The Need for a Latino-Islamic Public Affairs Council

[Stormig]

The Need for a Latino-Islamic Public Affairs Council

by

Ernesto Cienfuegos

La Voz de Aztlan

Los Angeles, Alta California - December 2, 2002 - (ACN) Visitors to

the Alhambra in Granada, Spain will most likely hear the story of the

Moorish Princess who, while walking along the beautiful gardens that

surround the palace, came across a blind beggar. Her companion, a

poet, seeing the deep sadness in the Princess' eyes, took out a gold

coin and said to the Princess, "Here, go give this coin to that poor

beggar, for there is no greater tragedy in this world than to be

blind in Granada."

 

The beauty of Granada and of many other towns and cities in Spain can

be attributed to the Islamic Moorish architectural influence in the

Iberian Peninsula that lasted for over 800 years. The Moors had a

tremendously positive impact on European cultural, socio-economic,

scientific and political institutions. The Moorish civilization

enlightened Europe and brought it out of the dark ages to usher in

the Renaissance. Much of the Islamic positive contributions to Spain

were then brought to Mexico and other countries in the New World

during the Spanish colonization. Today, this Islamic architectural

influence can be seen in downtown Mexico City colonial buildings and

cathedrals and in buildings in such diverse places as Santa Fe, New

Mexico and Santa Barbara, Alta California.

 

Unfortunately, we are currently witnessing the "demonization" of

Islam by certain perverse racists and religious bigots with a well

defined political and economic agenda. These "Anglocentric

xenophobes", right wing Fundamentalist Christians and International

Zionists have launched a well funded global campaign to destroy the

legacy of Islam and its contributions to world culture. These

elements have declared war on all of Islam and their actions have now

created a "Clash of Civilizations." Because of these reckless, racist

and economically motivated actions, the globe is now in danger of a

major conflagration that may eventually end in the much

prophesied "War of Armageddon."

 

Among the worst of the "Islamophobics" are the pseudo-Christians who

are more commonly known as "Evangelicals." Among the most notorious

of these religious bigots is Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. The

Reverend Jerry Falwell recently said "I think Muhammad the Prophet

was a terrorist" in an interview that was broadcast on the CBS

program "60 Minutes." Pat Roberston, another high profile Evangelist,

said Islam was a violent religion that wants to "dominate and then,

if need be, destroy."

 

Much of the religious bigotry against Islam is being widely

disseminated through television. One of the worst offenders is the

Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). Last week, on TBN, the John Hagee

Ministries featured a full program devoted to Benjamin Nethanyahu of

Israel. A major part of the "religious" program was a pro-Israel

speech by Nethanyahu that demonized the Palestinians. Pastor John

Hagee's introduction of Nethanyahu included a U.S. Marine Band and

the side by side lowering onto the stage of huge flags of Israel and

the USA.

 

Throughout the history of "White Christian Evangelism", there has

been a long series of unsavory characters that have included

hucksters, fake healers, sexual perverts and scammers . Among the

most notorious of these are Elmer Gantry, the Reverend Billy, the

Reverend Jimmy "I have sinned" Swaggart and the shameless swindlers

Jim and Tammy Baker of the PTL Ministry. Characters like Falwell and

Roberston are just two more in this long series of malevolent

Evangelicals. It now appears that these pseudo-Christians have found

a "new gig" with the International Zionists.

 

Leading the effort to demonize Islam are, of course, the

International Zionists. Because of their immense influence and

control of the mainstream media and the curricula of public and

private education in the USA and other countries , these Zionists

have had a major impact on the attitudes of non-Muslim youths towards

Islam. This impact is most apparent among Latino youths in the USA.

By and large, any study that may exist of Islam in the public schools

is biased and reflects the views of Zionists and anti-Muslim

Evangelicals. This is especially true in the second largest school

district in the USA, the Los Angeles Unified School District where

the majority of the school board members are Jews. This situation

also exists at the State College and the University of California

system where Zionists have now consolidated their power and control.

There are now six Jewish members on the UC Board of Regents. The

latest appointments are the Israeli citizen Haim Saban and the

husband of the Zionist U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein.

