OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Trickytreesreds]

A ‘stat’ that is entirely irrelevant to my one and only suggestion...that Islam does not hold the monopoly on fundamentalism.
Not sure how offering to ‘enumerate’ will help but feel free if you think it does.

You are quite right RA, it doesn't
But we are talking about the middle east here. Fundamentalism is practically in the sole ownership of Islam there.
The interpretaion of Islam, varies country to country and the more conservative the regime, the more brutal it appears to be in Islams name.
Saudi, was Mohammeds birth place. The country runs Sharia law there, to the letter.
Afghanistan, runs Shariah law how the Taliban sees fit, usually extreme brutality for minimum violations.
Now countries or persons within other countries, try to manipulate other regimes to their will.
My point is that, Islam is a wild religion, as even in the UK you see the same here.
Many many, lovely Muslims, then there are Choudarys type who wants brutal sharia here.
That makes Muslims who follow Islam, wild cards.

Europe hundreds of years ago, was driven by fundamentalism.
We grew up a long time ago.

[MadAmster]

Europe hundreds of years ago, was driven by fundamentalism.
We grew up a long time ago.

Ah, yes. The good old days when religion ruled and science was the devil. Times following the fall of the Roman Empire now known as "The Dark Ages". Not too dissimilar to the Spanish Inquisition, the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Catholic Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. from 1478 to 1834 a millennium later.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Silly comment...but I’ve got a few minutes so I’ll play.

You said you ‘can and do question it (non Muslin fundamentalism) because I have not seen or been exposed to it.’

From what little I know of you, and I know I may be wrong, I’ll hazard a guess that you’ve never ‘seen or been exposed to’...domestic violence, poverty, rape, starvation, a nuclear explosion or Derby winning the FA Cup.
Does that really mean that in your world you ‘question them’?

Stupid comment

The point is that whilst most religions have a fundamentalist "tail", it occurs to me that Islamic fundamentalism tends to manifest iteslf in violence, both within the faith sects and against externals, whereas fundamentalism in other religions currently does not - unless you can prove me wrong: I am no expert on religions, extreme or otherwise.

To take a further example, Christian fundamentalism, as exemplified by the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites etc and so on takes the form of eschewing technology and working in a community based model.

If you look back in history then you may see things like the Spanish Inquisition and the imposition of christianity in colonial Africa and so on, but I believe most religions have now moved on from these extremes - with one notable example.

In fact some of the most fundamentalist regimes in the last 100 years have not been based on religion, but rather informed by political doctrine - eg Pol Pot, Soviet regimes, Maoist China, Ceaucescu etc. One might almost say politics is the new religion

[Andy_Faber]

A ‘stat’ that is entirely irrelevant to my one and only suggestion...that Islam does not hold the monopoly on fundamentalism.
Not sure how offering to ‘enumerate’ will help but feel free if you think it does.

Which suggests you are deliberately 'obfuscating' the issue as GP suggests because you don't like the outcome, that's fair enough and we here have collectively had little success in changing hearts and minds so I guess I shouldn't get to wound up about it.

BUT, there's always a way of explaining using footy.

Substituting hooliganism for fundamentalism/terrorism and footy teams for beliefs, your statements merely offer the observation that Millwall and Burton both have their hooligan elements. True. But massively misleading. and giving Millwall a 'soft pass' and tarring Burton with a ****ty stick (to mix foul smelling metaphors) at the same time.

By enumerating the issue, and coincidentally probably using arrests as a marker, Millwall would be found to be massively more inclined to hooliganism than Burton. That's not suggesting all Millwall fans are yobs as we've seen by the occasional friendly visits here by Claw84, or that all Burton fans are saints, but it DOES allow an overall view to be taken (YES, a generalisation), and decisions to be made such as 'safe' kick-off times, policing and whether any given match is suitable for little Tommy to be taken to in safety.

Yet reading your posts on this, if you were in a position of power you would attach equal weight to the threat posed by Millwall and Burton, and going back to the originating discussion, you would attach equal weight to the threat posed by Islamic and, lets say, Buddhist fundamentalism.

