America's taliban future [Archive]

Rodion Romanovich

06-06-2006, 10:56

who knows, im interested by their stance on gun issues, jesus said that those who lived by the sword would die by it, and what is a gun if not a modern sword?
the problem is, for someone that is fundamentalist by the definition, that would be a statement that would go against their faith. Fundamentalism by definition is about interpreting each word of a book considered holy in a strict manner, judging everything that could be a methaphore as if it wasn't a methaphore.

However one can always argue what the canonical least methaphorical interpretation of each word is, for instance in a statement such as "in the beginning there was darkness", the word "darkness" could mean either "no light", "lack of insight" or "evilness", just as "beginning" could mean "the beginning of all time", "the beginning of when time was counted", "the beginning of the story that the bible wants to tell" or "the beginning of the existence of a universe which didn't exist before that time".

Denying the methaphores being methaphores is to put the God called "linguistical syntax" above the God mentioned in the bible, which is to break the first commandment: "thou shalt not have any other Gods than me". So fundamentalism is a self-contradictionary belief which makes for quite interesting contradictions when the fundamentalism idea is put into practise. Thus for a fundamentalist a gun is not necessarily a modern sword, while a wound from a gunshot might be a modern wound from a swordsblade. Fundamentalism is just an excuse for abandoning just, equal treatment and judgement of all people's actions, and hide own agendas on the social or political level.

The scary thing is while fundamentalism once has a leadership in someone a bit nuts who wants to control all people, eventually they lose the leadership and become uncontrolled little robots, which is even worse.

Byzantine Mercenary

06-06-2006, 11:00

agreed, jesus spoke in metaphors, its what he did! if that is truly what they believe they realy are mad!

doc_bean

06-06-2006, 11:40

They're already in...

Not satisfied with meddling in the lives of the relatively small percentage of women who are pregnant, the American Taliban is moving to regulate the lives of all American women.

"New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves—and to be treated by the health care system—as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon," reports The Washington Post. "[T]his means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control… [I]t's important that women follow this advice throughout their reproductive lives, because about half of pregnancies are unplanned and so much damage can be done to a fetus between conception and the time the pregnancy is confirmed."

Color me paranoid, but ordering American women to regard themselves as "pre-pregnant" because they may harm a fetus they don't know they're carrying opens the door to prosecuting women who harm their fetuses by failing to regard themselves as "pre-pregnant." How long until "women should… refrain from smoking [and] maintain a healthy body weight" becomes "women must…" Does that sound paranoid? Well, so did a war on contraception once.

Oddly enough, Bush's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention don't urge straight men to regard themselves as existing in a perpetual state of "pre-fatherhood." Smoking, obesity, asthma, and diabetes could seriously hamper a man's ability to do the heavy lifting that comes with fatherhood. But Bush's CDC doesn't seem that interested in regulating the behavior of all those fat, smoking pre-fathers out there.

Gee. Isn't. That. Weird.

solypsist

06-06-2006, 14:40

i read an article (not available online) on the possibility of islamicism reaching a high surge, in most of the globe, in about twenty years due to several things:
1. relentless waves of immigrants
2. the appeal of the "unequal gender" philosophy to countries whose men have a tradition of "machismo"
3. the decline of western women's rights

according to this article, the last bastion of christianity will end up being in a few latin-american countries.

this might be a little o/t, but i couldn't help thinking of what i wrote above after reading the actions of the "american taliban" here in the states.

Devastatin Dave

06-06-2006, 14:53

rory_20_uk

06-06-2006, 15:02

Their methods are more subtle than chopping off hands for sure.

But to prevent those suffering the affects of asbestos exposure from recompence will cause them to suffer slow, agonising deaths.

Also consider: if there was a institute that was set up for the followers of Fundamentalist Islam to train to be political leaders would they first off even be allowed to do so?

Apparently the division of church and state is not something that is rigorously enforced.

~:smoking:

English assassin

06-06-2006, 15:17

fundamentalists 6th century nutjobs

Entirely described what these people seemed to be. For them the answer to EVERYTHING was in the bible. There, right there in 21C America, you had what seemed to be a university teaching what seemed to be reasonably intelligent kids (who certainly all wanted to change the nation's culture) that different rock strata were caused by the flood. The whole of science was "oppositional research"

Are they better than the Taliban? If the bible told them to chop your knackers off, they would whip them off without a second though. If you ask me, these "I'll be a cabbage for god" types are like ice cream; they come in different flavours but its all the same stuff.

scooter_the_shooter

06-06-2006, 15:19

These guys will never be leaders out side their little compound.:2thumbsup:

Think about if they got enough bad info on the quacks to slander them in a documentary....think about what the opposition could do in a campaign.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-06-2006, 15:36

Apparently the division of church and state is not something that is rigorously enforced.
Where'd you get that? Patrick Henry College is a private institution. :inquisitive:

Also consider: if there was a institute that was set up for the followers of Fundamentalist Islam to train to be political leaders would they first off even be allowed to do so?
In America - heck yeah. As a private instituion, granted, but there'd be no case against it unless they did something blatantly illegal (and they might get away with that if the ACLU got involved ~:rolleyes:).

rory_20_uk

06-06-2006, 15:47

Again, unlike th Taliban they are not going to be stupid enough to come out and say "Gays should be killed, we're going to ban drinking and drugs [and whatever else]". They win debating competitions - i.e. they're not stupid.

If they're currently to extreme to be the face of politics the other alternative is to be the people behind the scenes who run departments and do collectively alter the way that things are done.

The "expose" is in the UK. What have you heard in the USA?

~:smoking:

Devastatin Dave

06-06-2006, 16:53

"

Are they better than the Taliban? If the bible told them to chop your knackers off, they would whip them off without a second though.
Well, that hypothetical isn't in play because the Bible doesn't have that in their so your knackers are safe. Has the memory of muslim bombers in London and the attack of September 11th really that far back in your memory to forget that it wasn't some fundamentalist Christian cult that did these atrocities. Your title of your thread is misplaced as well as your outrage. Sorry, I'm less afraid of some raving nut on the street corner preaching about Jesus paying a visit than i am about the silent and peaceful smiling Islamic fundamentalist that has you to thank for your moral relativity and lack of character judgement. In fact, you should worry more about your back yard over there in merry ol' England when you have a major political party that does not allow anyone but white folks (BNP) and they are actually winning elections!!! Maybe the Brits such as yourself should stop trying so hard to make the US to be some Khristian Krusading Kountry and fix your own damn problems. I'm sure you'll reply back to me with some obscure retort much similar to the "chop of your knacker", but I'll get a good chuckle at it much like how I have a good belly laugh at about most of the constant anti American attempts by folks like you that try to make it sound like the US will make reading the Bible a requirement or we'll stop lopping off heads like the folks that so many on the left believe are somehow morally equal to the United States population. YAWN....

