Strangely Disturbing :(

[Roderick A Gammon]

Wade, all-

The quick answer, yes I do "honestly think that [any] fundamentalism
promotes mass murder".  But only because our definitions of [any]
fundamentalism are different.  Based on Wade's statement about the open
source community, I think once that difference is mediated we are in close
agreement.

Whether in common parlance or not, my own definition of fundamentalism is
"that set of interpretations, over a wide range of '-ologies', using literal
interpretation to convince individuals to subvert their selves fully towards
a dogma that is centrally controlled by an oligarchy not held to the same
standard."  Perhaps a better term might be 'fanatic', and Wade seems to use
the term 'extremist' identically.

Thus I would draw a clear line between Christianity and Islam, which are
largely peaceful religions, with their dogmatic fundamentalist counterparts.
These counterparts are generally repudiated by their less literalist
cousins, a pertinent example being Iran's self-distancing from the Taliban.
An example of the oligarchy not being held to the same standard is the
testimony of Bin Laden's wealth- could any innocent man become wealthy in
that part of the world?

In general fundamentalists escalate immediately from reasoned debate into
the language of violence.  Hence Jews and Western capitalists become Zionist
oppressors, abortionists become murderers, and Microsoft becomes an evil
empire.  Once distanced in such a manner, it becomes easier for the
fundamentalist ruling oligarchy to coerce subjects into violence, hence
terrorism against Jews, assisnations of abortion doctors, and repeated hack
attacks against Microsoft (without falsely assuming a 'central hacker
directorate').

In short, I would not call fundamentalist any Muslim not arguing for mass
murder and close reading of the Koran supports this.  And again this is
different from those who follow religious prescriptions closely, one finds
that in most religions participation is one of choice and not coercion
(excepting perhaps Parsi and certain Brahmanisms, which one is born into).

Again, I respect that this may disagree with common parlance, and I am not
versed in relevant analytic literature.  I personally do not desire or
require any present to do more than understand that this is the definition I
use.

I do however personally retain the dichotomy of fundamental vs.
non-fundamental.  The latter being those -isms that promote themselves
through acceptance by autonomous individuals and do not demand total
sublimation of individuals.

What my previous post meant, was that we should continue our nation's course
of non-fundamental ecumenism rather than resorting to fundamentalism of a
different brand.  Our non-fundamental course historically dates to at least
WWII.  Comparison of Axis and Allied infrastructure is for example
remarkably similar- military-industrial complexes, efficient propaganda
machines... The big difference, really, is that the Allies were pro-civil
participation in government, whereas the Nazis and Japanese oligarchy
believed in a command and control dispensation of social mores.

These questions are particularly important now, because of recent events,
because of the well publicized (yet border-line) fundamentalism of many
among our current leaders, and because of various racial supremacy movements
this nation has tolerated more often than fought.

At this point I am well off the list's subject and reccomend the public
thread be dissipated unless there is overwhelming interest.  My personal
email is available in the sig, for any further comment.

Sincerely-
Rod Gammon
____________________________________________

President, AEG, Inc.     | PhD. Candidate
Tools for multi-lingual  | Chinese Computational Linguistics
information processing.  | University of HI @ Manoa
http://www.aeg-inc.net   | http://www.aeg-inc.net/cuttingEdge


-----Original Message-----
From: Stockton , Wade [mailto:wstockton at boh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 9:38 AM
To: Linux & Unix Advocates & Users
Subject: [luau] RE: Strangely Disturbing :(


Do you honestly think that Islamic fundamentalism promotes mass murder?
There are extremists in every organization (including the open
source/Linux movement) that pervert the organizations objectives for
there own good. By what I have heard very few agree with the
interpretation that Th Taliban and Usama bin laden have on the Koran.

Wade

-----Original Message-----
From: Roderick A Gammon [mailto:AEG-Inc at hawaii.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 4:47 PM
To: Linux & Unix Advocates & Users
Subject: [luau] RE: Strangely Disturbing :(


The clear channel thing coupled with the Advertiser's headline
proclaiming
'crusade' reminds me of lyrics in one song not yet pulled.  The Who's
'Won't
get fooled again'- "Meet the new boss/ same as the old boss".

(Does anybody else think this is more than, "Christian fundamentalism
good,
Islamic fundamentalism bad."?)

-rg