Religious Fundamentalism Cured By Science

[GTAforthe21thcentury]

Can we please just have a religious debate section on these fourms?

[sivispacem]

 

Can we please just have a religious debate section on these fourms?

We do. It goes by the name of "Debate and Discussion" and resides in the creativity section. There are about five regular contributors.

 

GMS- I believe those whose beliefs don't call on them to destroy others for no reason other than having different beliefs tend to hold the moral high ground. See also- my previous definition of fundamentalism.

Edited June 1, 2013 by sivispacem

[GrandMaster Smith]

Can we please just have a religious debate section on these fourms?

We do. It goes by the name of "Debate and Discussion" and resides in the creativity section. There are about five regular contributors.

 

GMS- I believe those whose beliefs don't call on them to destroy others for no reason other than having different beliefs tend to hold the moral high ground. See also- my previous definition of fundamentalism.

What are we going to do with them, lock them up, drug their minds, kill them all?

 

 

Isn't all of this a little bit ironic?

 

 

"You see, we believe these people should be removed from society because they believe people with different beliefs should be removed from society"

[JOSEPH X]

Religious fundamentalism isn't an illness, it's a symptom. We need to look at what causes people to become religious fundamentalists.

Mental illness? we could end up going round in circles here.

 

I'm all for affecting the brains of religious fundamentalists...with bullets.

[El Dildo]

 

Belief in a religion is a mental illness? ...lol

you should get your eyes checked.

your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

 

the article is about fundamentalism.

 

 

What's their treatment, labor camps or a hollow point to the dome? Maybe a peaceful evening in the gas chamber or a blissful night in the furnace?

 

What are we going to do with them, lock them up, drug their minds, kill them all?

 

why do you conspiracy-theorist-types ALWAYS go STRAIGHT for the most hyperbolic and insane rhetoric?

where did you get these ideas? because they were not listed anywhere in the OP's article.

 

and you wonder why people laugh at you and never take you seriously...

[Clem Fandango]

Can we please just have a religious debate section on these fourms?

We do. It goes by the name of "Debate and Discussion" and resides in the creativity section. There are about five regular contributors.

 

GMS- I believe those whose beliefs don't call on them to destroy others for no reason other than having different beliefs tend to hold the moral high ground. See also- my previous definition of fundamentalism.

What are we going to do with them, lock them up, drug their minds, kill them all?

 

 

Isn't all of this a little bit ironic?

 

 

"You see, we believe these people should be removed from society because they believe people with different beliefs should be removed from society"

I'm not really sure what you think you're responding to.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

Belief in a religion is a mental illness? ...lol

you should get your eyes checked.

your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

 

the article is about fundamentalism.

 

fundamentalism =/= radicalism

 

People who follow what their religions teach are not mental patients, that's one of the most ridiculous thing I've heard.. They're some of the nicest people I've met from the ones I know.

 

 

What's their treatment, labor camps or a hollow point to the dome? Maybe a peaceful evening in the gas chamber or a blissful night in the furnace?

 

What are we going to do with them, lock them up, drug their minds, kill them all?

 

why do you conspiracy-theorist-types ALWAYS go STRAIGHT for the most hyperbolic and insane rhetoric?

where did you get these ideas? because they were not listed anywhere in the OP's article.

 

and you wonder why people laugh at you and never take you seriously...

 

Maybe you should research history..? Those methods have all been used within the past century alone to deal with religious people.

 

I do forget time to time though that this forum is overrun by tweens so most their worldviews are based off what they've been fed through the television rather than what goes on in actual real life.

 

Their logic works somewhere along the lines of 'the Westboro Church members are fundamentalists therefore all fundamentalists are like the Westboro Church members.'

 

I can't remember the last fundamentalist I met that was such a huge threat to society.. but hey let's spotlight 1 person out of a million others to make them all look bad.. lol stereotyping works wonders eh?

[sivispacem]

 

fundamentalism =/= radicalism

Fundamentalism is radical in most cases- though not radicalist (I'll come on to that later) because it strives to combat modernism and is typified by hostility towards non-religious aspects of life, and in many cases those of differing beliefs. For instance, despite being revisionist and anti-modernist, the Amish Mennonites are traditionalist rather than fundamentalist as their focus is introverted, rather than extroverted. In contrast, some branches of Evangelical Christianity are fundamentalist because of their refusal to tolerate any kind of contact or familiarity with any individual or organisation that doesn't share their strict literal interpretation of the bible. The distinction effectively lies in shunning societal activity and involvement based solely on a religious ideology and generally driven by a perception of spiritual superiority over wider society. You have to remember, as well, that fundamentalism is extremely rare- when I've referred to Evangelical Christians, I'm not talking about the 80-or-so million US citizens who typify themselves as such- I'm talking the mere few thousand who meet the description penned above.

