Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yes, McVey was a fundamentalist. After seeing the Waco, Texas incident he thought that the government was too interfering and evil. He then made bombs out of fertilizer and blew up an F.B.I building. When he was caught he was wearing a t-shirt with Abraham Lincoln on it IIRC. He said he was sorry that innocent children were killed, but said that they were collateral damage.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Alright, but after the unification through these military victories it became accepted, correct?

Otherwise how would it serve as unifying force?

In some sense. It became the public code of morality, and no one had any reason to challenge it because the Sauds are pretty benevolent as royal families go. There's a difference between support, and complacency.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Ah, I see what you're getting at.

Money is a lot, but where did they get the money from? Where did they get the support from when they first started out? America, partially, we did supply a lot of arms to the region, but the truth is there is support for their extreme policies in the places they came power. Not universal support, not even support by a majority of the population (later on at least), but there were people supporting them. Hell, that's where they recruit from.

But there are also people who supported Jerry Falwell, and his rhetoric isn't all that different from the crap that comes out of the Middle East. The difference is that the Middle East seems to convert such rhetoric into violence with greater regularity. The question isn't so much 'why do people follow these nut-jobs?' as 'why do the people following nut-jobs in this part of the world turn violent?'.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Ah, no, didn't mean to make it sound like I thought the Afganistan government was the only authority in the land. It is one though, and it's an authority that was turned over in favor of a fundamentalist religious authority.

There has never been an Afghani government. There have been Imperial proxies that 'governed' the territory, but they never held sway over Afghanistan in the sense that the American government holds sway over America. The rise of the Taliban is more analogous to the Feudal struggles in pre-Westphalia Europe than it is to the modern conception of civil war.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I think that point is a rather significant one, though.

(Wait, aren't we in agreement here anyways?)

I think so, for the most part anyway. There is a sense in which loosening morals refers to a loss of Imperial cohesiveness. Something which can be problematic when faced with an enemy that is not so handicapped.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I disagree with that definition of religion, personally.

Are you going to say that Vietnam was primarily motivated by religion, because capitalism is a religion? What's the point? You dilute the meaning of the word. Every war is a religious war, every fanatic is a religious fanatic, every cause is a religion.

No, I would say Vietnam was primarily motivated by Machiavellian geopolitics. However, I would also say that the rhetoric surrounding the conflict was strongly reminiscent of a kind of crusader theology; to the point where the two are indistinguishable save for issues of semantics.

This doesn't mean that every cause is necessarily religious, but it does mean that every cause has the potential to be conceived of in a religious sense. And, more importantly, that many causes which are not traditionally considered to be religious ones are best conceived of in that light.

Incidentally, the point isn't to dilute the meaning of the word, but clarify what actually constitutes a matter of objective fact and what does not. There is no objectively verifiable thing that is American, or English, or French. There are specific things which can be described that way, Napoleon for instance, but 'French' is not a thing in itself which possesses a character, or essence. People who believe there is something which is distinctively 'French' are exhibiting religious behavior in their worship of what is nothing but a matter of supernatural semantics.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I would say that the majority of religious violence is fundamentalist though. Not all of it, certainly, there are plenty of other sects that cause problems, but it seems like more than the fundamentalist's share of violence is perpetrated by them.

I would agree. Its very easy to carry fundamentalism to an extreme due to its emphasis on moral 'fundamentals'.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Still, it's kind of biting off your nose to spite your face a lot of the time. When you look at groups that oppose education for women, satellite dishes, pictures, etc, there's no good reason for that.

The pictures I can see, as the Qu'ran explicitly forbids visual depictions of the prophet. It isn't a huge leap to prohibit pictures altogether. The other two are pretty nonsensical if you're going to read the Qu'ran literally.

dogma wrote:In some sense. It became the public code of morality, and no one had any reason to challenge it because the Sauds are pretty benevolent as royal families go. There's a difference between support, and complacency.

In that case it wouldn't be serving as a unifying force though; it would be the Saud's military power/people's acceptance of most of their policies that serves to unite the country.

(Although I still think that fundamentalism is more common in Saudi Arabia.)

But there are also people who supported Jerry Falwell, and his rhetoric isn't all that different from the crap that comes out of the Middle East. The difference is that the Middle East seems to convert such rhetoric into violence with greater regularity. The question isn't so much 'why do people follow these nut-jobs?' as 'why do the people following nut-jobs in this part of the world turn violent?'.

Well, you can have different thresh holds of fanaticism.

Just because "people" support him doesn't mean he is supported at the same level. Maybe violence is more common, in part, because there's more followers of the fundamentalist Middle Eastern demagogues overall?

There has never been an Afghani government. There have been Imperial proxies that 'governed' the territory, but they never held sway over Afghanistan in the sense that the American government holds sway over America.

I just said that it wasn't.

It was, however, one authority people could have turned to instead of the Taliban, but many didn't. For many reasons, one of which being the religious fundamentalist doctrine of the Taliban being more popular among some of the population.

