"Religious Extremism"

[LuisDantas]

The use of the term isn't at all built on the idea of religions being bad, except, perhaps, in the minds of the anti-religious crowd.

I beg to differ. The anti-religious crowd seems to rarely bother or care about religious extremism. If religion is something to be opposed, then the extreme varieties are simply easier targets as opposed to more legitimate ones.

It is the religious people who think of that qualification as significant, as is to be expected. It comes from the perception that religion is ultimately a good thing unless it is taken too seriously. Which, granted, may be a bit tricky to reconcile with traditional views about what religion is supposed to be.

 

[Levite]

Do phrases like "religious extremist" and "religious moderate" suggest that religion is inherently bad?

I see plenty of religious people using these phrases, and I've always found it strange:

- the "extremists" are the ones that do hateful things, engage in violence in the name of their religion, restrict freedoms, etc... all negative things. Being extremely religious is seen as bad.

- the "moderates" are the ones who reject violence, support freedom, build communities with people outside their religion, etc... all positive things. Being moderately religious is seen as good.

So isn't this built on the idea that religion is negative, and the less we have, the better?

Those of you who see your religion as positive: do you use the phrase "religious extremism" to describe negative elements of your religion/denomination/etc.? If so, why?

It seems like it's built on the idea that religion is an umbrella term for a lot of philosophies. And just like other kinds of philosophies, the philosophical genre is in itself neither inherently good or inherently bad. It is knowledge, and a way of framing knowledge. It can be shaped in many ways, take many forms, and used either productively or destructively. Like virtually all other kinds of knowledge and ways of framing knowledge.

Extremism is not limited to religion. It can be found in social and philosophical contexts, even in scientific or quasi-scientific contexts.

 

[metis]

One person's extremism is another person's reality. What I believe in is reality, but what you believe in is extremism.

To me, the "bottom line" on this in one word: "relative".

OK, I'll take "subjective" as an alternate.

I gotta stop talking to myself.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

One person's extremism is another person's reality. What I believe in is reality, but what you believe in is extremism.

To me, the "bottom line" on this in one word: "relative".

OK, I'll take "subjective" as an alternate.

I gotta stop talking to myself.

I'd have to agree.

I grew up in a Pentecostal-type environment; where my parents still believe in miraculous healing, speaking in tongues, being "slain in the spirit", etc. I certainly consider this extreme. Many do not.

Any belief that exists in spite of evidence or without any evidence, I consider extreme. I find it the true "slippery slope" as the belief in a being that can not be substantiated is already a belief without reason; a belief without evidence. From there, following the pat of believing without reason or evidence or in spite of either or both, those who subscribe to such beliefs are more lucky than anything that they don't fall prey to such evil actions as refusing to permit your children medical care; after all, God will heal them. While this definitely encompasses religion who will believe in an omnipotent being in spite of lack of evidence or in spite of contradicting evidence, it also extends to flat earthers, Sandy Hook conspiracy hoaxsters, anti-vaccination proponents and just about anyone else who will believe a given thing without evidence or in spite of evidence. Anti-vaccine proponents would gladly end vaccination programs bringing, call it good, and wind up bringing back smallpox and polio epidemics; 911 conspiracy theorists would gleefully take down our government, lynching those those irrationally believe were responsible, leaving us in anarchy or with an ineffective government, and call it good; and the religious "extremists" have happily denied their children medical care, beheaded aid workers and those of different religions or ethnicity, fed their children cyanide, murdered abortion doctors, committed mass suicide so the spaceship can pick them up, beat their children to death, burned people alive on a stake, followed Hitler into slaughtering millions of Jews believing "God with us", cutting the hearts out of your fellow citizens to keep the sun from getting stuck in the sky, burying your young under building foundations to ward away evil spirits ...... and every bit of it started, or would start, by believing a thing without evidence or believing a thing in spite of evidence.

It's all cut from the same stone, imho.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

So therefore, many would call me "extreme" ....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Right now its my opinion one religion is giving humanity a black eye with extreme required fanaticism and fundamentalism.

Indeed, and it does seem that the Abrahamic religions lend themselves more readily to extremism and fundamentalism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do phrases like "religious extremist" and "religious moderate" suggest that religion is inherently bad? [...] Those of you who see your religion as positive: do you use the phrase "religious extremism" to describe negative elements of your religion/denomination/etc.? [emphasis added - JS]

I think sliding from "religious extremist" to "religious extremism" is problematic.