Fundamentalism of itself is harmless, it is in fact a more honest approach to religion by attempting to apply it.
There are plenty of fundamentalists out there, and the press has no interest in them. So people unthinkingly consider that when the word fundamentalist is used in contextual reference to bigoted extremist fundamentalist then some might narrow mindedly believe that no other type of fundamentalism exists.
Francis of Assissi, Catherine of Sienna and Mohammandas Ghandi were all fundamentalists; as are hundreds of thousands more likely ten of millions of other harmless or benign figures.
If fundamentalism equals fanaticism in anyones mind, perhaps it is because that mind is not big enough to see beyond what the press is feeding them.
Orlanth wrote:Fundamentalism of itself is harmless, it is in fact a more honest approach to religion by attempting to apply it.
There are plenty of fundamentalists out there, and the press has no interest in them. So people unthinkingly consider that when the word fundamentalist is used in contextual reference to bigoted extremist fundamentalist then some might narrow mindedly believe that no other type of fundamentalism exists.
Francis of Assissi, Catherine of Sienna and Mohammandas Ghandi were all fundamentalists; as are hundreds of thousands more likely ten of millions of other harmless or benign figures.
If fundamentalism equals fanaticism in anyones mind, perhaps it is because that mind is not big enough to see beyond what the press is feeding them.
I guess these people and others like them of different religions applying the term to themselves doesn't count?
Sorry if the perception seems narrow minded to you, but I'm not on about people that genuinly honor respect and love that is preached in most religions.
What I despise are those that give themselves a lable that denotes getting back to the roots and using their twisted version to grab for power, cause hate and create a climate of fear.
Speaking purely anecdotally here, the majority of fundamentalists I've met have been either stupid or asshats to some degree. When you're encouraged not to think for yourself and to just take someone else's word it's going to be hard to double-check if you're doing the right thing.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Speaking purely anecdotally here, the majority of fundamentalists I've met have been either stupid or asshats to some degree.
I've had the same experience with self-proclaimed Atheists.
Does that mean "Atheist" is just a codeword for "ass"?
Hint: no.
Yes, this guy is an asshat. But that doesn't mean his religious beliefs make him an asshat.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Speaking purely anecdotally here, the majority of fundamentalists I've met have been either stupid or asshats to some degree.
I've had the same experience with self-proclaimed Atheists.
Does that mean "Atheist" is just a codeword for "ass"?
Hint: no.
Yes, this guy is an asshat. But that doesn't mean his religious beliefs make him an asshat.
It's the way they act on their beliefs to bring suffering to others. The point about athiests is well taken, though.
The Knesset just needs to cut their stipends and force them to find employment. It solves two of thier problems: the UO pricks aren't leeching off the taxpayers and using all thier free time to make a nuisance of themselves, and it will probably lower thier birthrate actually having to work to be able to eat is EXHAUSTING.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Note that at no point did I exclude Atheist Fundamentalists Extremism in all forms is poison. A small bit of room has to be left for salt.
I think it's fair to say that some athiests and fundamentalists are essentually two sides of the same coin. Both are more than willing to go to OTT measures to make miserable the lives of those who don't subscribe to their religious views.
Some Atheists can be just as fanatical as those they claim to despise. It's a shame that people have forgotten the old enlightenment value of tolerance. I'm not religious myself, but I've nothing against people of whatever faith. It's a shame more of society didn't have that outlook.
Orlanth wrote:Fundamentalism of itself is harmless, it is in fact a more honest approach to religion by attempting to apply it.
I don't think fundamentalists are any more, or less, honest than any other religious believer. They may more openly appeal to honesty, but that doesn't mean they're actually being honest. The number of cases in which a vehement Christian fundamentalists speaks to the evils of homosexuality while sneaking off to the local bath house speaks to this.
Orlanth wrote:
If fundamentalism equals fanaticism in anyones mind, perhaps it is because that mind is not big enough to see beyond what the press is feeding them.
They aren't equivalent, but they generally walk hand-in-hand. For example, Francis of Assissi would likely be referred to as a fanatic were he to do as he did today.
Of course, fanaticism isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Note that at no point did I exclude Atheist Fundamentalists Extremism in all forms is poison. A small bit of room has to be left for salt.
I think it's fair to say that some athiests and fundamentalists are essentually two sides of the same coin. Both are more than willing to go to OTT measures to make miserable the lives of those who don't subscribe to their religious views.
I think you mean militant atheists there.
Not all atheists go around trying to disprove religion.
I personally take the view that religious views are much like genitals (Just roll with the analogy for a moment)
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Speaking purely anecdotally here, the majority of fundamentalists I've met have been either stupid or asshats to some degree.
I've had the same experience with self-proclaimed Atheists.
Does that mean "Atheist" is just a codeword for "ass"?
Hint: no.
