Sanctimonious Militant TeaHadists Pi$$ me off

[M Kitt]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7463272

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7463926

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123048497

They intentionally smear an entire religion for the benefit of their own goals, religious "Empire" in the mold of Fundamentalist Christianity.

Sanctimonious A$$holes.

[edhopper]

1. Many of us here do not think all Muslims

are jihadist. Or even agree with the jihadist terrorists.

We just think the religion of Islam is is full of antiquated, medieval beliefs that have no place in the modern world.

especially in it's treatment of women, gays and non-believers.

[M Kitt]

2. Identify the "We" that you represent, please.

You're making a sweeping statement, I've written and "railed" against Militant Christian Fundamentalists and their aggressive, destructive war ambitions.

Do you represent them? Don't think so, but please clarify that viewpoint for me.

Thanks.

[edhopper]

3. You were posting in the Atheists & Agnostic group

I was speaking for a lot of us who post here.

We are often accused of religious bigotry for criticism Islam.

I don't disagree with you about the Xian Fundies.

[M Kitt]

4. So you're not disagreeing with those posts, it would seem.

Which is why I wanted to clarify the perspective you represent.

Wasn't my intention to address the "Fundie" elements in this group, don't think they generally reply or post here so I wasn't speaking to or for them.

I basically wanted to point out that they're (Fundies) reliably connected to Reicht Wing ambitions of war in the middle east. In support of their own "End Times" fundamentalist beliefs, combined with (encouraged by) Conservatives who're not necessarily religious but have ambitions/goals connected to Petroleum resources in that region.

Empire is composed of those elements, historically.

[edhopper]

5. Okay

That is true. I have met a few bible thumpers who are nuts about Israel because "we have to save it for Jesus to come back."

There is no "Fundie" element here. (though the accusation of atheist fundamentalist has been thrown at us) We mostly don't care for any religion.

[M Kitt]

7. OK, appreciate the feedback.

Comments often serve to clarify perspective for both parties, as intended.

[edhopper]

11. Yes

I know you posted here to highlight the shit the Christian Fundies are doing.

Not rag on atheists.

I just reacted to what others have said to us before.

[mr blur]

20. There are no '"Fundie" elements in this group'

Why not take your moans about fundies to the Religion groups, where they belong? I'm sure you'd get a warm welcome there as they're always open to opposing points of view.

[M Kitt]

22. OK, so I've posted that same item outside this "Group"

Same short essay, posted in the "Religion" forum. As planned, and per that comment from you, I've taken my "moans" about fundies elsewhere

Some of you are very protective of your' turf, I've noticed.

BTW, the Penn Gillette clip you posted was interesting, tho I don't share his political views (outspoken Libertarian). Have to agree with his assessment of organized religion, consolidating under the "Christian" umbrella has assured them a lot of political clout over the last decades.

You have a nice day now, Mister Blurry.

[mr blur]

23. "protective of your' turf"? Perhaps we are,

but at least we don't ban people from the place for daring to have an opinion that we don't share.

We value it as somewhere where religious loonies of all stripes are not to be found and "free of debate about the existence of a deity or deities" (S.O.P.), and we don't have to pretend to respect religious privilege or belief in supernatural drivel.

Of course, you're very welcome to post here. Apologies if I gave you any other impression - and now I see that I did.

I always have nice days, thanks, M Kitty.

[M Kitt]

24. Agreed, hence this is a "Group" MB

I've posted here several times across the past few years, don't disagree with the premise you've just described. Most replies here have been courteous and valid.

Religious viewpoints are given quite enough attention, written into the fabric of everything in our society from election cycles to National war policy.

Exclusion of those conditions in this "Group" is entirely understandable. Thanks again.

[cleanhippie]

6. Cool story, bro.

[M Kitt]

8. That's my ambition, CH.

Replies are appreciated

[uriel1972]

9. They aren't 'smearing'...

They don't even think they are smearing...
They are simply doing "God's Work" as they see it.

[M Kitt]

10. Thanks, U-72.

Think there's a "spectrum" of them, some are entirely driven by religion, as you've addressed.

But others (Leadership/Pundits/Politicians) within that group or closely connected to them are simply opportunists.

They're manipulating the religious elements to achieve their own Economic/Political goals, while pretending to worship at the same altar as the "fundies".

While in actuality, what they're generally worshiping is the almighty $ and/or connective political ambitions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123015084

Thanks again.