Redleg

06-06-2006, 17:31

Very scary documentary on the TV over here last night about a new university in the states. http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/godsarmy.html

As the website said: Patrick Henry College (PHC), [was] set up five years ago in Virginia, near Washington DC. Its mission is to train young fundamentalist Christians to become the next generation of America's cultural and political leaders.

These robonazis were scary stuff. They want your country, Americans. Their views were toxic, but their commitment and energy was remarkable.

Oddly they seemed to think that Jesus was opposed to compensation for injured workers, (niot too sure where in the bible it says that) and they thought that land should not be taxed because "the earth is the lords". The fact they they thought that statement made land tax unbiblical, but land ownership perfectly OK, gives some very small inkling of the intellectual la la land they were living in.

Question: Do they have a chance?

The information in the website does not paint the gloom and doom picture that you are presenting here.

I am wondering if your slightly over-reacting because of your own belief, or did the documentary paint a more skewed picture by carefully editing information to paint as negative a picture as possible. Since I did not catch the documentry - nor did your link provide a link to the actual documentry its hard for me to reach a conclusion.

I wonder if some realize how many private religious universities and colleges exist in the United States?

Do you also have a problem with these universities and colleges?

I would suggest a simple research into the number of Private colleges that are based upon religious views. I know of three in the state of Texas alone that are viewed as some of the best universities in the nation for liberial arts and some specific areas of expertise.

A little research will show you that SMU - is based upon a christrian doctrine. The nam itself is telling toward that.

http://www.smu.edu/facts/history.asp

Are you also against this school because of its religious background?

A little research seems to be in order. A simple google search provides a lot of information that seems to contradict the attempt at painting a "Taliban" scenerio - but does paint a picture of did the President of the University go to far in limiting the professors freedom to present material for learning to their students.

http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i37/37a01001.htm

But a core group of Patrick Henry professors now question that much-publicized commitment to the liberal arts. Five of its 16 full-time professors, two of whom have been there from the beginning, are leaving after a bitter battle over academic freedom. Their departures have shaken the campus and created doubts about the college's future.

They have also raised questions that cut to the heart of Christian higher education, such as: Can a Christian find truth in the writings of non-Christians? What role should the Bible play in the classroom? Should a Christian college student grapple with the same philosophers and the same issues as any other student? Or are certain ideas too worldly to address?

The controversy has pitted the college's president and founder, Michael P. Farris, against many of its professors. He has challenged their fidelity to a biblical worldview, and they have challenged his commitment to the liberal arts. "When he accuses us of not buying into the vision of the college, we have to scratch our heads," says M. Todd Bates, an assistant professor of rhetoric, who is leaving after this semester. "We came here because of the vision. The question is: What has happened to that vision?"

Or do you only have a problem with the Patrick Henery College because it made a news report?

English assassin

06-06-2006, 17:36

Well, that hypothetical isn't in play because the Bible doesn't have that in their so your knackers are safe

Tut tut, back to bible studies for you. Gospel of Mark, chpt Mark 9

43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,

I'm not boasting here but my knackers have caused a fair bit of sinnin' in their time. So I wouldn't bet these nutters wouldn't want them chopped off.

But more importantly yeah, I forgot about the BNP. Obviously that invalidates any concern anyone in the UK might have over well funded christian fundamentalists trying to work the corridors of power.

PS I hate America and I love Satan.

@redleg, I have two problems with PHC (and yes, of course I accept I am at the mercy of the documentary makers in what I saw)

(1) They taught the students lies. Rock strata are NOT the result of the great flood. It is a disgrace that something calling itself an institute of higher education teaches lies. That is simply wrong. This "Can a Christian find truth in the writings of non-Christians?" is a wildly stupid question for them to be asking themselves.

(2) It was expressly and explicitly focused on turning out political activists who would seek to work the political system to impose a fundamentalist christian republic on the States. Now, I accept that is less wrong (even if it is more scary), because in a democracy if these guys want to devote their lives to getting elected on a nutty platform you have to let them. (Although personally I regard religion and politics as incompatible, because the one is about compromise for the good of everyone, and the other is about not compromising at all) But if I saw Islamists trying the same stunt in the UK I would be profoundly opposed to it, and notwithstanding DD's difficulty grasping the point, it is precisely for the same reason that this college alarms me. I don't give people extra points depending on what flavour of intolerant nutjob they are.

For the record, colleges that teach normal higher education courses in line with mainstream academic opinions cause me no concern whatsoever, however christian the institution's ethos.

Tribesman

06-06-2006, 18:17

Redleg

06-06-2006, 19:01

@redleg, I have two problems with PHC (and yes, of course I accept I am at the mercy of the documentary makers in what I saw)

Then that makes me wonder about the title of this thread even more so?

(1) They taught the students lies. Rock strata are NOT the result of the great flood. It is a disgrace that something calling itself an institute of higher education teaches lies. That is simply wrong. This "Can a Christian find truth in the writings of non-Christians?" is a wildly stupid question for them to be asking themselves.

So you disagree with their believes - does that make vehement hate an acceptable recourse when pointing out the wrongness of their teaching.

And why would the question of "Can a christian find truth in writings of non-Christians?" be a stupid question to ask. Should they not study the writings of Mohummand to discover if their is truth in the writings? Should they not study Marx to see if their is truth in his writings?

I think its a valid postion to have - if they are asking it in an open minded way, if they are asking it as a closed minded rethoric question then its not a question at all.

(2) It was expressly and explicitly focused on turning out political activists who would seek to work the political system to impose a fundamentalist christian republic on the States.

I did not see that in their charter.

The Mission of Patrick Henry College is to prepare Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding. Educating students according to a classical liberal arts curriculum, and training them with apprenticeship methodology, the College provides academically excellent baccalaureate level higher education with a biblical world view.