 

Another front that will be launched against Islam in February of next

year is the creation of a "Latino-Jewish Leadership Council" in the

USA. The driving force behind the project is B'nai B'rith (Sons of

the Covenant) International. Dina Siegel Vann, the Mexican-American

director of Latin America and U.N. Affairs at B'nai B'rith

International said, "The Latinos are the largest minority in America,

the fastest-growing population group, and they will have more and

more voting power, so we need to reach out to them." According to,

yet unverified, information La Voz de Aztlan received, the Council's

board will include five Jewish groups. They are B'nai B'rith

International , the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Council for

Public Affairs, Hillel and the Religious Action Center of Reform

Judaism. The five participating Latino organizations are the

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, the League of United Latin

American Citizens (LULAC), the National Council of La Raza (NCLR),

the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials

(NALEO) and the New America Alliance. The creation of the Council was

approved, according to our information, in a closed-door meeting in

Washington in September of this year. One of the goals for the

Zionists, according to Ann Schaffer, Director of the American Jewish

Committee's Belfer Center for American Pluralism, is an agreement by

the Jewish community to support increased aid to Latin America in

exchange for Latino backing for higher levels of aid to Israel.

 

It is anticipated that the Latino-Jewish organization will be

overwhelming to advanced Zionist interests because at least two of

the Latino organizations named are in reality already tools of the

Jews. They are the National Council of La Raza and the New America

Alliance. The NCLR is headed by the Sephardic Jew, Raul Izaguirre and

was founded by Emily Gantz-MacKay who also works for the New Israel

Fund. Ganyz-MacKay has been named as a possible director for the new

Latino-Jewish organization. Raul Izaguirre on the other hand, is also

a co-founder of the New America Alliance, one of the other five

participating Latino organizations in the new Latino-Jewish

organization. Izaguirre has been much criticized by Mexican-Americans

for taking large donations from the liquor and tobacco industries in

return for him "pushing" their products in the Latino community.

 

Unlike the "White Christian Evangelicals", Latino Christians have no

conflict with Islam. We see much that connects both cultures and

religions. We see a need to advance unity instead of division between

the groups. We see no conflict between the Qur'an and the New

Testament as they relate to Jesus Christ. We see that the divisions

that may exist between Latinos and Islam are mostly the consequences

of the activities of the Zionists who rejected Jesus as the true

Messiah. These same Zionists have now infiltrated the right wing

branch of the Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist Movement which is

in reality a pseudo-Christian movement led by self-serving and

corrupt white religious bigots.

 

We reject the new Latino-Jewish Leadership Council to be formally

launched early next year. The organization will be clearly

unrepresentative of the true sentiments of the majority of Mexican-

Americans and other Latinos. It will instead be a Jewish front

organization established to advanced Zionist interests. This

organization will be using known lackeys of the Hispanic community

who have a long history of "selling out" our community in return for

personal financial gain. La Voz de Aztlan instead proposes the

formation of a "Latino-Islamic Public Affairs Council" comprised of

legitimate Islamic and Latino organizations.

 

http://www.aztlan.net/lipac.htm

 

-=:^:=-

 

Commentary:

 

"...We see that the divisions that may exist between Latinos and

Islam are mostly the consequences of the activities of the Zionists

who rejected Jesus as the true Messiah." Ernesto Cienfuegos, December

2, 2002

 

Wow, this is a pretty disturbing statement for several reasons:

 

1. Only a radical Christian would make a statement like this.

 

2. It is hypocritical of a writer who purports to be the voice of

Aztlan to be such an ardent follower of the white man's God.

 

3. It indicates that Mr. Cienfuegos problem with Zionists is due to

their rejection of Christ as the Messiah and not due to Zionist

policies. Since Islam acknowledges Christ as a prophet and NOT the

Messiah, Mr. Cienfuegos will eventually turn on Muslims as well.

 

4. Because this speaks of hatred for those who reject Christ, what

of the indigenous people who have rejected Him?

