# Whats Your Religious Beliefs?



## apple=god (May 21, 2005)

I was just wondering what the fine people on ehmac's beleiefs are, religiously.  

i'll start: I'm bahai.


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

Not a lot of options really, and is an Athiast like an Atheist?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

How long did you take preparing your poll? Next time, take your time to think about it first.

A search should answer your question about ehMac's diversity: http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=28802&highlight=religion+poll


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

Atheist. I believe in me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Prove it


----------



## VNJ85 (Feb 24, 2006)

I have heard the line "I swear to God I'm Atheist" before.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Bahai, eh? Are you a convert or born Bahai?

Bahai seems to be an odd animal. They accept the teaching of the prophets of most religions, except for those teachings that contradict Bahai ideas. For instance, they accept that Mohammed was a prophet, but cannot accept his teaching that he is the last prophet because it contradicts Bahai teaching.

No matter what, religions have irreconcilable differences. Once you start smoothing out the differences, all that is left is characterless glurge.

Regardless of its "inclusiveness," Bahai still insists on old-fashioned ideas about sexuality. If a fundamentalist was looking for a more "tolerant" faith, Bahai wouldn't be it. The sexual morality of Bahai resembles typical orthodox religions (i.e. no extramarital sex ever).

It gives Bahai a strange "inclusive but not inclusive" feeling to it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> "I swear to God I'm Atheist"


Devious character obviously 

••••

Atheist with Vedic/Buddhist/existentialist/Objectivist overtones. Personal ontological views ..... NOT a religion.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

I was raised "Roman Catholic" but that is overshadowed by my belief that the worst sin Man can commit is to force his beliefs onto others...

The pope and I do not agree...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Atheist, until God tells me otherwise.


----------



## Glipt (Aug 7, 2003)

Interesting that athiest is included as an option for religious beliefs. Indeed the scientific community has become its own religion with all who question the teachings of the prophet Darwin persecuted for their "non-scientific beliefs".

Oh well, I guess it's payback time for centuries of religion persecuting science.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Glipt said:


> Indeed the scientific community has become its own religion with all who question the teachings of the prophet Darwin persecuted for their "non-scientific beliefs".


Persecuted? How? And describing a scientist as a "prophet" is a clue to your misunderstanding of science.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> teresting that athiest is included as an option for religious beliefs. Indeed the scientific community has become its own religion with all who question the teachings of the prophet Darwin persecuted for their "non-scientific beliefs".
> 
> Oh well, I guess it's payback time for centuries of religion persecuting science.


The stupidity of the poll questions/design was noted immediately and I'm QUITE sure every one identifying themselves as atheist would correctly tell you listing atheism as a religion is just plain incorrect use of language.

as I noted for myself



> Atheist with Vedic/Buddhist/existentialist/Objectivist overtones. *Personal ontological views ..... NOT a religion*


something the poll creator clearly does not understand.........amongst other things.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Atheist with Vedic/Buddhist/existentialist/Objectivist overtones.


Someday you'll have to explain to me how this smorgasbord fit together in your mind. It's like trying to build a single model out of Lego, silly putty, and erector set parts.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> How long did you take preparing your poll? Next time, take your time to think about it first.
> 
> A search should answer your question about ehMac's diversity: http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=28802&highlight=religion+poll


But searching is too hard....oooh so hard...and I want my own special poll.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

lpk - It's actually quite easy ...

Atheist - no godhead or greater intelligence is in play......

Bhuddist.Vedic provides a nature of reality understanding to get rid of the me/not me duality.
( this aspect is closest to quantum physics versus classical physics where the quantum effects really are not experienced day to day but underlie all day to day phenomena )

Existentialism and Objectivism have more to say about interaction with self and others in the "real world" tho existentialism bridges back to nature of reality as well - dealing with - once you know you are free....what do you do. 
If you like, they represent some consistent manner, thought and approach to view self and others , choice, ethical activities and are subject to change and greater understanding......it's a process approach just as scientific method is.
Let's me shrug off the constructs and memes that are destructive or out of place or time.