 

Radicalism is a multi-faceted term. It refers to revolutionary political philosophy, is an alternate buzz-word for political extremism, and can be interpreted to mean all manner of different things because it's definition isn't very clear. However, it predominately applies to political, rather than religious ideology. Politicised religious activity, like political Islamism and Zionism, are potentially radical but aren't necessarily fundamentalist. However, the inverse can equally be true. You are right to say that fundamentalism and radicalism aren't the same thing, but I struggle to see the relevance seen as we're not talking about politicised religious activity but religious fundamentalism. Could you explain why you've made this reference, technically correct though it might be, when it doesn't actually apply to the discussion?

[DarrinPA]

 

fundamentalism =/= radicalism

Fundamentalism is radical in most cases- though not radicalist (I'll come on to that later) because it strives to combat modernism and is typified by hostility towards non-religious aspects of life, and in many cases those of differing beliefs. For instance, despite being revisionist and anti-modernist, the Amish Mennonites are traditionalist rather than fundamentalist as their focus is introverted, rather than extroverted. In contrast, some branches of Evangelical Christianity are fundamentalist because of their refusal to tolerate any kind of contact or familiarity with any individual or organisation that doesn't share their strict literal interpretation of the bible. The distinction effectively lies in shunning societal activity and involvement based solely on a religious ideology and generally driven by a perception of spiritual superiority over wider society. You have to remember, as well, that fundamentalism is extremely rare- when I've referred to Evangelical Christians, I'm not talking about the 80-or-so million US citizens who typify themselves as such- I'm talking the mere few thousand who meet the description penned above.

By your definition these type of people are so against anything non-religious that they shun involvement in any activities that are non-religious based. Do you see this a needing tretment* though? It basically just removes them from most of secular society, or outcasting them, which seems to be their goal in the first place. Unless they become radicalized I fail to see the threat involved.

 

I guess it could be compared to an environmentalist who refuses to take part in the negetive affects of everyday living. They live off the grid, grow their own food, make their own eco friendly [and disgusting] toliets, ect.... All of which pushes them further from normal society, towards isolation and only closer to those that live the same way. It's not hurting anybody, and again a threat doesn't exist unless they become some sort of anarcho-environmentalist.

 

 

I'm not familiar with Kathleen Taylor's work but this statment “Somebody who has for example become radicalised to a cult ideology – we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance.” seems like she isn't aware of Deprogramming and Exit Counseling which has been successfully used in cases that she refers to.

 

 

 

 

 

*Treatment = So far no "cure" exists, nor have they identified the source. As a I stated in my last post I don't believe a "cure" is going to happen. Most drugs just treat or mask.

 

 

[sivispacem]

fundamentalism =/= radicalism

Fundamentalism is radical in most cases- though not radicalist (I'll come on to that later) because it strives to combat modernism and is typified by hostility towards non-religious aspects of life, and in many cases those of differing beliefs. For instance, despite being revisionist and anti-modernist, the Amish Mennonites are traditionalist rather than fundamentalist as their focus is introverted, rather than extroverted. In contrast, some branches of Evangelical Christianity are fundamentalist because of their refusal to tolerate any kind of contact or familiarity with any individual or organisation that doesn't share their strict literal interpretation of the bible. The distinction effectively lies in shunning societal activity and involvement based solely on a religious ideology and generally driven by a perception of spiritual superiority over wider society. You have to remember, as well, that fundamentalism is extremely rare- when I've referred to Evangelical Christians, I'm not talking about the 80-or-so million US citizens who typify themselves as such- I'm talking the mere few thousand who meet the description penned above.

By your definition these type of people are so against anything non-religious that they shun involvement in any activities that are non-religious based. Do you see this a needing tretment* though? It basically just removes them from most of secular society, or outcasting them, which seems to be their goal in the first place. Unless they become radicalized I fail to see the threat involved.

 

I guess it could be compared to an environmentalist who refuses to take part in the negetive affects of everyday living. They live off the grid, grow their own food, make their own eco friendly [and disgusting] toliets, ect.... All of which pushes them further from normal society, towards isolation and only closer to those that live the same way. It's not hurting anybody, and again a threat doesn't exist unless they become some sort of anarcho-environmentalist.

I completely understand what you're saying. Let me be clear, I'm not advocating any kind of "treatment" for the vast majority of individuals. Fundamentalism in and of itself isn't harmful. It's the associated activities which lead to societal harm. Take this as an example- the vast majority of Muslims are moderates, but a very tiny proportion are religiously conservative. Most of those religious conservatives are inclusive, a small proportion fundamentalist. Only a very small minority of that small proportion have violent or politically radical sympathies. And only a minute proportion of them will involve themselves in any activity against the state. But a terrorist who does must go through all five points. At which point is it right to intervene?

