Postmodern Jihad

[Gordon Fitch]

ravi:
> > why just christian fundamentalism? these attempts to take shots at
> > postmodernism with whatever negative associations one can make (as
> > the fish article that doug forwarded also made clear) seems
> > contrived in the light of richard dawkins' simple question about
> > why we ignore the 800-pound gorilla: religion, which one can hold
> > accountable not just for this event but for the worldwide culture
> > that leads to such events? why always the disclaimer about this
> > being a "perversion of islam" etc? are these disclaimers used for
> > the worthwhile effort to defend practitioners of the religion
> > against discrimination? if not, dawkins' [what seems to me] sound
> > arguments show that the error is in pinpointing just one religion
> > (whether true or perverted) as the problem.
> > ...

Michael Perelman:
> I also believe that religion continues to have a dreadful effect on the
> world.  Someone, maybe Chuck G., mentioned the Pennsylvania Dutch.  They
> are fundamentalist -- but unlike most fundamentalists they are not
> interested in changing anybody else's behavior.

It seems to me that religion is a mode of thought, expression
and behavior; that is, something people do, rather than a sort
of devil that afflicts them.  And given that it covers subjects
that humans find at once unknowable and irresistible, it seems
pretty inevitable.  Perhaps you all mean that a different
religion should be substituted for the bad ones now dominant,
in order to improve mankind?  Because clearly you're not going
to get rid of such a durable phenomenon altogether.  For
example, what does Richard Dawkins think is really real?
Something, I bet.