The Vision of Patrick Henry College is to aid in the transformation of American society by training Christian students to serve God and mankind with a passion for righteousness, justice and mercy, through careers of public service and cultural influence.

The Distinctives of Patrick Henry College include practical apprenticeship methodology; a deliberate outreach to home schooled students; financial independence; a general education core based on the classical liberal arts; a dedication to mentoring and discipling Christian students; and a community life that promotes virtue, leadership, and strong, life-long commitments to God, family and society.

The Mission of the Department of Government is to promote practical application of biblical principles and the original intent of the founding documents of the American republic, while preparing students for lives of public service, advocacy and citizen leadership.

The Mission of the Department of Classical Liberal Arts is to provide students with a broad background in classical languages, logic, rhetoric, Biblical studies, history, English composition and literature, philosophy, science, and mathematics. They will encounter a multiplicity of ideas animating the world's great leaders and thinkers of the past in order to see how God has worked in and continues to work in His creation.

Since there are limited students and even more limited professors given the status of the recent walking of some of them - I don't fear a fundmental takeover of the United States by these Christians. It seems they are having trouble finding themselves - not something for me to worry about given tha they are not advocating the violent change to society.

Now, I accept that is less wrong (even if it is more scary), because in a democracy if these guys want to devote their lives to getting elected on a nutty platform you have to let them. (Although personally I regard religion and politics as incompatible, because the one is about compromise for the good of everyone, and the other is about not compromising at all)

Freedom of Speech is indeed a dangerous concept for many to understand and to allow.

But if I saw Islamists trying the same stunt in the UK I would be profoundly opposed to it, and notwithstanding DD's difficulty grasping the point, it is precisely for the same reason that this college alarms me. I don't give people extra points depending on what flavour of intolerant nutjob they are.

If I saw Islamists trying this in the United States without the advocation of violence I would support their right to express their inherient right as citizens of this nation to voice their political opinion. Until they voice the advocation of the violent overthrow of society or the established authority - they have the right to speak their mind and follow the idealogy that suits their individual belief.

For the record, colleges that teach normal higher education courses in line with mainstream academic opinions cause me no concern whatsoever, however christian the institution's ethos.

So the college must follow the mainstream in order to be of no concern. [sarcasm on] Now that is an enlightened postion.[/sarcasm off]

It seems many liberials of old would disagree with you on that particuler point. Once upon a time it was mainstream academic opinion advocated bleeding people to cure them of sickness. Other exambles of mainstream academic thought that has been shown to be wrong by those who think outside of the box is also available for anyone to find.

Xiahou

06-06-2006, 19:05

Apparently the division of church and state is not something that is rigorously enforced.Where'd you get that? Patrick Henry College is a private institution. :inquisitive: I think there's some misunderstanding there. Our freedom of religion is a one-way street. The government is not to interfere in our religions- that doesnt mean that religious people can not influence our government.

I am wondering if your slightly over-reacting because of your own belief, or did the documentary paint a more skewed picture by carefully editing information to paint as negative a picture as possible. Since I did not catch the documentry - nor did your link provide a link to the actual documentry its hard for me to reach a conclusion.From what I've seen of British documentaries, the bolded selection would be my guess. The few Ive tried to watch seem to be largely composed of ominous music, scary imagery and out of context references. ~D

Louis VI the Fat

06-06-2006, 19:53

rory_20_uk

06-06-2006, 19:56

Sorry, you're right. I am indeed misinformed. Apologies for my ignorance. :shakehands:

~:smoking:

Devastatin Dave

06-06-2006, 19:57

Has the memory of muslim bombers in London and the attack of September 11th really that far back in your memory to forget that it wasn't some fundamentalist Christian cult that did these atrocities.
Interesting memory you have there Dave , have you forgotten the terrorist atrocities in America carried out by "Christian" fundamentalists .
Oh, my memory fails, could you please inform me of the "Christian" fundamentalists attack in the US. If you're referring to the OK city bombing then I'm interested on when exactly McVeigh discussed his award he would get from Jesus after the deaths. Maybe some wine that use to be water?So please, explain to me my Canadian terrorist apologists.:2thumbsup:
BTW, it wasn't a bunch of American "Taliban" Christians that were going to blow up your buildings and cut off your PM's head earlier this weak. Strange how your country has been lobbing on the knobs of the muslim community all these years and they were going to pay you back like this. What a deal!!! :laugh4:

Redleg

06-06-2006, 20:25

If the issues are: 'is there a marked increase in the political influence of evangelical Christianity in America, does this worry you, and is there a chance America will move towards a religious semi-theocracy? 'then I would say yes to all of these three.

Can you provide evidence of any the marked increase of political influence - some would say the re-election of President Bush - but the evidence about his policies does not demonstrate an increase of influence of the evangelical Christian beliefs into the government.

Can you provide evidence of any move toward a religious semi-theocracy in the United States? Because frankly I don't see it.

Sorry, I hate America and I worship Satan. :skull:

[sarcasm on]That might be the sole problem behind why you see such a negative view... [/sarcasm off]

Brenus

06-06-2006, 21:33

Husar

06-06-2006, 21:49

Tut tut, back to bible studies for you. Gospel of Mark, chpt Mark 9
Doesn´t say anything about harming someone else...

Besides, I´m more worried about getting killed by a fundamentalist atheist than a fundamentalist christian.:juggle2:

Tribesman

06-06-2006, 22:07

Oh, my memory fails, could you please inform me of the "Christian" fundamentalists attack in the US.
Yep , your memory has definately gone . How many would you like to be reminded of ?
If you're referring to the OK city bombing then I'm interested on when exactly McVeigh discussed his award he would get from Jesus after the deaths.
So your memory doesn't stretch as far as the poem McVeigh chose , thats OK maybe you can remember Rudolphs one , they were the same , of course your memory woudn't recall the prequiem overture for the execution of poor righteous timmy would it , as your memory is bad....so bad in fact that you managed to transport a whole island all the way across the Atlantic:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Lemur

06-06-2006, 22:32

I, for one, welcome our new fundamentalist overlords.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/insect_overlords.jpg

AntiochusIII

06-06-2006, 23:14

So, it gives me the feeling that, yes, the Fundamentalist Christians are influencing the US politic.Well, duh. They have their lobbyist groups too; and we all know lobbyist ******* of all spectrums and colors (rainbows included) rule America. Almost.

