Scrum...let me just say Great Post!Quote:I disagree. A group doesn't necessarily have to be large in order to have an impact on politics. It's not that fundamentalism has converted a majority of people, it is that fundamentalists have made religion a topic in politics and elsewhere, forcing people to think of it and deal with it in a public arena instead of only in private. Exactly my point when I said that Christian Fundamentalists helped GWB get re-elected. It is the influence they are exerting, while stigmatizing all they find offensive (Stern, Stem Cell research, Intellectuals, anyone NOT GWB or part of his gang), that is pushing religion, their religion, back to center stage when it should be anything but. We are getting sidetracked. Secular society is where we were and where we should still be heading toward.What scares me is that people do not see the forest for the trees. Our attention is focused on aggressive fundamentalists, yet the most dangerous kind of attack is the one no one ever sees coming and, after it has been executed, no one recognizes they have been attacked.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of PainHEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. PI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

misterpessimistic:

I am sick and will respond fully later...but I would like to know what agenda you see being pushed.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of PainHEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. PI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Quote:The difficulty is often in discerning when the violence is a result of the religion, and when it is a result of other factors. After all, you must bear in mind that religion never exists in a vacuum. Of course. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Politics is just another method of coping and controlling, just as religion is. Those in power use them to control, those over-powered to cope. But there are instances of pure religious transgressions against humanity, secularism, modern civilization AND the teachings of the religions themselves. I think the examples I gave are showing the religious variety. Baruch Goldstein's massacre of 29 Arabs, while they observed the Feast of Purim at the Tomb of the Patriarchs has nothing to do with politics. 9/11 had to do with politics, but because of the disdain Muslim extremists have for the pervasiveness of American culture. So there is a political flavor, but religion is the main reason. In any even, so long as religion is the foundation or the facade, it is still used as a weapon. Guilt by association. Religion blinds people and makes the wrong seem right. Killing in any gods name is wrong and honestly thinking that you (not YOU, you...but you in general) have the right to force your beliefs on anyone else is an insult on many levels. Quote:There are indications to the contrary. If nothing else, her subtitle suggests that she is attempting a history not of a particular branch of fundamentalism, but of fundamentalism plain and simple.Well, fundamentalism in the three major religions. But how can you discount her attempt at explaining that fundamentalism is not a term that can be applied easily to the different faiths. Yes, she settled for the accepted term, and explained that there are certain 'family resemblances" among the faiths, but she did offer the caveat that this is not an easy subject. This to me shows at least an attempt at forthrightness.I asked in another thread...but what agenda do you realize from your observations?Quote:In terms of politics, I don't think it's necessary that all political bodies tend toward secularism as the U.S. has, in ideology if not practice. But I do think it's important that there be at least one nation that maintains a secular stance and is powerful enough to harbour and protect others from a coersively religious state.We were that secular nation and that is the nation I was proud of. Now I am not so sure. Now we have GWB and the Neo Conservatives pushing CHRISTIAN religion at any and every opportunity. We have text books being desecrated with creationist crap and scientific research being held at bay due to religious concerns. We have the separation of church and state that served us so well for so long being @#%$ with. We have a war machine increasing deficits and cutting taxes in a bread and circus atmosphere that so many are buying into. We got our new enemy and we have our new Crusaders to smite the heathens. Yay!We are at war with Islam, we have always been at war with Islam. Russia is our ally, they have always been our ally. Now...where is that victory gin?...Mr. P.

I would like to know what agenda you see being pushed.I'll address the more recent post later on when I have time. I did, however, want to tackle this one before I log out for the night. My answer will, of course, have to be somewhat provisional since I'm only a third of the way through the book, and I reserve the right to modify my view as more evidence crops up.As Ken Hemingway has pointed out, Armstrong is clearly arguing for the necessity of myth, even in the logos-dominated modern world. But I think she's also arguing for a rather rigid compartmentalization of mythos and logos. This plays both ways. On the one hand, she's arguing that our rejection of mythos has depended in large part of by the mistaken notion that myths are inherently destructive. Observe the proper boundaries between myth and reason, she says, and that destruction will cease. On the other, I think she's arguing for the compartmentalization of the two in order to preserve mythos from unfair comparison.Honestly, I'm not sure these ideas have as much to do with fundamentalism as she implies. The more she pushes the mythos/logos thesis, the more I tend to think that her stated goal of writing "a history of fundamentalism" is an excuse to argue for the necessity of mythos. After all, her introduction of the mythos/logos distinction was somewhat artificial: it came not from any suggestion within the evidence itself but from her assertion that the spiritual life of the premoderns was fundamentally different from that of moderns. While presenting a picture of the historical development of fundamentalism, she is simultaneously arguing for the validity of religious belief by structuring for it a presumably proper context.

On page xvii:Quote:Logos had its limitations too. It could not assuage human pain or sorrow. Rational arguments could make no sense of tragedy.This is bull. It is a cop out for those who cannot USE rational arguments. I tend to be very rational about life and the tragedies that accompany life. Some say I seem COLD, but I do know how to cope with tragedy without mythos fine.Anyone else here that does not accept the answer of a god or myth to make it through life and explain tragedy? How do others here cope with tragedy?Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of PainHEY! Is that a ball in your court? - Mr. PI came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper