sophiaserpentia (
sophiaserpentia) wrote2007-01-16 07:32 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I'm going to resolve not to make references anymore to "radical Islam" or "fundamentalist Christianity." Radical Islam is not 'radical' in that it doesn't represent the root of Islamic belief; Fundamentalist Christianity is not 'fundamental' in that it doesn't represent the core of Christian belief.
Both movements want people to believe that fundamentalism is what it looks like when you are more fervently religious. That is, they want the rest of us to buy into their position that theirs is the only way to be fervently, devoutly, deeply religious. The mass media, of course, eats this up and serves it back to us as a tasty second harvest.
These movements are at war with me and i refuse to dignify them any longer by utilizing their terminology, along with the implications they carry. Instead i am going to, from now on, refer to both as "reactionary Islam" or "reactionary Christianity."
Both movements want people to believe that fundamentalism is what it looks like when you are more fervently religious. That is, they want the rest of us to buy into their position that theirs is the only way to be fervently, devoutly, deeply religious. The mass media, of course, eats this up and serves it back to us as a tasty second harvest.
These movements are at war with me and i refuse to dignify them any longer by utilizing their terminology, along with the implications they carry. Instead i am going to, from now on, refer to both as "reactionary Islam" or "reactionary Christianity."
no subject
I am, of course, extremely happy to read of the distinction you'll be making. May many listen! :)
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
Your Rephrasing...
no subject
I usually refer to them as "fanatical" or "extremist" (i.e. "fringe"). But in a political context, I love your use of "reactionary".
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)