Bush is desperate: his popularity is on a massive spiral downward for a while now; methinks he thinks his only chance is to evoke the fervour of the "Religious Right" minority group's loud and extensive media connection in the hopes of conciling them with him, and obscuring a few deteriorating issues. And what better way to do it than to attack the hated gays? If any Tyrant, King, Emperor, Prince, President, Fuhrer, Duce, and those individuals in such positions know anything, they know the existence of an enemy always keep the masses in line and behind him. I personally doubt he hates gays that much anyway.

*note the minority comment. It is of notable importance that I'm not putting forth a claim that the entire conservative spectrum supports this idiocy*

My main concern is an Amendment proposal of such nature: Amendments have always been about Rights--Rights, not Prohibitions--and the only Amendment in history that Prohibits, rather than guarantees, the (Alcohol) Prohibition Amendment, fails miserably and rightly so. And now they're proposing an Amendment intend to Prohibit, again; **** them, I say, fundamentalist arses!

Red Peasant

06-06-2006, 23:14

Well, in the 1930s things were car more dangerous when the US had congressional inquiries into the influence and activities of Jews, yet even this was never really a serious challenge to American democracy and they managed to recover without becoming total nazis.

These people are just fringe nutters and I'm sure that they'll all end up dead in some mass cult massacre/suicide. Go FBI! Can't wait for the movie! :laugh4:

InsaneApache

06-07-2006, 00:02

If the issues are: 'is there a marked increase in the political influence of evangelical Christianity in America, does this worry you, and is there a chance America will move towards a religious semi-theocracy? 'then I would say yes to all of these three.

Sorry, I hate America and I worship Satan. :skull:

I agree to all of this, apart from hating America. Lots of my family live there.

Oh, I too worship Satan.....:biker:

Crazed Rabbit

06-07-2006, 00:16

PHC students are an isolated group who come from close-knit communities where everyone prays together and shares moral certainties. Most have been educated at home and have had no contact with either the social diversity or the political and intellectual cut and thrust of mainstream schools.

The author is apparently unaware of what really goes on in most American Universities.

As for the school and its students? I don't give them a big chance for affecting much change, more probably a bulwark against increasing secularization. And what's the harm?

The students are highly trained in political debating techniques for which they win national trophies.

That's better than what most lefties indoctrinate their students with; namely shouting insults at whoever disagrees.

I'd be much more worried about a racist elementary school that wants to tear down America in the southwest:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50459
That uses physical violence to intimidate reporters:
http://www.kabc.com/mcintyre/goout.asp?u=http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/news_view/32517

Crazed Rabbit

Soulforged

06-07-2006, 01:04

Besides, I´m more worried about getting killed by a fundamentalist atheist than a fundamentalist christian.:juggle2:Huh? There's foundaments of atheism. You learn something new everyday.:book:

Do they have a chance?I would risk a no, not that I know a lot of USA, but I think that they've a system to oppose such a drastical and unfair change in the government. Now for what I see in the chart that Red posted, I think that they're fundamentalists, it could scare me if I lived in the USA, fortunetely I've more serious problems to worry about :laugh4: .

Louis VI the Fat

06-07-2006, 01:05

PS I hate America and I love Satan.
Sorry, I hate America and I worship Satan.:skull: *sigh* 'tis just to express frustration at being unable to discuss these issues without being called an anti-American Satan worshipper.

Can you provide evidence of any the marked increase of political influence [...] of influence of the evangelical Christian beliefs into the government.Creationism / Intelligent Design. Anti-gay, anti-abortion movements. The constant references to God / Jesus / teh Bible in politics and society. The -somewhat subjective - feeling that the influence of fundamentalist Christianity has been on a steady increase in the last 25 years in America.

Evidence I neither can nor want to provide. These things are difficult to grasp from abroad. I'm more hoping for opinions from the Americans here. Evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity puzzles the European mind. It is one of those things that are alien to mainstream west-European culture, like love for guns or the size buckets of popcorn at the cinema.

Papewaio

06-07-2006, 01:43

The neutering of CDC in its recommendations for disease prevention because they weren't abstinence only as per the fundamentalist line.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work.
A study by researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on declining birth and pregnancy rates among teenagers concludes that prevention programs should emphasize abstinence and contraception.

"Both are important," said Dr. John Santelli, the lead author of the study, which has not been published.

In Minnesota, a study found that sexual activity doubled among junior high school students taking part in an abstinence-only program. The independent study, commissioned by the state's health department, recommended broadening the program to include more information about contraception.

That NASA was told to toe the line with regards to political and creationist lines even if the science said opposite.

George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.

...

Such complaints came to the fore starting in late January, when James E. Hansen, the climate scientist, and several midlevel public affairs officers told The Times that political appointees, including Mr. Deutsch, were pressing to limit Dr. Hansen's speaking and interviews on the threats posed by global warming.

Yesterday, Dr. Hansen said that the questions about Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a distraction from the broader issue of political control of scientific information.

"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. " The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."

"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here."

Surely these count as clear examples of politcal influence of religious fundies.

Redleg

06-07-2006, 04:46

“Can you provide evidence of any the marked increase of political influence”:
I am not following closely US internal politic. So, what I will tell now is more impressions than hard facts. To answer this point, yes I have the impression of an increasing influence of the Hard Line Christian in the USA. Isn’t a preparation of law by W. about the gays? Stopping of financing all institutions advocating abortion, giving founds to the so-called “pro-life” (except for people in jail)?

The gay marriage ammendment could be considered such an attempt - but the evidence of increased political influence will be if it passes and becomes an ammendment.

But then I also don't see it so much as a religious driven issue though.

I know that the Fundamentalist Jews and Muslim will agree on these points; however they are not the majority in the US.

I know lots of people who are against gay marriage for reason not based upon any religious standpoint.

So, it gives me the feeling that, yes, the Fundamentalist Christians are influencing the US politic.

not a problem - I used to think the secularists were attempting to destroy Christmas until I actually started looking into the facts.

Redleg

06-07-2006, 04:53

Creationism / Intelligent Design.

The one attempt to force it into a school district meet with disaster when the people voted out the smucks that attempted it from their position on the school board.