[THOTH]

Yeah - while I don't much care for evangelicals (or more properly those who are politically active and/or who put down others/beliefs of others...OK most all of them...LOL) - I agree that this guy is pushing a very suspect (racist leaning) agenda. I would argue that the "proble" is more Islam itself and (fundementalist [seeming majority...at least in many places]) Islamics and the fact that Islam is basically led by those who are the equivilant of Christian fundementalist - but on the Islamic "side" is more of the problem then any villainization by Zionist etc. Please. It is Islam itself - the ascendency (last few hundreed years...[can we blame the turks in any way? LOL])) of the super conservative sect (who reject enlightenment type of ideas...much like "our" Tigrannes here) who are at the core of the problem - IMO. Christian fundementalists are more of a nuisciance at this point in time (but should be monitored closely and vigouroulsy opposed when they attempt to abridge folk's right etc)...

 

[ December 20, 2002, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[Stormig]

I posted this because the weird twist "indigenous nationalism" in Latin America takes is of interest to me. This movement is in part natural, because there are those that have indeed kept their indigenous culture with minimal tainting from the legacy of colonialism, but there are those who use it as a means with which to vent their personal frustrations, leading to the bizarre result above.

This is so with all "forced" (or maybe not forced) -isms. At one point, people do not realize that some of what they endorse runs contrary to the original roots or is just plain absurd.

[MJ]

Thoth,

 

Have you ever met Christian fundamentalists in real life?

[THOTH]

Yes MJ - very many actually. I have a very close cousin (full Armenian) that is fully evangelical (charismatic?) with whom I have weekly contact who constantly evangelicizes me, plies me with books and pamphlets and attempts to win me over to Jesus.

 

I also used to work for a charismatic Christian who has become a very good friends (despite tremendous political differences and differences in belief) - he is a great guy - more accepting/open minded then most - but still pretty nuts in a great many ways (I think he and his wife are working on their 10th child now...and say they will have as many as she is physically capable of...etc etc - only the tip of the iceberg...otherwise like I said he is a great guy (they are nice folks in general) - and he was one of the better bosses I have ever had...So the answer is yes. I also know and have known a number of Mormons (while technically they might not qualify I sort of lump them together in some respects...). So in fact I have had extensive and frequent contacts with Evangelical types and have had many a lengthy "discussion" (and OK - argument - like my one coworkwer who was passing out pamplets against Holloween [satanistic etc] and then at Thanksgiving he had pamplets calling Thanksgiving a christian holiday [something about Abe Lincoln...] and decrying non-christian influences etc) ...with many of them....Its funny how nearly every (real/true/hard core/whatever) christian I know seems to think I have such potential - that I am good, loving, caring etc....but...well you know...(as well as they should...but they never seem to give up...maybe I should stop saying "thank you" when they say they are praying for me....don't know...)

 

So you strike out again...sorry to burst your bubble there...

 

[ December 20, 2002, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[MJ]

I think not.

 

My point was (which I understand was not well taken) that some of the Christian fundamentalist who you compared with Tigraness, were some of the most beautiful and tolerant persons that I know. Your reposnse to me, above, does recognize it to a large degree, however you drift at it again, later.

 

Their bastardization is a manifestation dishonesty - by the political functionaries or the people who have no clue what they are talking about.

 

BTW, why have you developed such a defensive syndrome, lately?

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

I think not.

 

My point was (which I understand was not well taken) that some of the Christian fundamentalist who you compared with Tigraness, were some of the most beautiful and tolerant persons that I know.

Who (specifically) have I compared to Tigrannes that has upset you? I mearly stated that Islamic fundementalists by and large hold similar unenlightened views as Tigrannes...IMO

 

But - while I know many (christian & perhaps otherwise...) fundementalists that are loving people - etc - most that I have met are IMO very close minded/narrow in what they feel is acceptable, and in over all viewpoint, many tend to be somewhat (or a great deal) racist, and the majority espouse political beliefs that I for one find somewhat dubious (to put it mildly). I mean someone is sending lots of dough to Pat Robertson (etc).