Bhuddism also offers some "approach to others" guidance - very few Bhuddists are violent so in my mind an exemplary method of living with others. Dealing with emotions etc.

The consistent theme is no godhead - no external "greater intelligence" 

Reality is entirely within my mind and can be no other way. I am only what I perceive and my apartness from the rest of the physical world is an artifact of my mind.
( atman principle in the Vedas - they acknowledge the self feels real but that it's actually illusory )

Bottom line - I make my universe...."no one is watching". 

Once you eliminate godhead many philosophies and "ways of living" share concepts - the major distinction is in "mind apart" or "mind as one" with the external reality. Personally I like the oneness - looking into the eyes of another primate and experiencing the kinship - not the differences.

Some are content to take "reality apart from self" as sufficient to build on. I have no argument with those that do - just as people can go through life neither needing to know about or understand quantum physics.

But stepping off a roof.....that everyone NEEDS to know about. Classical physics will bite you every time if you try to deny consequences. 

Crossing an angry primate may equally get you a bloody nose if you fail to heed the facial cues......Bhuddist principles might save you that.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> The stupidity of the poll questions/design was noted immediately and I'm QUITE sure every one identifying themselves as atheist would correctly tell you listing atheism as a religion is just plain incorrect use of language.


Atheism is not a religion, but it does identify your religious belief, so there's no flaw in the poll question.

i before e, except after c and in atheist


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Glipt said:


> Indeed the scientific community has become its own religion with all who question the teachings of the prophet Darwin persecuted for their "non-scientific beliefs".


There is nothing wrong with questioning scientific theories, and I haven't heard of anyone being "persecuted" for opposing the theory of evolution.

"Intelligent Design" arguments are built entirely on a presupposition. There is no evidence, no experimentation, and no benefits. That last point is key, because the study of the theory of evolution is entirely self-funded. The benefits of those studies have direct affects on medical science and other studies of biology.

There are lots of interesting Podcasts on these topics (Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Debates between the two).


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Once you eliminate godhead many philosophies and "ways of living" share concepts - the major distinction is in "mind apart" or "mind as one" with the external reality. Personally I like the oneness - looking into the eyes of another primate and experiencing the kinship - not the differences.
> 
> Some are content to take "reality apart from self" as sufficient to build on. I have no argument with those that do - just as people can go through life neither needing to know about or understand quantum physics.


I have to be honest here: I have no idea what you're trying to say. But I will tell you what you *sound* like:

from http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=37630



> _WORD SALAD, a.k.a. SESQUIPEDALIANISM:
> 
> This is a recipe for sophisticated babbling. Ingredients include: philosophic sounding words and sentence structure, unintelligible Latin terms, banal folk wisdom, jargon, catch phrases, truisms, etc. Sprinkle lightly with a few words that appear to pertain to the subject. This will sound very impressive without really saying anything and will buy time to think of something meaty to say while your lips are flapping. In some circles such machinations can actually be passed off as an answer--or a point!
> 
> "In view of the federal budget deficit, civil unrest, and international politics, we need to consider that, notwithstanding the mitigating circumstances, this country has got to get back on its feet. Don't you agree?"_


It's nothing personal. I just don't get the "philosophic problems" you claim Buddhism or existentialism solve for you.

I also hear a lot of concept-dropping (like name-dropping) when people start babbling about quantum physics. Quantum physics relates to the motion of sub-atomic particles (typically electrons). Trying to draw meaningful philosophical conclusions from that is an exercise in futility. (It reminds me of the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who claimed free will is a result in the "swerve" in deterministic atomic particles.)

You also misspelt Buddhist several times ("Bhuddist"). I'm not a spelling-nazi, but when something is important to me, I usually know how to spell it.

