Holiness vs Fanaticism

Question: Where to draw the line between dedication to holiness and religious fanaticism (in light of the cowardly terrorist activity since 9/11?

What is holiness? What is religious fanaticism?
Holiness is a measurement of a person’s divine nature. How godly a person are they? Understanding what holiness is, requires an understanding of what divine identity is defined. If the divine being is a loving identity, holiness is a measurement of one’s loving nature. If the divine being is a wrathful God, who will destroy any opposition, then holiness is a measurement of one’s triumphs over any opposing ideas or definitions.
Religious fanaticism is an intolerance of any religious beliefs that do not fully align with our own. This covers every religious belief from the far left to the far right, if the person is avidly intolerant of any religious belief, other than their own.
In ancient times this was only a problem when two religious ideas crossed paths. The world’s societies or cultures were divided by religious beliefs. A person’s neighbors were of the same faith as they. As populations grew and humanity became more mobile and urban, people found themselves with neighbors of different religious views.
These new neighborhoods of mixed views taxed the concept of holiness. If a person’s holiness was a measure of their love of their fellow beings, they would never attack anyone else’s beliefs. They would always forgive, while turning the other cheek. The classic example of this was killed by his neighbors. Any person who truly follows this way of holiness will always end up in some form of crucifixion, not triumph, on this Earth.
If a person’s holiness is to prove here on Earth that their religion or understanding of the divine is the one and only true one, they will always attack the beliefs of others. They will live by the sword and die by the sword. Their earthly triumphs are never permanent, because someone always eventually attacks and defeats them.
So is it futile? Where can we draw the line, so each can survive as neighbors? I am not sure any longer. I thought we could exist side by side, but the attackers don’t like to heard disagreeing ideas, no matter how philosophical it might be. So, may be we are headed back to the dark ages, when neighborhoods were divided over religious differences.
Perhaps we could let each group build a wall around their cities and allow no one but true believers into their particular neighborhood. Let them all sign a treaty that says they will keep their noses out of the business of the other cities and neighborhoods. I think its called isolationism.
Wait a minute, isn’t that what they are doing with the Gaza strip? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? and other places? It is even close to home, with the blossoming congregations in several religions. These growing groups are against anyone with different views. The people inside these movements usually don’t really know for sure what their religion is in truth, but they love the comfort of being surrounded with fellow believers. Just like living in a village around the castle with a king protecting you.
I guess the line to draw between dedication to holiness and religious fanaticism is a circle and allow in only people like me - And to Hell with the rest. Or forget any line at all and respect my fellow human beings and their beliefs - And be fanatical about it.

Crossing the Rubicon

The phrase "Crossing the Rubicon" stems from Julius Ceasar’s crossing the Rubicon River on Jan 11, 49 BC. The act of crossing the river was considered an act of war by Ceasar against Pompey and the Roman Senate. He acknowledge that his act was an irrevocable one, when he uttered the phrase, "The die is cast."
Great changes came about in the Roman Empire that extended its grand world position an extra three or four hundred years. It was in rapid decline with leaders, heroes, entertainers, businessmen, and priest acting utterly acting out of self-interest. The nobility of being concern with the welfare of the people was lost in the drive to nab power in any which way you could.
On November 6, 2012 I wonder if our great nation is facing another Rubicon Crossing. Since the 1960's we have been approaching the banks of our Rubicon and I believe we have arrived. It is time not for change but renewal of the Founding Father’s original intent - Freedom for the individual with responsibility for the whole. This was a unique conception, and when Washington made his river crossing, "the die was cast’ and a unique Constitutional Freedom evolved.
That original intent built a nation where immigrants were proud to come in through the front door; where wealthy individuals were philanthropic toward educational, medical, and social endeavors; heroes were modest and remembered their roots; politicians were not career people; religious leaders were more interested in souls than their own image and wealth; businessmen looked upon their employees as their personal responsibility in terms of financial survival; and the individual citizenry voted for principles and not images.
When did we lose our responsibility for the whole? I believe my generation planted it and those following developed it into what we see today - fewer and fewer wealthy philanthropic acts; breast beating heroes with lifestyles that belong in a pigsty; lifetime politicians who stay beyond their usefulness; religious leaders who represent violence in words and deeds; greedy businessmen are more the norm than not; and citizenry who don’t vote, but will never fail to complain when they don’t get their share of the Pork Barrel.
Everybody is calling for change, but it is time for renewal more than change. We need to go back to the basics with changed ideas. When Washington cast the die at that river it was for basically an all white male, liberal Christian society that honored the working man. His Rubicon Crossing brought a simple social system to this group that for the first time in modern history - a nation where all were concerned with freedom for the individual with responsibility for the whole.
The renewal is needed today with a few changes in concept. Substitute the phrase white male for all humans; add basic respect of all beliefs and individuals for liberal Christian; and expand the concept of honor to mean respect, educate, and enable individuals to fulfill their destinies in life and to accept their own responsibilities for self and the whole equally.
Now, all I have to do is find another Caesar or Washington to lead us across today’s Rubicon.