Yuku free message boards

I think you hit the New Post button instead of New Reply , but no worries as I think this is actually a major theme of the book and deserving of its own topic.

As I mentioned in Chapter One discussion, this is my major point of contention with Harris so far. Moderate belief in organized religion doesn't seem like a bad thing to me even though I am a non-believer. Harris makes the point that Moderates encourage fundamentalists and extremists. IF moderates did no exist, fundamentalists would look like loony wackos that believe the tooth fairy is real. But because Moderates exist, they can say nothing against fundamentalists without sacrficing their own beliefs. They need to cator towards toleration even for fundamentalists and extremists in order to justify their moderation. Most moderates draw the line at suicide bombing in the United States, but moderates in Islamic States may support those efforts. So I understand Harris's point that religious moderation encourages fundamentalism because there is no critique, no downplay of the beliefs.

However, I go back to the point I made in regards to it being society's and government's fault of not bringing these issues to a head. Western Religion has calmed down from the days of the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Western Religions still present an agenda, but they don't physically or mentally pose a threat to non-believes, heretics, or anyone else that disagrees with them, even the fundamentalists of Western Religion. However, I think the political climate, societies, and governments of the Middle East have encouraged, or at the least, allowed fundamentalism to bring violence to the table. In my opinion, this has less to do with Fundamentalism vs. Moderation, but rather societal handling of the situation. If a Hamas existed in the United States, the entire organization would have been brought down and many people throw in jail or at least tried for criminal activity. Who would even associate with someone involved with a campaign like Al Quida in the United States even if the organization pushed for views they agreed with? Most people would report to the authorities even their best friend if they bragged about being part of a society that killed innocents.

Quote:

---

I'm surprised at an American saying Western Religion has calmed down - from what I see American fundamentalism is often far from calm. For example: speaking in tongues, falling over at the touch of priest, playing with snakes, and shooting abortion doctors.

---

I never wrote that American Fundamentalism is CALM, I wrote that they have CALMED DOWN. Your examples hardly compare to the Crusades, the Inquisition, torture, burning, etc. especially in systematic and organizaed manner. Yes, there are a few extremist fundamentalists in the United States, but they're actions are not condoned by the Fundamentalist movement and are isolated occurances rather than systematic and church driven.

Quote:

---

Shooting abortion doctors...

---

See above.

Quote:

---

The 9/11 bombers lived in the US for a significant amount of time.

---

Again, you take my words out of context and twist them. HAMAS does not exist in the United States. If any terrorist unit establishes a Cell in the United States, the government is working to eliminate the cells. They are not being tolerated. As an example of the 9/11 bombers, check out the news and notice Moussaoui on trial currently which supports my statement that if such folks existed in the United States, they would be thrown in jail or at least tried for criminal activity.

Quote:

---

In Britain the London suicide bombers did not brag about their views. For instance, the oldest bomber had worked as a well-liked teaching assistant in schools for many years without anyone knowing anything about his views.

---

Irrelevent to my original statement.