[DarrinPA]

 

I completely understand what you're saying. Let me be clear, I'm not advocating any kind of "treatment" for the vast majority of individuals. Fundamentalism in and of itself isn't harmful. It's the associated activities which lead to societal harm. Take this as an example- the vast majority of Muslims are moderates, but a very tiny proportion are religiously conservative. Most of those religious conservatives are inclusive, a small proportion fundamentalist. Only a very small minority of that small proportion have violent or politically radical sympathies. And only a minute proportion of them will involve themselves in any activity against the state. But a terrorist who does must go through all five points. At which point is it right to intervene?

I was sort of asking you the same question. We are from two different countries so this is where our views may differ based on what the law allows us to do.

 

In America the governent, for the most part, allows people to have radical sympathies as long as it hasn't crossed over into violent acts. Yes, they are probably put on a government watchlist though. But because we do have religious conservatives who are in leadership roles, as high as the US Congress, some religious fundamentalists who encourage violence [Pat Robertson] are allowed to do so freely here. I feel as if intervention isn't needed until violence is clearly the objective of the fundamentalist. Intervention meaning arresting them. I don't believe in treatment for those who refuse it.

 

 

[sivispacem]

I believe that governments and civil society should try and engage with radical elements rather than ignoring them. That isn't to say I approve of the idea of giving them any kind of platform, as the Western media often does with both Islamism and far right political extremism, but I also don't approve of the idea of penalising people for beliefs that aren't intrinsically harmful. I approve of people being castigated or punished for hate speech when it seeks or condones direct harm towards others, but I don't think people should be punished solely for holding fundamentalist beliefs. I think the Scandinavian civil-society-style system works very well- you permit radical or fundamentalist elements to partake in national dialogue to enable them to be publicly and openly critiqued. Islam, for instance, is driven by internal and external theological analysis and a great deal of fundamentalist misconceptions are born of religious ignorance, not adherence as the proponents would claim. By allowing it to be discussed and critiqued openly and publicly, you undermine the spiritual appeal of harmful fundamentalism whilst permitting people to hold justified traditionalist views openly by informing wider society better of them. I think of it rather like the distinction between counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism operations- the latter is attacking a problem once it has become a problem, but the former aims to stop the problem existing in the first place- or at the very least mitigate it to the fullest extent possible.

[El Dildo]

Maybe you should research history..?

ironic statement coming from you.

 

history does not repeat itself absolutely

[Hiphiphorhay]

finally they can get rid of christianity

[GrandMaster Smith]

Maybe you should research history..?

ironic statement coming from you.

 

history does not repeat itself absolutely

Historic recurrence has been talked about for thousands of years. Of course things won't be identical but as Mark Twain said- "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Similar events have occurred repeatedly all throughout history.

 

 

 

What was the actual proposed method in 'curing' fundamentalist may I ask? They said they have something that's a work in progress but what was it?

[El Zilcho]

 

What was the actual proposed method in 'curing' fundamentalist may I ask? They said they have something that's a work in progress but what was it?

I can't think of anything more effective than decent, secular education. The issue with this would be 'delivery'; how can individuals access and benefit from it, if they're already submerged in radicalism due to their communities?

 

Again, treating it as a mental problem seems to me heavy handed and unfounded.

Edited June 3, 2013 by El Zilcho

[DarrinPA]

 

I believe that governments and civil society should try and engage with radical elements rather than ignoring them.

I see your point. I feel as if the reason why the US government doesn't take that approach is due to two reasons; the seperation of church and state is a touchy subject here, and the other reason being that it allows them to have "plausible deniability". If our government is aware of a radical group and something happens the blame gets put on them for not intervening. So instead the approach taken is if their surveillance of such groups has been done clandestinely, they can intervene if they see the need to but if they fail to do so they can simply deny any responsibility. As for "civil society should try and engage with radical elements rather than ignoring them" that can be a bit tricky as you have mentioned before the isolation that begins to happen as they move further towards radicalizing.

 

As for the rest of your post there is nothing to really debate, it makes sense.

 

 

What was the actual proposed method in 'curing' fundamentalist may I ask? They said they have something that's a work in progress but what was it?

The work in progess was in response to the question about "positive developments she anticipated in neuroscience in the next 60 years".

Edited June 3, 2013 by DarrinPA

[Clem Fandango]

What was the actual proposed method in 'curing' fundamentalist may I ask? They said they have something that's a work in progress but what was it?

I can't think of anything more effective than decent, secular education. The issue with this would be 'delivery'; how can individuals access and benefit from it, if they're already submerged in radicalism due to their communities?

 

Again, treating it as a mental problem seems to me heavy handed and unfounded.

It's already been said that "religious fundamentalism" in this context doesn't refer to the millions of devout Christians living in rural areas who deny evolution and stigmatise gays, it refers to fundamentalism marked by hostility to society and aggressive anti-modernism.

[GrandMaster Smith]

What was the actual proposed method in 'curing' fundamentalist may I ask? They said they have something that's a work in progress but what was it?

The work in progess was in response to the question about "positive developments she anticipated in neuroscience in the next 60 years".

Oooh so the whole entire article is based off speculative bs pretty much?