Anti-gay, anti-abortion movements.

abortion has always been a polarizing issue - so using it as an examble is not really valid in my opinion. For Instance I am against abortion but I support the right for the woman to decide what she wants in the first trimester of pregency. Then just from a consertive arguement - is why should my tax dollars be used to fix a mistake made by individuals. If people want to practice birth control via abortion they can also pay for it themselves. Not even a christian viewpoint.

The constant references to God / Jesus / teh Bible in politics and society.

IN God we Trust has been on our treasury bills for years. Congress has always had an opening prayer, the National Prayer Breakfast has been ongoing for many years now. Religion is and will always be a subject of discussion in politics and society.

The -somewhat subjective - feeling that the influence of fundamentalist Christianity has been on a steady increase in the last 25 years in America.

And this is a bad thing how?

How does an increase in Christianity equate to an increase in Christian Fundmentalism.

Evidence I neither can nor want to provide. These things are difficult to grasp from abroad. I'm more hoping for opinions from the Americans here. Evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity puzzles the European mind. It is one of those things that are alien to mainstream west-European culture, like love for guns or the size buckets of popcorn at the cinema.

And here you have hit the main point - the political and religious idenity of the United States is difficult for any outsider and many insiders to understand.

Redleg

06-07-2006, 04:58

The neutering of CDC in its recommendations for disease prevention because they weren't abstinence only as per the fundamentalist line.

So to advocate abstinence is a fundamentalists postion? I know several doctors who state abstinence is the only way to 100% guarntee no STD's and unwanted pregency - are they also fundamentalists for making that statement?

That NASA was told to toe the line with regards to political and creationist lines even if the science said opposite.

You might want to check into that story a little more. Its not so clear cut an examble as you think.

Papewaio

06-07-2006, 06:51

When studies show that giving a full spectrum of knowledge and solutions it protects more people then chosing another option because it is the religious one, I for one say that is caving into political pressure to fundamentalists.

As for NASA it has several political problems. Two of which are evident in that example. Climate change is more to do with the machinations of corporate lobby groups. While the other one is going out and having to specifically label every mention of the Big Bang as a theory without a similar note to do so on every other theory mentioned. I cannot see any corporate lobby group doing so, but it is certainly a common theme amongst creationists to screech "The big bang is only a theory" whilst not noting that that is what science is about, theories like Gravity, Electromagnetics, projectile motion etc

A scientific body is compromised when instead of using peer review it has political review to decide what is to be published and how it is to be published. When this political review is using creationist calibration it certainly falls under the title of religious political influence.

discovery1

06-07-2006, 07:32

Essay on Christian Reconstructionists (http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/reconstruct2.html)

What is Reconstructionism?

Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or "Biblical Law," is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.

Stuff on the real American Taliban, I think. Not that most Christians are Reconstructionists, I think/hope.

Redleg

06-07-2006, 07:36

When studies show that giving a full spectrum of knowledge and solutions it protects more people then chosing another option because it is the religious one, I for one say that is caving into political pressure to fundamentalists.

And I still don't see the fundamentalism that many would claim from the practice of teaching abstinence to elemetary and junior high kids.

As for NASA it has several political problems. Two of which are evident in that example. Climate change is more to do with the machinations of corporate lobby groups.

Thats not religious fundmentalism now is it?

While the other one is going out and having to specifically label every mention of the Big Bang as a theory without a similar note to do so on every other theory mentioned.

Again go back and research the story - that was over-ruled by the department head. It seems the little Public Affairs officer got to big for his pants. Again not a case of religious fundmentalism influencing actions in the government.

I cannot see any corporate lobby group doing so, but it is certainly a common theme amongst creationists to screech "The big bang is only a theory" whilst not noting that that is what science is about, theories like Gravity, Electromagnetics, projectile motion etc

You still haven't provided evidence of such.

A scientific body is compromised when instead of using peer review it has political review to decide what is to be published and how it is to be published. When this political review is using creationist calibration it certainly falls under the title of religious political influence.

Again to bad the story was reported with a slant towarded a particuler view versus what the actual news is and was. It allows for misperceptions to exist.

From the New York Times

Last Friday, after more NASA scientists and public affairs officers told The Times of other instances in which political appointees altered news releases or Web presentations in ways the workers said were tinged by politics, Michael D. Griffin, the NASA administrator, issued a "statement of scientific openness" to all NASA employees saying, "we have identified a number of areas in which clarification and improvements to the standard operating procedures of the Office of Public Affairs can and will be made."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/science/10nasa.html?ex=1297227600&en=c6cd226e3c812ec5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

It seems the New York Times focused a lot of the article on the political influence of the Public Affairs office and the individual efforts of Mr. Deutsch who was told to resign.

In the article it also states that Mr. Deutsch believed that his job was to make the President look good. That doesn't sound like a religous fundmentalist postion on science now does it?

And from the Washington Post

James E. Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who sparked an uproar last month by accusing the Bush administration of keeping scientific information from reaching the public, said Friday that officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are also muzzling researchers who study global warming.

Hansen, speaking in a panel discussion about science and the environment before a packed audience at the New School university, said that while he hopes his own agency will soon adopt a more open policy, NOAA insists on having "a minder" monitor its scientists when they discuss their findings with journalists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001766.html

Given that in the third paragraph the article quotes this lovely comparison

"It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States," said Hansen, prompting a round of applause from the audience.

And the finally - and an editorial I agree with from the Washington Post

In every administration there will be spokesmen and public affairs officers who try to spin the news to make the president look good. But this administration is trying to spin scientific data and muzzle scientists toward that end. NASA's Mr. Hansen was right when he told the Times that Mr. Deutsch was only a bit player. "The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies," he said. We agree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020801991.html

Reads more like blind support by young beuracrats attempting to make the President look good - and failing terriblily in their pathic attempts,

It also eads more like corporate influence on politics not religion when one goes beyond the surface and initial reports.

Tribesman

06-07-2006, 07:55

And I still don't see the fundamentalism that many would claim from the practice of teaching abstinence to elemetary and junior high kids.

True , the fundamentalism is from those that advocate that only abstinance should be taught .

Spetulhu

06-07-2006, 08:32

The neutering of CDC in its recommendations for disease prevention because they weren't abstinence only as per the fundamentalist line.

