The best article i have read. Yes this man is trying to take a rational approach to common sense. What else do we have?! Once again in some of the comments posted above the far left is attempting to muddy the waters- common sense does not always have to become subjective. If we cannot all agree that blowing up women, and children in the name of religion is wrong then mankind is in a horrible condition. Furthermore before I get a flood of responses claiming there is no difference between the Americans in Iraq, and terrorists in London please read my posts on that topic. Oil, legality, and politics aside, Al Qaeda and the like are not men of god-just men exploiting the notion.

Pericles, I don't think it is miscomprehension but disagreement. They think the distinction is between us and Islam, but the article suggests the divide is one of fundamentalist religion.

Although I agree that fundamentalists perceive things through their religion, I think much of what the articles says is wrong. Grey has already pointed out some of the difficulties surrounding using common sense as a moral guide. The article seems to suggest that we never need look for deeper moral insight, that we already know all there is to know and that moral issues are always clear. Furthermore, the article implies that it is not important to look at the root causes of evil or alternatively that evil is simply evil & that there are no other causes. And it seems to assume that you can only look at what is in front and what is behind. These positions would be deeply flawed.

Everyone perceives through their own experiences, interests and views. Not all views have as strong a control over thought as fundamentalism, some limitation always exists. It is easy for us to (rightly) condemn terrorists but we do not so easily notice or condemn the immoral acts of our own country.

if it were up to me, id put the fun back into fundamentalism!

Love it examinee! Fundamental a fun dame.
I enjoy being true to myself, its such fun. I want to examine carefully others POV before I bow to their fundamental position.

ANT

This is for you. I'm rather mystified about what the connection is between my final quote/words in my post which were from John the Baptist "If anyone has 2 cloaks, let him share with one who has none"

with

"Give us a break Boaz . Jesus is turning over tables, sinful wicked Christians.........
You're a worry. Did you find something offensive about the idea of sharing what we have with those less fortunate than ourselves ?

I appreciate your use of Christ's example in your responses, I can think of no better source to be compared with, and while I will always come up 'failing' its ok :) because I'm not under any Messianic delusion of personal perfection.

On your reference to Ian Paisly, totally agree. I saw him in Singapore, spending five minutes patting Bob Jones Jr on the back who then returned the compliment, I wanted to peuk.

I think one major problem that you and Xena and Trinity are having, is that in your minds you have a very poor image of SOME segments of the Christian spectrum, (the worst end) and you are all applying that image to the likes of Philo, David, Grey and others.

There is a WORLD of difference between Bob Jones/Fred Phelps hyper fundamentalists and 'Christians who believe in the fundamental truths of the faith.'

I hope you guys and gals will simply read the New Testament, try to gain an image of JESUS, then, when you wish to criticize us, use HIS example and HIS teaching, directly. Don't latch onto the worst last bad Christian news report and smother us with vitriol.

I don't think any of us will object to being compared with Christ, we DO however object in the most strenuous terms to being identified (in a SLANDERous manner) with movements or identities who do not relfect our own positions. The 'Christian Identity' think from Xena being a prime example. With any group which has the tag "Christian" there will certainly be an overlap of SOME ideas, but not all. When in doubt consult USER MANUAL :)

OK, says Grey, don't like where this is heading, time for the strawman.

>>"Essentially, it argues that 'common sense' is the proper way to interpret reality. But on what basis does it make this claim?"<<

No it doesn't. It suggests that common sense is the proper way to respond to reality, and contrasts this with the tendency of the religious fundamentalist - of any persuasion - to respond to any reality with their particular brand of mumbo-jumbo.

By attempting to recast the issue as a battle of "competing worldviews", you are fooling no-one. Bashir Goth has skewered beautifully the cant, hypocrisy and doublethink of the religious fundamentalists, and it is a mark of how well he has done so that you react in this way.

Oh look, a Wookie.