actually, irate, I think the comparison is more along the lines of religious leaders who spew hate, which gives rise to terrorist acts rather than a direct comparison of these christian leaders being terrorists themselves.

That is, understand the distinction being drawn between bin Laden and the terrorists actors who physically perpetrate the violence.

Then you might see the distinction being drawn between Falwell and the person who shoots abortion doctors as they walk into their clinics.

i get the comparison.

first off, let's not fall into idea that bin laden doesn't actively support and plan the deaths of others. the analogy falls flat on face its after that.

it always seems that when i disagree on TFP it turns out to be because i just don't get it... not because i have a legitimate reason of having my own views. frustrating.

you don't have to take my word for it... i'm just some guy on the net. i'm just saying from my very well-informed perspective on this particular issue, some of the things being said are laughable.

I didn't even suggest you "don't get it," quite playing the victim, please.

My statements were propositional.

And we have no idea the extent of bin Laden's planning, other than it is likely significantly less than what you seem to be suggesting, which is the concept of cells without clear leadership (gratis training from our very capable CIA).

..and you don't have a monopoly on insight into the frameworks from whithin which conservative christians work from. few people on this board know each other's real life history.


edit:
Superbelt's original point was that, "The only thing that separates these men and those who think like them from Osama, Al Qaeda and the Taliban..."

and I replied to irate's point that, "comparing them to terrorists really is laughable."

Irate, not superbelt, linked Osama, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban to terrorists.

Osama is a religious figurehead who's words foment religious and political opposition against capitalists wrapped in christian clothing.

Al Qaeda is comprised of the actors who physically perpetrate violent acts against citizens and agents they believe to be responsible for political, economic, cultural, and religious oppression.

The Taliban was a right-wing religious political party that legitimately (in the world's eyes preceding the war) ruled Afghanistan.


After I unpacked the rhetoric laden terms used within the public discourse that seperates the men superbelt references (and they are, interestingly to me, all male) from the men irate references with the socially constructed box 'terrorists,' I was able to see the analogous parallels. Of course, every analogy does not perfectly mirror the original; but that should not be used as evidence to mask the abundant similarities.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

smooth,

well, i suppose now is a time when i really am lost in a thread. i can't make heads or tails out of your last post. this isn't meant to be an insult... just don't have a clue where your pulling things from or where you're going with it. oh well.

platypus, your post about growing up with "these people" sounds a lot like the last speech given by juror #10, though only in the words you choose, not necessaily in tone.

Fundamentalism is a problem that, left to grow unchecked, becomes the Taliban. The CC isn't there yet, not by a long shot, but if they were allowed to come to power, we'd be there faster than you think.

Yep. Many can't, for the life of them, see how you could actually believe in more "conservative" stances without either being ignorant or unsympathetic to others.

Platypus, imagine for me that America has another great depression that completely destroys our economy. Imagine also that the Islamic world has a revival in both culture and economy so thorough that Islamic culture and influence begins to spread all over the world.

Now you have just switched the CC and the Taliban etc.

Both are now in the position the other was in. How do you see each reacting? Do you think the Islamic Fundies will bother to attack america and her interests anymore? Beheading our civilians, flying planes into our buildings.

What do you think will become of the hardcore of the CC? Do you think they will just sit back and do as they have always done in america? Do you think they won't take huge offense to seeing Islam spreading through the USA, seeing their values and religion being pushed aside for something they see as actually evil and damnable?

I don't. Under that circumstance I see Christian Fundies picking up where Al Qaeda left off.

I think that everyone can agree that some posters on both sides (are there only 2 sides?) frequently fall prey to the "WTF" syndrome.

Absolutely.

superbelt,

in order for your hypothetical speculation to stand up... you must first create a millenium of christian theocracy in this country to make it work. once that fancy is solidly in place you must next dispense with the constitution.

only now have we switched the CC and the taliban.

to properly deconstruct this would require volumes of history and months of careful analysis. you can't just say "ok... here are the fundamentalists on this side, so we can automatically conclude that if the tables were turned the fundamentalists on this other side will have the same reaction."

there are many other factors in play here: geopolitics, israel, radical differences of style and tone of sacred texts, sharia, the colonial-modern-postmodern shifts... the list goes on.

even if you were to imagine that our recent contexts were the same, that each fundamentalist movement would have the same environment in which to grow (an idea that is clearly flawed), you would ignore two millenia of history to draw so many neat and tidy parallels.

there are fundamentalist components to nearly every religion. there are fundamentalist components in nearly every country. there is something historically significant and almost a sense of uniqueness about the current iteration of islamic fundamentalism.

incidentally, i just finished this book. it's called The Battle For God written by Karen Armstrong. though it's more of a scholarly type of read rather than one for pure entertainment... it offers some great perspective on monotheistic fundamentalism (muslim, christian, and jewish). i thought the reference was appropriate for this thread. i've frequently thought about starting a thread in tilted philosophy to see if anyone else had given it a read. there really is a lot more to these issues than you see on the news.

This is why I hate religion. Nothing good comes out of it. People will fight and keep fighting, just to attempt to brainwash another person into believing [insert religion here]'s beliefs, and/or trying to depict their religion as the 'right' or 'correct' way of life.

If you believe in a god, or gods, or whatever the fuck you worship, great, keep it to your fucking self, in your home or in a temple/church/mosque/other 'holy' places. There is no need to parade in the streets and force your religion on others just because YOU think its right.

If you hate homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, believers, non-believers, men, women, transvestites, etc. Then fine, its your choice to be ignorant. Just don't try to force your ignorance on others.

We're all human beings. We all eat and breathe the same damned things. We all live on the same damned planet, we need to learn how to get along, rather cutting each others' throats over our differences.

link
And it's sad because it's all too true. They really do have that party by the balls. Without them, where would the Republicans be?
I would tear my hair out daily if the only currently viable part aligned with my political philosophy was so thoroughly hijacked by a group of religious nutballs like Falwell and Robertson.

Again, they are like the Taliban. They are doing their best to establish a fundamentalist christian ideology on America. They don't need guns and overt terror, they have the vote count in the proper political party to actually have a shot at it.

The same place the democrats would be without their wackjobs.

So who, exactly, are you talking about? The CC is a recognized bloc in the Republican party, so who are these "wackjobs" that represent the same powerful presence in the Democratic party? Can't we try to do more here then channel Rush Limbaugh?

How about any number of environmentalist and abortion rights groups? To say that the GOP is the only party with organized fringe elements is pretty crazy. Just look at the number of protesters screaming that Bush is "evil" and I think you've got at least as much lunacy as the fringe elements of the CC.

The question wasn't whether there are "fringe groups" but whether or not there is an equvialent of the CC, meaning a large cohesive block that influences and guides the party in a strong way. See the quote from Falwell that Superbelt pasted above.