Please don't apply to be head of MI5 (or a Crime Commisioner for that matter). You'd be OK as a vicar, but that's another issue and is actually part of the problem

[Andy_Faber]

To take a further example, Christian fundamentalism, as exemplified by the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites etc and so on takes the form of eschewing technology and working in a community based model.

I DO spend a fair amount of time trying to understand religion/beliefs, and although your point is valid, there are actually marked SIMILARITIES between Christian and (non-extreme) Islamic beliefs - the obvious ones being conservative dress/minimal exposure of flesh, ostracising of those who adulterate and the highly demarcated roles of males and females. It seems to be the extremes that tip the balance, especially in respect of recognising/respecting the beliefs of others - the Amish, for instance, for the most part just scratch their heads quizzically at the antics of what they quaintly call 'The English' (ie everyone else) - we all know where Islamic fundamentalism is at.

There's an interesting (to me) concept called 'The Paradox Of Tolerance' which might be worth boning up on, and IMO Western world is currently wrestling with this concept, with Lilly Allen and rA at one end and Nigel Farage and TTR at the other (possibly with you and I pulling strings somewhere between)

[MadAmster]

My tolerance ends where someone else impinges on my freedoms just as my freedom ends where it impinges on someone else's.

Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Hindu, Buddhists, whatever. I'm perfectly OK for them to believe what they want to believe and practice their religion the way they want to...... up to the point where it starts to negatively affect others. Once it starts to affect someone else who doesn't share those thoughts, that is where your freedom ends.

There were, earlier this year, a group of Muslims refugees who'd made their way to Cyprus. They carried on in their Muslim ways until they became emboldened enough to start harassing Muslim women and girls who weren't being as "Muslim" as the men thought they should be. Westernised clothing. Going to dances etc. The discouragement got physical. It was even aimed at some "Western" women, bar owners etc. The Law stepped in. The harassment stopped. Just the way it should be. Take your freedoms and enjoy them to the limit but don't overstep your boundaries.

[Geoff Parkstone]

The idea of Lily Allen being at rA's end rather makes my eyes water, although perhaps not quite as much as the other way round

[ramAnag]

I DO spend a fair amount of time trying to understand religion/beliefs, and although your point is valid, there are actually marked SIMILARITIES between Christian and (non-extreme) Islamic beliefs - the obvious ones being conservative dress/minimal exposure of flesh, ostracising of those who adulterate and the highly demarcated roles of males and females. It seems to be the extremes that tip the balance, especially in respect of recognising/respecting the beliefs of others - the Amish, for instance, for the most part just scratch their heads quizzically at the antics of what they quaintly call 'The English' (ie everyone else) - we all know where Islamic fundamentalism is at.

There's an interesting (to me) concept called 'The Paradox Of Tolerance' which might be worth boning up on, and IMO Western world is currently wrestling with this concept, with Lilly Allen and rA at one end and Nigel Farage and TTR at the other (possibly with you and I pulling strings somewhere between)

Lily Allen! Oh ffs...give me some credit.

As regards your hooliganism analogy. You’d have a point if I’d ever suggested that ‘equal weight’ should be given to all forms of fundamentalist inspired terrorism...but I haven’t. All I’ve said is that Muslim’s do not have the monopoly where fundamentalism is concerned.
Maybe it’s the accountant in you that led you to seek to quantify...but I’m actually not sure you’ve done anything other than state the bloody obvious.

[ramAnag]

To take a further example, Christian fundamentalism, as exemplified by the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites etc and so on takes the form of eschewing technology and working in a community based model.

In fact some of the most fundamentalist regimes in the last 100 years have not been based on religion, but rather informed by political doctrine - eg Pol Pot, Soviet regimes, Maoist China, Ceaucescu etc. One might almost say politics is the new religion

I wouldn’t disagree with much of that final paragraph, GP...but as regards Christian fundamentalism you cannot just describe it as being associated with the minority groups you have identified.

It runs much deeper and into far more powerful areas than you have described. At the tip of the proverbial iceberg think of the DUP and their fundamentalist Christian tendencies as personified by Edwin Poots and his supporters. Consider the Christian Right in the USA...a coalition of conservative evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who’s views on aspects of medical research, homos exuality, contraception, abortion, the role of women, euthanasia and s ex education, amongst others, might be described as having much in common with those of the Taliban.