[uriel1972]

12. Until we develop mind reading technology or they admit it in public...

We can't say for sure they don't believe.
There's nothing to preclude burning ambition/greed/psycopathic tendancies with worship.
Case in point, dear Adolf: he sincerely believed he was doing God's work according to his speeches, his private conversations and diaries.
It is no surprise that a narcissist would believe that they have personal connection with God and that God tells them (and them alone) what is right and wrong. And it is no surprise that God tells them what they want to hear.

What I don't recommend is using the "No True Scotsman" argument here.
It is also a tad insulting to imply that someone "must" be an athiest because they do something "bad".

[M Kitt]

13. Full Disclosure? Don't recall conflating "Atheists" with doing something "Bad".

Last edited Sun Dec 27, 2015, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm an agnostic, I'm neither for or against atheists, but will admit that fundamentalists of every stripe "Pi$$ me off". Think the links in the original post are quite clear on that.

You're not giving credit to my previous comment that there are a "spectrum" of religious beliefs involved with the Militant Fundamentalist element.

By my statement that they don't "worship at the same altar" you're implying that I've classified them as being atheist, which I have not.

So when you take it personally (you're a tad insulted, right?), when you assure that I've identified those manipulators as being atheist because they're taking advantage of the hard core religious element, you've presumed incorrectly.

You may want to review my other posts for comparison, for further perspective.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123015084

But thanks otherwise for the feedback.

[uriel1972]

14. I don't think you intended it that way..

there is always a but, however, but when you say they don't worship a deity, then that makes them atheist by definition. Again it's protecting Christianity's reputation calling those you don't agree with not really Christian.

The Intensity of belief in God is what you may be alluding to. I don't know, are you trying to say that they don't believe in God as intensely in private as they do in public?

If so I agree, in some cases (some of them do appear to be as genuinely bat shit crazy as the followers), however we must regard them Christian, as they profess to be, until evidence of their unbelief is presented.

If I was feeling insulted, it is war weariness. I groan under the weight of catapulted "No True Scotsmen"

[M Kitt]

15. OK, thanks. I'll add one critical distinction, what represents the "Fundamentalist" label.

Last edited Sun Dec 27, 2015, 02:32 PM - Edit history (2)

The term "Fundamentalist" by my understanding presumes that religion is the principal motivating factor in their lives.

Along with the misplaced belief that what's written in scripture is "Irrefutable and without errors", written by the hand of god like the purported tablets from Mount Sinai. So what's contained in that scripture cannot be compromised or questioned, and must be enforced by adherents.

Compromise?

Hence those not worshiping at the "Fundamentalist Altar" as defined by the term Political Manipulators are not driven by the same goals in terms of priorities, they've simply replaced religion with personal ambition as the foremost guiding principal.

Doesn't mean they're not religious, but their priorities have changed to accommodate other ambitions while operating under the same banner of church "Doctrine" and approval. Those manipulative opportunists are often quite destructive, as defined by the history of organized religion (Crusades, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, purges, etc.)

When applied to Colonialism, those constitute the combined elements of Empire by definition, Militant Religion driven by Political/Economic influence.

Which is not to say that Militant Fundamentalists can't be quite destructive in their own right, in pursuit of entirely religious goals.

Leadership?

Likewise, by appearance, many church "Leaders" may be simply following the pretense of Militant Fundamentalism for pursuit of other ideals. Which doesn't disqualify ownership of that belief system, it just makes them sanctimonious hypocrites, not adhering to the same set of values as "Hard Core" followers but providing rules of behavior for them.

Rules that include "Intolerance" of outsiders and other religions in support of their own church continuity, for instance.

Summation

While I don't disqualify the possibility that some of these "manipulators" may have no belief in god whatsoever, you're correct in stating I'm not in any position to identify them as such.

Thanks again.

[uriel1972]

16. As I understand it...

Fundamentalism is a modern phenomanon c) late 19th century, characterised by a belief in the return to the "Fundamentals" of Christianity. However, such elements as biblical literacy and other tenets of Fundamentalism like millenialism, may in fact be ahistoric.

[Promethean]

17. Here is the really terrifying part.

The fundies are the ones railing against islam right now and we know its from a stance of uneducated prejudice. Pure unfiltered 100% bigotry if you will. The problem is some of the things they are saying are right.

If you look at what is happening in Europe with their muslim immigrants you'll see it. France has them placing up signs declaring entire areas to be "sharia law zones." The UK has at least 80 sharia courts set up and while they skirt the law by saying they don't override the UK courts while they force the muslim population to use the sharia courts instead. Sweden has become the rape capital of the world, literally. Over 70% of it is done by immigrant men who come from muslim cultures where it isn't a crime to rape. There is an interview with a man who attended a course designed specifically to teach these immigrants how not to rape (yes they had to set such a thing up). He came out of it confused saying that he should be able to just take a woman whenever he wants.