Finally, no Objectivist would say this: _"Reality is entirely within my mind and can be no other way. I am only what I perceive and my apartness from the rest of the physical world is an artifact of my mind."_

But Ayn Rand did say some other more sensible things:



Ayn Rand said:


> _To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe - from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life - are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given - i.e., the nature of nature is outside any volition._





Ayn Rand said:


> _Just as man's physical existence was liberated when he grasped the principle that 'nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed,' so his consciousness will be liberated when he grasps that nature, to be apprehended, must be obeyed - that the rules of cognition must be derived from the nature of existence and the nature, the identity, of his cognitive faculty._


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I think the Google ads sum this thread up nicely:

Religious Fundraisers
Plan Your Fundraising Activity with Our Smart & Profitable Solutions. 

Believe in God?
We'll pay you $75 right now to complete a simple survey! 

Buddha
Meet others into the Buddha & change the world with us


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

> You also misspelt Buddhist several times ("Bhuddist"). I'm not a spelling-nazi, but when something is important to me, I usually know how to spell it.


Actually, I apologize for this. It was a cheap-shot. Sorry.


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

Atheist...I was born Catholic, but I've gotten over it!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Everyone needs to believe in something.

I believe I'll have another beer.


----------



## LaurieR (Feb 9, 2006)

I was raised Anglican but knew at a very young age that church was not the right thing for me.

My religion is to try my best to be a good person. I figure the rest will work itself out.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

I worship at the Altar of Steve.


----------



## Mad Mac (Mar 13, 2005)

Wicca....


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> I worship at the Altar of Steve.
> __________________
> I didn't vote for Harper, I swear.


I take it from your signature that you are *not* refering to Steve Harper when you talk about "worshiping at the Altar of Steve"...


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> I take it from your signature that you are *not* refering to Steve Harper when you talk about "worshiping at the Altar of Steve"...


No, I was referring to His Holy Steveness, God of all things Macintosh.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Agnostic. I am thinking of becoming a fundamentalist, too. I'd shoot at people while yelling "I dunno why!"


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I'm developing my own.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

PosterBoy said:


> Agnostic. I am thinking of becoming a fundamentalist, too. I'd shoot at people while yelling "I dunno why!"


I assume your taking a potshot at Christian fundamentalists since most agnostics and atheists are scared @#$less to take them at Muslims.

Actually if you want to start killing people you're perfect right where you're at. Lots of agnostics and atheists do it on a regular basis right here in Canada. Unless all the crack heads and gang bangers in Toronto poppin people off on a weekly basis are big fans of Huntley Street and attend weekly scripture study? I bet a lot of them are just good ol' atheists or agnostics like yourself. With no God to be accountable to, I'd imagine it can be pretty liberating for the index finger when your pointing a handgun at somebody. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> I assume your taking a potshot at Christian fundamentalists since most agnostics and atheists are scared @#$less to take them at Muslims.


Why should I be afraid to mock them? Do you have to be religious to take pot shots are other religions? 



MacGuiver said:


> Actually if you want to start killing people you're perfect right where you're at. Lots of agnostics and atheists do it on a regular basis right here in Canada. Unless all the crack heads and gang bangers in Toronto poppin people off on a weekly basis are big fans of Huntley Street and attend weekly scripture study? I bet a lot of them are just good ol' atheists or agnostics like yourself. With no God to be accountable to, I'd imagine it can be pretty liberating for the index finger when your pointing a handgun at somebody.


Wow. You're equating violence to lack of organized religion. That's <em>super</em>. Almost makes you forget about all the killing that's gone on throughout history in the name of religions that espouse peace. Almost.

Here's a question: why do people seem to think that being agnostic means lacking belief in anything?


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

The answer is in my avatar.


----------



## DoNotPokeTheScreen (Jun 9, 2005)

Buddhism's the ideal religion. No God, no attachment to the world, thus no wars over god(s). However, I don't believe in anything.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I assume your taking a potshot at Christian fundamentalists since most agnostics and atheists are scared @#$less to take them at Muslims.


There is no such thing as "Muslim fundamentalism." Only a Christian can be a fundamentalist, because it refers to the Fundamentals (like biblical inerrancy, the diety of Jesus, etc). Fundamentalism is a Christian sect, just like Protestant, Catholic, Anglican, etc.

The press often refers to Muslim fundamentalists, but Muslims never use such a phrase to describe themselves. The correct expression would be "orthodox Muslim."

