Ignore at your peril!

[Paddyram]

...remembering that the greatest genocidal periods in mankind's history were spurred on by Occidental makings and "civilisation.

The holocost, The Crusades, South America, yep there are loads of examples.  We sure have come a long way from Monkeys, ain't civilisation grand.

[Paddyram]

Genocide was always spurred by total regimes, like Islam is today. Turkey by the way isn't a good example, Erdogan says his religion is the weapon ton the West.
You have an open mind you say, do you know what sign is hanging above the mainroad to Mekka?
Try to find that out too and you know how openminded Islam is.

I brought up Turkey as an example of a moderate muslim country that allows many more freedoms than other muslim dominated nations.  No sharia law, it has women involved in business, in politics, education, etc. that sort of thing.  If you go back too far in any nations history you will find graves.  In Turkeys case it would be thousands of slaughtered Albanians.  I was using Turkey as an example of progress showing that Muslim countries can move towards a secular state no matter what the dominant religion is.
But again we end up discussing the extremist Muslims, not the moderates.  Islam isn't open minded, neither is Christianity, in fact no religion can be called openminded it would be self-defeating if it was, It is down to people to be open-minded, organised religions can't be open by their very nature.  And atheism would be the same.  Any faith, even if it is the faith that there is no faith (atheists) is closed-minded.  Perhaps that definition of atheist doesnt suit me personally, lets just say i am open minded and open to persuasion if anyone can make a good enough argument.

[Paddyram]

Just checking .. Would you all agree that extremist in any faith are dangerous ?

[redrover]

Just checking .. Would you all agree that extremist in any faith are dangerous ?

One could even extend such dangerous extremities to political ideology. Systems of establishment are one and the same.

[isanbirder]

Just checking .. Would you all agree that extremist in any faith are dangerous ?

Generalisations are always dangerous, and nearly always untrue (except this one, of course).  Islamic extremists are more dangerous than the Bible belt nutters for two basic reasons:  (1) they have connections on a worldwide basis, whereas the nutters are localised, and (2) they go for random targets, aiming to kill apparently almost for the sake of killing, whereas the nutters are usually more dangerous to themselves (e.g. Jonestown).

The only political system, if you can call it a system, which went in for random killing was Anarchy (I believe it was an anarchist who killed the Archduke in Sarajevo, sparking off World War I).

[redrover]

These {Christian} heartland nutters/extremist that you speak of are really not that isolated nor a cliquey mentality. Such a testament of this thought process is widely accept throughout the halls of government - all branches. Been like that for a good century. Wonder why the American government, in one covert/overt form or another has chosen to mingle in affairs worldwide where it doesn't belong. Rest assured gents, continued the American intervention into every affair is quite comparatively akin to any such invented {and growing} and fabricated Islamic "threat". Think, gentlemen. The repeated story has been played for you over and again - most can't see it. Very simple and logical propaganda and social engineering techniques are in display here - very Eurocentric/culturally-centric techniques. We seem to have been misguided and misdirected as to whom the "real" boogieman might be through contemporary history.

[isanbirder]

I thought the discussion was about extremism?

American intervention (hardly Eurocentric) is certainly not extremism;  it may be power politics, but that's not quite the same thing.  It is also not terrorism, where the discussion started.

Keep to the point if you can, Redrover.

[Paddyram]

Just checking .. Would you all agree that extremist in any faith are dangerous ?

One could even extend such dangerous extremities to political ideology. Systems of establishment are one and the same.

True, I'll agree with that.

[Paddyram]

Would this (apparent) consensus among us that extremism is dangerous then lead us to a conclusion that to progress civilisation should move towards more moderate liberal centre-based ideologies.  But wouldn't that lead to stagnation and then again foster an atmosphere ripe for a new extremism to evolve.  Maybe the rise of extremism (the current rise of violent fundamentalist islam included) is inevitable and recurrent, and in a few decades our children will be having these same arguments about some other 'great evil' rising somewhere in the world.   Depressing isn't it ?

[Prakhonchai Nick]

Just checking .. Would you all agree that extremist in any faith are dangerous ?

I would agree, Furthermore since all faiths have the possibility of turning extremist, better to do without in the first place!

Similarities exist with smoking, drinking and drugs!

[Paddyram]

Just checking .. Would you all agree that extremist in any faith are dangerous ?

I would agree, Furthermore since all faiths have the possibility of turning extremist, better to do without in the first place!

Similarities exist with smoking, drinking and drugs!

Yes, true of course, but then wouldn't life be dull.  Or maybe it was supposed to be so .. ?  There is always the argument that all those things: drink, drugs, etc, are all easy diversions from the more difficult of task using the most amazing thing on the planet the human brain, which also relates to the fact that I think we secretly all long to join a herd metality (leading in extreme circumstances to extremism).  Don't get me wrong I enjoy nothing better after a tuff weeks work than a bottle of wine and very occasionally a few jays to 'turn-off' and shut down for a while.
I wouldn't claim to have the answers but I think honestly debating the questions is a good start.
As regards 'faiths' in general, my own humble opinion would be from the days of primative peoples staring at the stars, we needed an explanation of the bigger picture and the big questions, mainly the afterlife and what happens to you after you're dead.    At the moment I am taking great solice in the Buddhist belief that we (our energy/soul/spirit/whatever) comes back again in some form, devoid of our past hang-ups/ego in an effort to aim at progression of some sort.  I don't claim to understand it but I think it best fits my overactive cynical mind at the moment.

So I would summarise by saying extremism is attractive to the unengaged mind of a supressed/resentful/persecuted person.  And unfortunately there is no shortage of them in the world.

It is fundamental Islam now, it was communism before, facism before that and it will be something else next time ...

[den Buut]

You're fully wrong there, with smoking, drinking and drugs you have freedom of choice, in religious countries you haven't.
Not only the extremists in religious are dangerous, religion itself is dangerous as it's used to control  people, not let them think for themselfs.

[boloa]

  Don't get me wrong I enjoy nothing better after a tuff weeks work than a bottle of wine and very occasionally a few jays to 'turn-off' and shut down for a while..............................At the moment I am taking great solice in the Buddhist belief that we (our energy/soul/spirit/whatever) comes back again in some form, devoid of our past hang-ups/ego in an effort to aim at progression of some sort. 

Do you ever fell our universe could be a speck of dirt under a giants fingernail ............man 

[Admin]

Can we end this discussion?
I think we had enough of it until the next decade.

[Paddyram]

Can we end this discussion?
I think we had enough of it until the next decade.

Its all in good fun, and there is no possibility of anyone of us getting it right anyway