[pyro-manic]

Sandy's right. I have the same fear about Christianity...

[Ford Prefect]

I have that fear of large groups of people.

[Rictor]

Yeah, but the support base is far more limited. Not too many people are supportive of any sort of Christian fundamenalism, they're more likely to be atheists. Sure, you could make the arguement for the US these days, but it's a fundamentally secular (ba-dum-pshh) society and while it's fun to pretend that the Christian Coaltion is pulling all the strings, it's simply not true. And in Europe, it's even more far fetched.

Both Islam and Judaism have survived the rise of science better than Christianty, so people are more incilned towards faith.

[Kosh]

Not too many people are supportive of any sort of Christian fundamenalism, they're more likely to be atheists. Sure, you could make the arguement for the US these days, but it's a fundamentally secular (ba-dum-pshh) society and while it's fun to pretend that the Christian Coaltion is pulling all the strings, it's simply not true.

I call BS on this one. The base of the entire Republican party ARE christian fundamentalists. The president is a fundamentalist.

[Sandwich]

*bows to pressure*

What's the latest from London? Last I heard, they'd identified the first victim, but what with the failed car-bomb and the successful bombing in a Netanya mall since then, I haven't heard much else here.

[Kosh]

There was that police raid in Leeds......

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Kosh
I call BS on this one. The base of the entire Republican party ARE christian fundamentalists. The president is a fundamentalist.

I have to agree. Religious fundamentalism is making epic strides in American society. People are looking desperately for reliable absolutes. Although I don't know if I'd say that it's the base of the party.

[aldo_14]

The police believe they've identified the 3 of the 4 suicide bombers (they found documents close to the explosion sites, and tracked the 4 meeting up in Kings Cross Station on CCTV after catching an 8.30 train from Leeds).  It's possible the bus bomb may have been intended for another tube but went off after the tube was closed down.

One man - a relative of a bomber - is in questioning.  IIRC the police launched 5 raids on houses in Leeds on that same day.  Police have recovered explosives from one of these houses, and also from a car at a train station (destroyed in a controlled explosion).

BBC info; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676861.stm
[q]# All four suspects were British nationals of Pakistani descent. It has been confirmed that three of the four were from West Yorkshire

# The men have been named as: Hasib Hussain, 18, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, and Mohammed Sadique Khan, 30

# The fourth man has not yet been identified by police

# All four were captured on CCTV at King's Cross station, wearing rucksacks, shortly before 0830 BST on the morning of the attacks. The footage was found on Monday night

# One suspect was reported missing by his family. Some of his belongings were found on the bombed Number 30 bus in Tavistock Square

# Property linked to a second man was found at the scene of the Aldgate/Liverpool Street Tube bomb

# Items belonging to a third suspect were found at the site of the Aldgate/Liverpool Street and Edgware Road Tube bombs

# One man has been arrested in West Yorkshire and is being questioned in London. He is believed to be related to one of the suspected bombers

# Police have searched the homes of three of the four suspects in West Yorkshire

# Six search warrants were executed in the Leeds area on Tuesday. A controlled explosion was carried out in the Burley area

# A "significant amount" of explosive material was found at an address in Leeds

# The men boarded a Thameslink train from Luton to King's Cross

# At King's Cross, they split up, three of them detonating their bombs on separate trains simultaneously at 0850 BST

# Two cars in Luton, one of which had explosives in it, are connected to the inquiry. Police spent 14 hours dealing with explosive devices found in one car at Luton Central railway station

# The other car was towed to nearby Leighton Buzzard

# Police sources have told the BBC they had not recovered any timing devices from the bomb scenes, possibly indicating that detonation was by hand

# Counter-terrorism officials believe the group of four would have had an outside "controlling hand" who could still be at large

# It is thought the cars were hired by the suspects in West Yorkshire before being driven to Luton

# More than 1,000 calls have been made by the public to an anti-terrorist hotline. Police have studied 2,500 CCTV tapes[/q]

[TopAce]

Originally posted by Kosh
There was that police raid in Leeds......

