Wikipedia

We should all be concerned about fanaticism of any sort. Fanatics refuse to acknowledge points of view outside of their own beliefs, and unfortunately there are fanatics of most every religion. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that fanaticism in any form is a danger to democracy.

Who should concern us more? Depends on what is a more likely threat to you. I fear religious influence in public policy, e.g. sex education, evolution vs. creationism, so I am more concerned by evangelical Christian fanatics in that case. I also desire stability, free expression, and safety for families and children in Iraq, so in that case fanatical Islam concerns me more.

Although, I must say, having met fanatical Transcendental Meditation practitioners, they really don't concern me very much at all.

And why would you even want ask that ridiculous, loaded question, zrocks? Do you really think it makes an intelligent point to accuse people of preferring harsh Islamic law to right-wing Christians in this country?

The fanatic.

AK

Not that I was asked, but I'm equally concerned over both as they are two sides of the same coin.
Currently the "Islamic" fundamentalists would seem to be the greater physical threat (though families of murdered doctors that worked at some clinics in the US. and the families of murdered civilians overseas may wish to debate that) while IMO the "Christian" fundamentalists pose a greater threat to our freedoms and the constitution.
As difficult as the lunatic terrorist situation is to deal with at least it's a wolf in wolf's clothing. The "Religious Right" is a much more subtle and insidious sickness and may prove harder to deal with in the long run.

Fanaticism is not quantifiable. Neither should concern you more or less. This is not competitive teams sports or, for that matter, entertainment. It all comes down to individual actions and accountability, none of which concerns the true fanatic. Because, in the fanatic's mind, the end always justifies the means. Take for example the Christian extremist Eric Rudolph - he did not see conceptually that killing and maiming people was inherently evil. His actions, in his mind, were heroic. No different than the Islamic fundamentalists that would behead an American for being an American. That extreme tunnel-vision is the danger - and it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The conservative right's willingness to exploit the more extreme elements of Christian fanaticism (and the Republican party's willingness to whore itself out to the conservative right) is far more worrisome and is equally as pressing an issue, as the lunatic fringe of Islam fundamentalism.

wow.... very well put Glenn. I couldn't have said it better myself.

AK

I'll take a stab at it - the question really is - Do you take the creation account of the bible literally, and assume that there are no missing spaces? My answer is no, and here is a brief explanation why - -

There are many references in the Bible to God being outside of this dimension (I can get them for you if you'd like). Of course, if he exists, this would have to be true - you can't see him. What do we mean by this dimension? Well, traditionally, we mean four dimensions - the three that we can see, and time. So God is without form as we know it, and he isn't bound by time.

This notion should not be new to the scientists here. If you get into quantum physics, you will learn that there needs to be another 7 dimensions just for matter to exist. What's one more dimension? Also, the notion that time is not fixed is relatively new.

So there is a problem when communicating with man about things outside of our world, especially since we cannot even comprehend the existence of matter. Also, consider the original audience; they were even less sophisticated. The account in Genesis makes perfect sense when viewed in this light. A God who is timeless creates things instantly, or over millions of years - what's the difference? You can view the beginning and the end at the same time (well, there is no time, but you know what I mean).

You may find it interesting that the order of the days (time periods) is exactly what we find in science. From the big bang to the creation of organisms in the correct order. In fact, it was Christians that first came up with the idea that time had a beginning - but of course, they didn't come up with it.

And consider the big bang - a singularity (an infinitely small point) exploding into our universe. Let there be light is right.

Another question - When you refer to the Republican party whoring out to the religious right, what actions are you referring to specifically?

Stephen Hawking's no-boundary condition of time - which is what you're describing - doesn't eliminate the thermodynamic direction of time in which we live.

Exactly!

Those who might be consumed by hate can't answer the question.



Good example. If the solution of Islamic fundamentalism is to concede, subjugate, view their side and ask ourselves what did we do to deserve his rath, why not do the same for the home grown fanatic.

BTW, I was working the night of the Olympic bombing. I was in the Olympic Village. It was a very unnerving few hours.

dude!

Do you have a New Teastment quote attributed to JC to back that up?