Wipe a Person Out of History

[jiminski]

Backstreet Boys. GROW UP! I'd rather them all die.

that is sort of the vote tiger.

[Frigidus]

As was mentioned earlier, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles can't be overlooked, it was just phenomenally successful. On a side note, the TMNT video games were also classics.

Did you see the roleplay game?

Yes, I actually had a friend who played it a little. Regrettably a never got the chance to try it myself, I heard it was pretty damn good.

[DAZMCFC]

Backstreet Boys. GROW UP! I'd rather them all die.

i take it you did not read the thread title and did not really get who Jimbob voted for.

[Jenos Ridan]

Why is Mohammed such a disliked figure?

Why is Jesus even on the list?

He actually made things better for Arabia..

Like, come on, he limited marriage up to 4 wives, instead of however many you [you being the male] wanted.

Oh wow, big improvement. And yet, he had nine or so wives, mostly at the same time (and no, there is no exception clause to my knowledge that exists in the Koran that excuses him from it's mandates which he put in place).

He also created women to be equal to men, but social dogma has carried on and many women in Islamic states are lesser beings.

Umm. where does it say that?

Would it be somewhere after it quite clearly states that "men are superior to women".

That is not Islams fault, it is the social dogma.

And the Koran isn't the smallest part responcible for that?

Same with Burka's [SP?], these help with the heat in Arabia,

At the cost of vitamin D defficiency, restricted vision, etc.

and it's carried on to the other countries of Islam. It's social dogma, not Islam the religion.

Again, wouldn't the Koran, or rather, the mandatory instruction in the Koran, assuming for a minute that it should negate the ill-effects of middle-eastern culture (as the Bible did via Constantine and later Roman Emperors), why then does it not? In fact, is not religion or any form of spiritual belief an intigrated part of the overwhelming majority of cultures throughtout human history?

Is it the fault of Islam that the middle-east is the way it is? Partly, yes.

[Hologram]

Why is Mohammed such a disliked figure?

Why is Jesus even on the list?

He actually made things better for Arabia..

Like, come on, he limited marriage up to 4 wives, instead of however many you [you being the male] wanted.

Oh wow, big improvement. And yet, he had nine or so wives, mostly at the same time (and no, there is no exception clause to my knowledge that exists in the Koran that excuses him from it's mandates which he put in place).

He also created women to be equal to men, but social dogma has carried on and many women in Islamic states are lesser beings.

Umm. where does it say that?

Would it be somewhere after it quite clearly states that "men are superior to women".

That is not Islams fault, it is the social dogma.

And the Koran isn't the smallest part responcible for that?

Same with Burka's [SP?], these help with the heat in Arabia,

At the cost of vitamin D defficiency, restricted vision, etc.

and it's carried on to the other countries of Islam. It's social dogma, not Islam the religion.

Again, wouldn't the Koran, or rather, the mandatory instruction in the Koran, assuming for a minute that it should negate the ill-effects of middle-eastern culture (as the Bible did via Constantine and later Roman Emperors), why then does it not? In fact, is not religion or any form of spiritual belief an intigrated part of the overwhelming majority of cultures throughtout human history?

Is it the fault of Islam that the middle-east is the way it is? Partly, yes.

Hey! Stop hijacking our hijacked thread!

[Snorri1234]

And the Koran isn't the smallest part responcible for that?

Nope. Social dogma shapes religion and not the other way around. We don't persecute gay people, ban women from working or kill people for believing in the wrong god (or no god at all) even though we still have this silly book that tells us to do all those things. The bible may shape our society in very small ways, but we shape the bible far more and with better ways.

Religion does what society wants it to do. It bends and breaks because what people want and not the other way around. It is why Christianity grew so much. It introduced a religion which fitted neatly into the mold of every society. It basically said: "yes all that is true, but it's because of jebus and god."

A religion only grows because it works with society.

[Snorri1234]

Also:

Why is Mohammed such a disliked figure?

Why is Jesus even on the list?

Because he was used as justification for many atrocities.

Like, come on, he limited marriage up to 4 wives, instead of however many you [you being the male] wanted.

Oh wow, big improvement. And yet, he had nine or so wives, mostly at the same time (and no, there is no exception clause to my knowledge that exists in the Koran that excuses him from it's mandates which he put in place).

Mohammed was king. The exception in the clause was him being him. You don't go and tell the ruler of your lands that he isn't doing what his book says.

He also created women to be equal to men, but social dogma has carried on and many women in Islamic states are lesser beings.

Umm. where does it say that?

Would it be somewhere after it quite clearly states that "men are superior to women".

Good thing the bible doesn't say anything about it though.

Same with Burka's [SP?], these help with the heat in Arabia,

At the cost of vitamin D defficiency, restricted vision, etc.

You clearly have never been in the desert. The burka, along with what men wear, isn't mentioned in the koran because it is a form of dress that has actual benefits in the heat of the desert. They didn't care about vitamin D defficiency partly because they didn't know what is was and mostly because holy shit you fucking die in the desert without those garments.

Again, wouldn't the Koran, or rather, the mandatory instruction in the Koran, assuming for a minute that it should negate the ill-effects of middle-eastern culture (as the Bible did via Constantine and later Roman Emperors), why then does it not? In fact, is not religion or any form of spiritual belief an intigrated part of the overwhelming majority of cultures throughtout human history?

Yes. But not in the way you think. It is an integral part in society because it doesn't interfere in what society does. You have a bunch of crazy people who adher strictly to the holy book, but for the most part people do what they've always done or do things in which they see no harm and it's allowed by the church because the church realises doing something against it would be stupid.

What arabic countries do is affected by what people think and the influence of whatever holy book they're using isn't that great.

[Jenos Ridan]

About the Burka: If it is so vital to women's health, why was it abandoned from the early 1900's to the mid to late 1970's? One possible (I grant you this) answer could be the secularization of Islam during that period (which is interesting, because Great Britain, especially after WWI, had a lot of influence in the region until 1948), however there have always been Wahhbists (many were incouraged to attack the British by the Nazies). The Cold War certainly did not help things either (both sides exploiting the middle east for strategic benefit, among other reasons).

However, a comparison of the Bible and the Koran reveals that they are very much different, exemplifed in the descriptions of God; the Bible shows us a God who is very close to his creation (even the OT and the Torah (differences aside) is clear about this), whereas the Koran shows us a closed, distant God, if not a willful and extremely tempermental God. Most people residing in the middle east are heavily influenced by this text (the Koran), to say it has no influence is to ignore the clear evidence to the contrary; the large media outlets for wahhbist mullahs, the vast hierarchal structure of the Wahhbi and equivelent Shia movements, the prevasive presence of other islamic movements and organizations, etc.

At least a basic understanding of the text in question would be helpful to understand the problems in the region. In addition, go read Unveiling Islam by the Caner brothers. I can't think of the lady's name, but she was featured on a NatGeo special on Islam who pointed out that the muslim world wasn't so fanatical not thirty years ago. A little research never hurt anyone.

[Snorri1234]

About the Burka: If it is so vital to women's health, why was it abandoned from the early 1900's to the mid to late 1970's? One possible (I grant you this) answer could be the secularization of Islam during that period (which is interesting, because Great Britain, especially after WWI, had a lot of influence in the region until 1948), however there have always been Wahhbists (many were incouraged to attack the British by the Nazies). The Cold War certainly did not help things either (both sides exploiting the middle east for strategic benefit, among other reasons).

Ofcourse I'm not saying that it is super-vital to women's health. I'm saying that the reason for it's existence is mostly due to it being practical and also covered up women which was a thing that was around far before Mohammed. It's not actually a religious symbol and the main reason fundies want it back is because they're crazy and want to go back to old times.

But fundies are always saying crazy shit like that, you can't judge a religion by it's crazy people.

However, a comparison of the Bible and the Koran reveals that they are very much different, exemplifed in the descriptions of God; the Bible shows us a God who is very close to his creation (even the OT and the Torah (differences aside) is clear about this), whereas the Koran shows us a closed, distant God, if not a willful and extremely tempermental God. Most people residing in the middle east are heavily influenced by this text (the Koran), to say it has no influence is to ignore the clear evidence to the contrary; the large media outlets for wahhbist mullahs, the vast hierarchal structure of the Wahhbi and equivelent Shia movements, the prevasive presence of other islamic movements and organizations, etc.

