Christians get it PRETTY bad when the crusades or any act of extremists are mentioned. Same thing for Islamic beliefs.

Would you refer to these violent extreme acts associated with a particular belief as RELIGION or FANATICISM? Why or why not?

~looks at watch and hums~

They could be either. A particular branch of Islam, Wahabism, teaches violent jihad against non-Muslims. In that case, it's a religion that is the cause of the problems. Not all Muslims, but one particular flavor of Islam. Christians take it on the nose for a couple abortion clinic bombings that happened, but I am not aware of any denomination of Christians that espouses blowing up abortion clinics. In that case, it is clearly fanatism of the individual(s), not the teachings of a particular religion. West Boro Baptist is an example of a group of about 100 people who hold beliefs that are repugnant to almost all Christians. Their brand of fanatism is sometimes used to paint Christians as hatemongers, but West Boro's beliefs are too distorted for any objective observer to confuse the two.

Wow that text is rough on my eyes Mr.spider. You have very valid points. Do you get offended as a Christian when some may attack you with the crusades?

Just to define words..


fa·nat·i·cism

Fanaticism is an emotion of being filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby


religious fanaticism - considered by some to be the most extreme form of religious fundamentalism.


re·li·gion

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

What I really want to know is whether people believe that fanaticism is an accurate representation of a religion?

why does anyone care?

Do you speak for EVERYONE?

The reason I posted this because in discussions (especially here) people misuse the word religion when they should consider fanaticism.

Wildone do you associate yourself with any particular religion?

Actually I don't. I believe in MANY things. I have "mixed worldly faith."

repeat

Do people believe that fanaticism is an accurate representation of a religion?

Ok, perhaps you don't understand what a rhetorical question is. My point is that why does it matter if anyone cares if you think the words are being misused? Maybe to someone else, religion can only have effect if it is practiced in the characteristics to which you define fanaticism.

Despite language, for some, religion IS fanaticism, and you really CANNOT say it's wrong, right, or purple.

Wildone4lyfe,

No, not at all. The crusades started as a response to Muslim invasions. During and following Mohammad's life, Islam was forceably spread throughout the Middle East and into Italy, Spain and France. The crusades started in 1095 AD and lasted 200 years, but Jihad started in 635 AD and haven't stopped. When Christians started the crusades, 2/3's of the Christian world had already been conquered by Islam. Christianity is exemplified by the teachings of Jesus who died blameless, but some who claim the mantle of Christian fail to follow Jesus as closely as they should. Jesus taught that self defense was allowed by God's laws, so the original response to the invasion of appropriate. The later crusades were the work of the Catholic church, which is composed of men. Men make mistakes and sometimes terrible mistakes. I don't feel that anyone should be held accountable for the actions of others.

Fuzzy as an agnostic, I would expect that answer.

This post isn't about me but what other people feel. I think you should have just kept the attitude to yourself.

"Despite language, for some, religion IS fanaticism, and you really CANNOT say it's wrong, right, or purple."

BINGO..My thread is asking why for a discussion.

******************************************************
If people use the wrong terms that aren't religious, society would question your intelligence and throw a thesaurus at you but yet when it comes to religion discussions things slide.

Interesting post Spider. Are you implying that God would accept a killing rampage?

Wildone4lyfe,

Not at all, but God wouldn't blame you if you killed someone in self-defense. Wars of defense are also acceptable. There is a thread where I discussed this in detail somewhere around here...

I don't have an attitude. As an agnostic it means I don't know if God exists. However, agnosticism IS a religion. Atheism is a religion. The fact that one has no beliefs is, in fact, having a belief system and, therefore, a religion.

So as an agnostic, I have a system of beliefs that I practice. It doesn't mean that I should debate the zeal present in other's belief systems. Why are you NOT zealous/fundamental/fanatic about your beliefs? It is obviously something personal that you feel strongly about, and that is completely acceptable.

My point is only a bit more blunt than spider's actually, though I'm not as learned in the various denominations of the world religions to have given hard examples.


*shakes his etch-a-sketch*

To start over...

Why some religions skew towards fanaticism... I am not a theology master, I have no answer. I liken it to sports fan(actic)s. The Cubs fans will always love thier baseball team and say it is the best damn baseball team in the world. However, they haven't won a World Series in quite some time. Why are they so zealous? It's probably got something to do with having a cause.

*shakes his etch-a-sketch*
To start over...
----------------------------------------------

That's cute. applause!~

Yeah that's pretty funny I guess..

That being said, I think that Wild has mad an extremely valuable point; the power of language and the importance of definition should never be shifted to the side lines.

I too am an agnostic, and I am one of the ones who gets offended when a religion gets blamed for fanatics. To use your example Fuzzy, if a bunch of Cubs fans burned down Shea Stadium, how would you feel if they blamed the entire sport of baseball? I bet you would make sure that nobody associated you with those fanatics; after all, they aren't representative of baseball enthusiasts as a whole.

So there is no "despite language". The irresponsible use of language is a major contributor to ill relations between various groups. You can't discount language, because it is how we interact with each other. Cut out language and you are cutting out the "glue" that holds us together.

Back to the main point of the topic, when you fail to separate the zealots from the religion, you undermine the teachings that are inherent. Should Christianity be discounted because a handful of folks calling themselves Christians murdered a bunch of innocents? Should Buddhism be discounted because Buddha was a dead-beat dad? Should we eliminate soccer because of soccer hooligans?