 

Among many fundementalist I find much intolerance and obsession with certain (IMO twisted) political issues (opposing abortion so passionatly (as the do all & end all political issue), blind support for Israel (and lack of respect for other [non-christian] cultures/beliefs), fanatically anti-gun control, fighting against "so-called" smut & vice, and other curtailment of civil liberties, etc etc) and unscientific beliefs (opposing the concept of evolution, telling me that the earth is only 4,000 years old, miracles [on and on], etc)...and don't know - it all drives me nuts. If one rejects scientific method for one thing - then they are telling me that they reject scientific method in general - they can't have it both ways can they? am I wrong here? Too many kooks...IMO - and I just find fundementalist belief twisted (as well as a colossal waste of time). And they mostly are going after the wrong folks and wrong problems IMO - I find them (as a group) dangerous...even if, admittedly, there are some OK folks amongst them.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

Your reposnse to me, above, does recognize it to a large degree, however you drift at it again, later.

Sorry...too bad.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

Their bastardization is a manifestation dishonesty - by the political functionaries or the people who have no clue what they are talking about.

Whose fault is this...their own IMO. Though perhaps I am disagreeing that the characteriztion is such a figment...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

BTW, why have you developed such a defensive syndrome, lately?

Yeah, wonder why? Should I reverse that question? Let me say - i would rather be known for being defensive then for being on the attack all the time...

[Stormig]

Guys, it is obvious you two are talking about two different types of people. There's no way the tolerant and beautiful people MJ talks about can be of the type to drive Thoth nuts. End of argument!

[Guest Fadi]

I must agree with MJ here

 

Every fondamentalist Christians I met were great people, in term os trust, I know that I could leave them all my bank account, they will not touch a penny, or that unlike the Muslim foundamentalists I know, they do not preach destruction neither terrorism. Thats where I think they are great(from my experiences) compared with Islamic foundamentalism... I can of course not tolerate their believes, and the conservative views, but as a "person" I never had any bad experiences with them.

 

You want an example thoth ? Take the Jeovah withness.

 

[ December 21, 2002, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

Anothing thing Thoth, I think Extremism and fondamentalism are not the same thing.

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Domino:

Anothing thing Thoth, I think Extremism and fondamentalism are not the same thing.

---

Wrong. Fundementalism is (IMO) a version of extremeism.

 

And as for the trustworthyness of fundementalists - well even my Evangelical good friend/former boss and my evangelical cousin - both have some horror stories about fundies sho they trusted who really screwed them - in the case of my boss - out of many tens of thousands of dollars (bilking him on a home sale deal where he made an up front loan to them so that they could buy his house...[he also had a problem with a "so-called" christian loan officer...also a fraud...who bilked him of nearly 10 grand...)- where the fundi criminals disapeared (and possibly even changed identities etc) - real schisters...yet they could certainly quote from the good book - etc etc

[Guest Fadi]

Thoth, I have done some search on the net, and it appears I am right. :-)(but not about the Jeovah withness)

 

Here a literary defrinition of fundamentalism.

 

http://www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/.../5680/fund.html

 

http://www.torah.org/features/secondlook/f...amentalist.html

 

http://www.wherry.com/~gbisaga/fundamentalist.htm

 

It sounds that Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism have not the same meaning.

 

http://www.wordreference.com/English/defin...=fundamentalism

 

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/...damentalist.htm

[THOTH]

Well Domino - just from reading your first posted definition these are the beliefs (basically) of the people that I am talking about. I consider these beliefs extreme and those who hold them to be extremists.

[Guest Fadi]

Thoth, in your point of view, was mother Theresa an extremist ?

[THOTH]

Again - these are essentially the same IMO:

 

fundamentalism [fndmntlzm]

n.

1. Christianity. (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true.

2. Islam. a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law.

3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs.

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Domino:

Thoth, in your point of view, was mother Theresa an extremist ?

---

Yes certainly. Have you actually read anything concerning what she believes in? I mean she has done some very good work (I mean who can fault this) - but personnally I find much of what she espouses to be very distasteful. And she also has a knack for self-promotion (I won't jusdge the merits or demerits of this...but let me just contend that she is perhaps not all she is made out to be).