No, I would say Vietnam was primarily motivated by Machiavellian geopolitics. However, I would also say that the rhetoric surrounding the conflict was strongly reminiscent of a kind of crusader theology; to the point where the two are indistinguishable save for issues of semantics.

This doesn't mean that every cause is necessarily religious, but it does mean that every cause has the potential to be conceived of in a religious sense. And, more importantly, that many causes which are not traditionally considered to be religious ones are best conceived of in that light.

It being about economics and not religion is not an issue of "semantics", it is the core reason for the conflict.

Just because something is believed with a blind fervor or despite being illogical doesn't make it a religion, nor does it make it supernatural. If someone has blind faith in, say, Marxism they're not pretending like Marxism is magic, they're pretending like it is the natural way society works that makes Marxism the best economic/political system. That's not the definition of what a religion is. To be religious, a person needs to believe in something beyond the material or mundane, not simply believe something about the material that's untrue.

They may have similarities to religion with the way their followers are devoted to them; this is because both religions and other, extreme viewpoints/causes have a similar need to get people's undying support, to be unquestioned, etc. That doesn't make, say, Capitalism a religion anymore than it makes Buddhism an economic system or political ideology.

The pictures I can see, as the Qu'ran explicitly forbids visual depictions of the prophet. It isn't a huge leap to prohibit pictures altogether.

I would say it kind of is. Pictures being of the prophet is the big thing, banning other ones seems kind of bizarre. It would be like saying they should fast all the time, because they fast at Ramadan.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Well, you can have different thresh holds of fanaticism.

Just because "people" support him doesn't mean he is supported at the same level. Maybe violence is more common, in part, because there's more followers of the fundamentalist Middle Eastern demagogues overall?

Honestly, I'm not even sure that violence in the Middle East is all that more common than it is here. The weapons are larger, and the motivations are different, but the overall issue isn't necessarily more pronounced. I remember seeing a study that concluded Iraq had a per capita, annual, violent death toll only 2-3 times higher than the United States; despite being in a state of near lawlessness.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I just said that it wasn't.

It was, however, one authority people could have turned to instead of the Taliban, but many didn't. For many reasons, one of which being the religious fundamentalist doctrine of the Taliban being more popular among some of the population.

But some of the population isn't all of the population, nor is it necessarily larger than 1%. The Taliban was not a popular movement, it was a small tribal coalition that achieved power through extra-national funding and a willingness to use excessive violence. When they seized control of the nation no one opposed them. There was no reason to. For all intents and purposes they simply represented one more group of Mujaheddin chasing power in the vacuum left after the Soviet withdrawal.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
It being about economics and not religion is not an issue of "semantics", it is the core reason for the conflict.

You're completely failing to differentiate geopolitical motivation from popular rhetoric. The crusades weren't about religion either, but that's how they were framed in order to garner support. The same goes for virtually every war in historical memory, with a few small exceptions. People don't fight wars because the nation needs more resources. They fight them because they are swayed by rhetorical force, or compelled to do so through conscription.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Just because something is believed with a blind fervor or despite being illogical doesn't make it a religion, nor does it make it supernatural.

For all intents in purposes, yes, it does. Any ideological creed with an inherently unfalsifiable component (something like: government is bad) is supernatural for the very fact that it eludes classification.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
If someone has blind faith in, say, Marxism they're not pretending like Marxism is magic, they're pretending like it is the natural way society works that makes Marxism the best economic/political system.

You're equating God with magic, that's a mistake. People who believe in God's literal existence don't see 'him' as something that is fundamentally separate from the natural world. God's order is the natural order. There is no distinction.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
That's not the definition of what a religion is. To be religious, a person needs to believe in something beyond the material or mundane, not simply believe something about the material that's untrue.

No, they don't. They simply need to believe strongly in the applicability of some form of myth. If your definition were to apply quite a few liberal denominations of Christianity would no longer be considered religious, as they do not literally believe in the existence of anything beyond the 'material or mundane'.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
They may have similarities to religion with the way their followers are devoted to them; this is because both religions and other, extreme viewpoints/causes have a similar need to get people's undying support, to be unquestioned, etc. That doesn't make, say, Capitalism a religion anymore than it makes Buddhism an economic system or political ideology.

It depends on the context you're considering. Buddhism has been both an economic model, and political ideology at several times throughout history. Just as Capitalism has been a religion, and political ideology in addition to being an economic model.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I would say it kind of is. Pictures being of the prophet is the big thing, banning other ones seems kind of bizarre. It would be like saying they should fast all the time, because they fast at Ramadan.

Meh, that's a bit of a poor comparison. You can't live without food, you can live without having pictures of yourself.

It should be recognised that women are far from equal in the western world, in practical terms, and this is despite at a century or more of secularisation and suffrage within more or less democratic political systems. There are still plenty of people against womens' lib in the west.