If we allow muslims to immigrate to the US in large enough numbers we will see the same things happen and then the insane bigots will get even more followers because they will be proven right.

[M Kitt]

18. Sharia Sucks, of course, represents the worst case.

Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 03:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Umm, let's see.

The UK Court system hasn't been compromised, they're still the final authority in disputes regarding Sharia or any other religious doctrine.

https://fullfact.org/law/uk_sharia_courts-39429

Religious "Councils" can provide their own summation of any given dispute, or even provide courtroom testament (as in the USA) but final authority remains Judicial and must abide by UK legal Doctrine, not religious advisement.

Sharia Law and Rape Accusations

Conscripted rape within marriage or otherwise is without a doubt one of the worst aspects of Fundamentalist Islam. But within non-Theistic countries (those not governed by religious leadership) that behavior is not promoted or condoned.

Sweden does have issues with bending local law jurisdictions to allow for Sharia, but if the victim chooses they can take assault/rape cases to Civil Court, given that they have the means to provide legal council and advisement/representation in Court.

That would essentially be viewed as a "renouncement" of their religion by the victim, at least as viewed by Religious Council authority.

Fundamentalist Ambitions on both sides of the Sharia divide

http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/mainstream-media-wont-tell-you-why-sweden-is-now-rape-capital-of-the-west/

Many of us are aware of Allen West and his politically driven interest in that situation, he's gained a lot of political mileage among Militant Christians by pointing out those problems, as have many Fundamentalists in support of the Religious Reicht wing.

The Old Testament is wrought with quite a few of those same issues, by the way the old testament (Leviticus/Deuteronomy) not only condones but encourages that non-believers be put to death (including women/children), that unfaithful wives be stoned to death, that children who were not obedient could be killed if necessary.

Organized Religion sucks, without a doubt.

[Freelancer]

19. Some people get rich during crusades, and others get to feel holy. Win-Win??? I don't think so.

It seems like some of the sons (figuratively) of Saladin are asking us to dance again -- to an old ditty called the crusade. And some of the sons and daughters of Christendom are thinking about taking them up on it -- thinking about sending others out to wage it, anyway. It pisses me off that there don't seem to be enough Muslims actively intervening to squelch support for jihadism in their midst. At the same time, though, I'm at a loss as to how to put the brakes on my own country's slide into forever-war. Just personally refuse to be a weaponized primate, and speak out when it won't cause an inverse effect, I guess.

Here's a link to Twain's 'The War Prayer' (grit your teeth through the beginning -- it gets interesting). I imagine quite a number of fundamentalists hate it -- not all, though.

[M Kitt]

21. Interesting comment on the hipocrisy of organized religion.

Praise the lord and pass the bullets, right? And he doesn't even address the contrast of a homeless man, outside a church with so much conspicuous wealth, dressed in the remnants of what used to be a military uniform, an obvious Vet.

Unfortunately, for that church to disregard completely the "New Testament" aspect of their religion is simply a practical adaptation to the rules governing our current society overall.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123015084

From that post:

"Right Wing Fundamentalists assure us that current supporters of Jesus needn’t REALLY follow his example, their worldly wealth should NOT be given over to the poor, for instance, since under current Evangelical Fundamentalist standards Excessive Wealth among church members (AND Church Leadership) represents APPROVAL from and by God.

Thus TAXES are (by WingNut logic) an imposition equivalent to giving money to the poor, can’t have THAT, can we?"

And since I'm an agnostic, why not throw in a bit of Comment number 7 of that same thread.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
~John Kenneth Galbraith~

But let's not overlook the Conservative Political influence. Think that quote was from 1929 or thereabout, not much has changed in that respect.

Per my opening post many current (IE Right Wing) Fundamentalists seem intent on avoiding New Testament values, they're not inclined to accept recognized values of Compassion or Empathy since that would be in conflict with their inclinations of GREED.

Under tenants of "The Golden Rule" they'd have to accept Liberal/Progressive values "which is NOT going to happen" so they disregard that context completely and justify their "New Improved" values within a new religious framework contrived specifically for that purpose.

As John Galbraith was pointing out, they're simply replacing God with worship of money, tho that's an unspoken imperative of that twisted morality.

War is often driven by the "profit motive" underlying our Society as a whole. As is Religion, for that matter. Thanks.