Liberalism versus Fundamentalism

[akbar]

Is liberalism good and fundamentalism bad? Many in the proclaimed civilized world say, yes! But many in this world say, no. Their religion demands this fundamentalism. How one can be liberal about commands from the God? Do commands from God need modification and changing? Does God need to be civilized? Certainly there isn’t any answer to such questions. If religions are practiced according to their fundamentals, they will engulf world in chaos leaving no room for peace and harmony. The God’s command maybe or perhaps is, “Ask them to change their religions if they don’t accept you have authority to rule over them by force and take them under your subjugation”. What is right and what wrong? Might and diplomacy will decide and certainly the God is almighty and the only supreme. Peaceful co-existence and mutual respect is certainly liberalism but what about commands from God and claims of superiorities over others.


Civilized world has framed some human rights, which their concerned religions clergies had been denying them. It seems that they have made good progress. The question is; does the God’s principal change or can his commands be modernized? If so I shall not have such a God and perhaps many others like me. Most people do not think deeply about the God and are merely followers of their inherited religion and maybe hardliners and those who do not take religion seriously are also called liberals. I believe the God whose commands; principals were/are and will never be changed. Man made human rights can be modified for betterment but rights granted to humans by the God are forever supreme and freedom of thought is one of them.


My friends, if you allow me, I want to define liberalism in my own words. No doubt liberalism is freedom of thought. I hope you will not mind and let me say that who so ever claims to be a follower of his respective religion without this freedom of thought is a fanatic, so called believer of the God and those who deny and want to deny this freedom to others are anti-God. Actual liberalism demands from humans to let others say what they want to say and listen passively to all thoughts and views, ponder on them cool-mindedly and then say yes or no. Obstinacy is greatest ignorance and the God hates it. You may be right but don’t reject others out rightly. This is obstinacy and fundamentalism. Be prepared to accept more truth if you come across any. If you shut doors of your mind and heart, it means you are not confident and you fear to loose something. Better to loose then to have something false. Wisdom is most essential part of a true belief and wise persons are never proud of anything including knowledge and keep in quest till death. Liberalism means, others maybe on the right, so think about and if you are not willing to think, you are so called believer or not at all.


Liberalism is to see one self in day light; he/she may be good, may be not as good or may not be good. Fundamentalists don’t dare to come in light and keep on insisting that they are good rather best with out any exposure to light and conceal the reality, how good it may be.
Liberals say, “We may be wrong”. Fundamentalists need not to say such words; otherwise they will also be liberals because fundamentalists have to be always right.
Free the humanity to choose their own way, only then they may be real believers or not, but don’t try to keep them away from day light; neither believers nor non believers.

I wish for all tolerance, forbearance, and freedom of thought in its real sense to each and every because there can’t be any belief without it. The unwise can never find the God and any formal or religious education isn’t necessary for wisdom. The God bless you all.

[I, Brian]

The issue of liberalism vs fundamentalism is being far too simplified, in my opinion.

Liberals say, “We may be wrong”.

Any persuasion may state that ideal - but in practice, liberal philosophy can be as condemning as any fundamentalist philosophy.

Perhaps if you could focus your argument to be more specific?

[Silverbackman]

Well it depends how you look at it. If you want to find true religious followers that actually partake in the religions fundamentals are better at it. It depends on However I do think Abrahamic fundementalism is dangerous because because those religions teach violence with no reason in their texts. However when it comes to faiths like Buddhism I think we need more fundamentalists because if you are not a fundamental in a religion like that then your not really practicing the religion. I always see people in the West (liberals) that claim to be Buddhist but they don't act a bit Buddhist at all. I actually laugh at many of these people inside because Buddhism is looked at in the West as some sort of Godless easy religion when in fact it is not. I guess if you do not partake in religions that need more activity it isn't really a religon anymore.

I do respect many muslims because they maybe the only religious group that actually takes their religon seriously in the West, but many other undesired fascist un-freethinking beliefs arise .

[_Z_]

Liberalism is the way to finding a true universal religion, fundamentalism says we have already found the truth! The thing is we haven’t found the truth, nor shall we, as the world keeps on turning [there are always new environments and ways of being].

Admittedly as I brian said, they both can be equally condemning, yet it stands to reason that we cannot advance with a status quo!

we are at the begining, not the end!

Z

[Tao_Equus]

Akbar forgive my impertinence if it seems I speak for you, its a delicate line I tread, and my intention is but to clarify based on what I 'think' I know. If I in any way am inacurate I appologise now.

Brian I think you have to veiw Akbars' post in the context of his spititual isolation in a fundamentalist heartland. We live in a tolerant society where you can be anything from a Lucifarian to an athiest to a religeous hardliner. It is true that fundamental liberalism exists but not where Akbar is coming from. And lets face it even where we do find fundamental liberalism here in the west its an intrenchment of ideas that threaten no-one, excpt perhaps fundamentalist capatalists. If we want to find any kind of fundamentalism expanding in the world today we could do a lot worse than it being of the liberal perseuasion.

