Free Allegiance Forums

I can't for the life of me find it on the bloomberg website, but there was a story earlier today saying the opinion polls showed a 10% boost for the ruling Labour party. That did make me smile - one of this nutter's aims was to damage the party that he felt had let the country down, it's good to see at least one of his aims to fail so miserably.

QUOTE Does anyone else have real trouble with the characterisation of this chap as a "Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist"? What with Christianity being the closest thing to socialism in world religion and all.[/quote]
Erm yes I do. In fact I can already feel this descending into another pointless religion thread....

QUOTE however all student politicians were contemptible creatures, out only to advance themselves and having absolutely zero sense of humour.[/quote]
This is true, especially at Oxford. I probably met quite a few future MP's whilst I was there... scary thought. I've heard it said that people who want to be politicians shouldn't be allowed to be & I think that's a good way to go...

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jul 29 2011, 12:23 AM) Does anyone else have real trouble with the characterisation of this chap as a "Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist"? What with Christianity being the closest thing to socialism in world religion and all.

I do. I mean, if the guy wants to self-identify himself as a Christian, then that's his business; I'm not going to tell him he's No True Scotsman. But it's very clear that his brand of Christianity is an altogether different breed than, say, the folks you see in Jesus Camp.

Right wing, yes. Christian, sure, why not. Fundamentalist? I don't see how that last term applies to him at all.

So... then you dudes would also object with equal vigour to any mention of "Muslim Fundamentalist Terrorists" also, going by the same arguments, yes?

No. Why would I?

Breivik didn't self-identify as a fundamentalist and did not, for example, claim that he believed in strict adherence to the Bible.

OTOH if a Muslim identifies as a fundamentalist and claims strict adherence to the Qur'an, I'd call him such regardless if he believes that terrorism was the natural end of that belief or not.

Well to be fair, I didn't specify the hypothetical Muslim terrorist self-identified as a fundamentalist, if it's the self-identification that's the only major part of the argument.

Conversely, then, if the Norway youth camp shooter hypothetically self-identified as a Christian fundamentalist, it'd be fine to call him such in the media, regardless of how his views lined up with those presented in the Bible or followed by other Christians (which I thought you implied were also factors)?

Hitler identified with Christianity, until he started thinking of himself as better than Jesus.

girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Jul 30 2011, 07:28 AM) Well to be fair, I didn't specify the hypothetical Muslim terrorist self-identified as a fundamentalist, if it's the self-identification that's the only major part of the argument.

Conversely, then, if the Norway youth camp shooter hypothetically self-identified as a Christian fundamentalist, it'd be fine to call him such in the media, regardless of how his views lined up with those presented in the Bible or followed by other Christians (which I thought you implied were also factors)?

the problem with that concept is that a "muslim fundamentalist" could at least argue that he (or she) was acting in accordance with one interpretation of the holy quran, specifically the requirement to carry out jihad. that doesnt legitimize the behaviour, but it does place it within a framework with which to begin to understand it (even if the rationale behind it is bollocks, after all most terrorists are *#$@s).

a fundamentalist christian cannot make any such argument from the new testament, therefore he (or she) couldnt ever legitimately be described as a christian fundamentalist if they went around killing people, shooting them in the back as they swam away, blowing up tube trains etc etc. it would be like claiming a person was a fundamentalist jew because they went around eating bacon, working on saturday, devouring shellfish etc etc.

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jul 29 2011, 10:23 AM) Does anyone else have real trouble with the characterisation of this chap as a "Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist"? What with Christianity being the closest thing to socialism in world religion and all.

That's the theory, but try to reconsile muscular right wing christianity (hi Bible Belt, how's the weather over there?) with christianity as presented in the New Testament, and you'll have to do some mental gymnastics to accept they have anything in common.

On the other hand, take the "christian soldier / medieval crusader" approach to christianity, and you'll have much less trouble recognising Brevik as a !christian-zealot!.

Basically, if Brevik is not a christian, then Bin Laden is not a muslim. Of course, most muslims do say he isn't, so maybe that's fair.

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jul 30 2011, 04:42 PM) That's the theory, but try to reconsile muscular right wing christianity (hi Bible Belt, how's the weather over there?) with christianity as presented in the New Testament, and you'll have to do some mental gymnastics to accept they have anything in common.

On the other hand, take the "christian soldier / medieval crusader" approach to christianity, and you'll have much less trouble recognising Brevik as a !christian-zealot!.

Basically, if Brevik is not a christian, then Bin Laden is not a muslim. Of course, most muslims do say he isn't, so maybe that's fair.

thats a bit of a contradiction though - after all, as you recognize there is nothing in the new testament that could ever be used to legitimize what breivik did, or indeed what the crusaders / conquistadors / empire builders / banjo players got up to. it required the corruption of the priesthood / the bible-interpreting classes to do that, to generate nonsense like the works of Augustine, Sepúlveda, nearly all Popes and the rest (though this was of course paralleled with the nonsense that the various churches were coming up with to line their own pockets, to exterminate heresy etc etc), which legitimized stuff that could never hope to be legitimate (as the sublime de las Casas pointed out).

I think many Muslims have in recent times presented arguments that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the only way it can be used to justify violence is by corrupting its message.

If you want to get into basically saying that Christianity really is peaceful, and only corruption can make it seem like it justifies violence, while Islam really does justify violence, then I'd have to admit I don't know enough about either religion to respond usefully, but also I have to say that would seem like a bit of a case of "he says-she says" to me, since I'm sure it would not be hard to find a Muslim scholar who'd disagree with you entirely.