Yes, this guy is an asshat. But that doesn't mean his religious beliefs make him an asshat.
True. It's more like the other way around.
Misogynists find the anti-women aspects of various religions to be a comfort and aid. It grants God's permission to enact and enforce their prejudices within society.
Of course one must make some allowance for the fact that people are born into their religion as a social construct, which makes it difficult to break out of.
The main problem is the Haredi live off the rather generous Israeli welfare system and are exempt from conscription, the latter being a culturally and nationally unifying institution in Israeli society. They've become too isolated, introverted, and extreme.
Harriticus wrote:The main problem is the Haredi live off the rather generous Israeli welfare system and are exempt from conscription, the latter being a culturally and nationally unifying institution in Israeli society. They've become too isolated, introverted, and extreme.
I f that's the line tey're using, then they're falling down on the unification thing rather hard. If they are exempt from service, than a nice stint on the front lines with members of families, like the people they harass is just what the doctor ordered.
I'd consider myself to be an agnostic atheist, and I loathe militant atheists. Man, if people find comfort and fulfillment in religion, how does it hurt you that you need to be a giant ass about it. Live and let live.
Harriticus wrote:The main problem is the Haredi live off the rather generous Israeli welfare system and are exempt from conscription, the latter being a culturally and nationally unifying institution in Israeli society. They've become too isolated, introverted, and extreme.
The Haredi have never had an easy relationship with mainstream Israeli society (being, essentially, anti-Zionist Jews will do that). Indeed, one could argue that things have gotten better over time.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Speaking purely anecdotally here, the majority of fundamentalists I've met have been either stupid or asshats to some degree. When you're encouraged not to think for yourself and to just take someone else's word it's going to be hard to double-check if you're doing the right thing.
Well here is the rub. Where do you get the idea that fundamentalists cannot think for themselves. For a start it makes no sense to believe that, the fundamentalists who cause the most problems do think for themselves, quite clearly. Al Quaeda is not run by unthinking idiots, assuming this is true is what caused the US to underestimate what they could do. Are you still on that page?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Speaking purely anecdotally here, the majority of fundamentalists I've met have been either stupid or asshats to some degree. When you're encouraged not to think for yourself and to just take someone else's word it's going to be hard to double-check if you're doing the right thing.
Well here is the rub. Where do you get the idea that fundamentalists cannot think for themselves. For a start it makes no sense to believe that, the fundamentalists who cause the most problems do think for themselves, quite clearly. Al Quaeda is not run by unthinking idiots, assuming this is true is what caused the US to underestimate what they could do. Are you still on that page?
Why does every thread in OT have to eventually become "Brits vs. yanks"?
Orlanth wrote:Fundamentalism of itself is harmless, it is in fact a more honest approach to religion by attempting to apply it.
I don't think fundamentalists are any more, or less, honest than any other religious believer. They may more openly appeal to honesty, but that doesn't mean they're actually being honest. The number of cases in which a vehement Christian fundamentalists speaks to the evils of homosexuality while sneaking off to the local bath house speaks to this.
Fundamentalism is ultimately a requirement for honest application of religion. Sadly it doesnt eliminate hypocrasy or guarantee benign lifestyle choices not does it preclude them.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Speaking purely anecdotally here, the majority of fundamentalists I've met have been either stupid or asshats to some degree. When you're encouraged not to think for yourself and to just take someone else's word it's going to be hard to double-check if you're doing the right thing.
Well here is the rub. Where do you get the idea that fundamentalists cannot think for themselves. For a start it makes no sense to believe that, the fundamentalists who cause the most problems do think for themselves, quite clearly. Al Quaeda is not run by unthinking idiots, assuming this is true is what caused the US to underestimate what they could do. Are you still on that page?
Why does every thread in OT have to eventually become "Brits vs. yanks"?
I am pretty sure Bin Laden is a good example of a fundamentalist who thinks, and one you have probably heard of.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Speaking purely anecdotally here, the majority of fundamentalists I've met have been either stupid or asshats to some degree. When you're encouraged not to think for yourself and to just take someone else's word it's going to be hard to double-check if you're doing the right thing.
Well here is the rub. Where do you get the idea that fundamentalists cannot think for themselves. For a start it makes no sense to believe that, the fundamentalists who cause the most problems do think for themselves, quite clearly. Al Quaeda is not run by unthinking idiots, assuming this is true is what caused the US to underestimate what they could do. Are you still on that page?
Why does every thread in OT have to eventually become "Brits vs. yanks"?
I am pretty sure Bin Laden is a good example of a fundamentalist who thinks, and one you have probably heard of.
I have also been around long enough to have read enough of your posts to know you are a smart guy and thus you and I know exactly what the unspoken subtext was...
But my post wasn't about you alone, more about the general trend of threads here to devolve into or include a brits vs. US undertone.
