Hateful chatter behind the veil

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

there's nothing more dangerous than a religious radical

...of ANY faith....

I guess it depends on what you consider a radical... ?

I think my definition would mean one who automatically hates another/would rejoice in someone's death because they don't share one's faith.

oops i'm a radical. i plan on dancing when hillary kicks the bucket

[peejay 327]

democrats, and especially hillary clinton, terrorize me.

I don't know who's worse - Hillary or Ted Kennedy.

Teddy Kennedy wins hands down because he has been at it longer.

[Alex+R 0]

oops i'm a radical. i plan on dancing when hillary kicks the bucket

Heh, Charles I think you are a severe reactionary, more like it.

[arwensun1965 1]

I do not quite understand somebody who hates a country that much can live in that said country. Why do they not just move back to what ever country they came from in the first place and spout there mouths off there see how far they get. If you hate somewhere that much then leave.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

oops i'm a radical. i plan on dancing when hillary kicks the bucket

Heh, Charles I think you are a severe reactionary, more like it.

so that's what they are calling republicans nowadays

[Veiled Princess 1]

I already said I was conflicted, so any response from me will be conflicted.

Sorry

NO FAIR

That's what I wanted to hear man!!!!! What do you mean you're conflicted? Give me an example please?

I think it was me that used the term 'radical' first on this thread. I'll explain what I meant, but please understand this is only my opinion.

I meant it to mean 'unbalanced' in the understanding/practice of the tenets of the faith. I think that every religion on this planet has people that can be unbalanced in how they apply the concepts put forth in whatever religious book used/philosophy taught. I think also that with man's interference and our penchant for 'custom' over intent, that sometimes what a religion was initially based upon often becomes obscured with human interests...which aren't always altruistic. Sometimes those interests are so enmeshed in the traditions of the religion they occur by rote and not as part of the original concept.

Most religions, to my understanding, do not operate in a vacuum, nor are most simply in existence as sado-masochistic vehicles for no purpose but to hurt and destroy others. (Note, I said most. ) All of the religions of older origin share a commonality of balance (yin-yang; male-female), and a lot of religions derived from that have developed in patriarchal societies with a heavy emphasis on division between men and women as equals. (Not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of this, either. To each his/her own.) However, my point is when anyone falls outside of the balance that most religions have inherently within them, I would term them radical. Not close to middle, but extreme ends. That's not only on the harsh side, but also on the side of those who might withdraw from society completely and live only within that paradigm as well.

To be clear, as it was mentioned...I don't believe that praying 5 times a day or having 'sisters only' swimming as a recreational outlet is radical. There are plenty of religions that advocate community and talking to God. One person may pray once a day and call it the appropriate amount; another may pray 10 times and not feel it's enough. All in the perception.

Anyway, that's what I meant.

I think I'm reading this wrong.. so anyone who follows a faith other than one of the "yin-yang" religions is a radical?

[Alex+R 0]

oops i'm a radical. i plan on dancing when hillary kicks the bucket

Heh, Charles I think you are a severe reactionary, more like it.

so that's what they are calling republicans nowadays

Hm, I have a lot of other words I use for republicans in office, but ummm I think the language filter would get em..

Flamingly obnoxious liberal at your service

[Veiled Princess 1]

I think my definition would mean one who automatically hates another/would rejoice in someone's death because they don't share one's faith.

I guess anytime I've heard it used it's usually directed at someone who believes deeply and compassionately about their faith and try to follow the laws in it strictly. Maybe that's why I don't really like it.

By definition I guess it would mean someone who goes against their belief and if that's what you're referring to then yah that's bad.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

oops i'm a radical. i plan on dancing when hillary kicks the bucket

Heh, Charles I think you are a severe reactionary, more like it.

so that's what they are calling republicans nowadays

Hm, I have a lot of other words I use for republicans in office, but ummm I think the language filter would get em..

Flamingly obnoxious liberal at your service

flamingly and obnoxious, when used with liberal, is redundant

from the far right republican

[Fandango 1,439]

I think my definition would mean one who automatically hates another/would rejoice in someone's death because they don't share one's faith.

I guess anytime I've heard it used it's usually directed at someone who believes deeply and compassionately about their faith and try to follow the laws in it strictly. Maybe that's why I don't really like it.

By definition I guess it would mean someone who goes against their belief and if that's what you're referring to then yah that's bad.

Well if someone chooses to live his/her life according to his/her faith, I have no problems with that...

I do have a problem with

People like that article are talking about...

People like (I forget their names) who protest 'God hates fags' at soldiers' funerals

People who bomb abortion clinics/kill doctors & nurses (regardless of how one feels about abortion, that's superfluous)

People who use their religion as means of putting someone else down.

I think they are dangerous. Exceptionally so because they feel validated against going against laws because God is a higher power, therefore it is right. And if something heinous is right...such as killing another human being because their God has a different name...well that means there's no reprocussions for them. In their heads, they are doing the right thing. So there are no limits to the terror that can ensue...

These people who kill others in the name of God are uncontrollable. They fear nothing.

Edited July 5, 2006 by LisaD

[ceriserose 1]

I think it was me that used the term 'radical' first on this thread. I'll explain what I meant, but please understand this is only my opinion.