I think the point you're missing is that the influence by the people at that time was far greater. People don't agree with things that don't sound right to them. People already believed women should listen to and obey men, they already covered themselves in headgear and dresses. The koran made a few minor tweaks to common opinion, but it didn't really change it. The islamic society is one that doesn't change a lot because of the way it was and will be structured. Any society in that part of the world doesn't change much, because they have very little need for change. Unlike western society which needed more things to survive.

At least a basic understanding of the text in question would be helpful to understand the problems in the region.

Maybe. But I'd say that a basic understanding of what the people think and how they behave is far more fundamental to understand the people.

In addition, go read Unveiling Islam by the Caner brothers. I can't think of the lady's name, but she was featured on a NatGeo special on Islam who pointed out that the muslim world wasn't so fanatical not thirty years ago. A little research never hurt anyone.

Which proves my point though I don't think you intented to. The way society changed in a global aspect changed how they behaved. People started defending their culture by adhering more strongly to it than they did before. They didn't change because of the koran, but because of the way other people acted.

It's why there are a lot of radicals in western society. They retreat into their culture (which includes the koran) because it is frowned upon. Think; would it make you more or less likely to become a fundamentalist if everyone in your new country or in the world was against it? Do you think Fred Phelps would've gotten so radical 50 years ago?

[heavycola]

Do you think Fred Phelps would've gotten so radical 50 years ago?

And would he have won as many gold medals?

[GrimReaper.]

stalin was worse than hitler hes crimes went unnoticed because of WWII and hitlers propoganda

Stallin killed more people but the motivations weren't as sinister. Hitler wanted to destroy people who didn't resemble his ideal image of man for breathing while Stallin was paranoid and wanted to maintain power at all costs.

Because of the difference in intent between the two as well as the difference in the total number of people killed, you could make a case for either of them.

it still doesnt make it right

[Nikolai]

But fundies are always saying crazy shit like that, you can't judge a religion by it's crazy people.

Actually... well, I have two major problems with that statement.

The first problem is the idea that fundamentalist = crazy. Fundamentalists, by definition, want a return to the fundamentals of their religion. If you think the religion itself is crazy, then yes, they probably are crazy. But if you don't think the religion is inherently crazy, then the fact that they are fundamentalist does not itself make them crazy.

And second, you can tell a lot about a religion by its fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalists want strong families, peace where possible, value for human life, freedom for the world, a healthy income, truth, justice, and the American Way. (Note that this is a biting commentary on the actual moral value of Christian fundamentalism as a movement, but still accurate.) You might disagree with their methods, but they certainly have admirable goals. Buddhist fundamentalists want the entire world to achieve true peace... to be one. (Among other things, to be sure.) Again, you might disagree with their methods, but their goals are fairly admirable. Islamic fundamentalists want to kill everyone in the world who isn't Muslim.

The goals here are in no way admirable, and certainly not comparable to fundamentalist goals in other religions. (And yes, those are the goals, not the means.) So yes, to a large extent, it is possible to judge a religion by its fundamentalists.

Jenos did a fairly good job explaining some of the differences between Christianity and Islam. (And he gets major, major props from me for recommending research! ) Snorri, you might want to re-examine your premises... starting with this one: Rhetoric = Fact.

And now to re-hijack the re-hijacked hijacked thread...

I have to say that all drag queens should take lessons from Bugs Bunny. I was just watching the toon where Bugs and Elmer are parodying Götterdämmerung... truly classic.

[Snorri1234]

The first problem is the idea that fundamentalist = crazy. Fundamentalists, by definition, want a return to the fundamentals of their religion. If you think the religion itself is crazy, then yes, they probably are crazy. But if you don't think the religion is inherently crazy, then the fact that they are fundamentalist does not itself make them crazy.

Fundamentalists are always crazy. But then again I also think religion itself is silly.

And second, you can tell a lot about a religion by its fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalists want strong families, peace where possible, value for human life, freedom for the world, a healthy income, truth, justice, and the American Way. (Note that this is a biting commentary on the actual moral value of Christian fundamentalism as a movement, but still accurate.) You might disagree with their methods, but they certainly have admirable goals. Buddhist fundamentalists want the entire world to achieve true peace... to be one. (Among other things, to be sure.) Again, you might disagree with their methods, but their goals are fairly admirable. Islamic fundamentalists want to kill everyone in the world who isn't Muslim.

Wow. You certainly know a whole lot about other religions it seems.