By the way, I am an atheist, but definitely not scared @#$less of Muslims (or any religion).


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

PosterBoy

When you used the term "fundamentalist" you were painting a pretty broad stroke. Are you trying to tell me that fundamentalist Christians (Pentecostals and Baptists etc.) are to blame for all killing in the world? If you became a Pentecostal you'd suddenly be knocking people off? Be specific. Our country is full of Christians that would describe themselves a fundamentalists and you've slandered thousands of good people with your statement. 

Are there fundamentalist Penticostals and Baptist gang bangers killing people for their sneakers in Toronto? Are Hell's Angels sponsoring the next Billy Graham Crusade? Are our courts and prisons filled to the brim with fundamentalist Christians?

As for history you'd be naive to attribute fundamentalist religions with every atrocity committed, I don't recall Stalin being a born again Christian. How about Genghis Khan? Kim Jong-il? Chairman Mao? etc. etc. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> By the way, I am an atheist, but definitely not scared @#$less of Muslims (or any religion).


It would seem the western media doesn't share your courage. 

I've seen some pretty offensive crap published against Christians in the media and in TV programming but the pansies got a sudden case of "religious sensitivity" with the Mohammed cartoons. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Dyslexic Atheists do not believe in Dog.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> When you used the term "fundamentalist" you were painting a pretty broad stroke. Are you trying to tell me that fundamentalist Christians (Pentecostals and Baptists etc.) are to blame for all killing in the world? If you became a Pentecostal you'd suddenly be knocking people off? Be specific. Our country is full of Christians that would describe themselves a fundamentalists and you've slandered thousands of good people with your statement.


Wow. First you equate gang violence to agnosticism/atheism and now you accuse me of insinuating that Christians are to blame for all the killing in the world? Where do you get the idea that I am talking about any one religion in particular? Where do you get off that it's ok for you to commit libel (remember, this is print) against every atheist and agnostic person in the world but not for me to poke fun at the religious?

Remember, the right to free speech goes hand in hand with the right to ignore someone you don't want to listen to.




MacGuiver said:


> As for history you'd be naive to attribute fundamentalist religions with every atrocity committed.


It's a good thing I never did then. Please stop putting words <del>in my mouth</del> on my keyboard. I did, however, point out that there has been a lot of killing in the name of religions that preach peace and fellowship.

And you didn't answer my question, either.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Are our courts and prisons filled to the brim with fundamentalist Christians?


Christianity and other similar mental illnesses are disproportionately over represented in our prisons, actually. Less than 1% of the prison population describes itself as 'atheist' whereas about 10% of Canadian citizens do.

In contrast to your previous suggestion that lack of supernatural beliefs liberates one with respect to taking another life, I think that the widely held belief in an 'afterlife' (especially one that brings justice to the dead) is a much more dangerous meme. Given that I have no reason to think that someone's existence will continue in any way after they die, it make's their life infinitely more precious; it's the only one they're going to get.

It also means that the only meaning my life has is that which I create through my actions, and no amount of praying or wishing is going to make any difference.

I'm sure you'll find some way to continue to blame atheists and the continuing decline of religious adherence in civilized society for all the ills you perceive, but I really think that civilization will be much better off without the bronze-age superstitions that have been dogging our history for so long. Religion is a safety blanket we not only no longer need, but one which we are constantly tripping over.

Cheers


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> There is no such thing as "Muslim fundamentalism." Only a Christian can be a fundamentalist, because it refers to the Fundamentals (like biblical inerrancy, the diety of Jesus, etc). Fundamentalism is a Christian sect, just like Protestant, Catholic, Anglican, etc.


Fundamentalism can describe any religion, as it describes those who believe a literal interpretation of scripture:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> Fundamentalism can describe any religion, as it describes those who believe a literal interpretation of scripture:
> 
> http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html


All Muslim movements accept the Qur'an as literal truth, the words of God to Mohammed. Differences among Muslim sects arise from the interpretation of "hadith," the caliphate succession, the sharia, and other "minor matters," not over the literal truth of the Qur'an. 

