[Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?

[Ted Moffett]

Kai et. al.

I've already explained why, from a legal and law enforcement perspective,
not a common dictionary definition perspective (there is major difference),
the sort of definition of terrorism you just quoted is problematic.  I could
quote the scholars and legal experts I have studied on this issue...

But this is all besides the point... A diversion from the main issue of this
thread.

>From Paul R.'s post:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2007-September/048201.html

For example, a well-mannered  person of faith might raise a child into that
faith that becomes an  extremist.  The danger as he sees it is that faith
allows any act to be justified, no matter how cruel or how evil an act it
is.  If you think God is telling you to do it, then, by God, you'd better do
it.  This, of course, is not helped by the fact that the holy books of the
most common
Western religions contain passages that can be rationalized as a reason for
murder, among other crimes.  For example, my favorite, "you must not suffer
a witch to live".
---------------------
You have not addressed the central point of Paul's original post in this
thread, that of the widespread promotion by religion of incredible
propostions, central to a person's ethical outlook, that are not based on
reasonable evidence; and how this can contribute to a climate in society
that fosters extremism, which does not mean only terrorism.  It means denial
of critical scientific findings, oppression of women, persecution of gays,
politicians using religion to manipulate the faithful, and viewing those of
other faiths as "damned," thus fostering religious prejudice, etc.

You claimed that environmentally friendly people might be linked to
promoting eco-terrorism, in some way similar to how those who follow
religion might be linked to religious extremism.  But the question remains,
what incredible propositions that are not based on reasonable evidence do
the environmentally friendly people promote, that the eco-terrorists
then use to justify committing terrorism?

Millions of people in the world believe the Bible or the Koran is the
literal absolute word of the one creator of the universe.  Millions of
people believe this is the absolute truth, and many think they can
prove this with evidence.  One way or the other, this is an incredible
claim, that can be taken to extremes rather easily, given the quotes from
these books that can be interpreted in extreme ways... Homosexuals might be
exiled, rather than stoned, and adulterers executed, in some cases, to quote
a prominent local minister, referencing the Bible:

*"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to
death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."*
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

*If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the
woman must be put to death.*  (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
--------
Maybe friendly environmentalists promote the idea that if you save the
whales, you will become a billionaire and live in paradise on Earth till you
are 120?  Or do they claim that those who pollute the Earth should be burned
at the stake, like witches?   "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Exodus 22:18

The 9/11 hijackers believed they would be guaranteed a place in heaven in
their martyrdom, based on their religion, and quotes from the Koran.  Those
who promoted the idea that the Koran is the absolute literal word of the one
true creator of the universe, thus promoted a belief that was involved in
justifying the 9/11 attacks.  To make your comparison carry the same weight,
environmentally friendly people would need to promote the belief of some
sort of equally incredible proposition.  And since you were looking for a
non-religious example, the incredible belief can't be a religious one.

I don't buy the idea that environmentally friendly people are a threat to
society based on the promotion of incredible beliefs not supported by
reasonable evidence, that carry the power of commands from God.  But the
argument is that religion is a major threat to society by widespread
promotion of incredible improbable beliefs that can easily justify
extremism.

Ted Moffett


On 10/2/07, Kai Eiselein <fotopro63 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From Dictionarydotcom:
> Terrorism:
> 1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for
> political purposes.
> 2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or
> terrorization.
> 3. A terroristtic method of governing or resisting a government.
> I believe that describes rather well what ELF, ALF and Earth First! do.
> **
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071003/78690610/attachment.html