| padib said: I guess so :B But really, it all comes down to what you define as religious fanaticism. If you describe it as taking your beliefs to a point where you take action on them in counter-social ways (such as Ghandi's fast), then I believe it is fine so long as it is properly directed. If you define religious fanaticism to be any form of violent behavior in the name of religion then for the most part I can only agree with you that it is counter-positive. Of course, if you want, we could instead stay with a vague definition of it all :P |
Ghandi's actions can't be considered religious fanatism, because he wasn't acting in the name of any religion (I'm not even sure what religion he followed). Those actions were politcally motivated. When I think of religious fanatisicm, I think of hings like the Crusades, or the bombing of abortion clinics. Or Westboro Baptist Church.
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)