Of course such people, including Mike Pence (Trump’s Deputy), don’t need to appear as the shadowy and sinister, bearded, weapon carrying terrorists that we are all so fearful of. They already have the power, and control over much of the media that allows them to hide in plain sight.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Im afraid that is so much horse**** rA. The "Christian Right" as you put it are part of what I had previously described as political fundamentalism, but the religion is predominantly an excuse to connect to / gain support of the rednecks in the community. The objectives are far more sinister than mere religion.

You don't see Americans wading into warfare for the glory of the Lord God Almighty, they wade in for oil and other scarce mineral resources. In many ways this is worse, because at least your run of the mill Islamic terrorist has the conviction in his own religion, your average American is simply committed to money.

[ramAnag]

Im afraid that is so much horse**** rA. The "Christian Right" as you put it are part of what I had previously described as political fundamentalism, but the religion is predominantly an excuse to connect to / gain support of the rednecks in the community. The objectives are far more sinister than mere religion.

You don't see Americans wading into warfare for the glory of the Lord God Almighty, they wade in for oil and other scarce mineral resources. In many ways this is worse, because at least your run of the mill Islamic terrorist has the conviction in his own religion, your average American is simply committed to money.

You might think that. Your opinion. To me we are closer to agreeing than it may seem.
Just semantics really. You forget I attended my granddaughters U.S. ‘graduation’ some years ago. A greater exercise in brainwashing I have yet to see...salute the flag, kneel to God, place your hand over your heart and recite. At five. Really?

Just semantics really. Like the Christian Right, the Taliban are just as political as they are religious and have the same aims of geo political dominance.

I agree with most of what you’ve written, but it’s fine lines. I’m honestly equally critical of both, but they are both just working with what they’ve got and in the meantime it’s ordinary people who suffer.

[Trickytreesreds]

Lily Allen! Oh ffs...give me some credit.

As regards your hooliganism analogy. You’d have a point if I’d ever suggested that ‘equal weight’ should be given to all forms of fundamentalist inspired terrorism...but I haven’t. All I’ve said is that Muslim’s do not have the monopoly where fundamentalism is concerned.
Maybe it’s the accountant in you that led you to seek to quantify...but I’m actually not sure you’ve done anything other than state the bloody obvious.

Well you aint apologising on my behalf, that's for sure,

[Andy_Faber]

Lily Allen! Oh ffs...give me some credit.

As regards your hooliganism analogy. You’d have a point if I’d ever suggested that ‘equal weight’ should be given to all forms of fundamentalist inspired terrorism...but I haven’t. All I’ve said is that Muslim’s do not have the monopoly where fundamentalism is concerned.
Maybe it’s the accountant in you that led you to seek to quantify...but I’m actually not sure you’ve done anything other than state the bloody obvious.

You implied equal weight by not stating 'the bloody obvious' but fair enough if it is indeed bloody obvious to you and you are merely uneasy about saying it, I withdraw my Lilly Allen comment!

The whole 'in denial' thing (on many issues not just this one) is massively counterproductive and hinders resolution of many of the world's/the UK's thorniest problems IMO.

[ramAnag]

You implied equal weight by not stating 'the bloody obvious' but fair enough if it is indeed bloody obvious to you and you are merely uneasy about saying it, I withdraw my Lilly Allen comment!

The whole 'in denial' thing (on many issues not just this one) is massively counterproductive and hinders resolution of many of the world's/the UK's thorniest problems IMO.

Who’s in denial...and what about?

[Andy_Faber]

Who’s in denial...and what about?

Waaaay too many people are in denial about way too many things. I offered Lilly Allen as a high profile example, with her assertion that UK should be 'ashamed' that it refuses ANY request from ANYONE to take residency in UK, in this case being in denial about both the volume and 'quality' of such an influx. Her rant that anyone with room to spare in their homes should welcome immigrants has been tempered somewhat since she was challenged to do so in her own ample residence.