One Accused arrested, right? And last I have heard, the casualty number was 52.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kosh


I call BS on this one. The base of the entire Republican party ARE christian fundamentalists. The president is a fundamentalist.

Not that I disagree, but what policies has Bush implemented that shatter the Church-State divide? When I say fundamentalist, I mean something along the lines of Iran or Saudi. Bush and the entire Evangelical movement, despite the recent resurgence, are fighting for their survival against growing atheism, and will inevitable lose, it's just a matter of how long religion can hold on. Abortion and homosexuality is still legal, public schools teach a basically secular doctrine, freedom of religion is universal and all public policy is done along strictly secular lines. Ralph Reed may be having fantasies of religious control, but he, nor anyone, has the power to implement them.

Religious fundamentalism, though pesky, is not a real issue in the US, and personally I don't know why it has become the cause célèbre for liberals and progressives.

[karajorma]

You're putting the cart before the horse Rictor. The reason why Bush hasn't managed to outlaw abortion and force the teaching of intelligent design is precisely because liberals have made it such a big issue.

Had everyone treated it like a minor issue these things would have been changed in the same way that Bush has managed to slowly erode other personal freedoms. Even with that he has managed to push abstinence only programs (both in the US and abroad) as well as various other religious based choices whenever he could wrap up the religious part of it in some other disguise.

Yes atheism is on the rise in America at the moment but how long do you think that would continue if Bush was managing to teach the kids the stuff he wants to be teaching them?

The other reason it's become the big cause for liberals is because sadly it's much harder to explain to people why the other infringements are a bad thing because those are explained in terms of security and most people are idiots who'll give up their freedom to be secure and then complain when it's too late and they realise that they've lost them both.

When Bush wants to push a religious agenda you point and say "Seperation of church and state is guarenteed in the constitution"

When he wants to push an authoritarian one it's much harder to come out with a simple one line explaination of why it's bad.

[aldo_14]

And at another divergence;

The first reactionary assault on civil liberties begins; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/14/uk_ministers_data_retention/

[EtherShock]

I find it funny that you're talking about atheism as if it were a religion. I am not religious but spiritual, just making an observation.

Originally posted by Kosh
I call BS on this one. The base of the entire Republican party ARE christian fundamentalists. The president is a fundamentalist.

I also agree with this remark. Religion seems to be a bigger base for the neoconservatives than money, although, not that much bigger. OK, maybe they're about equal, but there are people that will vote for a candidate based on their view of one issue and one alone, which is pretty scary (*cough* abortion). Though our fearless leader may not be a fundamentalist compared to the fundalmentalist muslims, he is a fundamentalist compared to what we are used to, and I don't like the direction he has taken the country regarding religion (for starters). Compared to the rest of the developed world, we are still a very Puritan nation.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by karajorma


Yes atheism is on the rise in America at the moment but how long do you think that would continue if Bush was managing to teach the kids the stuff he wants to be teaching them?]

That's the thing. People can't be had by state indoctrination anymore, because at least in the US, they live in a very open society. Bush could order all schools to teach only creationism, it would still be a lost cause. There are so many sources of information these days, most of which are impossible to censor, that formal education has very much taken a back seat in matters of politics, religion etc (social sciences, as opposed to techical knowledge).

The way I see it, religion, all religion, is on it's way out. It might hold out for some time yet, and that time will be different in different parts of the world, but reason and science is so prominent that there is no going back. In any case, public sentiment does not favour theocracy in the US, even the fundies have to aa large degree appreciation for a secular and republican (small r) form of government. Even if Bush was to dedicate himself fully to implementing a fundamenalist agenda, with complete disregard for public opinion and the law, he still wouldn't be able to accomplish anything lasting. And this is assuming a religious-police-on-the-streets type scenario.

Originally posted by karajorma
The other reason it's become the big cause for liberals is because sadly it's much harder to explain to people why the other infringements are a bad thing because those are explained in terms of security and most people are idiots who'll give up their freedom to be secure and then complain when it's too late and they realise that they've lost them both.