So to advocate abstinence is a fundamentalists postion? I know several doctors who state abstinence is the only way to 100% guarantee no STD's and unwanted pregency - are they also fundamentalists for making that statement?

Probably not. But the people that want to fund abstinence-only programs and refuse funding to programs that mention any other way of preventing pregnancy/STDs are certainly suspect. IIRC President Bush himself has problems with anti-AIDS programs that don't go straight for 100% abstinence. If that doesn't mean fundies have political influence I don't know what does.

Byzantine Mercenary

06-07-2006, 09:00

these guys do not seem anywhere near as bad as the taliban but they are not keeping to scripture as well as they say, to understand the bible you have to interpret it and if they realy are just taking it as written then i personnally think that they are going wrong.

I think that their banning of alcohol is incorrect too, jesus drank alcohol heck he even turned some water into wine when they ran out now this does not mean that he was a drunkard by any strtch of the imagination. It says to me that they are not following a biblical or christian ideology as stingently as they say.

now as for their teaching of science im a bit worried that they are not being taught the other theorys as well as they will need them in the big bad world

to clarify things i have absolutely notheing against america

Sigurd

06-07-2006, 09:16

Essay on Christian Reconstructionists (http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/reconstruct2.html)

Stuff on the real American Taliban, I think. Not that most Christians are Reconstructionists, I think/hope.

According to my frequently used encyclodictionalmanacapedia, 25% of the American population (I suppose it refers to the US) consider themselves as fundamentalists. One of the tenets of fundamentalism is as some of you already mentioned an infallible and literal Bible. There is however nothing worrisome about that.

Christian fundamentalism did not exist prior to 1909 and it was a Christian protestant movement in opposition to modernism and secularisation of the mainstream Protestantism.
One should not confuse extremism with fundamentalism.

I have never heard of Christian Reconstructionists and thank you, discovery1 for the link.
I always thought that reconstructionism was a part of Judaism.
It seems these reconstructionists are bordering extremism.

There is already restorationists out there why not just join them?

English assassin

06-07-2006, 10:02

So you disagree with their believes - does that make vehement hate an acceptable recourse when pointing out the wrongness of their teaching.

You overstate your case redleg, when i vehemently hate something you'll know it. I vehemently disagree with this lot and what they are doing, but a supporter of free speech such as yourself will have no trouble with that.

And why would the question of "Can a christian find truth in writings of non-Christians?" be a stupid question to ask. Should they not study the writings of Mohummand to discover if their is truth in the writings? Should they not study Marx to see if their is truth in his writings?

I think its a valid postion to have - if they are asking it in an open minded way, if they are asking it as a closed minded rethoric question then its not a question at all.

Its a stupid question because the answer is Duh, yes. They should indeed study non-christian writers. But if I had an english friend who wanted to study philosophy, and who asked "can an Englishman find truth in the writings of a Frenchman" I would consider myself in the company of a moron. Can a christian find truth in the writings of a non christian is similarly moronic.

If you are right that they pose this question rhetorically, before eagerly studying and findign the truth in non-christian writers, then i apologise to them.

Since there are limited students and even more limited professors given the status of the recent walking of some of them - I don't fear a fundmental takeover of the United States by these Christians.

Well, that's the main point answered, and hooray for it.

If I saw Islamists trying this in the United States without the advocation of violence I would support their right to express their inherient right as citizens of this nation to voice their political opinion. Until they voice the advocation of the violent overthrow of society or the established authority - they have the right to speak their mind and follow the idealogy that suits their individual belief.

Yeees, we are running two different things together here. I expressly did NOT say they did not have the right of freedom of speech. Quite the opposite. But your freedom of speech does not mean I cannot be profoundly concerend by and opposed to what you say. Suppose a well funded college turned out graduates whose aim was to get into congress and impose sharia law on the states. Your comment on that would end at "well, they have freedom of speech" would it? or might you say "well, they have freedom of speech, but by god I hope they fail, and if they look like succeeding I will do all in my power, within the constitution, to oppose them?"

So the college must follow the mainstream in order to be of no concern. [sarcasm on] Now that is an enlightened postion.[/sarcasm off] It seems many liberials of old would disagree with you on that particuler point. Once upon a time it was mainstream academic opinion advocated bleeding people to cure them of sickness.

Yes, a college must be committed to the mainstream academic values of free and liberal enquiry to be of no concern. It need not (indeed should not) teach only one "mainstream" viewpoint, although there does come a point where teachign anything else is simply a waste of time and I make no apology for saying that. Any chemisty teacher who taught about combustion as combination with oxygen, and then presented the phlogiston theory "for balance", is wasting everyone's time.

I don't think that is a difficult or controversial position. A spade is a spade because it has a handle and a blade for digging. If it does not have those features whatever it is, it is not a spade. A college is a college because is embodies mainstream academic values. If it does not have that feature, whatever it is, it is not a college.

Redleg

06-07-2006, 15:03

You overstate your case redleg, when i vehemently hate something you'll know it. I vehemently disagree with this lot and what they are doing, but a supporter of free speech such as yourself will have no trouble with that.

Sure I did - if you have a problem with it - then maybe you shouldn't overstate your case. Refer to the topic's title if you will....

Its a stupid question because the answer is Duh, yes. They should indeed study non-christian writers. But if I had an english friend who wanted to study philosophy, and who asked "can an Englishman find truth in the writings of a Frenchman" I would consider myself in the company of a moron. Can a christian find truth in the writings of a non christian is similarly moronic.

If you are right that they pose this question rhetorically, before eagerly studying and findign the truth in non-christian writers, then i apologise to them.

The problem is that we don't know, and you assumed it to be a negative response versus a postive one. I am pointing out the rhetorically possible concerning the question.

Well, that's the main point answered, and hooray for it.

Then good - however the title of the thread would indicate something else.

Yeees, we are running two different things together here. I expressly did NOT say they did not have the right of freedom of speech. Quite the opposite. But your freedom of speech does not mean I cannot be profoundly concerend by and opposed to what you say. Suppose a well funded college turned out graduates whose aim was to get into congress and impose sharia law on the states. Your comment on that would end at "well, they have freedom of speech" would it? or might you say "well, they have freedom of speech, but by god I hope they fail, and if they look like succeeding I will do all in my power, within the constitution, to oppose them?"

It would be the second - but I would not call them the American Taliban either. Some tend to overuse the word to create an emotional appeal - just like the term Nazi is often used.