For the record, I don't consider the goals of Christian fundamentalists admirable. Especially because that which they seek to achieve is not what you just wrote down. If they want strong families by banning gays from marriage or in fact locking them all up in mental hospitals, then I see no reason to consider them admirable.

Regardless, you still cannot tell anything about a religion by it's fundamentalists. They do not determine how all the others are thinking, and it's safe to say that regular believers do not really believe in the same things.

The goals here are in no way admirable, and certainly not comparable to fundamentalist goals in other religions. (And yes, those are the goals, not the means.) So yes, to a large extent, it is possible to judge a religion by its fundamentalists.

The goal is not killing all non-muslims. It's laying their social standards on all other societies, which is exactly what christian fundamentalists are doing.

Jenos did a fairly good job explaining some of the differences between Christianity and Islam. (And he gets major, major props from me for recommending research! ) Snorri, you might want to re-examine your premises... starting with this one: Rhetoric = Fact.

And you should probably go find out more about a religion before stamping it as "evil".

[DAZMCFC]

Christian fundamentalists want strong families, peace where possible, value for human life, freedom for the world, a healthy income, truth, justice, and the American Way.

as if all Christian fundamentalists are American.

[Dancing Mustard]

Why is Jesus even on the list?

Because a lot of people think he was a dick.

[jiminski]

Why is Jesus even on the list?

Because a lot of people think he was a dick.

ahhh mine usually rises again after 3 days.

[Dancing Mustard]

Why is Jesus even on the list?

Because a lot of people think he was a dick.

ahhh mine usually rises again after 3 days.

Cue some kind of insanely crass gag about mine splitting fishes in two.

[DAZMCFC]

Why is Jesus even on the list?

Because a lot of people think he was a dick.

ahhh mine usually rises again after 3 days.

Cue some kind of insanely crass gag about mine splitting fishes in two.

if it's a Salmon or aTuna that would be quite impressive.

[Nikolai]

The first problem is the idea that fundamentalist = crazy. Fundamentalists, by definition, want a return to the fundamentals of their religion. If you think the religion itself is crazy, then yes, they probably are crazy. But if you don't think the religion is inherently crazy, then the fact that they are fundamentalist does not itself make them crazy.

Fundamentalists are always crazy. But then again I also think religion itself is silly.

Such thoughts are your prerogative, and I don't necessarily disagree... my point was that you made an assumption that was hardly fair. Fundamentalists are not, by definition, crazy. You may think that they are because you hold certain beliefs about all religion, but you can't state that they are, as a matter of absolute fact, because it's only your opinion.

And second, you can tell a lot about a religion by its fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalists want strong families, peace where possible, value for human life, freedom for the world, a healthy income, truth, justice, and the American Way. (Note that this is a biting commentary on the actual moral value of Christian fundamentalism as a movement, but still accurate.) You might disagree with their methods, but they certainly have admirable goals. Buddhist fundamentalists want the entire world to achieve true peace... to be one. (Among other things, to be sure.) Again, you might disagree with their methods, but their goals are fairly admirable. Islamic fundamentalists want to kill everyone in the world who isn't Muslim.

Wow. You certainly know a whole lot about other religions it seems.

For the record, I don't consider the goals of Christian fundamentalists admirable. Especially because that which they seek to achieve is not what you just wrote down. If they want strong families by banning gays from marriage or in fact locking them all up in mental hospitals, then I see no reason to consider them admirable.

Regardless, you still cannot tell anything about a religion by it's fundamentalists. They do not determine how all the others are thinking, and it's safe to say that regular believers do not really believe in the same things.

Yes, without meaning to toot my own horn too much, I do. I've made a concerted study of several of the more controversial religions, reading and talking to people on all sides of the major issues (or as close as I could get) and drawing my own conclusions. (I got tired of hearing the same old, same old baloney about different religions tossed out by people who didn't actually know, so I decided to find out myself.)

As I said, you're entitle to your opinion. However, I will note that your opinion is based on a logical fallacy... you're confusing the goals with the means, which I already said may not be admirable. The root goal of "no gay marriage" for a fundamentalist is that they believe it's an attack on the family, which they believe needs to be strong for good society, and they believe it's an attack on the natural order, per John Locke, Thomas Aquinas and other natural philosophers. "No gay marriage" isn't a goal in and of itself. (For you to hold that up as a goal is, if I may say, extremely shallow. I would've expected better from you.) It is possible to admire the goal without appreciating the method.