2c

Regards

TE

[seattlegal]

IMHO, both sides are fully capable of dehumanizing the other side in order to justify their actions and assert their superiority. Both sides are equally vulnerable to malignant narcissism. Therefore, my answer would be: MU!

[akbar]

"Liberalism is the way to finding a true universal religion, fundamentalism says we have already found the truth!"

Yes, green man I fully agree with you. Here you have made a great statement.

[akbar]

Tao,

Akbar forgive my impertinence if it seems I speak for you, its a delicate line I tread, and my intention is but to clarify based on what I 'think' I know. If I in any way am inacurate I appologise now.

Brian I think you have to veiw Akbars' post in the context of his spititual isolation in a fundamentalist heartland. We live in a tolerant society

You have not offended me at all so please do not ask for forgiveness.
Yes, you are right that the situation differs betwen you and me.

[_Z_]

Akbar,



Ha yes of course – and Islam is the truth yes?



‘The truth is naked’, and ‘once it is written it is lost’ – two of my favourite sayings.



And the middle path [green path] is the path of balance, the upper path is of imbalance [as is the lower].



q. Is Allah universal? If so then should his philosophy also be! I.e. liberalism is more universal than fundamentalism. If Allah is not universal, then that which is – is greater!



Z

[I, Brian]

I'm just pushing the discussion.

A concern I would have with liberalism is that of when a person identifies with an ideology - then attempts to change that ideology to suit their own psychological needs.

I see this a lot in Christianity, where the basic "fundamentals" are disposed of until there is very little Christian doctrine - yet people still cling onto calling themselves Christians.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm just pushing the discussion.

A concern I would have with liberalism is that of when a person identifies with an ideology - then attempts to change that ideology to suit their own psychological needs.

I see this a lot in Christianity, where the basic "fundamentals" are disposed of until there is very little Christian doctrine - yet people still cling onto calling themselves Christians.

this is a true statement. it is one thing to have the same fundamentals but have a different reason as to WHY you come to the same conclusion & it is another thing to completely remove the basic foundation.

i am not sure what cause the foundations to be removed but i think not identifying with literalism contributes to that. it is hard for me to explain, but that is one thing i have observed. OTH- i must say i am pretty proud of all the christians who come here & stay, & i dont see that extreme very often as i also dont see the extreme of pushing that you have to have the same reason for believing the same thing while the basic fundamentals/foundation are still there.

not sure if that makes sense.

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by Bandit

this is a true statement. it is one thing to have the same fundamentals but have a different reason as to WHY you come to the same conclusion & it is another thing to completely remove the basic foundation.
<snip>

I think one of the things in question is what *is* the basic foundation? I suspect that's one of the fundamental differences.... and why various groups under the same label disagree so much on so many things.

... Bruce

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

I think one of the things in question is what *is* the basic foundation? I suspect that's one of the fundamental differences.... and why various groups under the same label disagree so much on so many things.

... Bruce

i can only speak for myself on that, but i think for most Christians the foundation is Jesus Christ himself & his death, burial & resurrection..you know the chief cornerstone.

maybe because people come up with different ideas on what that means is what makes division. again, not sure. but then without certain divisons there would be nothing to compare ideas.
i am very open to replacement theology that does not remove the central component.

naturally, other religions will have a different foundation. i see fundamentals as simple foundations or rules & without them what you get is something different or a different fundamental. dont you think?

i wonder if there are liberal fundamentalists? i might fall into that category. i think a lot of religions would view my church that way because we are always accused by the local churches but have gained great favor & an excellent report nationwide & world wide, as a church who wants to fellowship with everyone, while organized religions (fundalmentalists) are not so eager to do that & stay only within that particular organization.

just some thoughts on it.

[akbar]

Truth should not be hindered or denied under the pretext that a particular religion does not allow it. I do not mean that all religions are basically wrong but humans should keep their hearts open to accept each and every truth that comes in their way. I also do not mean that truth is changeable or renewable thing such as cruelty and wickedness were and may never be good with the changing times.

[_Z_]

If division is the price of the pursuit of wisdom, then so be it I say. I think the trouble is that people find their own fundamental values, then become dogmatic about it the same as literalists – and that some ‘literal’ interpretations are different to others. None of this is liberalism though, just different forms of fundamentalism.



The thing is that we cannot just have a totally open view, or else we cannot say that one thing is ‘evil’ in comparison with another – it kinda equals things out. So we need a basis to build from – indeed a few basis! So it all seams to end up between to two extremes – liberal and fundamental.



Akbar.

Truth should not be hindered or denied under the pretext that a particular religion does not allow it. I do not mean that all religions are basically wrong but humans should keep their hearts open to accept each and every truth that comes in their way. I also do not mean that truth is changeable or renewable thing such as cruelty and wickedness were and may never be good with the changing times.

I agree, keep what we have yet continue the search for further truths and new interpretations.