Yes, a college must be committed to the mainstream academic values of free and liberal enquiry to be of no concern. It need not (indeed should not) teach only one "mainstream" viewpoint, although there does come a point where teachign anything else is simply a waste of time and I make no apology for saying that. Any chemisty teacher who taught about combustion as combination with oxygen, and then presented the phlogiston theory "for balance", is wasting everyone's time.

It seems you have a problem with Christian based schooling. It is more mainstream then you realize. Have you bothered to research the number of schools in the United States that are private schools with a religious background?

I don't think that is a difficult or controversial position. A spade is a spade because it has a handle and a blade for digging. If it does not have those features whatever it is, it is not a spade. A college is a college because is embodies mainstream academic values. If it does not have that feature, whatever it is, it is not a college.

If it wasn't controversial - why did you get bring forward a discussion about a college that teaches religious doctrine in its liberial arts acedemic program?

So using the same standard here, I guess you would have a problem with trade schools that call themselves colleges also?

Again have you researched the number of colleges and universities that are private schools that have a religious agenda/background. This college is a private school - there is absolutely nothing wrong with it having such a program. If one wishes to go to a private school - then its their choice.

Redleg

06-07-2006, 15:12

Probably not. But the people that want to fund abstinence-only programs and refuse funding to programs that mention any other way of preventing pregnancy/STDs are certainly suspect. IIRC President Bush himself has problems with anti-AIDS programs that don't go straight for 100% abstinence. If that doesn't mean fundies have political influence I don't know what does.

For it to be a religious fundmental postion it has to be based solely upon religion. For the influence to be of significant issue one has to be able to seperate religious organizations influence over the government from the power of the individual office holder.

What some are fogettting is the personal influence the President has in effecting the laws and legislation in the American Political Process - he has the power to either veto or approve any measure that goes through congress. What you are addressing here is the President's personal agenda for while he is in office.

Does that make for a fundmental religious influence in the government?

Redleg

06-07-2006, 15:16

follow-up question.

Or does it make for a weak-willed congress that refuses to buck the President's personal agenda.

my answer is the second, the number of times congress has allowed the president to usurp (SP) its constitutional authority is just amazing. But then again President's have been doing this since about 1930, because of the spineless politicians that play party politics versus doing their constitutional duty that they were voted into office for.

Brenus

06-07-2006, 21:47

“Refer to the topic's title if you will” It is a good title, right to makes me wanted to read what was in it…
But honestly, I always thought that the USA were based on Religions. What new here is an apparent willing to train people for power. But isn’t it the aim of the Opus Dei? Why all the congregations had and still have schools and universities? Jesuits, Dominicans are the best renown teachers, even invented some form of teaching (casuistic for example).
We could easily say these schools were and are the Madrasa of the Christian. In theses schools most of the modern Elite were trained.
But I am not too much worried. Most the great men went in Religious Schools, and sometimes the result was surprising.
It is perhaps NOT a good example, but Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, better known under the name of Stalin, went in Religious Scholl and was destined to be priest…

YOU’RE RIGHT!! STOP THEM IMMEDIATELY!!!! What on Earth the FBI is doing?

Lemur

06-07-2006, 22:04

I always thought that the USA were based on Religions.
That's a common misconception. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. were high on Enlightenment philosophy, not fundamentalist Christianity. You could make a much better argument that the U.S. was founded on Freemason principles of egalatarianism and rationality. It always honks me off when a theo-con tries to make Washinton, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. sound like a bunch of puritans.

Sorry to go OT, but the whole "this is a Christian nation" canard has just enough of a grain of truth in it to be irritating. Yes, this was founded as a Christian nation, as much as it was founded as a caucasian nation, as much as it was founded as a male nation, as much as it was founded as a men-with-powdered-wigs-and-puffy-shirts nation.

As one of my favorite professors used to say, "True, but trivial."

Redleg

06-07-2006, 22:55

That's a common misconception. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. were high on Enlightenment philosophy, not fundamentalist Christianity. You could make a much better argument that the U.S. was founded on Freemason principles of egalatarianism and rationality. It always honks me off when a theo-con tries to make Washinton, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. sound like a bunch of puritans.

Sorry to go OT, but the whole "this is a Christian nation" canard has just enough of a grain of truth in it to be irritating. Yes, this was founded as a Christian nation, as much as it was founded as a caucasian nation, as much as it was founded as a male nation, as much as it was founded as a men-with-powdered-wigs-and-puffy-shirts nation.

As one of my favorite professors used to say, "True, but trivial."

And you have hit on why I have argued against the perception of a heavy fundmentalistic christian influence in the government. There is some lobby groups that are indeed based on that idealogue - but I count them as influencial as the green party in american politics.

If one was to claim that there is to much corporate influence on American Politics I would agree whole heartly - however the fundmentalist accusation doesn't hold much water when one really looks into some of the issues.

Accusations of the American Taliban are about as misused as Nazi comparsions when speaking about Political influence of the religious right.

English assassin

06-08-2006, 09:50

It seems you have a problem with Christian based schooling. It is more mainstream then you realize. Have you bothered to research the number of schools in the United States that are private schools with a religious background?

I think it is obvious, and I think you know, that what I have a problem with qua schooling is people teaching as truth things that are not true, and people not supporting free enquiry into possibly productive perspectives on a problem. If you understand those to be the characteristics of christian based schooling, (and it is you who dragged that broad catagory into the debate,) then yes, I would have a problem with it. Relabelling ignorance and close mindedness as Christian education doesn't give it any kudos in my eyes. I'm surprised, as a christian yourself, that you would be happy with it. It seems rather insulting to your faith.

Contrast the Vatican's approach to, say, evolution or cosmology.

And as for the argument that there are a lot of private schools with a religious background, what is the point here? Are they all like PHC, both teaching ignorance and aiming for power? If so, the answer is, loony tunes don't get any less loony just because there are a lot of them. If they are not like PHC, if, say, they teach evolution and hope that their students get jobs as accountants, then they are irrelevant to the issue.

As for the reference to the Taliban, I thought and think it was entirely apt. PHC is a group of young, 110% committed students, seeking political power, who believe all the answers to life can be found in a literal reading of one holy book. The taliban (meaning "religious student") were a group of young, 110% committed students, seeking political power, who believe all the answers to life can be found in a literal reading of one holy book.

