pelican,
I think I can agree with what you wrote, except perhaps for:

>> I don't think I have ever met a fundamentalist secularist <<

How else would you describe people, even on this OLO, who call religion education (presumably any, including that provided by mainstream Christian churches) "child abuse", a term that describes a crime punishable by law in any decent society?

(I prefer to use the short term “secularist“, that rhymes with islamist or (Christian) fundamentalist, to denote the intolerant ones, while retaining the term "secular humanist" for tolerant people like you. Fortunately, intolerant secularists/atheists, as vociferous as they are, are still a small minority among Western secular humanists.)

The world I escaped from in 1968 did not go that far in trying to criminalise religious education, but it did get close enough: I myself, had I not won a high school mathematics competition (the price being the choice of any university in the country, free of entrance exams, which meant also free of political/ideological interrogation) I would probably not have been allowed to go straight to a university because of my religious convictions. (Although some people thus discriminated managed to get a place at the university a few years later.)

Did you, or somebody you know, ever have a similar experience with a country where Christians (including the fundamentalists) were at the helm? (Of course, I speak of our living memory, not the Middle Ages).

I think one should compare decent Christians with decent secular humanists, and intolerant Christians with intolerant secularists, whatever the basis of their intolerance: be it biblical literalism, religious fanaticism or adherence to a fanatic atheist ideology like Marx-Leninism, or just arrogance bred by ignorance of the other side‘s position; in both cases.

This inventive way of categorizing Muslims into groups depending on how well they observe Islamic rituals is deceptive.

In the orthodox tradition of Islam, the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of Islam and dar al-Harb, the house of war.

If the former does not apply then physical means such as Jihad can be used to correct the situation.

Dar al-Harb is also referred to as Dar al-Garb "house of the West", which for much of Islamic history, has been used to emphasize Islamic aspirations to conquer such territories and render them part of dar al-Islam.

A traditional Arabic saying attributed to Muhammad goes: "Unbelief is one community", or in other words, "infidels are of one nation", expressing the view that distinctions between different types of non-Muslims are insignificant in relation to the overriding distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim.

The house of war may further be divided into:

Dar al Hudna ("house of calm"): The land of non-believers currently under a truce, a respite between wars;

Dar al-'Ahd ("house of truce") or Dar al-Sulh ("house of treaty"): invented to describe the Ottoman Empire's relationship with its Christian tributary states.

Dar al-Dawa ("house of invitation") - a term used to describe a region where the religion of Islam has recently been introduced.

Dar al-Amn ("house of safety") - a term proposed by Western Muslim philosophers to describe the status of Muslims either in the West or other non-Muslim societies.

So how does this article helps us understand Muslims better if Teuku can’t even address what his ideology actually teaches?

While Muslims here in Dar al-Amn are always trying to label themselves “moderate”, the tension of being a Muslim in Australia will be present until we can all be miserable together under the roof of dar al-Islam (the house of peace).

And what percentage of Australian Muslims would call themselves moderate? Radical? Neo-fundamentalist? Societal? You don't actually indicate which label Australian Muslims most identify with.

Women wearing hijab – are they Moderate? Radical? Neo-fundamentalist? Societal? Or proud of their heritage?

Muslims building mosques – Moderate? Radical? Neo-fundamentalist? Societal?

Taxi drivers refusing to carry drunk passengers – Moderate? Radical? Neo-fundamentalist? Societal? Societal-heritage?

Demanding special prayer rooms at Australian universities – Moderate? Radical? Etc?

Declaring women to be "uncovered meat"...?

Beating wives...?

Marrying children as young as 9 years old...?

Writing yet another article to show how stupid and intolerant Australians are, while Muslims clearly have the higher moral ground and a claim to this land dating back to the 1800s …….Muslim.

You really are a hateful Christian fundy, aren't you katie0?

I guess in Teuku Zulfikar's schema, that would make you a Neo-fundamentalist godbotherer, as opposed to the inoffensive, harmless majority of Christians.

George

I cannot disagree with what you say. Certainly not in living memory can I think of a nation dominated by a Christian ethos as having the same effects as the experience you described.

There are of course isolated examples of fundamentalist sects offending against children and the like but they are not the norm and their acts do not reflect or exert power over the majority.

The only thing I would add that a secularist that would advocate banning religion or religious education in a private school is not really a secularist. Perhaps sometimes, in thinking about a comment from a previous poster, we really mean pluralism when we say secularism.

Banning religious education from a public government funded school is not, I think you would agree, a fundamentalist secular view,if we perceive secularism as a condition where governments do not force one particular religious view on the populace.

This is different of course in learning about Religion as a subject of history or studies of society across the broad spectrum of the major religious groups.

CJ Morgan.
Yap-yapping again? How tiresome. (Folks, there's a long background to this elsewhere.)

KatieO is not a hateful Christian fundy. She's just being honest. No political correctness.

If you put as much educated perspective, life experience and balance into your contributions as (say) George, you could say something worthwhile.

Consistently, what you write shows a tragic inability to discern the difference between truth and negativity born of nihilism. I tell you wistfully, "... know the truth and the truth will set you free."

What is truth? Honesty, fairness, balance, pursuit of the good, the beautiful and the holy. An internalized belief system that conduces "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control". People who aspire to this are not "fundies" but salt of the earth, a light against moral darkness. How do you think others read you? As a light on a high point toward which they should head, or as someone totally lost?

I've often wondered why so many people seem to be fascinated by the negative and destructive. Why is it clever and sophisticated to be constantly negative, destructive and disdainful of what is wholesome and ingenuously 'good'?

To anticipate a criticism from you, I freely concede I suffer from lack of patience and a certain capacity for indignation (yup, selective judgmentalism). Christians sure aren't perfect. But "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!" (Galatians 2:17)

When you think to bad-mouth Christians, and tar all of us as "fundies" (a pejorative but meaningless term, the way you use it), please take on board that I, and many others, identify strongly with this statement by Steve Chalke (UK pastor): “The task of the church is to be the irrefutable demonstration and proof of the fact that God is love.”

That’s a pretty decently directed aspiration, I reckon. Which direction are you facing?