[Stormig]

BTW, was Mother Teresa Albanian? And did the mention coincide with this news?

 

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/12/20/...nt/index.html?x

 

Dec. 20, 2002 | VATICAN CITY -- Mother Teresa, the Roman Catholic nun who spent much of her life caring for the poor of Calcutta's slums, moved a step closer to sainthood Friday when Pope John Paul II approved a miracle credited to her intercession.

 

With the miracle, Mother Teresa will be beatified in a ceremony scheduled for Oct. 19 in Rome, her order said. The date is the Catholic Church's Mission Sunday, and the Sunday closest to the 25th anniversary of John Paul's election as pope.

 

 

John Paul, who has elevated more than 460 people to sainthood in his 24 years as pope, has long held the nun in high esteem.

 

He waived the customary five-year waiting period and began the process that can lead to sainthood just a year after Mother Teresa died in 1997 at age 87. A second miracle is required for sainthood.

 

Nuns at Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity house in Calcutta, India, rejoiced Friday at word a miracle had been approved and passed out candies to about 100 orphans to celebrate.

 

"The mood is joyous. It's great news for us," said Sister Priscilla. "This is something very special, not only to India, but to the whole world."

 

The pope gave his approval to the miracle -- as well as 13 others for other saintly candidates -- in a solemn ceremony in the Vatican's Apostolic Palace.

 

Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, head of the Congregation of the Causes of Saints, outlined Mother Teresa's "heroic virtues" to the pope, calling her work with the poor in Calcutta's slums a "world emblem of Christian charity."

 

A "vast movement" in support of society's most marginalized was launched by her example, he said.

 

The miracle attributed to Mother Teresa's intercession involves the recovery of a young Indian woman, Monica Besra, who had a stomach tumor.

 

Her recovery, after an image of Mother Teresa was placed on her stomach, was judged to be without any medical explanation by a panel of doctors consulted by the Vatican.

 

However, doctors who work for the state of West Bengal, of which Calcutta is the capital, have challenged the Church's claim that Besra was cured only by the image.

 

The state health department says Besra was treated with medicine to cure a form of meningitis and an ovarian tumor. They would not say what medicine they gave her.

 

Mother Teresa has other doubters and detractors.

 

British journalist Christopher Hitchens accused the nun of consoling and supporting the wealthy and powerful while preaching resignation to the poor in his 1995 book, ``The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice.''

 

Hitchens criticized Mother Teresa for praising Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier and taking donations from disgraced American financier Charles Keating.

 

But the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, appointed to oversee the beatification process, said the depths of Mother Teresa's holiness "place her among the ranks of the great mystics of the Church."

 

Mother Teresa was born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu on Aug. 26, 1910, in Skopje, Macedonia.

 

She joined the Loreto order of nuns in 1928 and in 1946, while traveling by train from Calcutta to Darjeeling, was inspired to found the Missionaries of Charity order.

 

The order was established four years later and has since opened 131 houses worldwide to provide comfort and care for the needy, sick and "poorest of the poor."

 

Mother Teresa won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for her work with Calcutta's destitute and ill -- work which continued even after she herself took sick.

 

"The poor give us much more than we give them," Mother Teresa said in 1977. "They're such strong people, living day to day with no food. And they never curse, never complain."

 

John Paul has stressed saint-making in his papacy as a way of giving the faithful models of Catholics whose lives reflect their beliefs in goodness and courage.

 

The pope also approved miracles Friday for two Croats, Maria Di Gesu Crocifisso Petkovic and Ivan Merz, who will be beatified when John Paul travels to Croatia next spring.

 

He approved second miracles for Bishop Daniele Comboni, an Italian who founded a missionary order that worked extensively in Africa, and the Rev. Joseph Freinademetz, who worked for years in China, which does not recognize the Vatican and allows Chinese Catholics to worship only at state-sanctioned churches.

