What is a religious extremist?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Usually, that is pretty clear: killing or removing freedom of motion. Again, for extremists, this is done in the name of their religion.

Yeah, but remember this: I am a minority since I have an active mental disorder, that means I rely on other humans to have a life. Now my wife used to work in a live-in place and care facility for such humans. Some of us are in a sense oppress, yet some normal people can't see that, because we are abnormal.
So are they extremists or just a normal variation for some humans?

 

[Polymath257]

Would you not consider Dr. Martin Luther King an example of a religious extremist?

No

 

[crossfire]

Would you not consider Dr. Martin Luther King an example of a religious extremist?

I would not.

 

[Kathryn]

Would you not consider Dr. Martin Luther King an example of a religious extremist?

No.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

No

OK, got time for two follow-ups?

1. How many extrema does the graph of f(x)=x^3-x have?

2. Was Fr. Phil Berrigan an extremist?

“My name is Phillip Berrigan. In World War II, I flew the bombing missions.” - Charlie King (The Hammer Gas To Fall)

The Hammer Has to Fall -Charlie King

 

[Polymath257]

OK, got time for two follow-ups?

1. How many extrema does the graph of f(x)=x^3-x have?

Really? A simple calculus question? It has two (local) extrema at x=+-sqrt(1/3). The minimum at the positive x value and the maximum at the negative x value. There is a point of inflection at x=0. If the domain is the whole real line, it has no absolute extrema.

So, a question for you (as a specialist in logic): how can you describe exponents in Peano Arithmetic (which starts with only addition and multiplication)? More specifically, how would you give a formula that says y=2^x?

2. Was Fr. Phil Berrigan an extremist?

“My name is Phillip Berrigan. In World War II, I flew the bombing missions.” - Charlie King (The Hammer Gas To Fall)

The Hammer Has to Fall -Charlie King

Not familiar with this person.

 

[stevecanuck]

Anyone who thinks their religion allows the intentional harming of others, whether it be physical, mental, or emotional, within or without that religion.

What if it does? What if a religion explicitly says to fight others to the extent that followers know it, and don't have to think it? To me that would be an extremist. A person who 'reads in' such commands has stepped outside of his religion's tenets and as such should be shunned/excommunicated/banned for bringing disrespect to a religion that doesn't really deserve it.

 

[Spice]

What it does? What if a religion explicitly says to fight others to the extent that followers know it, and don't have to think it? To me that would be an extremist. A person who 'reads in' such commands has stepped outside of his religion's tenets and as such should be shunned/excommunicated/banned for bringing disrespect to a religion that doesn't really deserve it.

Shunning and banning makes the religion an extremist, IMO. It causes harm.

If someone is mis-representing the tenants of a specific religion in a harmful way, they should be drawn in closer and lovingly shown their misunderstanding. If they can't accept this correction, then they will no doubt make their own decision to separate, or at the very least, curb their disrespectful behavior.

 

[stevecanuck]

Excommunication and forced repentance are hardly extreme as far as religion goes, though.

That's not what 'extreme' means in the contest of my question. You're comaring religions by saying that, whereas I'm questioning whether the label of 'extremist' can be pinned on a person for doing nothing more than following his religion's tenets to the letter, or if he must go beyond that point by making unfounded claims about said tenets/commands, thereby bringing him into territory unintended by the religion's founding principles.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not what 'extreme' means in the contest of my question. You're comaring religions by saying that, whereas I'm questioning whether the label of 'extremist' can be pinned on a person for doing nothing more than following his religion's tenets to the letter, or if he must go beyond that point by making unfounded claims about said tenets/commands, thereby bringing him into territory unintended by the religion's founding principles.

My position is that following a religion's tenets to the letter is the mark of an extremist. That's what differentiates an extremist from a moderate: a moderate is willing to compromise on details of the religion that they view as less important for reasons of practicality, kindness, common sense, etc., while an extremist follows their religion to the letter even when it's impractical, unkind, unwise, etc. to do so.

