'Christian Supremacist': Replacement For 'Fundy'

[evildave]

"Christian Supremacist", "Islamic Supremacist"

In either case, it conveys that the person in question believes his religion should rank supreme over all others, or should exist to the exclusion of all others. Even to the point of being the political government of their nation, or of the world.

I like this usage a lot more because it is more precise, and has the right "flavor" to it. Language is a powerful tool, and having the right sort of terms and definitions helps a lot in clear communication.

It also carries with it the appropriate level of dread that other '-Supremacist' labels convey.

Finally, it seperates the earnest people who only want to follow their own religious ideals 'fundamentally', from those who might encourage, support or participate in violence to secure the exclusive position for their intolerant religious beliefs.

I am going to begin using only this term instead of 'fundy' from now on, because it more precisely targets the people who deserve a little grief.

[Benguin]

n either case, it conveys that the person in question believes his religion should rank supreme over all others, or should exist to the exclusion of all others. Even to the point of being the political government of their nation, or of the world.

I don't hold any particular problem with supernaturalists believing that (and I think most of them do).

It is the methods and actions they believe are acceptable in furthering and achieving the aim that are of more concern.

I'm sure the vicar, mullah and local jehovah's witness door knocker really, truly and sincerely want to convert me. And I don't mind, so long as they stick to methods that don't involve inflicting pain, coercion, discrimination or general suffering in my direction.

But maybe I'm not disagreeing with you as "-supremacist" also tends to imply the person holding that title does not regard the civil or human rights of anyone outside their sect as significant. So stuff like murder just doesn't count when it is one of those non-supremacist dogs.

[evildave]

That's basically the flavor I'm looking at.

There is a difference between a simple 'fundy' and a 'religious supremacist'.

So long as people believe there is room for everyone, there is hope. When they believe there is room for no one but their 'own kind', there will be 'problems'.

[Radrook]

I understand your view.
However, there is a serious problem if your view requires Christians to say that belief in Christ's Ransom Sacrifice is of no real importance to our salvation. We cannot be Christians without that belief.

[Z]

Yeah... he's got a point there. And, of course, taken literally, Christ sacrificed himself for the sins of humanity. All other hogwash aside, that means everyone is saved - atheist, agnostic, Satanist, Christian, everyone.

Of course, as always, other interpretations exist, and Christians are notorious at excluding just about anyone who doesn't fit their beliefs...

[evildave]

Originally posted by Radrook
I understand your view.
However, there is a serious problem if your view requires Christians to say that belief in Christ's Ransom Sacrifice is of no real importance to our salvation. We cannot be Christians without that belief.

Religious supremacists would want people to have fewer, or lesser rights than themselves based on having different religious beliefs from their own.

Do you believe that I, as a non-believer in your religion (or anything 'close enough to' your religion), should...
Not be allowed to vote or hold government office?
Not be allowed to hold a position of government trust?
Be forced to attend your church?
Be forced out of the country?
Be 'watched' or 'monitored'?
Have any sort of decreased legal status in the eyes of the government?

If so, you're a religious supremacist. If not, you're not. Simple metrics, easy to define and pin down.

Sure, to some degree, most believers suffer from a 'We Are Right' mentality. You can hardly fault them for being conventional in this area.

When they carry it to the point of believing that others are less human than they themselves are for their non-matching belief sets, that's where the line is pretty obviously crossed, and there's precious little grey to hide behind.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by evildave


Religious supremacists would want people to have fewer, or lesser rights than themselves based on having different religious beliefs from their own.

Do you believe that I, as a non-believer in your religion (or anything 'close enough to' your religion), should...
Not be allowed to vote or hold government office?
Not be allowed to hold a position of government trust?
Be forced to attend your church?
Be forced out of the country?
Be 'watched' or 'monitored'?
Have any sort of decreased legal status in the eyes of the government?

If so, you're a religious supremacist. If not, you're not. Simple metrics, easy to define and pin down.

Sure, to some degree, most believers suffer from a 'We Are Right' mentality. You can hardly fault them for being conventional in this area.

When they carry it to the point of believing that others are less human than they themselves are for their non-matching belief sets, that's where the line is pretty obviously crossed, and there's precious little grey to hide behind.

I understand your point now.
Certainly we should not reach the conclusion that others do not deserve human rights simply because they have a different religion.

However, persons who NEED to treat others that way will find a way to justify that treatment be it religious or philosophical.
For example, Hitler believed himself on a mission from God.
Any success he had, such as escaping alive from an attempted assasination, he attributed it as proof that God was with him.


Others might just simply concoct their own particular brand philosophy that justifies denying others of their human rights.

BTW
I personally have experienced the humiliating agonizing psychological pain involved in being treated subhumanly by religious fanatics. So I am 100% against such a modus operandi.

[evildave]

I would maintain that there is no such thing as a "need" to treat people as sub-human. Granted, for some there is a desire to do so. There is no excuse.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by evildave
I would maintain that there is no such thing as a "need" to treat people as sub-human. Granted, for some there is a desire to do so. There is no excuse.

People have no psychological needs?

[Z]

People have no psychological needs?

Nah, it's all in their heads.

:D

The sad thing is, most of these people actually feel they MUST do this work in the name of their ___________... How much nicer, a live-and-let-live philosophy is!

[evildave]

Originally posted by Radrook People have no psychological needs?

You aren't arguing that because some people have a 'psychological need' to feel like they are superior beings over their peers that they should be accommodated by passing laws to make it so?

There's a fine line between psychology and pathology.

It could be said that a Bundy or a Kaczinsky or a Berkowitz or a Dahmer have 'psychological needs', too. There are children who feel a 'psychological need' to torture animals, for instance.

Shall we just let people have their way because they "feel" they'd like to?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by evildave


You aren't arguing that because some people have a 'psychological need' to feel like they are superior beings over their peers that they should be accommodated by passing laws to make it so?

There's a fine line between psychology and pathology.

It could be said that a Bundy or a Kaczinsky or a Berkowitz or a Dahmer have 'psychological needs', too. There are children who feel a 'psychological need' to torture animals, for instance.

Shall we just let people have their way because they "feel" they'd like to?

No justification of the percived need was intended.
Dracula had the need to impale.
Rapists have the perceived need to rape.
Certainly you are not thinking that I approve of such things.

[evildave]

Of course not. Just seeking clarification.