[THOTH]

Funny - but perhaps (?) relevant little excerpts...also mentions the Pink Unicorn!

 

"As atheists, we are supposed to put up with being constantly told by TV, newspapers, and even friends and family that religious beliefs must be respected, and that we should keep our irreligious opinions to ourselves. To question somebody's insane doctrine in public results in someone saying "Hush! Have a little respect!". If you question the (highly questionable) life of Mother Teresa, or laugh about the peculiar origins of Mormonism, or slam the door in the face of a Jehovah's Witness, you are considered to be a Bad Person. Yes, it is disrespectful to laugh loudly about someone's religion - but just why does that religion automatically deserve respect? Respect is earned, not automatic. If someone wants to believe that the world was created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and after death bad people will spend eternity mucking out Her stables, I have no problem with that at all. I would think that such a belief was quite potty, but if someone wants to believe it, fine, let them."

 

"Religious folk, when it is revealed that an atheist is present, will often tell us that they are praying for us (why not just pat us on the head and give us a lollipop while they're at it?). Unless they are truly ignorant of what atheism is, then that is an extremely disrespectful thing to do (akin to the atheist saying "You believe in God? Oh, I'm so sorry for you. I hope your brain gets better sometime."). However, the atheist cannot easily respond to such a "kind" gesture without being accused of further disrespect.

 

At what point does a religion suddenly acquire the status of being beyond question or criticism? (Historically, it seems to have been when they started killing everyone who dared to voice questions or criticisms...)

 

I agree that everyone has the right to believe anything they like. That is a basic human right. If it makes them happy, and they don't harm others because of their beliefs, or forcibly impose those beliefs on others, that's great. If you want to follow a religion that teaches that the Moon is a balloon, and God lives on a spoon, fine. Just don't get upset when I point at you and laugh. If I don't deserve respect for believing that you are wrong and your god exists nowhere but in your head, why should you deserve respect simply because you believe in some sort of deity? Why should arbitrary belief command instantaneous, polite, unquestioning respect?"

 

"The problem is that respect is demanded for religions which preach intolerance, hatred towards minority groups, hive-mind thinking and denial of the real world. I can respect a religion that sends aid to disaster regions, but I can't respect a religion that advocates praying for people in disaster regions.

 

As an atheist, you will be asked to quietly tolerate everybody else's religion, no matter how insane, pointless or dangerous you consider it to be; and to solemnly accept having everybody else telling you that your point of view is not worthy of any sort of respect and should be hidden away from the world. If you stand up and say "I'm raising my children to be good Christians and follow Jesus Christ", you will hear pleased murmurs from the crowd. If you stand up and say "I'm raising my children to be good Secular Humanists and develop their own morality through intelligence and reason", there will be gasps of horror and the crowd will reach for their pitchforks and flaming torches.

 

A theist has the right to believe anything she likes, even if her actual beliefs seem completely nonsensical to outsiders. An atheist, on the other hand, does not even seem to have the right to openly express rational non-belief!

 

To hear someone say "I don't believe in a God because I know of no valid reason to think there is one, and there are better scientific explanations for the universe." appears to offend some people's religious sensibilities, and this is often cited as a reason why we should just keep quiet. But, isn't a Hindu effectively saying "Jehovah and Jesus are just myths, because I know of no valid reason to think otherwise, and there are better explanations in Hinduism for the universe."? And doesn't the same apply when a Muslim extolls her point of view to a Hindu, or a Christian to a Muslim? Each is basically saying "My God exists, your God is a figment of your imagination and nothing more.". Only when an atheist says "None of your Gods are real." does there appear to be cause for concern. Maybe it's because theists all at least agree that there is a God, but differ on the details - at least those other theists are worshipping something.

 

So, it is wrong to offend the religious sensibilities of theists, and the atheist will be rebuked for doing so. Strangely, followers of one religion are even happy to stand up in defense of other religions - I remember an Anglican clergyman talking about the "hurt done to Muslims" by Salman Rushdie, even though Islam and Christianity are themselves mutually exclusive and each effectively teaches that the other is a fairy-tale. Never have I heard a clergyman stand up and complain about the insults done to the intelligence of atheists by people claiming that God made the world, or is watching over us, or loves us. Atheists have to put up with being called anti-Christian or anti-religious whenever they state their opinions, but when have you heard a priest being referred to as anti-atheist for saying "There is a God"?

