On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:49:05 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Fundamentalists are, by definition, to be feared.

Fundamentalism is, by definition, "a movement or attitude stressing
strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"

In that sense it is difficult to see how there could not be harmless
fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists from plug in your favorite religion will do
whatever in a heartbeat if they feel that their god has mandated
that action. Having been born and raised in the bible belt, I can
assure you that 99.44% religious discussions end with, "well, god said
it, I believe it, and that's that." And both parties walk away
feeling righteous.

I've no doubt of that; I've had plenty of religious conversations
myself. But the fact of it is that both parties to those conversations
walked away. That's *the* significant difference between a Christian
"fundamentalist" and the islamo-fascist "fundamentalist".

In fact, these islamicists appear to be "fundamentalist" hypocrites,
if they'll set their own code of behavior aside in order to hide among
Americans.

I'm not sure what you have in mind by *mass*, but the following come
to mind:

Not big enough. And by "mass murder/suicide" I definitely don't mean
the Heaven's Gate or Jonestown mass suicides, those movements were too
small and didn't survive the deaths of their adherents, and they
didn't have the component that the suicidal person was going to take
as many noncombatants with him to his death.

The one I particularly like is the "God is Love" people, the
Cabalists. The christian pope didn't like them much.... so much for
"love"....

http://www.theunjustmedia.com/The%20...e_templars.htm

I also don't recall that the Templars killed themselves on their
campaigns, without a vigorous fight.

I don't think your case is made, Gene.

Rob