Huffington Post: When Is A Religion 'Extremist'? [Food for thought!]

by AndersonsInfo 66 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Simon

  Yet, in terms of actual behaviour, JWs do not advocate or carry out any part of this 'destruction'. Is that an extremist belief though? Yes. Does it lead to extremist behaviour? No.
  

  That's the major difference between Christians and Muslims. Whatever the Christian belief about non-believers and what's going to happen to them, they usually believe that God is the one who's going to do any smiting. Yes, it's sick that they think they get to watch, but it's passive. They can wait for their imaginary friend for another 2,000 years and not do any harm.

  But Muslims believe that they must act out Allah's vengeance on the infidels themselves in order to get his blessing which makes them vastly more likely to be dangerous and extreme from the get-go.

  A christian practicing their beliefs is usually a normal, functioning member of society. A muslim actually practicing their religions beliefs is a psychotic killer.

  Although I am not convinced that the Muslims living in my local community could be described as extremist in terms of their behaviour on the basis of the above argument.

  A genuine muslim is not your friend - they cannot be both, their religion doesn't allow it so one of those is a lie. But thank god most of them are frauds and hypocrites who are only in it to survive the culture that imposes it on them.
• 

  doubtfull1799

  The JW claim is that EXTREMISM = VIOLENCE. They are NOT violent, therefore they are NOT extremist. This is a bit of a straw man argument since they are extremist in their thinking, they just outsource the violent application of their theology.

  However, while I don't think it actually will, there is nothing to stop that from changing in a heartbeat. They are always re-interpreting and "refining" their theology, so what if one day they decide they have "new light" - Jehovah no longer requires they outsource vengeance to Him, he is asking them to exact vengeance themselves, in His behalf, with His authorisation. Would they all wake up at that point? Or would some keep following the lead of the slave and accept this new direction?

  The fact that it would not be in their interests to do so would stop them ever making that change one would hope, but theoretically.....
• 

  Bugbear

  AndersssonInfo

  I think that your post is one of the most interesting I have seen here lately. In fact I would like to read a whole academic essay on the subject. Can you make one? I would gladly by a copy. I think it is true that some religions encourage their believers to violence. Jainism is probably the only I know who doesn´t. Even Buddhist monks in certain area advocates violence in order to correct those who do not accept their belief system. And I think you can find individuals in almost every religion that thinks he/she will do God a favors if he beat/kill torture an defector or disloyal. It´s the personal mindset of the individual person that makes the Muslims, the Chatholics , the Jeevwish, the Pentacostal and all other religion dangerous. I my self has certainly seen JW,s with a mindset that doubtless could be very dangerous if some , charismatic leader pulls the trigger. Wasn´t the Oklahoma bomber a KKK? Breivik from Norway killed about 72 people whit shotguns because he had Nazi ideas. In Sweden we have had a number of “normal” white Swedish guys that that thinks immigrants are dangerous and grabbed a gun going out and shoot them…

  It is not your religion or the color of your skin that makes you dangerous, it is your mindset and weather you some sort on mental diagnose…
• 

  pbrow

  “It effectively means that holding their beliefs and manifesting them is tantamount to a criminal act in Russia. They risk new levels of persecution by the Russian authorities,” said international legal counsel, Lorcan Price.

  Totalitarian thought police. Do dubs THINK that I am an apostate and therefore not talk with me? Yep..... They have every right to THINK what they want. They have every right to not talk to me. The beauty of it is I have every right to THINK they are fucking nuts and I have every right to talk to whoever I want.

  POS propaganda piece indeed.

  pbrow
  
  
• 

  breakfast of champions

  But even Christianity, in it’s many definitions, has a sorted history, which is seldom talked about and often dismissed.

  Being picky here, but this guy supposedly has a masters in education and I expect better: Christianity could have a sordid history; I'm not sure what it means to have a sorted one.
• 

  EdenOne

  Steve 2 - Yet, in terms of actual behaviour, JWs do not advocate or carry out any part of this 'destruction'. Is that an extremist belief though? Yes. Does it lead to extremist behaviour? No.

  Simon - A christian practicing their beliefs is usually a normal, functioning member of society. A muslim actually practicing their religions beliefs is a psychotic killer.

  When one considers that, in obedience to the Watchtwer's teachings, most Jehovah's Witnesses treat ex-members as though they are dead men walking, waiting to be destroyed in the Armageddon, I would argue that such BEHAVIOR is worthy of being classified as "extremist". They "kill" family members and friends by cutting them from their lives and treating them as if they were dead. That behavior is psychological violence.
  
• 

  pbrow

  Edenone,

  I am never going to message you directly again. If I were to see you in person I, I would never talk to you. You may want a reason or may try to reason with me to change my view but I have the right to not converse with you for whatever effing reason I want. Does that make me extremist? Maybe, but it does not give my government the right to make my beliefs (read.. thoughts) illegal.

  The slope that these rusky apologists are walking is a slippery one indeed.

  pbrow
• 

  EdenOne

  pbrow,

  You, I, and everyone, have the personal right to decide to not communicate with someone based on whatever opinion we have of said person. That doesn't make anyone an extremist. If I believe someone in the neighborhood is a pedophile, I am entitled to shun that person and instruct my children to stay away from any contact.

  However, it is a whole different matter when an Organization teaches and coerces its members to discriminate against others based on religious, racial, ethnical, or sexual differences. That constitutes a violation of human rights. That is indeed extremism. That is what the Organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses does. Ask the Jehovah's Witnesses if they would stop shunning ex-members if the Governing Body would tell them it was a matter of conscience and no one would suffer retaliation if he would decide to have normal social dealings with ex-members. I risk saying the vast majority would stop shunning. And that would clearly demonstrate that Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun as an expression of their free will, but rather, they take that extremist behavior in obedience to organizationally directed shunning.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  EdenOne: Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun as an expression of their free will, but rather, they take that extremist behavior in obedience to organizationally directed shunning.

  This is a critical observation.

  You can extend that to "Jehovah's Witnesses do not shun (insert behavior, eg. write letters to the Russian government) as an expression of their free will, but rather, they take that extremist behavior in obedience to organizationally directed shunning (insert behavior - eg. what kind of medical treatment to accept, what kind of blood is okay and what is not...)

  JW behavior, regardless of what it is, is "organized". The group as a whole - the true believers, that is - is a singular unit that is directed and controlled by a singular entity that demands loyalty to death. That death can be the result of following WT directions on blood or it can be death in a prison camp. The WTS doesn't care - as long as that loyalty is proven with the true believer's last breath.

  That is extreme. Extreme loyalty, evidenced by willingness to die for the organization. The violence is internal.
• 

  pbrow

  Like I said, slippery slope. So you now want to legislate what groups I can or cannot join?

  Fuck you! (not literally you but anyone telling me what group I can or cannot join)

  I spent 30 years of my life getting marching orders from this group. It was not until I started thinking for myself that I got out. When I realized that there was indeed NOTHING keeping me inside, the only walls keeping me in were in my own head.... walls that I could knock down ANYTIME I wanted to. Did I suffer consequences of making the decision to take my life back? Sure... welcome to the real fucking life.

  I can concede that certain actions are asinine or maybe even extreme but individual liberty is worth the price of having certain individuals or even groups with ideologies that are "extreme"

  Choosing who I want talk to or do not talk to or what medical treatment I want is a personal decision that I want to be allowed to make for myself.

  pbrow