Religious fanaticism: helpful or not?

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:59 am

There was a report on NPR this morning that got me to thinking.

It was about how some ultra-orthodox Jews were moving to new neighborhoods around Jerusalem and making annoying little asses of themselves when they got there. The reporter interviewed this one 18-year-old brat who seemed to be spending his life studying the Torah. Apparently, he wanted to study his special book out in a local cafe, but was upset that the women in the neighborhood weren't dressed "modestly enough." So some of his fellow nut bars had posted signs asking the women to please not wear pants around them. Apparently, this poor dope needed a "calm mind" to study his book properly, and he just couldn't manage it with females wandering into his peripheral vision and displaying distracting shapes to clutter his mind with un-Godly thoughts.

Talk about hubris!

But the story did get me thinking. Here was a kid, barely started off in life, and he seems to think that all life is about studying a rather tiny book for decades on end, trying to puzzle out goodness only knows what. Talk about a waste! But that's only one form of religious fanaticism, and the world certainly isn't much harmed by it in the grand scheme of things. Annoyed at having such judgmental little pricks like him around, sure. But not really harmed as such.

But there are a couple other types of religious fanaticism around that are noteworthy.

First, there's the religious nut that thinks is "God's will" that he carry out God's judgment against the sinners, and goes out and kills 'em. And for the record, the "religious fanatics" historically have been from pretty much EVERY religion. We've talked about these monsters in human form more than enough in this forum. I just thought this post required a brief mention, just to touch the base.

Then, there is the rare, but most pleasant sort of religious fanatic: the folks who seem to "get it right" and use their fascination with their religion to propel them toward making the world a better place for everyone. I'm thinking Gandhi here, or Desmond Tutu... MLK. It's a short list -- seems far too short, IMO -- but it has some terrific people on it. These folks take their religion and use it to fuel a boundless effort to help bring peace and justice to the world. They may be similar to the other groups in a few superficial ways, but they diverge from the others by going out and doing everything that can to help others to live happier, more loving lives.

It's just a shame, really, that humanity can't produce more of the latter type of religious fanatics, if we really MUST have religious fanatics...

by **BecauseHeLives** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:40 pm

Those fanatics scare me sometimes.....

Just and off topic comment on here. I wonder how many science fanatics we have in the forum....

by **RebelSnake** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:55 pm

BecauseHeLives wrote:Those fanatics scare me sometimes.....

Which ones?

by **Questioner** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:48 pm

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:These folks take their religion and use it to fuel a boundless effort to help bring peace and justice to the world.

Well, anyway, they use their energy to bring justice to the world. That effort seldom brings peace as an immediate effect. Usually it brings violence and social unrest. On the other hand, social justice is IMHO a worthy cause, and unfortunately, those who bring injustice do tend to get quite violent when their perks are threatened.

by **A Person** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:30 pm

BecauseHeLives wrote: I wonder how many science fanatics we have in the forum....

That would depend on whether you use the normal definition of fanatic:

A person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
A person motivated by irrational enthusiasmm, zealot

If so the answer would be none.

If you think fanatic simply means enthusiastic, then several.

by **what!!** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:38 am

dude did u just call gandhi a fanatic, he was a secularist who cared only about nonviolence. ya, he went to the temple, but nonviolence was his way of life. ya, and he never received the nobel prize for peace.

by **SouthernFriedInfidel** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:13 am

what!! wrote:dude did u just call gandhi a fanatic, he was a secularist who cared only about nonviolence. ya, he went to the temple, but nonviolence was his way of life. ya, and he never received the nobel prize for peace.

Yes, I called Gandhi a fanatic. He dedicated his life to his religion and based every statement and action on what he believed God wanted him to do. I admire the man for most things, but when a guy who is in his late 70's insists on sleeping with teenage girls to strengthen his resolve and ability to avoid sex... ya, that's a fanatic there, bucko.

by **A Person** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:21 pm

Being a fanatic is not necessarily a pejorative. Gandhi was indubitably fanatical about many things as SFI mentioned.

The Nobel Prize would very likely have been awarded to Gandhi in 1948 had he not been assassinated. There was no award that year as "there was no suitable living candidate" and no provision for a posthumous award.

by **Questioner** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:12 am

A Person wrote:Being a fanatic is not necessarily a pejorative.

Well it jolly well better not be! I happen to be a big fan of the Philly Phanatic! He is a great mascot!

by **A Person** » Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:16 am

I agree that certainly sounds like "extreme and uncritical enthusiasm"

by **Liv** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:33 pm

Along time ago we I checked into a wedding at the Wayfayer's chapel down in so. cal. It's quite an interesting building, but as we were visiting there, there was a lady who was discussing with one of the employees coming to service how it was necessary for her to wear a dress or skirt, but no pants....

It was about then, we figured we as Lesbian appearing individuals probably wouldn't be allowed to perform a ceremony there.