 

It seems to be the case that those who hold any sort of religious belief, from the big mainstream religions to the tiny UFO-cults, are considered to be better people than those who profess no belief.

 

It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe in something supernatural. If you fail to adopt such a belief, you'd better just shut up, keep your head down and bow and scrape before the superior, enlightened beings around you."

 

© Adrian Barnett 1998

[MJ]

Fundamentalism is not necessarily a form of extremism. Additionally, the extremism, on its own, is not necessarily a bad thing. The belief is not ever extremist. The conduct may be, however.

 

It is similar to saying, "being pregnant is bad, but being a little bit pregnant may be OK." There is no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant."

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by THOTH:

Wrong. Fundementalism is (IMO) a version of extremeism.

 

---

Fundamentalism is not necessarily a form of extremism. Additionally, the extremism, on its own, is not necessarily a bad thing. The belief is not ever extremist. The conduct may be, however.

 

It is similar to saying, "being pregnant is bad, but being a little bit pregnant may be OK." There is no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant."[/QB]

---

Well to me even the belief is extreme. The following is from Fadii's first link:

 

Five Points of Fundamentalism Formulated by the 1895 Niagra Bible Conference as necessary standards of belief:

 

1. Inerrancy of Scripture

2. Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ

3. Substitutionary theory of the atonement

4. Physical resurrection of Christ

5. Christ's imminent bodily return to earth

 

I admit my ignorance as to what #3 is - but I certainly consider all of the rest to be extreme (and fundemnetally (!) irrational) belief...

[THOTH]

eh..eh..I think that I'm in pretty good company:

 

Thomas Jefferson:

 

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

 

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

[MJ]

I am not surprised.

 

However, speaking of Christianity, that is what Christianity means and not wearing a khackar on one's chest.

 

One either believes in Christ as a Savior or doesn't. There is no such thing as believing a little bit. And if one says he is Christian but doesn’t mean all of the above, he/she is cheating himself/herself.

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by THOTH:

Well to me even the belief is extreme. The following is from Fadii's first link:

 

Five Points of Fundamentalism Formulated by the 1895 Niagra Bible Conference as necessary standards of belief:

 

1. Inerrancy of Scripture

2. Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ

3. Substitutionary theory of the atonement

4. Physical resurrection of Christ

5. Christ's imminent bodily return to earth

 

I admit my ignorance as to what #3 is - but I certainly consider all of the rest to be extreme (and fundemnetally (!) irrational) belief...

---

I am not surprised.

 

However, speaking of Christianity, that is what Christianity means and not wearing a khackar on one's chest.

 

One either believes in Christ as a Savior or doesn't. There is no such thing as believing a little bit. And if one says he is Christian but doesn’t mean all of the above, he/she is cheating himself/herself.[/QB]

---

Yeah - and I guess thats what #3 means - OK maybe not extreme - but certainly worthless (IMO) - LOL...IMO it assumes that God is evil - bent on punishing etc and should be opposed. (so I'm glad he doesn't exist). Anyway - aside from perhaps #3 - I don't see why any of the others are necessary per se - and I think are (again) fundemental (!) points of disagreement among various sects. And in fact your perporting that these are necessary prooves my point...

[Harut]

who defines the center, for the "extreme" to be so extreme?

 

thoth, in the eyes of a christian you are so extremist. you are an extreme sinner.

[MJ]

I don't know what you are referring to. My comments had not been focused at #3, and I wouldn't like to argue about it unless you can precisely formulate your argument. Nor I wanted to make an argument out of the rest of the statements.

 

What I am trying to convey is that any religion, if properly resonating with people, is a form of fundamentalism - by definition. Either you believe in it or not.

 

Religions also imply cultural following. One may be associated with one or another religious culture, but it wouldn't make them believers.