Quickies

Skepchick Quickies, 7.27

Jen

Jen is a writer and web designer/developer in Columbus, Ohio. She spends too much time on Twitter at @antiheroine.

Related Articles

14 Comments

  1. It’s strange how, in Canada, there are a lot of voters who think Big Government is inherently dangerous, yet who also vote Conservative, and think Stephen Harper (the Canadian Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party) is somehow going to downsize Big Government. Harper is, in my opinion, a highly dangerous person specifically because of the unlawful powers he is arrogating to himself. The muzzling of publicly-funded scientists is an example of this reckless behaviour.

  2. Harper terrifies me. I can deal with having just another corrupt politician whom I disagree with in office, but he’s taken it to a wholly new and subversive level that I have no idea how to counter. He’s a smart guy, and he’s figured out something about how the mind of the voting public works that has eluded his rivals. The Harper Government has become an impressively slick information control machine. He’s turned the apathy of Canadians to his advantage.

    It’s tough to rally voters against someone when no one knows what the hell he’s up to.

  3. I have problem with the Breivik article. It essentially makes a “not a real Scotsman” argument saying that Brevik could not have been a Christian Fundamentalist because he didn’t believe the religious Jesus only the cultural Jesus. I think it’s splitting a fine hair. For the most part he killed people because he didn’t think the civic religion was conservative enough. That’s fundamentalist enough for me.

    1. I’m not sure it is such a fine hair. Would an atheist be incapable of caring so exclusively about a particular world view that he/she would want to commit violent acts or want to provoke a revolution? I think so.
      I don’t think religion is the cause of terrorist acts. Religion can help large numbers of people to act in unison, but so can ideology* – and reasonable people still won’t commit horrible acts even if their religious or ideological group prompts them to.

      * And, BTW, I think that large groups being able to act in unison, while potentially dangerous, is also often essential for achieving anything great. So I’m not bashing this aspect of religion/ideology.

    2. I disagree with your analysis, disagree with your definition of Christian fundamentalist and agree with Fjeldstad. To me a Christian fundamentalist is someone with a strong belief in god and some conservative interpretation of Christianity. Breivik only cares about Christianity as a European cultural phenomenon and only cares above its conservativeness in that he opposes the current ecumenical trend from the mainstream religions, not because he believes it an offense to god, but because it moves the church away from being an ally against Muslim immigration.

      To re-quote just one of the the parts of the manifesto: “It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).”

      If you want the term “Christian fundamentalist” to encompass someone wanting a “secular European society” you’re of course entitled to your opinion, but I think you’ll be in a small minority.

      1. Yep, the definition of a fundamentalist Christian is that they believe in the fundamentals of the “historical” Christina faith. In other words, the. divinity of Christ and his death and resurrection for human sin, inspiration, accuracy and authority of the bible, god’s ongoing involvement/intervention in the lives of believers… .

  4. Not to mention Jesus himself approves of many forms of violence. Of course, one would have to actually read the bible to figure that out. A task which most Christians fail to do.

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close