Is this what we’re arguing and killing each other? Over these manuals?
“You don’t change the oil that way on the way to Graceland! You do it THIS WAY!!! Or else I’ll kill you, you son of a jackal!!!!!!!!”

ME? I drive a polytheistic car, a Saturn (he was the God of fertility and agriculture). I kind of like reaping and sowing….

Maha, maybe next time we can tackle the Easter Religions – Honda, Toyota and Suburu

Looking for God is OK folk’s, just don’t make fun of other people’s owners manuals.

‘Nuff said…

Have a nice weekend, all!!!

You wrote a good article, but your responses put you in the running for a Pulitzer Prize (when they start giving those out for blogging) RightOn!

Did I not say ALL the world’s major religions? I did. However, the monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) are particularly susceptible for the simple reason that generally they are more dogmatic — more based on adherence to belief and dogma — than other religions. The Karen Armstrong book I cited focuses only on those, although the web page on fundamentalism I linked to also lists Hinduism as a religion infested by fundamentalism.

Buddhism is non-dogmatic,meaning that belief is less important than practice, which makes it less susceptible to fundamentalist theology. In some cases (e.g., Zen, which essentially teaches that all beliefs are crap) Buddhism is even anti-dogmatic. Even so, some sects have grown dogmas over the years, and some sects have taken on some of the characteristics of fundamentalism described on the “Faith and Fundamentalism” page, but I’m not aware of any sects that have become totally fundamentalist.

There are a number of other religions I also didn’t include, such as Baha’i, Jain, Shinto, Zoroastrianism (which I discuss here), Confucianism (which one might argue has always been fundamentalist by nature) and Taoism. I consider Sikhism to be a sect of Islam, but the Sikhs are unlikely to be fundies.

I don’t see that “what is a Christian?” is an impossible question. A Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus. Those teachings can be interpreted a lot of different ways, of course. But people who label themselves Christian but aren’t even making a token effort to follow the teachings of Jesus are not, IMO, Christians in a religious sense. You could argue they are “Christian” in a kind of loose cultural sense, I suppose.

I see that you are a hateful person and determined to hate me. If you have any other comments I suggest you chill awhile before posting them.

You see something as impossible to define as “what is a Christian”, and see it as easy to define as a vacuum cleaner or refrigerator? Nothing fundamental or rigid about your attitude.

So youre a Buddhist huh? I’ve known a few enlightened Buddhist. I just never met one that would suggest that about themselves.

Sir, your thinking is mushy. The Third Reich wasn’t a threat to us because they “hated” us. Their emotions were beside the point. It was ideology and greed for power than made them dangerous. The U.S. had to defend itself.

Self-defense is OK in Buddhism. Back in the day Zen monks really did develop and practice martial arts, you know. But you can defend yourself from someone without hating him. Again, emotions are beside the point. If you have to defend yourself, then defend yourself. And then let go of defending yourself (Zennies are big on not clinging).

By showing loving kindness to Germans after the war, via the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift, the U.S. turned an enemy into an ally. Compare that with punitive attitudes toward Germany after World War I, which had a lot to do with causing World War II.

Useless and meaningless, you say? I don’t think so.

It may not be appeased by hate but it can certainly forestall it.

How do you square your sentiments with WW2? Were the bombs dropped on Germany manifestations of loving kindness?

You make so much sense and so often but such bland offerings as “hate is never appeased by hate…” are really useless and meaningless.

Fundies’ alleged “literal interpetation” of scripture, which amounts to picking and choosing what fits their prejudices, is not the fundamental (cough) problem. Fundamentalism is a social-cultural movement that infests religion and corrupts it, like cancer. In many ways the fundamentalist movements in all the world’s major religions — particularly that of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam — are the same disease. They only seem different because the host religions they feed on are different.

I realize that the Christian version of fundamentalism supposedly began with a theological movement in the early 20th century, but I think it’s more accurate to say that the social movement that took the name “fundamentalism” isn’t really about those theological ideas.

There’s a good explanation of the disease of fundamentalism here. For a more in-depth analysis, I recommend Karen Armstrong’s book The Battle for God.

BTW, it’s because I respect Christianity and the teachings of Jesus that I speak out against fundamentalism.

Update; One more thing –

When secular observers say “These arent real Christians”..They are employing the very black and white world with no shades of grey they accuse the “fundy” of employing.

You only see it that way because “Christian” to you is a value judgment. However, I am more dispassionate about it all, as I am no Christian, either, although neither am I “secularist.” I was raised Christian but converted to Buddhism years ago.

I am just saying that Malkin is no Christian. My cat is not a dog; my refrigerator is not a vacuum cleaner. It’s just a statement of fact. Catty, yes, but fact nonetheless.

Obviously theres a paradox presented by symbolic scripture. You cant stop an attack by some thug trying to kill you or a loved one, and embrace the “love thine enemy” position at the same time. Likewise, you cant be so filled with hatred toward an enemy that you are consumed by it and forget to show mercy and compassion when your foot is on that enemies throat.
When secular observers say “These arent real Christians”..They are employing the very black and white world with no shades of grey they accuse the “fundy” of employing. They agree with the “love thy enemy” Jesus but cast aside the “dont judge” Jesus?

You dont have to be an adherent to a 2000 year old religious tradition to be narrow minded. You only have to have a narrow mind.