William Sumner Scott, J.D.'s Conclusory Findings

Submitted by orange yonason (United States), Feb 4, 2007 at 03:12

B"H

Starting from incorrect assumptions, you proceed by jumping from one outlandish conclusion to the next with no regard for logic and only the slightest semblance of connection to reality. You present your own prejudices as fact, and don't even do us the courtesy of demonstrating how you arrived at them. [I do believe "conclusory" is the proper legalese term for this kind of reasoning, 'J.D.'?"]

Since you don't understand, let me explain.

A religious extremist is someone who bases their behavior and beliefs on elements actually contained in their religion. When his co-religionists find his extreme behavior and/or beliefs repulsive and reject him for them, because they are not founded on their religious principles, then he can be seen as seperate from that religion, and he can't properly be called a religious extremist. He does not even represent the "extremes" of his religion. Religious fanatic might be a more appropriate term, or even just fanatic or lunatic.

However, when his co-religionists condone his ideology and or behavior or even dismiss it as excuseable based on their religion, then one can assume he is following an extreme but 'legitimate' interpretation of it. In that case that individual can correctly be called a religious extremist, because he accurately represents elements of it.

Unfortuantely, unlike just about any other religion practiced today, only certain and all too numerous adherents of Islam fit this description. And since their extreme beliefs manifest as the intolerance and violence of a large and growing number of Muslims, it must be understood for what it is and effective means of dealing with it developed and made operational asap.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".