Religious extremism.

Post Reply New Topic

I pose this question; as religions, all religions, have an extremist element - should the religion be allowed even if the majority are *relatively*, as much as the religious can be, peaceable?

Let's have a comparison; say, a variation of hitler youths. Note "hitler", spelling the name without the capital is a note of disrespect to the person, off topic. Now, back on topic, if this variant preached the idealogy - ignore arguments of "good" and "evil" - but most went on to peacable activities, only a very small group became full-blown Nazi's-let's-slaughter-the-jews-for-a-laugh, well, should the whole operation be shut down for the minority? After all; the minority are enacting hard-core views held by the whole - seperating or eliminating the minority is, always, impossible.

What do you think? No, please, no "you can't compare hitler youths and christianity! Ugh! Nyah!" and other whinging, I want honest opinions, not quips about my questioning your religion. Get stuffed, if you find it offensive - I'm stretching my ego here.
That's an example - ignore the supposed political/religious divide. We all know it's garbage in most nations.

Opinions?

I think i get what you are talking about, Does the right to free speech and association extend to those whose beliefs would destroy others? Am I correct?

Bingo. Even if the majority don't follow through with the hard-core aspects, those aspects are nevertheless a part of such organisations, which are damaging to others - so should the ideal of free speech extend to such things?

Personally, I am sick and tired of finding posters from one extreme group or another, mostly white christian, either for racial "purity", which really get's on my nerves, or posters encouraging violence or hate against anybody who doesn't share their beliefs - mostly from christian groups against atheists and agnostics.

To a greater extent I empathise with you point of view, the trouble is where is the line drawn and who gets to draw it. In the USA it seems to me that the freedom of speech has gone too far and is a freedom to lie and vilify. Good examples of this are the KKK which would most likely be illegal on several counts here in Australia, and the extreme christian right, which always amuses me cos they would hate Jesus.

I dont think that an organisation should be allowed if it create dangerous ppl. Shut Them Down. Now. Ban every religion who make ppl like that.

I am atheist myself but I respect all religions. I think if somebody can find courage and strength by believing in a god, then this is wonderful that this person finds hope and inner strength from it.

What I am against is the form of organised religion where it is no longer a free choice, where a government tells you what religion to follow, or where a church or religious guru tells you how to live your life. I am pro religion (even though not practicising any myself) but think people should worship god and believe in their own way, rather than being told how to live their lives and worship.

In every religion there is extremism. Compare the way Islam is practised in Turkey or Lebanon and then compare that with the way it is organised in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Compare the way some African countries follow every word of the Pope, and then look at more liberal christians such as lutherans and some anglican forms.
...
And for every religion you can name extremes.

I think forbidding religion is first of all impossible because people will keep believing even if it has to be undercover, but also why forbid something that can give people hope and strength in life? The only thing governments should do in this matter, is to control religious organisations so that no extremism can be preached. As long as we keep religion a free choice, then I dont see what is wrong with somebody believing just because of his own free choice. I dont think we really need organised religion though because worshipping god is a very personal thing that every person experiences differently, but I guess some organisation such as a church or mosque is inevittable.




This is an atheist speaking though, so when it comes to how religion should be practiced, my opinion is void. I have nothing against the existance of religion though, and I dont see how you can compare this to nazi ideology or some other forms of wicked extremism. The extremist religious organisations by the way should not be the standard for the religion, and that counts for every religion. Bible, Quran and Torah are all against violence and intolerance, and still every religion has paramilitary groups: because their own religions in fact forbid these activities, can we conclude that Al Qaeda are no true Muslims and that IRA are no true Christians? I would say they can definitely not be seen as the standard for a specific religion.

crackedpleasures, I did not compare religions to Nazi ideaology, but instead used a variant hitler youths to cite example, largely as an aid to religious thinkers who may believe, if I labelled one religion, specifically attacking them. Granted, Naxis were white christians, but the Nazi party was a political body.
Extremist groups don't break the rules of their religion, but follow them literally.
Again, christianity is common, so I'll use it as an example here, then;
The bible states in small part "though shalt not kill", etc. But, the book is filled with killings.
A common extremist interpretation is "though shalt not kill thy kind", but non-believers and members of other races are subhuman, evil - therefore it is not killing them, but saving them, putting down animals, fighting the devil, etc, etc.
Because they take this stance from their interpretations of holy books, doctrines, etc., it is best to remove such from the possibility of interaction - or at least limit and control it.

