What is this fundamentalist base? The mainstream Muslim, following the religion as it was intended? Or are you talking about lunatics on the fringe who have deviated away and created their own thing?

__________________
"Well done Dubya. You freakin' imbecile." - ViolaLee

Of course Islam is compatible with a tolerant society. I had a friend in high school who was Sunni Muslim whose parents immigrated from Indonesia in the 50's. Perfectly ordinary girl, real pretty. She left her religion at home when she picked up her backpack. My mother had a coworker from Jordan when she was working at the World Bank, and he was perfectly ordinary: the only things he did differently from anyone else was he took "coffee" breaks at specific times each day to pray, and he kept giving my mom religious pamphlets about Islam during their smoke breaks (which led to some interesting situations since my mother is a devout Roman Catholic). Otherwise he was just another coworker.

Islam is as compatible with modern society as Christianity is. The problem is when you get Fundamentalists who interpret the Quran and/or Hadiths or whatever strictly and literally, or when you get religious leaders (though this mainly applies to Shi'a Islam) who are politically motivated. But Christianity has Fundamentalists too, and not just the harmless Bible thumpers who say the Earth is 6000 years old, either. There are Christian revolutionaries in several countries, mainly in Latin America, trying to create a Christian theocracy. If I recall correctly (and I may not) I believe there was an incident when a devout Protestant tried to throw bricks at the Pope.

However, Islam gets a lot of bad press. Why? Islam is centered in the Middle East (though it's interesting to point out that there are more Muslims in Indonesia than in all of the Middle East combined), and the Middle East is the most politically important region on the planet. The combination of large oil reserves and geostrategic significance makes controlling or influencing the Middle East a cornerstone of any major power's foreign policy. Combine that with clashes between sects of Islam, resentment of Western dominance, and the whole Israel cluster****, and you've got a bubbling cauldron of resentment and hate that is a perfect breeding ground for Fundamentalism. Even in relatively calm areas, all it takes is one seed crystal for the whole supersaturated solution to become stuck in a gridlock of theocracy.

Almost any religion can be compatible with a tolerant society. The problem arises when you get Fundamentalists that not only want to impose the restrictions of their religion on their own followers, but on everyone in the world, or when you get conmen and revolutionaries who use religion as a snare to draw in recruits (Al Quaeda).

Islam is compatible; Fundamentalism is not.

I disagree not only that it is compatible but that it should be compatible.

You show the typical stupidity that most people show when it comes to religion. The fundamentalists are fundamentalists because they believe, say it with me, in the fundamentals! Fundamentalism is about staying true to the fundamental doctrines - the core or foundational doctrines - of a particular faith. What you are so damned idiotically suggesting is that Islam come up off its foundation.

So, your idiotic solution is for a religion to give up its foundational beliefs and conform to some perverse, meaningless, let's-all-sing-kumbayah, religion that bows at the feet of tolerance and political correctness? It would be laughable if it weren't going to one day become very much the reality.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

These people don't have a clue! They think fundamentalism=extremism when fundamentalism is simply adhering to the fundamentals of the faith.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Correct, although the object of the intolerance can justify it. In short, being intolerant of the intolerant is fine, nor does it make one intolerant as a whole.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I don't have a problem with people being intolerant. I just wish they'd be honest about it and stop trying to call it tolerance.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Of course, that was the point I was trying to make. Some intollerance is completely justifiable. Such as the intolerance of rape or murder. While I think the intolerance of intolerance is not justifiable. You would have to be more specific, as shown intolerance is not necessarily bad.

__________________
May your paradise always be green, you liberties always be full, and may the ignorance of you enemies not drive you to be pro-nuke.

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself
into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and
trying to lift himself up by the handle."-Winston Churchill

Intolerance of intolerance of anything that doesn't hurt other people.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

What? Thats what I just said!

Would you like the word "extremist" better? There is scripture in Islam that has been interpreted by some in a way that cannot survive in a modern world. Jihad for instance is something that more commonly associated with the past in religion where it clashed with judaism--and the roots of Christianity--which also has some less strict version of 'jihad' in it. The Isrealites fought endless wars with the muslims in the day, both sides were similarily driven by faith to "drive out the infidels".

Over time that part of the scripture was less stricly interpreted and is now condemned and no longer a part of either Judaism or the larger branch-off which is now Christianity.

Much of what is happening now in Islam is remeniscent of the era of Reformation Wars among Christians in Europe, with many different sects many times warring for prominence. It is the struggle between the new and the old and in this case the new reinterpretation is probably better...as seen among the majority of Islam nowadays. But if the extremists want to be a part of the modern world as a whole, they are going to have to adapt to modern ideologies such as not killing in the name of God and restricting rights, etc...

What are you talking about, I have to ask? I never said anything about political correctness or that.

The idea is not confrom, its to reform. Orthodox to more moderate. There are parts of some religions that are uncivilized and cruel.

I mean, does your neighbor have the right to kill his daughter for disobeying them or wearing the wrong clothes? No. Does it make a difference if they did it in the name of Islam?

__________________
"...Follow the crystal star to the pyre of the flame; there exists the dwelling of the spreading fire. The heart of this life rests upon the fate of that place, and what begins there sends a contagion to the rest of the universe.
As long as the fire burns we shall never be free..." (The Shadows of Yavara, Final Reclamation)

But then there is intolerance of intolerance of intolerance. (^:

The Muslims I have met here in America have been well adapted to living here and definitely they have not been radicals or extremists.

However, there are areas where I am intolerant. Mosques being started here in the US and then we find out that the same old, same old infidel and Jew hatred is being preached. I remember the blind Mullah in New York that was doing this and then was connected to the first attack on the Twin Towers. We would be naive not to react to this type of hatred preaching and let it get established on our soil.

I have also been concerned in reading stories about the UK having problems with Muslim women ending up getting murdered evidently by male members of extended families for adopting western style clothes.

__________________
National Debt =