Again, you make the critical error of assuming that "fundamentalists" are different from "regular believers". In the sake of Christianity, that may or may not be true, since "regular believers" isn't particularly well-defined... you seem to mean whichever group of believers is biggest gets to be "regular", which is a very poor method. Particularly for Christianity, which has so many sub-groups. In the case of Buddhism, you are probably right... I haven't met or read about a whole lot of Buddhists who are "fundamentalist" Buddhists, but that's because the fundamentals of Buddhism are vague, making them hard to hold up as an example of "what should be!" In the case of Islam, you are dead wrong. Not only is fundamentalist Islam the view held by the great majority of Muslims around the world, it is explicitly stated in the Koran that if anyone isn't a fundamentalist Muslim, they aren't a Muslim at all. So while you are right that fundamentalists don't determine the beliefs of non-fundamentalists, you are entirely wrong to think that fundamentalists cannot be equivalent to "regular" believers.

The goals here are in no way admirable, and certainly not comparable to fundamentalist goals in other religions. (And yes, those are the goals, not the means.) So yes, to a large extent, it is possible to judge a religion by its fundamentalists.

The goal is not killing all non-muslims. It's laying their social standards on all other societies, which is exactly what christian fundamentalists are doing.

No, it isn't. You know that I usually avoid hard and fast statements at this level, but in this case I will be happy to provide you with documentation from the Qur'an, the Hadith, and any of the four major schools of Islamic doctrinal/legal interpretation supporting my point. Or you could go look at some of the threads in which I've discussed this topic previously. It is an undeniable part of Islam that Allah, through the Prophet, said quite explicitly it was the goal of Islam to conquer the earth, bringing all of its peoples into the Ummah (the community of Muslim believers), and killing any who resist. (Actually, the more war-like surahs and legal interpretations are fairly clear that unbelievers don't get a chance to convert... they just get killed. See Sayyid Qutb, whose writings are among the most influential works of the last century.) The only exception offered is the doctrine of dhimmi, which allows for Jews and Christians to live among Muslims in a state of slavery. Destruction of all non-Muslims is the goal, whole and complete. The rest is methodology.

Jenos did a fairly good job explaining some of the differences between Christianity and Islam. (And he gets major, major props from me for recommending research! ) Snorri, you might want to re-examine your premises... starting with this one: Rhetoric = Fact.

And you should probably go find out more about a religion before stamping it as "evil".

Been there, done that. Islam is dangerous. I don't say "evil", partly because that's a very subjective term and partly because I'm not here to insult people... I'm here to state facts. But beyond the question of Islam stands my initial point: for you to equate all fundamentalism with crazy and assume that no fundamentalist is a "regular believer" is highly, highly uncharitable, at best, and in gross defiance of the facts, at worst. Try to keep your personal opinions separate from your facts.

Christian fundamentalists want strong families, peace where possible, value for human life, freedom for the world, a healthy income, truth, justice, and the American Way.

as if all Christian fundamentalists are American.

It was an ironic commentary on the fundamentalist movement in America. The movement as a whole, while having solid doctrinal roots, has demonstrated an impressively pathetic tendency to conflate "Christian" with "American". My point was that while some of these goals may be misguided, many are sound - in spite of the sometimes ridiculous things that result.

[jonesthecurl]

Christian fundamentalists want strong families, peace where possible, value for human life, freedom for the world, a healthy income, truth, justice, and the American Way.

as if all Christian fundamentalists are American.

I think he has Jesus mixed up with Superman.
It's easy to do - both had extraterrestrial fathers, both can walk on water (well, technically, Superman has to either run so fast he doesn't break the surface tension, like the Flash , or fly very slowly. I don't know which method Jesus used.), both had powers beynd the ken of normal man, both came back from the dead, both can run faster than a speeding bullet (oh, wait, that's just Superman).

[Nikolai]

Except that they should've left Superman dead after Doomsday. Seriously, that was the way to kill a comic book character! It'll never be that good again!

(Oh, and we don't know that Jesus couldn't run faster than a speeding bullet... after all, maybe he multiplied the food by running to the store and buying a metric ton of fish and bread during that prayer! )

[jonesthecurl]

yeah, that's how the Flash would do it.

