4 ms·

To the contrary I am indeed afraid of the increase in Islamic fundamentalism across the world because of the destabilizing influence. Also because of the detri

To the contrary I am indeed afraid of the increase in Islamic fundamentalism across the world because of the destabilizing influence. Also because of the detrimental effects it has on global development, scientific progress and human rights (particularly women's rights). With the latter I fear that the more entrenched it becomes the harder it is to roll back. Sharia is a terrible thing for global progress and its implementation anywhere is something I fear, so phobia seems pretty apt and not irrational. Talking with women living in societies where Islamic fundamentalist power is on the rise you will find a very real fear as to what it means for them.

kunai 13y ago
You practically proved his point. It doesn't matter whether fundamentalism is risky, it's not a practical threat and therefore is not anything to be afraid. Destabilizing influence? Give me examples. Historians have no phobia of fundamentalism because it doesn't matter in today's society. There is an incredibly fractional chance that Sharia will take hold. That's what the OP was saying. It's not a real threat.
- richardjordan 13y ago
  It's already taken hold in countries spanning a very large number of people. It matters in Pakistan for example. Pakistan has nukes. There's a threat there to everyone.
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    Sorry, I suppose I wasn't very clear. I was referring to the fear some people have of Sharia law taking hold in the U.S., not in other countries, which is a baseless fear that can be used by those in power to manipulate those who are afraid. The fear of fundamentalism in other countries is not so baseless, but it can still be used to manipulate people if those people don't examine the relationship between their fears and the policies advocated in their name (ie. fear of fundamentalism justifying not just surveillance of fundamentalists but of everybody).
- sanderjd 13y ago
  Your use of the word "practically" is very generous. I'm not sure I could have proved my point better if I had created a fake account to reply to myself saying exactly the right things to prove my point.

kunai 13y ago

You practically proved his point. It doesn't matter whether fundamentalism is risky, it's not a practical threat and therefore is not anything to be afraid. Destabilizing influence? Give me examples. Historians have no phobia of fundamentalism because it doesn't matter in today's society. There is an incredibly fractional chance that Sharia will take hold. That's what the OP was saying. It's not a real threat.

richardjordan 13y ago
It's already taken hold in countries spanning a very large number of people. It matters in Pakistan for example. Pakistan has nukes. There's a threat there to everyone.
- sanderjd 13y ago
  Sorry, I suppose I wasn't very clear. I was referring to the fear some people have of Sharia law taking hold in the U.S., not in other countries, which is a baseless fear that can be used by those in power to manipulate those who are afraid. The fear of fundamentalism in other countries is not so baseless, but it can still be used to manipulate people if those people don't examine the relationship between their fears and the policies advocated in their name (ie. fear of fundamentalism justifying not just surveillance of fundamentalists but of everybody).
sanderjd 13y ago
Your use of the word "practically" is very generous. I'm not sure I could have proved my point better if I had created a fake account to reply to myself saying exactly the right things to prove my point.