Display:
Well, it is true that Fundamentalists throughout the decades have rejected "Modernism," if we can name it this way. Because,it seems to me, that the term Modernism , all of us refer to, is basically the norms and principles that democratic societies live by. Having  in mind that the majority of the world lives by those standards, it is reasonable to assume that if some ideology should be considered irrational and labelled as some kind of movement, this must be Fundamentalism.
Here is how the dictionary defines Fundamentalism: "a movement advocating return to traditional principles: a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles." So far, nothing bad, huh? It sounds nice and it implies that some people, you see, just want to preserve their roots and heritage. Well, in reality, it is much more worse. There is no harm, if one wants to go back to his or her traditional principles, and as far as the movement is peaceful, everything is fine. However, when our children and parents start to die because a bunch of people strives to preserve their traditional principles, it is no longer acceptable. Let it alone, the "global terrorism" thing. Watch the videos with the twin towers and the bombing of London and Madrid, and think again if the violent are a small percentage.

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong, in particular, the so called Islamic Fundamentalism. I respect religious belonging and I am not a racist, but when it comes to violence, I am little bit pessimistic. It is just hard for me to believe that any religion could proclaim violence as an adequate way of demonstrating one's faith.  

So, what can be done?

  1. Time? How many decades should we wait? How many innocent people should die? Patience is a virtue, yes, I agree. The question is, should we be virtuous towards people who kill our close ones?Should we be patient?

  2. Persistence? Persistence on what? I say, eradication.

  3. I do not have a solution, and I am pretty sure neither of you does. What I know is that being patient would not help, and that throughout the last 30 years, since the rise of the Islamic Fundamentalism, there are countless victims of terrorist attacks.

So, what do you propose?

verchenceto
by verchenceto (veronique@mail.bg) on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 10:07:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the norms and principles that democratic societies live by. Having  in mind that the majority of the world lives by those standards,
Are you sure of that?

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 10:14:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure of what?

Am I sure that the majority of the countries in the world are democratic states? Yes, I am sure.
Today most of the states had embraced the principles of democracy with just a few exceptions. And this is a fact that everybody should be aware of.

There is still a debate going in, however, as to how efficient a democratic polity is. In any case, this is the best form of government, historically speaking, that political and social think tanks have come up with. And this is the way it is.

by verchenceto (veronique@mail.bg) on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 05:33:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series