I give you a few paragraphs from a comentary by Ralph Peters contributed to American Heritage magazine. The similarities between king Philip the 2nd of Spain and Bin Laden. Do you see similarities with a group of others or an orgnization?
His faith was gruesome and dark, for his god was a terrifying being, and the only lesson he drew from religion was fear.His respect for his god was all the deeper and more profound since he lacked respect for every other creature. The common goal of despotism and religion for religion's sake is conformity. He could imagine no higher achievement than regimented faith. Each word above applies perfectly to Osama Bin Laden but those lines were written 200 hundred years ago about Philip the 2nd of Spain after a literal reign of terror. The only salient between Philip and Osama is that the former enjoyed, if he enjoyed anything, official power and formal authority. But their bitter souls are twins. For in their deficiencies and deformities we see not only the enduring foes of liberty, of conscience and warm faith, but a reflection of the enemy that lurks within us all. Such men require a vengeful god and the belief that few are chosen for salvation, the confiction that this world is hopelessly sin wracked and that the lives of others may be sacrificed in atonement. Each figure is ultimately a blasphemer against his own religion, having appointed himself gods instrument on earth, assuming the license to kill those who do not share his vision, to purge, to punish, to sanctify. Extreme and violent fundamentalism is the dark familiar of each of the great monothiestic religions. The comfort of faith is a tenuous thing so the fearful among us crave certainty. The weak fortify themselves with a faith of stone, impenetrable to reason, evidence, or mercy. Fanatics reap their most abundant harvest of followers in the deserts of fear. Philip insisted upon the imposition of past virtues-much exagerated- on a struggling present, as Osama does today. This is the mark of deeply frightened men. One of the most enduring arguments down through time is over whether the divine force is essentialy benevolent or disciplinarian. In their craving for certainty, the weak want rules. But only if they are universal-not just aplicable to all but enforced upon all. The rest of the world wants more of what we have-wealth and power but traditionalists refuse to pay the cultural price to earn it. If for example your family's ultimate wealth is the virtue of its women, if the woman is owned by the man placed above her by devine sanction the freedom of american life where women freely converse with men in public, inspires tremendous rage. It threatens to rob the male of his last shreds of power.
This is only a snippet of the whole article but covers the parts I found so interesting.
Tell me does this ring a bell with any of you.