It is not surprising that many muslim countries are further behind. Most of them didn't even exist as political entities 50 years ago.

dogma wrote:Honestly, I'm not even sure that violence in the Middle East is all that more common than it is here. The weapons are larger, and the motivations are different, but the overall issue isn't necessarily more pronounced. I remember seeing a study that concluded Iraq had a per capita, annual, violent death toll only 2-3 times higher than the United States; despite being in a state of near lawlessness.

Religiously motivated violence sure is.

Very little violence in the United States is religiously motivated. A more significant amount of violence in the Middle East, regardless of whether or not it's central to the religion, is fuelled by religious divisions. It is true that many religious divisions in the Middle East stem from cultural differences, and not the core doctrines of the Koran, but they've nonetheless become a religious division now. (Like Catholics not eating meat on Friday, etc.)

But some of the population isn't all of the population, nor is it necessarily larger than 1%.

And yet it almost certainly is greater than 1%.

It is very hard to come into power on a religious doctrine that is supported by 1% of the population. There may have been a power vacuum, but someone else would have taken power if the Taliban really only had 1% of the population compatible with it's policies.

You're completely failing to differentiate geopolitical motivation from popular rhetoric. The crusades weren't about religion either, but that's how they were framed in order to garner support.

Then it was the religious fundamentalism that allowed the war to occur.

Blind faith caused the individuals to go fight. It doesn't matter if the Byzantine Empire was trying to get the Middle East off it's back, or if there were too many male heirs around looking for fights. It was a religious war because it was fueled by religion.

For all intents in purposes, yes, it does. Any ideological creed with an inherently unfalsifiable component (something like: government is bad) is supernatural for the very fact that it eludes classification.

"For all intents and purposes" has nothing to do with it, it's the definition of the word.

The first definition on Dictionary.com is 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Furthermore, just look at what the UN thinks of religions, look at what the US government thinks of religions, look at what the vast majority of the world thinks of in terms of what the word means.

Does the UN record persecution based on political or economic ideology as religious persecution? No.

Is the United States prohibited from establishing a political or economic ideology? No, that would throw the country into anarchy, but it is prohibited from establishing religion.

Would 99% of the people you meet on the street call "democracy" a religion? No.

Words don't have any meaning outside of the context in which they are used, have been used in the past, and can be used to describe something. Religion is not used to describe ideology that does not relate to the supernatural/deities/magic. Religion is not used to include democracy, socialism, vegetarianism, Star Wars, or anything else that can have people devoted to it blindly/fanatically/without reason/whatever bizarre criteria you use to define something as being a religion.

It is not used that way by the UN, the US government, or the vast majority of population. Considering that words have no objective meaning, the appeal to both popularity and authority stands, in my opinion.

Things can be believed in religiously without making it a religion, "religiously" only indicates it being held similarly to a religion.

It is possible for an ideology that's mostly political to have religious undertones (Nazism) or a religious core (divine kingship, etc) and in those cases it is, partially, a religion but that is not the case with most ideologies.

You're equating God with magic, that's a mistake. People who believe in God's literal existence don't see 'him' as something that is fundamentally separate from the natural world. God's order is the natural order. There is no distinction.

Tell that to Descartes.

I've been to church since I was a young child and there has always been a degree of separation between the Material and the Spiritual. There has been in Christianity for a long time, it coincides with the political power of kings and the religious authority of the pope.

No, they don't. They simply need to believe strongly in the applicability of some form of myth. If your definition were to apply quite a few liberal denominations of Christianity would no longer be considered religious, as they do not literally believe in the existence of anything beyond the 'material or mundane'.

Only if their own definition is used for 'material or mundane'.

It depends on the context you're considering. Buddhism has been both an economic model, and political ideology at several times throughout history.

What is the Buddhist political model then? Is it democratic? Monarchic? Who is in charge? As an economic model, is it capitalist or command?

You can derive political and economic systems from interpretations of Buddhism, but it's insufficient by itself. That's why it isn't a political ideology or economic model.

The primary focus of Buddhism is spiritual enlightenment, and it's ethics and values relate to an individual's spiritual well-being more than the governing of a state. That's why it's a religion.

Just as Capitalism has been a religion, and political ideology in addition to being an economic model.

Political ideology - to an extent.

Religion - only metaphorically

Meh, that's a bit of a poor comparison. You can't live without food, you can live without having pictures of yourself.

But you can live without eating during the daylight hours.

Besides, there a million other situations where taking "you should not do something this way at this time" and turning into "you should never do anything any way ever". It's just not a logical train of thought.

Why is nobody pointing out the evils of Buddhist Fundamentalist?

Because Buddhists neither proselytise nor try to force law to their beliefs.

Exactly, what is wrong with these people? Why are they not in everyone's face telling them that this life is an illusion and that if they don't accept that their god is an aspect of Buddha that they are doomed to not knowing enlightenment?