Why are Fundamentalists Growing in Major Religions?

I've never understood the appeal about having 4 wives. Sure it might be fun for the honeymoon(s) but after that.... Guys complain about their wives nagging them now multiply that by 4.

 

Sishir, you are either very well read, very good at google, or you just know alot!?!?!?!?

 

And we're just supposed to take the word of someone as selfserving and biased as you?

I DEMAND YOU POST PICTURES AS PROOF!

 

I'm what is technically called a nerd.

 

How about two counter-examples?

 

ok, this is far and away my favorite post of yours!!! brilliant!!!!

i'll go with an affidavit. but i'm certain the wife might be a little uneasy about audio proof. she's a christian, after all, and a little uptight about sharing sex tapes...particularly over the internet with strangers.

as an aside...i'm no less than ashamed of my support for the war. i wish i had not supported it. i feel like i learned a tremendous personal lesson through it...and, unrelated, i feel like i've grown closer to God in the past year or so of my life. where i am with Him now leads me to a feeling of shame about my support for the war, previously. i'm not getting on a soapbox and saying that everyone should feel that way...it's just where i am. i'm praying for peace.

 

Whats a wahabi?

 

It's a derogatory term used for followers of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab in 18th century Saudi Arabia. The movement was fundamentalist in origin as Wahab felt that the religion had been corrupted by innovations.

The political definition of the term today is a bit of a deviation from the historical definition.

 

The equivelant of Puritans...

 

here is the dictionary.com entry for fundamentalism :

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalism
===================================================
fun·da·men·tal·ism Audio pronunciation of "fundamentalism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
1. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
2. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

=================================================

I think some of you are quite cavalier in your retorts to glynch's post. The growth of fundamentalism is a real problem manifested in every major world religion. I think it is something we see in history in times of rapid change and uncertainty. People want to reject the uncertainty of science, which can only offer test results. This makes people responsible for their actions, views, and ever-shifting perspective of "truth." It is hard to accept that we operate as much on hormones and emotions as logic, and our perception of reality, cause, effect, and then "right" or "wrong" is very subjective. People cling to the illusion of certainty in religion, especially coupled with a charismatic leader. This absolves the adherant from the responsibility of finding truth and admitting mistakes along the path of testing, and by experience, learning.

What is God? Is it a jealous judge? Is it an enriching energy? Do we engage the world or withdraw from it? It is a short and brutal life that admits no error.

 

The exact definition of the 'virgins' you are referring to is "that which is pure." In the 8th century, the rationalist school of thought was mainstream in Islam and a common belief was of heaven being a state of mind and all Quranic references to be metaphorical. If one can imagine it, and God is possible of anything, then it could be had. So it's no surprise that the idea of "72 virgins" would be appealing to the misogynistic Arabs in the 7th century. This rationalist theology died out and has no contemporary presence in Islam as the more literalist understanding of the religion is now mainstream. That is why you now see so much mention of the "70 virgins."

As far as the thread question, I would simply say that fundamentalism in religion is simply a political reaction in some sort of struggle.

 

What a great post. Max, you resemble some of those Republicans I know, that I mention from time to time, who voted for Bush in 2000, and have become amazingly frustrated with him and the GOP leadership... not the GOP in general, or with being a conservative, but with those in control of their party. They have come to the realization that Bush doesn't represent the GOP they joined in 1980 (many of them), that he is not a conservative, as they define the term, and they are just waiting for Democrats to nominate someone they can get behind.

And I've heard your wife is a babe... I'm holding out for the "polaroids."



Keep D&D Civil.

 

1. my wife is definitely a babe. don't hold your breath on the polaroids.

2. i really don't identify with the republican party

3. thanks for the nice comments.

 

Nowadays its used to refer to the school of Islam generally preached and enforced in Saudi Arabia. It's a much more, at least in their opinion, orthadox version of Islam that places more emphasis on a literalist interpretation of the Quran. I'm not too familiar with the specifics of it but its generally regarded as a more radically conservative model even within the middle east.

There are other schools of Islam like Ibadhi Islam which is practiced mainly in Oman. But generally the concentration of these specific sects are still rare because most Middle Eastern countries are moderate enough to the point where their governments don't enforce a specific sect beyond the shia/sunni dichotomy.

 

Probable member? HA! Yes, I'm not in favor of the war...

 

Glad to hear it! Let's hope the Democrats finally nominate someone voters like you can get behind. That, or the GOP turns 180 degrees. Either scenario would be a good one. From my perspective, Democrats and a more moderate GOP would offer the American people a choice that the vast majority yearn for, but haven't seen in far too long.

Hagel versus Warner would be such a scenario... a win-win for the nation. That, and the Democrats taking at least one branch of Congress.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Very good, concise statement - I agree.

I concur with the posters who argue that fundamentalism has not grown per say, just become more vocal. That being said, I think that increased vocalization has lead to increased organization, and a much larger presence in the political arena. Which is bad - call me a secular fundamentalist, but religious convictions should not influence one's vote. Of course (just to continue bantering with myself), I don't think it's possible to be religious without inevitably extending those convictions into your politics.

 

This would make a great poll question. "Is it possible to be religious without extending those convictions into your politics?"

I think that is the biggest problem. There should be a distinct dichotomy between religion and politics because too often we see religion rise up as the driving force behind many global political actions/policies. I feel that an individual should keep his religious beliefs in the closet, but consider what is best for his country and for the well being of other citizens rather than considering what God may want him to do when he is at the ballot.