I meant it to mean 'unbalanced' in the understanding/practice of the tenets of the faith. I think that every religion on this planet has people that can be unbalanced in how they apply the concepts put forth in whatever religious book used/philosophy taught. I think also that with man's interference and our penchant for 'custom' over intent, that sometimes what a religion was initially based upon often becomes obscured with human interests...which aren't always altruistic. Sometimes those interests are so enmeshed in the traditions of the religion they occur by rote and not as part of the original concept.

Most religions, to my understanding, do not operate in a vacuum, nor are most simply in existence as sado-masochistic vehicles for no purpose but to hurt and destroy others. (Note, I said most. ) All of the religions of older origin share a commonality of balance (yin-yang; male-female), and a lot of religions derived from that have developed in patriarchal societies with a heavy emphasis on division between men and women as equals. (Not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of this, either. To each his/her own.) However, my point is when anyone falls outside of the balance that most religions have inherently within them, I would term them radical. Not close to middle, but extreme ends. That's not only on the harsh side, but also on the side of those who might withdraw from society completely and live only within that paradigm as well.

To be clear, as it was mentioned...I don't believe that praying 5 times a day or having 'sisters only' swimming as a recreational outlet is radical. There are plenty of religions that advocate community and talking to God. One person may pray once a day and call it the appropriate amount; another may pray 10 times and not feel it's enough. All in the perception.

Anyway, that's what I meant.

I think I'm reading this wrong.. so anyone who follows a faith other than one of the "yin-yang" religions is a radical?

You are reading it completely wrong. I don't even know where to start explaining it, if that's how you took my post. But I'll give it a try!

A radical is anything of extremes. I'm talking about unbalanced compared to the norm. My 'familiar ground' is the Christian faith so I'll draw an example from that. There are say, 2 million Christians in a country. 5% of them seclude themseves from society completely (radical in their asceticism). 5% of them bomb abortion clinics (radical in their vigilence). The Bible, from my years of learning in it, doesn't tell it's followers to take themselves physically out of contact with other people, nor does it say to vindicate God's Will regarding the sanctity of feotal life by injuring/killing others. The people that follow those pathways may truly believe that what they're doing is the "correct" thing in God's eyes, with precedent from the Bible. Each of those 5% would be radical...a significant deviation from the 'norm' or 'standard'. And 5% of 2 million is 100,000 people, so a group that large could give the impression of normalcy, even when it isn't the norm within the religion.

Of those of the Muslim faith I've met in 'real' life and on this board, most strike me as fairly peaceful, balanced people, not wishing murderous harm against people because of a difference of religion or country. Of course I don't know for sure (who could), but I don't think many of them are at extreme ends of the spectrum. Of course, the true 'radicals' don't usually hang out on Visajourney.

My comments on yin-yang and balance were simply because I was trying to explain the concept that most religions I've studied have a series of checks and balances within the religion. For example the Bible tells it's proponents to have faith, to do God's Will, to actively proclaim him and his wonders, and to love one another. So while a Christian may feel the need to have a certain opinion or stand as dictated by their interpretation of the scriptures, they are to temper it with love. I admit I don't know anywhere near as much about Islam, but what I do know of it leads me to think that it would have the same checks and balances within its structure. For example I've seen some of the females of Muslim faith defend marriage contracts and how it's supposed to work and be beneficial to both parties.

Radicals tend to not follow the checks and balances, favoring or weighing some rules/laws more heavily than others. Most Christians know "That shalt not kill" and yet history shows some have gone to war and killed because someone doesn't think like they do. I believe the same is true of most major religions today.

And just to be clear (I hope ), just because someone has a different belief system than I do, I wouldn't label them radical. I'm labelling a radical as someone who is vastly different from the 'average' person of faith within the same religion, either more so or less so. We tend to hear more about those who are more so...the person who has withdrawn from society to live on a mountain top is not usually the one in the limelight.

I hope that helped.

edit: I used the 5% as an example so I could do the math. I suspect that a 'radical' group would be far less than 5% of a religion/community.

Edited July 5, 2006 by ceriserose

[Jersey Girl 2]

AgentSmith, please provide the source of the article. A credible newspaper such as the Globe and Mail, perhaps?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

AgentSmith, please provide the source of the article. A credible newspaper such as the Globe and Mail, perhaps?

Jersey Girl,

Source is provided. Please look carefully.

I already said I was conflicted, so any response from me will be conflicted.

Sorry

NO FAIR

[Leafgal 3]

I do not quite understand somebody who hates a country that much can live in that said country. Why do they not just move back to what ever country they came from in the first place and spout there mouths off there see how far they get. If you hate somewhere that much then leave.

Well that would be good, I will chip in for a plane ticket. The reason they come here is the tolerance that Canadians have, I am sure this case will change some of that.

And the reason they don't go home is they can't plan terrorist attacks as easily from there, but I say go home if you don't like us or our beliefs.

There are many wonderful muslims, and it is to bad their religon gets so hijacked by their own.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

...it is to bad their religon gets so hijacked by their own.

All religions get hijacked by their own. You won't find a Hindu masquerading as a Westboro Baptist minister to make Christians look bad