re: #105 Desmond

Perhaps it would help if you differentiated between fundamentalist and moderate? This is the heart of the issue.

When you use the word fundamentalist, it makes it sound like nothing but a more zealous minority, reactionaries against a rising tide of modernism. But is that an accurate representation? Is a “fundamentalist” someone who goes as far as to support suicide bombings in defense of Islam? And is a “moderate” someone who merely supports stoning adulterers?

Helpfully requoted from above:

You know, fundamentalists. The folks who think you really are going to hell for not believing in their ONE TRUE RELIGION and are willing to trample all over your rights just to make sure that THEIR VISION of the world is fulfilled and we all abide by it.

I think that covers my working definition pretty well and should answer your question of whether I think someone who believes adulterers should be stoned to death is a “moderate.”

I also spelled out clearly why you are getting pushback. You are criticizing the religion for the actions that people take in its name, ignoring the folks in the religion who point out that these actions are in fact inconsistent with their beliefs. And this condemnation is specific to Islam, without paying any mind to examples of Christian fundamentalism in action in the modern times. You ignore all the factors outside of religion that have a huge influence - otherwise why is there such a difference between the opinions of Saudi Muslims versus Indonesian Muslims versus Muslims in the US, for example?

I believe that all fundamentalists, regardless of their religion, will gladly use it as an excuse to trample the rights and lives of others, up to and including violence. I do not believe there is any one religion that supports this more than others. I believe that by focusing on the religion instead of the actions and the root causes that support and encourage fundamentalism, you play right into the hands of the fundamentalists.