Unlike Christians, who argue over every detail of the Bible, Muslims are in considerable agreement with regards to the Qur'an, even when they violently disagree over other stuff.

The term "fundamentalism" was coined for a sect of Protestants in American. Using it for any other group a) whitewashes the differences between Christian Fundamentalists and other orthodox groups, and b) is explicitly rejected as a label by non-Christians in all circumstances.

There are no "fundamentalist Muslims," just as there are no Theravada Jews or Zen Catholics or Protestant Hindus.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Christianity and other similar mental illnesses are disproportionately over represented in our prisons, actually. Less than 1% of the prison population describes itself as 'atheist' whereas about 10% of Canadian citizens do.


Got a reference for that?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Fundamentalism in this day and age is a derogatory term which can be applied to essentially any religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

<blockquote>"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion. It has especially come to refer to any religious enclave that intentionally resists identification with the larger religious group in which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon which the larger religious group is supposedly founded have become corrupt or displaced by alternative principles hostile to its identity.

This formation of a separate identity is deemed necessary on account of a perception that the religious community has surrendered its ability to define itself in religious terms. The "fundamentals" of the religion have been jettisoned by neglect, lost through compromise and inattention, so that the general religious community's explanation of itself appears to the separatist to be in terms that are completely alien and fundamentally hostile to the religion itself. Fundamentalist movements are therefore founded upon the same religious principles as the larger group, but the fundamentalists more self-consciously attempt to build an entire approach to the modern world based on strict fidelity to those principles, to preserve a distinctness both of doctrine and of life.</blockquote>


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Where do you get off that it's ok for you to commit libel (remember, this is print) against every atheist and agnostic person in the world but not for me to poke fun at the religious?


You equated mindless killing with being a fundamentalist. 

"I am thinking of becoming a fundamentalist, too. I'd shoot at people while yelling "I dunno why!"

A Baptist, Pentecostal or evangelical Christian would be defined as a fundamentalist. That would make your own statement rather libelous would it not? What makes your accusation of mindless killing "poking fun" but my statement "libel"? I merely gave you an example of violence in our cities today that has no relation to fundamentalist Christians and may include many people that share your belief or have none. Thus you don't need to convert to kill people for no reason as you stated you would.

I do understand the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. However, you often share the same hatred for fundamentalist Christians as your original post would seem to indicate. Why else would you desire to attack them when you were simply stating your own belief?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> What makes your accusation of mindless killing "poking fun" but my statement "libel"?


The difference is that I made a joke (read: satire, without malice) whereas you made a serious comparison.


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

Dog is _my_ co-pilot!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> Got a reference for that?


http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

However, I will be the first to admit that, since the poor, uneducated minorities are highly over represented in the prison population, this likely has much more to do with sociology and economics than philosophy.

But good on you for being skeptical.

Cheers


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Again with the mental illness comparison...

Anywho, 'tis no mystery what I am.


Oh, wait, apparently it is. OK, let me say again, I am a Christian who is NOT conservative (somewhere left of Marx, usually, and not the funny Marx), who believes in the importance of critical thought, in fact, believes it to be of paramount importance, and who believes in the validity and relevance of virtually all religious and non-religious philosophies and ways of thinking. And I work for the largest non-Roman Catholic denomination in the country, within whose bounds I am mainstream.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

One day, God gathered all the leaders of all the warring religious factions together. God said, "You have been fighting and arguing amongst yourselves for a very long time, so I have decided to come here to tell you that *all* religions are correct.

Well, all except one.
'Bye."


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> Fundamentalism in this day and age is a derogatory term which can be applied to essentially any religion.


Not true, especially since many fundamentalists refer to themselves as fundamentalists. They obviously don't think the word is derogatory.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Actually, it is true. The term fundamentalism as it is used today (and as I previously exlained) denotes not any one group, but rather groups --typically on the fringe-- who advocate a return to the fundamentals of a particular religion.

