h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

i'd just like to point out that christian fundamentalists blew up the federal building in oklahoma city

rightly so, but they where not labelled christian fundamentalist, and it was blamed on Islamic terrorists at first untill the people who commited it where court.

What I mean is, well over here in England any way, there is no label of christian fundamentalism. The IRA are not labelled as fundamentalist, the guy who did the oklahoma bombing was not labelled as a fundamentalist.

I think its the same in America, my friend over there say they never hear of the term christain fundamentalist or jewish fundamentalist.

Adib

"over here in England any way, there is no label of christian fundamentalism."

Yes, there is.

"The IRA are not labelled as fundamentalist,"

For the perfectly good reason that they are not fundamentalists. They are simply Catholics who enjoy blowing s**t up.

You can be a terrorist without being a fundamentalist, just as you can be a fundamentalist without being a terrorist.

"the guy who did the oklahoma bombing was not labelled as a fundamentalist."

He was by some.

"I think its the same in America, my friend over there say they never hear of the term christain fundamentalist or jewish fundamentalist."

That rather depends on who they're listening to and whether they're paying attention.

If they're paying attention, they may hear quite often about Christian fundamentalists, but hear them labelled "the Christian right", "the anti-abortion lobby" or "Creationists" (this term seems to refer exclusively to Christian creationists, even though Jews and Muslims are required to reject scientific explanations of the origin of life and the universe).

Christian fundamentalists have more in common with Muslim fundamentalists than either have in common with the moderate members of their own religion. However, Christian fundies do not like to admit this, and thus reject the label "fundamentalist" altogether.

The media cooperate, so that for most people the word "fundamentalist" suggests "Muslim", rather what it should suggest: "idiot".

H.

Salaam

High H good to hear from you.

Some interesting points made there, as usual with you. Don't let it go to your head.

* You can be a terrorist without being a fundamentalist, just as you can be a fundamentalist without being a terrorist.

I agree fully.

* "the guy who did the oklahoma bombing was not labelled as a fundamentalist."

* He was by some.

Maybe in America, but not from what I heard in England. I can't speak for American media but in British media no one labelled him a fundamentalist. Of course some people labbeled him as such, but I'm talking about main stream media.

My point being that main stream media usually only use's the term fundamentalis and a name of a religion when talking about Islam, well thats how it is in England.

* (this term seems to refer exclusively to Christian creationists, even though Jews and Muslims are required to reject scientific explanations of the origin of life and the universe).

Not to start a debate but Islam fully supports the big bang concept and the expansion of the universe and how the universe formed after the initial bang. Though it does disagree with evolution Islam does allow that a specific animal will adapt to its enviroment and that the fitist will survive. It comes to where you divide the border. Islam does not allow, say a cow evolving in to horse, bad example but its all I can think of right now. And I know you would and could probabley say that I am wrong etc etc, so lets aviod a debate.


* Christian fundamentalists have more in common with Muslim fundamentalists than either have in common with the moderate members of their own religion. However, Christian fundies do not like to admit this, and thus reject the label "fundamentalist" altogether.

The media cooperate, so that for most people the word "fundamentalist" suggests "Muslim", rather what it should suggest: "idiot".


I agree fully with this statement and think it should be etched into concrete.

Adib

Just to respond to one thing:

"My point being that main stream media usually only use's the term fundamentalis and a name of a religion when talking about Islam, well thats how it is in England."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wormseyeview/story/0,,1242119,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1193760,00.html

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1162199,00.html

One newspaper's website, three different subjects (state school curricula, gay rights, satire), all referring quite clearly to fundamentalist Christians.

In fact, recent broadsheet newspaper coverage of the American elections in the UK makes fairly frequent reference to the fundamentalist Christians who make up Bush's unswerving support. Indeed, recent articles I've read have pointed out that one of the problems the Democrats have is that they are generally a well-educated, secular bunch, and they're trying to use facts (e.g. a million more people out of work since Bush came to power, no WMDs, American servicemen's bodies piling up by the day, to say nothing of Iraqi civilians...) to persuade these people, and are confused and frustrated because the people they're talking to fundamentally (!) don't CARE about facts. They don't run their lives on facts. Faith is all they need. Facts, especially inconvenient ones, are irrelevant.

Of course, you don't see these references in the tabloids - but they definitely ARE there in the media (on Radio 4 and Newsnight too...)

H.

I stabd corrected, and Iagree that news night does include things like that, not so sure about radio 4 I don't listen to the radio that much.
Channel four is usually good on a unbiased level really. They usually have the more interesting programs to watch on.

Adib

I stand corrected, and Iagree that news night does include things like that, not so sure about radio 4 I don't listen to the radio that much.
Channel four is usually good on a unbiased level really. They usually have the more interesting programs to watch on.

Adib

Adib,
your example about evolution - you're right, it is a bad example. The theory of evolution does not allow a cow evolving into a horse. They're both separate, modern species that have evolved independently in their own environments.

You say that Islam allows for an animal adapting to its environment and that the fittest will survive? Then in this case, this would mean that Islam would also allow for species to adapt and become more suited/adapted to their environments. It sounds like you're saying that, actually, Islam doesn't disagree with the theory of evolution after all.

Karl

Islam says that all species where made by Allah (swt) and Islam allows that animals can adapt to there enviroment and that the fittest will survive, but it does not allow a species to evolve in to another. I think a better example would be that it is not allowed for say dinosaures to evolve into birds. Or rather thats as far as I can find tregarding the topic of evolution.

adib