Muslim Woman Strangles and Stabbs Daughter 40 Times to Exorcise Her

[Kasz216]

sapphi_snake said:

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.

The Crusades were politcally motivated to export europes violence outside of europe since the person being invaded, even if they won the war, suffered MASSIVE economic losses and there were a number of "poor lords" and proffesional soldiers at this point just rareing for combat and gains through war were always far greater then through peace.  (Since looting was allowed.)

The Westboro Baptist Church's entire goal is the banning of gay marriage.  Which would be a political motivation.

 

Aside from that.  Gahndi was a Hindu who believed in the core of every religion was good.  Gahndi's response to you would be....

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."