The pitfalls of Fanaticism (religious and other)

[enoch]

Actually, the atheists that I know are generally either very left wing or very right wing. Perhaps it's different in America (I live in Britain), but virtually all the Christians that I know are extremely moderate, politically speaking. But those are just Orthodox Christians; perhaps Protestants and Roman Catholics have stronger views.

I have to agree with your separation of individual and public morality, and I'd say that Christianity as a whole (well, Orthodox Christianity; I can't speak for the schismatics) would uphold that. Free will is a key Christian concept, and is thus a private concern. Government naturally should only look out for public concerns (as the Greeks would say, separating ta idia and ta demosia). Naturally people's public views are going to be influenced heavily by their private views, but unlike private views, public views have to be supported by democratic votes. Hence I don't see a problem with allowing religious views to inform political views (it would be both religious and political insincerity to try to separate them) as long as those political views are then upheld by the democratic process.

In America the Christians are the most fanatical, and I would say most powerful, political lobby (most especially the evangelicals as a loosely organized grouping).

One of the pitfalls of religious views influencing politics is religious views tend to deal with certainities and absolute, irrefutable positions on issues.

Abortion is an easy example in America. Most people, and i stress most, in the Anti-Abortion Movement (which is not pro-life = overpopulation means more, not less suffering) use religious beliefs as the backbone of their argument. Thus, their view is God disapproves of abortion and/or evil is behind abortion, so abortion must be stopped at all costs. Which is key b/c it means that even in the face of logical argument, they cannot change their political stance. Anyone who holds an idea to be irrefutable is a fanatic, and fanatics are dangerous if, and in fanatics case it is really when, they try to force the world at large to conform to their groupthink morality. And most importantly, it means debate can only ever go in one direction.

B/c "god is the source" of the fanatical belief, the person can never be reasoned with to change their belief without admitting that they have been wrong about god (remember many many religious people see their religious beliefs as being the core of their being.)
It should be clear how damaging this is to productive debate.

The final negative of such unyielding beliefs is in their essence they are chains. They restrict the behavior of the believer and then, are used by power hungry men to create movements to force the restriction on believers and non believers alike.

Yes, many people who are not religious are fanatics who force their beliefs on others, the ones I have had the most contact with are extreme liberals who have turned their own individual (really groupthink as well as most is) TRUTH into a god of sorts. ex "women should have the right to choose, everyone knows that is the Truth" is just like "abortion is wrong, everyone knows that is the will of God"

but religion is worse because the god of Truth is still subject to internal whim and growth, while religious beliefs (in the overwhelming majority) are dictated from outside sources (ministers, bibles, churches, etc) and thus can only be changed by first rejecting the absolute nature of the religion, which is to deny God, which is damn hard for people who believe (fear/love) in whichever form of God they have chosen

[Ummon]

The whole discourse was IMHO discredited by the assertion: God is the source of all fanatical belief.

This portrays IMHO, a partial view. Pol Pot? Stalin? Mao? Mussolini? Hitler?

[enoch]

The whole discourse was IMHO discredited by the assertion: God is the source of all fanatical belief.

This portrays IMHO, a partial view. Pol Pot? Stalin? Mao? Mussolini? Hitler?

I dedicate an entire paragraph (second to last paragraph) to pointing out that God is NOT the source of all fanatical belief, rather I am saying that religions are one of the more well-defined groupings where fanatics are commonly found -and I am curious about ideas about ALL types of Fanaticism, and the problems a lack of doubt can cause

[Ummon]

My fault for misreading your sentence: I saw an "all" where there was none.

[Garnier]

B/c "god is the source" of the fanatical belief, the person can never be reasoned with to change their belief without admitting that they have been wrong about god (remember many many religious people see their religious beliefs as being the core of their being.)
It should be clear how damaging this is to productive debate.

For someone who is against God, their bias against God is the core of their debate in many cases. Should it be clear how damaging this is to productive debate?

[enoch]

For someone who is against God, their bias against God is the core of their debate in many cases. Should it be clear how damaging this is to productive debate?

People whose anti-religious fanaticism dominates them are a perfect example of non-religious fanatics - They are so obsessed with the problems of religion and/or trying to save people from religion (just like religious people try to save people from hell <etc> ) - they have turned Atheism into a religion (talk about ironic)

That brilliant, but obsessed, evolutionary theorist? Richard Dawkins (Hawkins?) comes to mind as a good example