Edit: also, my other point is that "extreme" and "extremism" are relative to the normal and the mainstream. Excommunication and shunning - to use the examples I was responding to - are very mainstream features of very mainstream religions.

Now... mainstream things can be taken to extremes; for instance, church attendance is a very mainstream religious activity, but going for eucharistic adoration every night is extreme. Same with excommunication: it's a mainstream - albeit harmful even in the mainstream - activity that can be taken to extreme limits.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Really? A simple calculus question? It has two (local) extrema

Not really a calculus problem. A definitional problem.

I was expecting you to say 2, although you could have said 1 and made a case for it, I suppose. (That might have been fun.)

It’s more for the OP. I’m being asked about the views of other posters.

I tend to use the word “extreme” in a manner that borrows from mathematical usage.

Your own usage illustrates that some folks use it differently in different disciplines, which the OP might also find useful.

Fr. Phil Berrigan is a pacifist Catholic Priest who passed away recently. I added the line from the Charlie King tune to point out that he flew bombing missions, which would distinguish him from MLK, for example.

 

[stevecanuck]

My position is that following a religion's tenets to the letter is the mark of an extremist. That's what differentiates an extremist from a moderate: a moderate is willing to compromise on details of the religion that they view as less important for reasons of practicality, kindness, common sense, etc., while an extremist follows their religion to the letter even when it's impractical, unkind, unwise, etc. to do so.

Edit: also, my other point is that "extreme" and "extremism" are relative to the normal and the mainstream. Excommunication and shunning - to use the examples I was responding to - are very mainstream features of very mainstream religions.

Now... mainstream things can be taken to extremes; for instance, church attendance is a very mainstream religious activity, but going for eucharistic adoration every night is extreme. Same with excommunication: it's a mainstream - albeit harmful even in the mainstream - activity that can be taken to extreme limits.

Very good. Thank you.

 

[Comradio251]

To me, there are only two choices to consider:

1. A person who simply follows the tenets of his religion in great detail, and without deviation.

2. A person who has to 'read in' commands to the extent that they do not comply with the actual message. (This is an edit to try to make it more clear.)

My vote goes for number 1.

Comments and quibbles welcome.

It sounds like number 2 can be implied to radical islamic jihadists as an example?

Anyhow, number 1 sounds like the more prevalent option of radicalism for me as well. I think if someone takes a religious principle to the extreme and especially in a literal context I'd say they are quite radical. I could even argue that Christian fundamentalism can reach the point of being called extremist in many cases.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

What it does? What if a religion explicitly says to fight others to the extent that followers know it, and don't have to think it? To me that would be an extremist. A person who 'reads in' such commands has stepped outside of his religion's tenets and as such should be shunned/excommunicated/banned for bringing disrespect to a religion that doesn't really deserve it.

Some of the powers or gifts that one can get from the devil in exchange for one’s soul have military applications.

 

[Eddi]

On RF someone once called me a religious extremist

Which would be hilarious to anyone who knows me

 

[stevecanuck]

It sounds like number 2 can be implied to radical islamic jihadists as an example?

That's what all media and world leaders would say. In fact, do say.

I've been reading Islam's founding document for over two decades, and my opinion is that they fit into category 1.

 

[stevecanuck]

What do you mean by "done?"

"In the name of" and "In accordance with" can be two completely different things. For example, the Vietnam War era chant, "Kill a commie for Chist" may have been catchy, but I'm sure the mythical charcater named Jesus would have been horrified to hear it.

 

[stevecanuck]

I'm a Hindu who does this. Does this make me a Hindu extremist?

I don't know anything about Hinduism, so I'm not qualified to say.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm a Hindu who does this. Does this make me a Hindu extremist?

I've always wanted to ask a person who doesn't step on bugs...

If your home is invaded by ants or fleas or roaches, what do you do? Do you just live in misery and put up with the health hazard?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Yeah... sell your "everyone has a god" nonsense somewhere else. I don't need any.

That’s a very creative response, but do you have any empirical evidence of your claims, or is this comment based upon faith alone?