Re: So what! - Fundamentalism

The fundamental purpose of all religions, as well as of secular morality, 
is an identical one.
Today's so-called fundamentalism is a travesty, a cloak of false 
advertising adopted by common bigots.
Ignorant of the meaning of their own teachings, these "fundamentalists" 
fight over superficial symbols and dogmas, straying far from real 
fundamentals like tolerance and common sense.
Khaldoun and John Till are right about the times, too - the most barbaric 
century in history was the 20th, and this one has started off even worse. 
And yes, materialists have broken all the records for baseless bigotry and 
bloodshed.

At 13:05 29.1.03 -0800, Khaldoun Samman wrote:
> Hi Warren and others,
>
> Thanks for that interesting post, but I think you are
> speaking to a like-minded audience when you discuss
> the negative potential of all fundamentalism.  On your
> argument that this politicized religion is
> "pre-capitalist" hits me, however, as being off the
> mark.  I don't mean to sound sarcastic here, but as
> far as I know mankind has not yet invented HG Wells
> time machine. Do you mean to tell me that Khomeini and
> Pat Robertson, by placing themselves in opposition to
> liberal modernist discourse, are actually a
> reincarnation of a pre 16th century Feudal mentality?
> I respectfully disagree.  I believe such characters to
> be quite at home here in our period.  The only stunt
> they have to perform is learn a few techniques from
> other, more "progressive" characters who have accepted
> the mantle of state power.  Khomeini indeed did not
> act unlike most other figures who have acquired state
> power, and your description of the Irtanian revolution
> sounds not unlike any other modern revolution: they
> all after coming into power opressed the workers,
> forced their women into submission, and produced
> surplus for the ruling classes.  Some were, of course,
> more efficient in one or the other fields of
> oppression, but they were all playing to the same
> tune. On the ordered, hierarchical society you use
> Iran as example, my comments are the same.  Khomeini
> learned this from watching too many Star Trek films
> and adopted his form of Islam to function well with
> the modern apparatus of social control we call the
> modern state.  You can call this precapitalist if you
> want but a star trek disciplinary system was not
> available to the Abbasid caliphate or the Mamlukes.
> No, they had to depend on that awkward, inefficient
> tributory system with all of its complications.
>
> Khaldoun Samman
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com