To eradicate rigid orthodox that cause great harm to mankind. It is seen that the rigid Orthodox beliefs have caused great harm to the economic, social, political progress of mankind. People those...
It is seen that the rigid Orthodox beliefs have caused great harm to the economic, social, political progress of mankind. People those who pretend to be religious, motivate others in the name of religion and spread hatred. Even they are running parallel government in many countries and these so called religious groups are the killers of brotherhood, sanctity of religion. They also bring untold miseries to the peace loving citizens of their as well as their neighboring countries. Some nations even support them for the sake of their economical or political benefit evading welfare of the innocent people. How can we mobilize our views and eradicate these groups.
I must agree that eradicating any group, regardless of its goals, is impossible. However, I do not believe that the world is without hope. Other groups can develop to fight these "powerful entities," to slow them down or bring relief to those that they harm.
As an example, there is a non-profit organization out of New York City called the We Are Family Foundation. This organization supports a group of young people in a program called "Three Dot Dash" (...—), named for the morse code for the letter "V," the symbol we make with our fingers that represents peace. "Inspired by the late 13-year-old poet and peacemaker Mattie J.T. Stepanek," young people find ways to help the world where they live. For instance, one young man found that in his embattled country, civilians were dying of infections from small wounds brought on by the fighting that was destroying their towns and villages. This young man learned first-aid. He contacted groups willing to donate first-aid supplies. Then he called on young people from neighboring areas to visit him; he taught them first-aid and gave them a first-aid kit. They returned to their homes and the word (and help) spread. This is just one example.
This young man and many like him are changing the world with WAFF, in 29 countries, on 7 continents. This is certainly not the only group out there, but it is an example of how anyone—at any age—finding the world to be in great need, can gather with others of like mind and decide to "make a change."
Your concern in commendable. Don't lose hope. Find a need and join with others willing to step up and change the world, one problem—and one place—at a time. In this way, we can "fight back" without raising arms against others. And remember to return all actions toward you with forgiveness and tolerance. It is hard to do. But if we do not, we foster the behavior of these other groups and become like them. Peace and love are stronger than hatred.
I wish you well in finding a path that helps you change your world.
#8 is exactly correct. We cannot afford to fall into the trap of "eradicating" groups -- any sort of groups -- that we disagree with. In every situation, the attempt to silence or eliminate dissenting voices turns into pogrom: violent mobs seeking the destruction of their perceived enemies. I can think of dozens of examples just in the last ten years where a political ideology claimed victory over a subject and then attempted to silence their opponents; you know your opinion is flawed when you cannot argue based on issue, but instead shout "It's settled! You're wrong! Cut his mic!"
Instead of seeking to eradicate groups of people, for ANY reason, we should instead make our arguments -- based entirely on fact and knowledge -- public and available. We should be willing and able to calmly and clearly defend our positions based on fact, science, and objective truth, rather than emotion. We should seek to EDUCATE instead of ELIMINATE. If you cannot win an argument without resorting to "eradication," then I would argue that your position is inherently incorrect.
By the way, any time I see reference to "eradicating a group of people..." well, Godwin's law, don't you know....
The problem is that once you actively start eradicating groups, peoples, and groups of people, you become the rigid voice of your own kind of orthodoxy and a problem of equal weight with that which you fight against. What you need is an alternate path to follow. Gandhi set an alternate for himself. It took education, writing, and talking while living an exemplary life--not a life of eradicating trouble spots. Others have written fiction that exposes potential presents and futures that reflect or contradict actual social/political/cultural realities. In either case, to make a change on a global level--as you are speaking after all of a global problem--the starting point is excellent education and the ability to use words to create mind changing and life changing images. It is these changes inspired by images created by your words that will effect the eradication of at least a pocket or two of the domineering orthodoxy you--rightly--identify as being destructive.
I think it is impossible to ever eradicate such things because it is human nature that we are talking about here. I think the only way to mitigate it is to create more prosperity in the countries that are most affected.
People bring untold miseries to one another for many reasons other than religion. We had the Nazis who were not particularly religious and we had the Soviets who were explicitly non-religious. The problem is not religion, it is that people who are in poor situations will cling to anything that blames someone else and that promises them a better life. In many places today, it is religion that does this.
But think about places that do and don't have extremism. Extremism seems most prominent in places that are poor and weak. People who feel have good lives are much less inclined to follow extremism of any sort.
Post two hit the issue right on the head. It is not about religion. It certainly can be, but in the end it is about the human heart. There seems to be a propensity in many people to oppress others and cause other kinds of harm. Also I think the original posters uses some extreme language as well. To eradicate these groups might be construed as extreme. I know that he probably does not intend this, but the way forward would probably be through: education, greater wealth and opportunities, and greater interaction with one another.
Your concern is one that the American playwright Arthur Miller wrote about in The Crucible. While the overt subject-matter of this play is the witch-hunting of the New England Puritanism, Miller makes subtle allusion to McCarthyism as a modern-day witch-hunt with this drama. Radicalism is dangerous. To seek to fight such oppression as those to which you refer, another form of oppression is not the answer.
I, too, would agree that eradicating groups such as these would be impossible. By silencing one group, one risks other groups (who are beneficial to society) being silenced as well. All I can suggest is voice your own concerns peacefully; violence is never the answer (one would only be supporting the actions of the groups who act violently as well).
Probably the spread of capitalism, with its emphasis on satisfying and expressing the self, would do the most to help turn people away from truly extremist beliefs. This, after, all has already happened to a great degree in the West, and it seems to happen in many places where capitalism takes hold.
Sadly, many peoples and nations still don't see the harm in mixing religion and politics. It's a sad case of not realizing that history repeats itself, and American politics has its fair share of offenders. The attempt to force religious opinions down others' throats will never cease.