When Bush wants to push a religious agenda you point and say "Seperation of church and state is guarenteed in the constitution"

When he wants to push an authoritarian one it's much harder to come out with a simple one line explaination of why it's bad.

Could be, but I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. Most people in the US *are* religious, so by waging what is percieved to be a war against religion (and let's be honest, having the 10 commandments in a courtroom doesn't suddenly make the country a theocracy, it's purely symbolic), they make themselves that much less attractive to most of the population, without benefiting too much in return.

[Kosh]

It is because the opposition party has made such as big deal out of this that Bush hasn't established a theocracy in this country.


So he has to push his religous agenda slowly. His has to package it as something other than it is. He also has to decieve the general public about what it really does.

There are so many sources of information these days, most of which are impossible to censor,

The chinese government seems to be doing a pretty good job at censoring information on the net. Why don't you tell them that?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
That's the thing. People can't be had by state indoctrination anymore, because at least in the US, they live in a very open society. Bush could order all schools to teach only creationism, it would still be a lost cause. There are so many sources of information these days, most of which are impossible to censor, that formal education has very much taken a back seat in matters of politics, religion etc (social sciences, as opposed to techical knowledge).

 What I'm seeing is me arguing that the government can and will try to be totalitarian and you arguing that it won't. What have you done with the real Rictor?

It's only a short step from allowing the teaching of creationism in class to simply dropping evolution completely. Sure Bush can't turn the country into a theocratic state overnight but he can lay the groundwork for someone who will. Remember that Iran was almost all the way to becoming a fully westernised liberal style democracy before it changed into the theocracy it is now.

Originally posted by Rictor
The way I see it, religion, all religion, is on it's way out. It might hold out for some time yet, and that time will be different in different parts of the world, but reason and science is so prominent that there is no going back.

I agree with the first statement but not the last one. It's not that hard for a country to push itself back to a more religious time. It won't happen unless the other non-religious abridgements of freedom are brought in too but to say it can't happen at all is naive in the extreme.
 Both the religious and non religious infringements we are seeing can very easily feed on each other. It's not hard to go from the "If you're not with us, you're unamerican" to "If you're not with us, you're unchristian". Especially when you consider that the vast majority of Americans are religious as you say.

 

Originally posted by Rictor
In any case, public sentiment does not favour theocracy in the US, even the fundies have to aa large degree appreciation for a secular and republican (small r) form of government. Even if Bush was to dedicate himself fully to implementing a fundamenalist agenda, with complete disregard for public opinion and the law, he still wouldn't be able to accomplish anything lasting. And this is assuming a religious-police-on-the-streets type scenario.

Bush couldn't, those who come after him could. This is a long term problem not a quick 5 minute convert or die one.



 

Originally posted by Rictor
Could be, but I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. Most people in the US *are* religious, so by waging what is percieved to be a war against religion (and let's be honest, having the 10 commandments in a courtroom doesn't suddenly make the country a theocracy, it's purely symbolic), they make themselves that much less attractive to most of the population, without benefiting too much in return.

That is a problem but the only alternative is to let it all slide and bring the country down with it. Hammering on about the little things makes it clear that there is a huge problem with the bigger ones. If it weren't for things like that battle less people would have heard of seperation of church and state.
 The idea is to draw the line in the sand exactly where the consititution says the line should be drawn. That's not a bad idea as it means that they can point at the constitution and say that's why. If you choose to wait and draw one later everyone says "why now?"

[Deepblue]

Why has this thread focused on the US. I thought it was London that was bombed...

[karajorma]

Cause all threads where the word fundementalist is used eventually end up mentioning America

[Deepblue]

Joy...

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Rictor
The way I see it, religion, all religion, is on it's way out. It might hold out for some time yet, and that time will be different in different parts of the world, but reason and science is so prominent that there is no going back.

Religion? On its way out? I think you might as well say art is on its way out. It's hardwired into us like speaking and reproducing.