It's A War Against FUNDAMENTALISTS, Stupid

[ruggerson]

I agree 100% with this post on HuffPo. But the really interesting thing is reading the comments below it from the Republican Christian fundamentalists. They JUST CAN"T STAND being lumped in with Islamic fundamentalists. It pushes a very raw button with them.

Their biggest fear is that the world finds out there is no difference between Christian and Islamic fundamentalists and that both are the enemies of freedom and democracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-war-against-fundament_b_5898.html

<snip>

We are not fighting a war against terror. Terror is a method of warfare. Fighting against terror is kind of like fighting against rifles. It misses the point. The question is who is behind the terrorism and why?

How can we possibly win a war when we don’t even know who the enemy is?

This is part of the reason we wound up in Iraq. Iraq did not attack us, and in fact, according to the 9/11 Commission, Osama bin Laden worked with anti-Saddam forces inside Iraq at one time because Hussein’s government was the type of secular government they wanted to overthrow. But we are so confused as to who we are fighting and why we are fighting them that we attacked the wrong country under the umbrella of the meaningless “war on terror.”

Perhaps this is what you get when you have a president who doesn’t “do nuance.” But putting aside who is at fault for this misguided war and whether they purposely chose to mislead us with ambiguous titles like the “war on terror,” let’s get to the heart of the issue – what are we really fighting against?

I have a simple answer – fundamentalism. Muslim fundamentalists believe it is their moral duty to fight a jihad against the West. They are guided by their strict, literal reading of the Koran (helped along by hateful imams who select the worst parts of the Koran).

<snip>

[noahmijo]

1. This has been my philosophy as far as I can remember

Fundamentalism. It's the one thing I have no problem denouncing and hating with my every being. Fundamentalism of ANY kind. Whether it be Facism, Communism, fundamentalist Christians or Muslims I can't stand any of them and wish them away FAR away in fact just disappear.

Can anyone name ONE time just ONE time where fundamentalism has ever been a good thing?

[lvx35]

6. Well said, bringing up Marxist fundamentalism.

I think your post really cuts to the heart of the matter. Pretty much all our big enemies have been fundamentalist. I think its accurate that you included communism and fascism. Soviet Russia ad China under Mao were faith based, fundamentalist states. It was Marxist fundamentalism. The truth is that there is nothing wrong with the Bible, or the teachings of Marx when you think about them, use reason and moderation to draw insite from them. But Fundamenalism is about non-thought, not thought.

[noahmijo]

9. Yea exactly go ahead and take ideas and snips from whatever religion or

philosophy. To me though there is no such thing as "The Word" The ONLY way every problem has multiple paths that can be used or are necessary to be used to solve it.

"non thought" yea exactly everytime you argue with a neo con they call you a commie. Since you disagree with one of their points you must be a Stalin apologist terrorist love pure and simple.

Likewise not to let any of you fundie leftists off the hook just because you know history and understand that Mao was a piece of shit murderer just Kim just like Fidel that doesn't make you a Nazi sympathizer or a Capitalist war monger.

In other words if you're not with us you're against us.

[lvx35]

10. Damn, you did it again!

In other words if you're not with us you're against us.

Sweet, you cut to the heart of the matter again. That's exactly what fundamentalism is...Its defining trait is that its not inclusive to other ideologies, whatever it is. Awesome.

[tlsmith1963]

2. Religious Fundamentalism is the Problem, Period

I don't care what religion they are, if someone is a fundamentalist they are part of the problem. Religious fundamentalism is the no.1 problem the world is facing today. When religious people become too fanatical, they can justify anything they do, saying that God told them to do it. Even if it is something bad. Religious people who don't tend to be fanatical are not the problem, although they need to do more to rein the "crazies" in.

Tammy

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. fundamentalists are the same

no matter what their professed religion in that they are intolerant and tend not to think for themselves but to rely on a religious leader to tell them what their holy book means.

Mystics of all faiths tend to be tolerant and understanding of other faiths, and take joy in participating in rituals other than their own. I still remember when we Sufis gathered at a Catholic retreat center and asked for a place to do our morning practices. The sisters asked us to use the chapel-up by the pulpit. So for days, we came and did Kirtan (Hindu responsive chanting) and zkr (Islamic chanting), and every day, there were more and more sisters sitting in the pews. We later found out the reason. As one sister put it, "We don't understand the words, but we know God."

[Son of California]

4. CAN WE MAYBE SAY RADICALS AS OPPOSED THE FUNDAMENTALIST?

I think the word fundamental may be a bit unfair, I'm sure there are a lot of good-hearted real deal Christians who do let their actions be guided by love and tolerance who consider themselves "Fundamentalist" -after all the #1 fundamental of Christianity is LOVE. and there ain't nothing wrong with that.

Let's say RADICALS.

The Christian Right are dangerous radicals.
They have a narrow world-view unfriendly to many of our most cherished concepts of liberty and freedom of choice -but worse of all, they have totalitarian aspirations.
Just like the Radical Islamists.

I think the word "Radical" has a lot of the same negative connotation as "Liberal" does with a lot of folks -so maybe radical is the best word to go with here.

maybe it needs to go in the echo chamber: the Religious Right are Dangerous Radicals......

[wli]

7. That term itself is distorted/coopted

"Radical" is typically reserved for the left. There are even radical parties in Europe, which are basically just further left than liberal and labor parties. They're typically not associated with Communists or Communism.

"Reactionary" is generally reserved for the far right, but far less often used as a party label or self-identification. Likewise, reactionaries are not typically outright fascists.

[EST]

5. What a wonderful read!

Fundamentalism of all sorts-particularly including the fundamentalism that demands you impose your your form of government on anyone who doesn't want it. Lead by example, not intimidation. The last fifty years of war, caused mostly by the fundamentalists of this country meddling with other governments.

[mzteris]

8. I thought

you were talking about OUR war over here!

Fundamentalists in every religion are the problem!