Whether there is a group called the Fundamentalists or not, the definition that I quoted is the more common, and certainly more well known definition today.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> Actually, it is true. The term fundamentalism as it is used today (and as I previously exlained) denotes not any one group, but rather groups --typically on the fringe-- who advocate a return to the fundamentals of a particular religion.
> 
> Whether there is a group called the Fundamentalists or not, the definition that I quoted is the more common, and certainly more well known definition today.


More common among whom? Muslims patently reject the term, for reasons I have explained (but you don't understand).

This "usage" is the result of lazy journalists. If that's the best you can look up to, have it your way. I prefer terminology that makes logical sense.

Here is the definition of "fundamentalism" from Dictionary in OS X Tiger:

*1. a form of Protestant Christianity that upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible, including its narratives, doctrines, prophecies, and moral laws. 
2. strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology, notably Islam

Modern Christian fundamentalism arose from American millenarian sects of the 19th century, and has become associated with reaction against social and political liberalism and rejection of the theory of evolution. Islamic fundamentalism appeared in the 18th and 19th centuries as a reaction to the disintegration of Islamic political and economic power, asserting that Islam is central to both state and society and advocating strict adherence to the Koran ( Qur'an) and to Islamic law ( sharia), supported if need be by jihad or holy war.*

The "Islamic Fundamentalism" described here is Wahabi Islam, the movement that lead to the establishment of Saudi Arabia. This sect is virtually unknown anywhere but Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

But Wahabi was not about "returning to the Qur'an" but extinguishing Islamic jurisprudence (or "Fiqh.") And that was not about religion at all, but a political movement. The fact that Islam has a religious element, a purely cultural element, and a purely political element contributes to this confusion among westerners.

Wahhabi is not a religious movement, but a political ideology. Thus, there is no comparison with Fundamentalist Christianity at all.

I am a stickler about this issue for a reason: a great many Muslims are tarred as "fundamentalists," even though they are mainstream Muslims, and have nothing to do with Wahhabi at all. When westerners call Muslims "fundamentalists" they betray their own ignorance of the differing Muslim sects.

Calling a Muslim a "fundamentalist" is as insulting as calling a Hindu an "idol-worshiper" or a Catholic a "papist."


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Here's another way to look at it: The relationship between Islam and Wahhabi is like the relationship between Judaism and Zionism. The former is a religion and a cultural movement, the later is a political movement.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Yeah, I'm not getting into this with you because I get tired of being insulted by people (in fact being tired of it almost got me banned once, oh sweet irony) and this thread is screwed up enough as it is. If you don't want to consider that one word can have two definitions and contexts, well, good for you.

I will say this, though: a lot of Salafi Muslims consider "wahhabi" a derogatory term. Just FYI. Salafism is a sect (which refuses to call itself a sect) that emulates the first three generations of Muslims as it is believed they exemplified the practice of Islam (as dictated by the prophet, but I can't remember the exact quote off the top of my head).

I'm not getting why you're so hung up on Muslims, though. To this point I hadn't mentioned any specific group (other than agnostics, that is). Either way, I'm done. kthxbi.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> bryanc said:
> 
> 
> > Christianity and other similar mental illnesses are disproportionately over represented in our prisons, actually. Less than 1% of the prison population describes itself as 'atheist' whereas about 10% of Canadian citizens do.
> ...


http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Shows an email reportedly from Denise Golumbaski, Research Analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons (USA). The author of the web site only changed the order of the statistics from alphabetical to sort by percent.

There's some commentary on the above here: http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison2.html

The key point is that while 16% of Americans report no religious affiliation (2004 study by Institute for Jewish and Community Research), they represent well under .21%  of the prison population.

While the study uses the term "atheist", there are no options for agnostic or humanist, so I think it's reasonable to assume, that all non-religious would have chosen the "atheist" option. Unfortunately, about 20% of prisoners did not respond.

I've also seen similar claims for Canada but haven't seen any hard data.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers">Quakers represent!</a>


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Apparently you were presented with the "Kick Ass" site award.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And there is not farting allowed. I'm just glad it's not a scratch and sniff web site nevertheless.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So...how much money you got in that bank account of yours?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So...how much money you got in that bank account of yours?


Isn't that question sacrelige?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------