All religions breed extremists - whilst I would prefer people not pretend to know all the universes secrets without giving cause, I know there will still be religions for some time, but the very fact that it is unregulated and uncontained, and that a single religious leader can dramatically change policy, even banning scientific studies because of personal beliefs, is terrifying. Would you hand out a gun to just anybody, just to see what they might do?

Religion or not, there will always be extremists. They latch onto whatever they can to control others and exert power.

Religion by its very nature is exclusionary. Hence, it creates cliques which believe that they have the right of it, and others are wrong. Therefore, all religions should be banned.

Religion is all mythology and foolishness. Think about the religions we have now. They all date to around the same time, seeing as that's when permanency in documentation started. Hence we have morality based on a time in history that hasn't changed.

Religion and the mythological creatures created, such as god and prophets are are literary creations, no different than curious George or Peter Pan. Any belief set based upon an omnipotent creature has inherent problems and bias based on who created them. The logical structures fail when investigated too closely.

By basing your definitions of good and bad on a mythological creature who will reward/punish should you do good/bad, you base all motivations on moral falsehoods.

Religion is essentially a crock of ****. It's a nice story (okay, not so nice most times), and it hasn't exactly led to good things, either. Be good for the sake of being good, not because you might get in trouble from a made-up creature that watches you all the time...LOL....

Incorrect. Anyone can choose to join most established religions. For the Big Three Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Judaism, Christianity), only extremist sects within the faith (who are, unfortunately, much louder and prominent than the larger, more mainstream sects in this day and age) truly believe in the "club" version of Heaven. And I have nothing to say for anyone who would think that Buddhism is an exclusionary religion...


Good idea. Let's also ban the right to free assembly.


The aforementioned Abrahamic faiths are all descended from one common origin (Abraham is a key figure in all three of them), which is why they date to the same time.


The logical structures of Newtonian physics also fail when investigated too closely...


Moral falsehoods like the Golden Rule?


"Be good for the sake of being good" is actually something that Jesus advocated. He didn't like it when people showed off their faith, and would probably be disappointed at the current state of Christianity...

I don't take kindly to you calling the only social community I've been accepted into a crock of **** though...

I'm just watching the hate flow by like a river of magma ...

Ugh, you have no choice in it. Just because Islam causes mostly violence can we just announce we're not going to allow it? It's still going to be practiced, just as in general we don't allow criminal activity, it still goes on correct?

Hate?

Yes, hate. Hatred of religious people.

Well you have a hatred of non-religious people. I don't have a hatred of religious people (if it wasn't this thread I said why in another), but I don't think someone's religious views should affect your view of someone anymore than the way a democrat would see a republican. Of course they disagree quite a bit but they don't hate each other.

Well, z0rp, to be fair the islamic majority are not violent - but there is a higher prevalence of it, to be sure. But the difference between religions and criminal activities is that criminal behaviours are illegal and villified; and whilst extremism is often illegal, it is glorified by their doctrines and texts.

Ignore slowmutant. In his ideal world, all atheists and agnostics would be dead and repentent about being "wrong". He holds equal hatred, but takes on that damnable holier than though attitude and cannot admit it. But this thread is not about hate, another thread is.

I wasn't inferring that most muslims are violent, but out of all religions in the modern day Islam itself seems to cause the most violence as far as religious influenced violence is concerned. I know many muslims, as most people have, I to have learned stereotypes don't apply.


Oh, Trust me I know all about slowmutant's small little black and white deluded view of the world, having been arguing in this forum for a few months now I understand his literal fundamental christian views.