"Nazi" is indeed a grossly overused epithet, but you know what, that doesn't mean that sometimes there AREN'T real nazis. Likewise Taliban.

Redleg

06-08-2006, 13:37

I think it is obvious, and I think you know, that what I have a problem with qua schooling is people teaching as truth things that are not true, and people not supporting free enquiry into possibly productive perspectives on a problem. If you understand those to be the characteristics of christian based schooling, (and it is you who dragged that broad catagory into the debate,) then yes, I would have a problem with it. Relabelling ignorance and close mindedness as Christian education doesn't give it any kudos in my eyes. I'm surprised, as a christian yourself, that you would be happy with it. It seems rather insulting to your faith.

Why should I be insulted - if people wish to believe in something that does not cause any harm to anyone, then there is absolutely nothing that I have a reason to be upset about. The schools for the most part are private institutions so its not my money that is being wasted - only their time and money.

Contrast the Vatican's approach to, say, evolution or cosmology.

I am not catholic so I don't follow the vatican. So again why would I be upset about the Pope's postion on anything.

And as for the argument that there are a lot of private schools with a religious background, what is the point here? Are they all like PHC, both teaching ignorance and aiming for power? If so, the answer is, loony tunes don't get any less loony just because there are a lot of them. If they are not like PHC, if, say, they teach evolution and hope that their students get jobs as accountants, then they are irrelevant to the issue.

Nope most do have similiar education programs based upon religion however.

As for the reference to the Taliban, I thought and think it was entirely apt. PHC is a group of young, 110% committed students, seeking political power, who believe all the answers to life can be found in a literal reading of one holy book. The taliban (meaning "religious student") were a group of young, 110% committed students, seeking political power, who believe all the answers to life can be found in a literal reading of one holy book.

Still not even close - one group also believed in the repression of women within their own faith.

"Nazi" is indeed a grossly overused epithet, but you know what, that doesn't mean that sometimes there AREN'T real nazis. Likewise Taliban.

And in this case you still haven't shown where this group is a Taliban. I know of one group but this one is not even close.

English assassin

06-08-2006, 13:47

Still not even close - one group also believed in the repression of women within their own faith.

Funny that. The documentary shows a round table discussion between the students, in which all the boys said that, well, sure, it was Ok for women to work for a bit, like if they aren't married, but "everyone knows" families are happier when wives don't work. The camera showed wonderful "dimly realising for the first time that maybe everything's not OK" looks appearing on the girls faces...

Anyway, obviously your definition of taliban is "a group of fundamentalist Islamists who took power in Afganistan in the late 1990s." I completely agree with you Red, these guys are not Taliban. You got me bro, I'm beat. The battlefield is yours. Bye.

Redleg

06-08-2006, 14:10

You concentrated on the wrong group to call it the American Taliban. In other words you got the definition wrong again.

here focus on this instead

http://www.alternet.org/story/17637/

James Kopp, who was found guilty in 2003 for the 1998 shooting of Dr. Barnett Slepian in Buffalo, New York, was affiliated with the shadowy underground anti-abortion network the Army of God. Matthew Hale, leader of the white supremacist group the World Church of the Creator, is due to stand trial in Chicago this year on charges of soliciting the murder of a federal judge. And Rafael Davila, a former Army National Guard intelligence officer from Washington State, is awaiting trial in Spokane, Washington on espionage-related charges for allegedly stealing -- and then planning to distribute -- highly classified military documents to white supremacists in North Carolina, Texas and Georgia.

A website for the World Church of the Creator

http://www.churchofthecreator.org/sacredmandate.html

Army of God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God

(warning - the links in wikipedia takes you to graphic pictures on this organization website of abortion.)

Now if you called these two groups the American Taliban I would agree with you 100%. They believe in the violent oppression of those who do not believe as they do.

Soulforged

06-09-2006, 00:33

Let me see if I understand you Red. You say that the ones ruling and teaching at that school are not fundamentalists? Well, from wikipedia:

In comparative religion, fundamentalism has come to refer to several different understandings of religious thought and practice, including literal interpretation of sacred texts such as the Bible or the Qur'an and sometimes also anti-modernist movements in various religions.
And

"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion.How comes that the teachings are not foundamentalistic. Either it denies scientific truths making a literal interpretation of the "sacred texts" or it proposes a return to the fundamental principles of the said religion. If that's not fundamentalism then I don't know what it's. The Taliban was obviously used as a comparitive term to establish a similarity between this group of people and the islamic one, and the similarity exists. Now you might not be concerned about this, but that's what the original poster did, only expressed concern. If the there's a forum of teachings and enlightment such as this, then the potential threat either to the youth or the whole society exists, even if it's minimal, so perhaps one must understand that it's reasonable to be concerned about this.

EDIT: For one to be fundamentalist doesn't require the use of violence to force one's principles on the rest of the people.

Redleg

06-09-2006, 00:41

Let me see if I understand you Red. You say that the ones ruling and teaching at that school are not fundamentalists?

Nope - that they are not the American Taliban.....

rory_20_uk

06-09-2006, 01:10

I think the thread title is Journalistic: it has taken the fundamentalist aspect and linked it with something that people have already heard of to make it sound more "catchy". The loss of accuracy that this entails is considered a price worth paying.

~:smoking:

Papewaio

06-09-2006, 01:10

Title: America's Taliban Future

I'm sure before it could become a Taliban style state... a Theocracy ... it would first have to transit through a fundamentalist one... and before that the government would have to show a preference for fundamentalist ideas above secular.

USA is at the emergent stage when it drops science and starts using creationist and other fundamentalist ideas to decide science review, publishing and to suppress contact with scientists.

Considering the lobbying power of the pharmacy groups and their preference for selling pills, powders, lotions and condoms backed by the CDC report that said abstinence plus safe sex beats abstinence for disease prevention by a factor of two... that this group of science and lobbying power was slapped down in favour of a fundamentalist viewpoint on what is safe sex, shows the emerging power of the fundamentalists in political policy.

With NASA that a junior political staff member saw that it would be a good thing for his career progression within his party by emphasising creationist viewpoint shows that there must be some incentive for following fundamentalist dogma. It is also worrying that a politician will decide what is science and what is not according to pressure from various lobby groups, be they commerical or fundamentalist.