Thursday, October 27, 2005


As indicated in the previous post, Harris does not like the term radical or even fundamentalist. He makes the point (and I agree) that those that we call radical are actually those that have not betrayed their faith for the comfort of our more liberal society. (Yes, Christian and Moslem alike).

Those that embrace their faith totally are considered extreme...but failure to adhere to ALL the tenets of the religion is a betrayal. First a person betrays reason to hold beliefs that are fundamentally irrational, and then s/he betrays the faith by not embracing all of it. The irrational becomes devoid of the capacity for any reason. Why do we even consider LISTENING to people such as these?

People have been very concerned with Bush and his reliance on faith to guide him in his executive duties. But if you were to suggest any of those people were antagonist towards religion in general, many (if not most) of those people would quickly proclaim their own faith and religious credentials.

Radicals are the true believers, the strict adherents to their faith. They are marginalized by those outside of the religion but those inside the religion, much to their own dismay, defend them! What choice do they have? (Before anyone gets on their high horse, if the Inquisition had the tools of today, the slaughter would be as great if not greater than we are facing now. Christians had their own bloody period when 'infidels' were killed with almost giddy abandon.) The radical must be defended. The defender must either accept that the radical has a clear and correct position, or must acknowledge the shortcomings of their own faithfulness.

Even the faithless have their own radicals...


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home