israel are guilty of it too and in the past the Inquisition and siding with the Nazis was done by Christians.
It may be that the advantages of faith outwiegh the disdavantages, but in my opinion the jury is still out on that one.
Only if you have faith that people actually believe what they claim to. And only if you lack faith that your own influence has something to do with it.
The truth is most people who claim to believe it, are just talking shit. I’d worry more about your consumption of oil, and the people who keep on buying and buying and buying useless crap without thinking about it’s impact on the environment or the political/economic fabric of society. (read, all Americans)
Most people lack the courage of their convictions. Also, your will has just as much power over the state of the world, as your average religious nutjob. You contribute to the possibility of Armageddon as much as they do, or maybe you balance it out, or maybe you are worse, and they balance you out. I’d say the Democracy fundamentalists who believe it is their right drive a gas guzzling SUV, are probably contributing more to the coming of Armageddon than some armchair fundamentalist who claims they think the infidels should die, but isn’t all that interested in doing anything about it. We’re contributing to our own destruction not so much because the religious whackos are gonna take us out in the fireball they take each other out with, but because we aren’t stopping corporations from pouring toxic chemicals into our own ground water.
To add to Marley23’s excellent responses, there’s a lot more going on in the world than what’s on the front page in Washington or Europe. Religion has always been the mother of all conflicts, and there are conflicts all over the world. Christian fundamentalists have initiated conflicts throughout times and still do so today, as has Muslims done and still do. The point is: The mood in much of the world has not changed, fundamentalists (on both sides) are only adapting to a different strategy. The Koran has nothing to do with this, it’s just a catalyst, you might rather call it some sort of nationalism.
And to clear up your post: First, the Tamils are regarded as the founders of modern terrorism. Secondly, many Christians would be just as happy if adultery or similar stuff (you might think of abortion here) was a criminal offense. In fact one of the few things that fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam has in common is their view on the role of families in society. Thirdly, there are South-American nations doing heavy research on WMDs. Just Google.
Yeah, I forgot. The Christians did not side with the Nazis. On the contrary, Hitler sent 4000 Catholic priests to the camps. It’s true that the Christian leadership sides with the fascist in Spain and Italy, but that’s a different story.