[Snorri1234]

Such thoughts are your prerogative, and I don't necessarily disagree... my point was that you made an assumption that was hardly fair. Fundamentalists are not, by definition, crazy. You may think that they are because you hold certain beliefs about all religion, but you can't state that they are, as a matter of absolute fact, because it's only your opinion.

Well obviously. But the whole problem with labelling something as "crazy" is that it is subjective in a way. I say that anyone who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old crazy. I consider them crazier than people who just believe in a god and who believe in the message of JC, but I can understand that it is subjective. (Nevertheless, it is also a commonly help opinion. It being subjective doesn't mean it isn't partly true.)

Yes, without meaning to toot my own horn too much, I do. I've made a concerted study of several of the more controversial religions, reading and talking to people on all sides of the major issues (or as close as I could get) and drawing my own conclusions. (I got tired of hearing the same old, same old baloney about different religions tossed out by people who didn't actually know, so I decided to find out myself.)

Okay, I'm not an expert on Korans or anything. I just say what those people themselves (fundies) say.

As I said, you're entitle to your opinion. However, I will note that your opinion is based on a logical fallacy... you're confusing the goals with the means, which I already said may not be admirable. The root goal of "no gay marriage" for a fundamentalist is that they believe it's an attack on the family, which they believe needs to be strong for good society, and they believe it's an attack on the natural order, per John Locke, Thomas Aquinas and other natural philosophers. "No gay marriage" isn't a goal in and of itself. (For you to hold that up as a goal is, if I may say, extremely shallow. I would've expected better from you.) It is possible to admire the goal without appreciating the method.

But a goal is determined by the means. You could have easily said that the goal fundamentalist muslims have is making Islam the only religion in the world, ensuring more peace, understanding and love. And that they choose to do this by killing everyone who doesn't believe is just a means of accomplishing that. I could go and define every religion, economic philosophy or general philosophy as having admirable goals.

It's not the goals that matter, it's the means. You can't seperate a goal from it's means and claim it is an admirable goal, because goals and ideals are generally awesome anyway. It's why they are so praised in nearly every religion/form of state and philosophy.

Again, you make the critical error of assuming that "fundamentalists" are different from "regular believers". In the sake of Christianity, that may or may not be true, since "regular believers" isn't particularly well-defined... you seem to mean whichever group of believers is biggest gets to be "regular", which is a very poor method.

Yeah, you're right. I chose my words poorly.

What I meant was "moderate believers", which isn't that good of a term but it's more accurate.

In the case of Islam, you are dead wrong. Not only is fundamentalist Islam the view held by the great majority of Muslims around the world, it is explicitly stated in the Koran that if anyone isn't a fundamentalist Muslim, they aren't a Muslim at all. So while you are right that fundamentalists don't determine the beliefs of non-fundamentalists, you are entirely wrong to think that fundamentalists cannot be equivalent to "regular" believers.

But what is the fundamentalist view? Because if it is "killing every non-muslim", then I must declare bullshit on your point simply because A.) We are not in war with them, surely if they wanted to kill us all they would just go out and kill us since there are more than a billion of them? and B.) Most muslims don't seem to act like fundamentalists.

No, it isn't. You know that I usually avoid hard and fast statements at this level, but in this case I will be happy to provide you with documentation from the Qur'an, the Hadith, and any of the four major schools of Islamic doctrinal/legal interpretation supporting my point. Or you could go look at some of the threads in which I've discussed this topic previously. It is an undeniable part of Islam that Allah, through the Prophet, said quite explicitly it was the goal of Islam to conquer the earth, bringing all of its peoples into the Ummah (the community of Muslim believers), and killing any who resist.

If that is true then they are doing the shittiest job I've seen. Killing people who are critical of the Islam by random terrorist acts isn't the way a sane human being would set about conquering the world. Particularly if they were with 1 billion friends and had most of the oil and other resources in the world.

Been there, done that. Islam is dangerous. I don't say "evil", partly because that's a very subjective term and partly because I'm not here to insult people... I'm here to state facts. But beyond the question of Islam stands my initial point: for you to equate all fundamentalism with crazy and assume that no fundamentalist is a "regular believer" is highly, highly uncharitable, at best, and in gross defiance of the facts, at worst. Try to keep your personal opinions separate from your facts.

Okay, then I'm just going to say that all believers are crazy and that muslims are doing a tremendously shitty job at being fundamentalist.