The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

The mindset of Muslims and other religious Fundementalists.

I put a blog post up because of a need to post a link to a site and a discussion by some very well informed and qualified people but was kindly informed by another Nexian (?), that blog posts are more personal and the link could disappear very quickly off the main page. So this is a bit of a re-post.

Having been brought up by Catholics with all the incest, peadophilia, rape other sexual misdemeanours, sexual repression, emotional and intellectual repression that reresents i found a link at the Jihad Watch site that seriously examines the mindset of the Islamics. However this, i feel is a mindset applicable to all theistic groups be they mainstream or more 'sectist' in character.

Our society is in a phase where if one posits any opinion or belief it IS going to be examined as is the society/grouping they claim to represent. In examining mindset of fundementalism i think it has a lesson for us all especially as a rise in religious fervour on either side has a concommitant effect on the opposite side. Just what the mono-theists desire.

When one thinks of the Christian Brotherhood and Sisters of Mercy in Ireland and direct involvement of government not in just covering up but, i feel, in many cases, direct involvement. Are we closer to the mindset of the prosytilisers of Sharia ie: religous law than we think.

Also whilst speaking of Ireland in concentrating on the sexual aspects of the case, although it is still ever present, some young women were incarcerated in the Magdelena Laundries for being too pretty and they were looked upon as too much of a temptation for men, why is that not analogous with the Muslim mindset! Those young women were also kept there, in most cases all there lives in conditions akin to Nazi slave labour camps. Anyway here's the link.

Cannot get the link to paste in the forum. It's on the blog i posted but can't get it to paste here. The link takes you to frontpagemag.com and the piece is entitled 'Symposium: The rape of unveiled women'.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Meddlesome on June 23, 2010 at 7:03am

Where is the link ?
M.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david hartley on June 23, 2010 at 7:05am

trying to put it up now but it won't accept it for some reason, will keep trying

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david hartley on June 23, 2010 at 7:07am

any ideas why the link won't post ??????????

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on June 23, 2010 at 7:38am

here

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david hartley on June 23, 2010 at 7:47am

Thanks jaume, don't understand it, it posted in the blog post!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adia Lynette on June 23, 2010 at 12:33pm

Just as a friendly suggestion, David. If you want to boost your credibility with people who are educated on Islam or religion in general you might want to consider two things: The followers of Islam are called Muslims, not "Islamics" (notice that term is spell-corrected when you type it). There is no such thing as an "Islamic", so please don't use Muslims and "Islamics" interchangeably because of one those terms is nonexistent. Objects and ideas always Islamic, but people are always Muslims.

Secondly, the title suggests that all Muslims are fundamentalists which shoots down your credibility with anyone who doesn't buy into the idea that to be a Muslim is to automatically be a fundamentalist. A better title would have been "Religious Fundamentalists" or something that implies they are not a whole, but rather subsection of their over all faiths. If you intended to paint them all with a broad brush, then I withdraw my second suggestion.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david hartley on June 23, 2010 at 4:15pm

I'm using broad brush strokes as i tend to do especially on a discussion forum and being pedantic does not advance the discussion one bit but no doubt bolsters your pomposity hugely. I've suffered terribly, and continue to do so, from religion all my life so i do not give an f about the semantics of their titles or position. You knew very well whom and what i am talking about so perhaps a comment upon that would have served us all better.
Perhaps all Muslims are not fundementalists but i use some of the terms in a way some people seperate Zionists from Jews, they are all interchangeable terms depending on the thrust of the argument. All Muslims that call themselves so can be seen as Islamicist in the thrust of what i was attempting to say in their adherence of their beliefs and lack of self critique or censure of the more outragous of their kind.
Plus the fact if i have used the terms incorrectly excuse me i have actually spent time working with Muslim youth and you could be seen, in part as correct because i was also trying to seperate the ideas from individuals.
Is that all you can do, honestly mark other peoples opinions for grammatical and or semantic mistakes? Have you followed through to the link i attemted to post, any comment on the dynamics of a society like that or it's prevalance in Western society especially in regard to the Catholic. Not a peep on that, are you an apologist set to destroy other opinion on the basis of semantics. PS. over all is different than overall wide reaching encompassing; over all above everything; what a bugger these interchangeable terms are.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adia Lynette on June 23, 2010 at 5:14pm

It was advice. Take it or leave it.

I spent 10 years in the prison of Islam and really could care less what people are saying about it. So, no, I didn't bother with any of your link or your ideas because it's all white noise in my ear. I'm sick of Islam. I just wanted to tell you that you that you may come off a certain way and loose your credibility with certain audiences. Period. Once again, take it or leave it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david hartley on June 23, 2010 at 5:27pm

The Catholics at intermitent periods between the ages of around 4 to around 8 would keep me in a pit dug in the backyard of a house, for what i never knew. That is one of the milder things they did to me and my only witnesses are the people that did it. Although run by men the abuse of other men is far from uncommon. I am still in that prison

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olga Spelts (Human Bean) on June 23, 2010 at 1:03pm

Agreed. I think alot of places that dont identify as theocracies would actually qualify as an informal theorcracy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david hartley on June 23, 2010 at 4:32pm

Living in England the head of faith is the head of religion, so it's not that informal but i know what you mean. Perhaps today's America is the best example of what you're saying.
Here in England at the last election Cameron was promising (a relative of the Queen), to set up more faith schools, a fact that seems to have slipped under the radar. Nothing was said. So to argue against myself and back to your point, perhaps that makes England a casual theocracy.