I'm confused by all the words being thrown around here. but my point is that the majority do think less because they're followers. They let someone else make the big calls for them and trust someone else's word over whatever their first instinct might be. Safe to say that qualifies as unthinking. Again, we're talking about extreme fundamentalism here only, which is more or less the definition of unthinking.
Orlanth wrote:Fundamentalism of itself is harmless, it is in fact a more honest approach to religion by attempting to apply it.
Wut.
First, St Francis and St Catherine of Sienna were not "fundamentalists" in any sense that is significant to this thread.
Second, contemporary fundamentalism is characterized most prominently by (1) an insistence on textual literalism, (2) the confusion of religion and ideology, and (3) vehement intolerance for divergent viewpoints. None of this strikes me as "honest." As far as interpretations of religious texts go, fundamentalist literalism can even be tantamount to dishonesty (see, e.g., intelligent design).
Fundamentalism is ultimately a requirement for honest application of religion.
Even without understanding exactly what you are trying to get at with the word "fundamentalism," I have to disagree with your sentiment more broadly. You make it sound like religion is some kind of abstract ideology external to one's way of life -- i.e., in need of application. That sounds more like ethics or, more ominously, politics.
To wit, here's John Dominic Crossan again:
I'll never tire of posting that and I hope one day it won't fall on deaf ears.
Orlanth wrote:Fundamentalism of itself is harmless, it is in fact a more honest approach to religion by attempting to apply it.
Wut.
First, St Francis and St Catherine of Sienna were not "fundamentalists" in any sense that is significant to this thread.
There were however fundamentalists. If you want to redefine fundamentalism then ask why.
Perhaps you dont understand and just want to find a neat little label to make things easy in your head, perhaps you hate and want to rationalise it, I will assume its the former, neither is helpful.
Manchu wrote:
I'll never tire of posting that and I hope one day it won't fall on deaf ears.
Repeating intolerances is sadly a storm to be endured so often in human history. We haven't really moved on as a species.
Orlanth wrote:Fundamentalism of itself is harmless, it is in fact a more honest approach to religion by attempting to apply it.
First, St Francis and St Catherine of Sienna were not "fundamentalists" in any sense that is significant to this thread.
There were however fundamentalists. If you want to redefine fundamentalism then ask why.
"Fundamenalist" is not a label that resonates throughout all history. Calling these people fundamentalists in a thread about ultra-Orthodox Jews spitting on little girls in 2011 is utterly meaningless. It's like saying that William the Conqueror was a post-modernist. These terms had no meaning in the world in which these figures lived (or at least no meaning equivalent to the one you seem to imply) and "claiming" them under your umbrella is a rather shameless political tactic -- something like how modern American politicians are scrambling over Abraham Lincoln.
Perhaps you dont understand and just want to find a neat little label to make things easy in your head, perhaps you hate and want to rationalise it, I will assume its the former, neither is helpful.
Your obliquely insulting non-sequitur is duly noted.
Orlanth wrote:
Manchu wrote:I'll never tire of posting that and I hope one day it won't fall on deaf ears.
We haven't really moved on as a species.
Nor will it be possible as long as fundamentalism can be confused for a "good thing."
Manchu wrote:"Fundamenalist" is not a label that resonates throughout all history. Calling these people fundamentalists in a thread about ultra-Orthodox Jews spitting on little girls in 2011 is utterly meaningless.
Actually the link is established in the thread title.
Manchu wrote:
It's like saying that William the Conqueror was a post-modernist. These terms had no meaning in the world in which these figures lived (or at least no meaning equivalent to the one you seem to imply) and "claiming" them under your umbrella is a rather shameless political tactic
What is the relevance of this?
I do not need to claim Ghandi for asimple example under 'my' umbrella, I let history speak for itself. Ghandi lived in accordance with his religious creed so firmly that he discarded most of his possessions and even as his personal influence expanded he embraced poverty. His fundamentalism is clear and there for all to see, a strict adherence to fundamentalist Hinduism was behind his lifestyle choices. You can deny this if it doesnt fit your ideology, but it wont be any less true.
Manchu wrote:Nor will it be possible as long as fundamentalism can be confused for a "good thing."
I am not the one confused. Fundamentalism isn't a good or bad thing, its an application of religion or other doctrine firmly. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how fundamentalism is applied. As others have noted it need not even be limited to organised religion. Fundamentalist atheism certainly exists, and you can apply fundamentalism outside of religious choices entirely.
it is ironic that you are in fear of closed minded religious types and yet are in flat denial yourself.
Manchu wrote:"Fundamenalist" is not a label that resonates throughout all history. Calling these people fundamentalists in a thread about ultra-Orthodox Jews spitting on little girls in 2011 is utterly meaningless.
Actually the link is established in the thread title.
By "these people," I was referring (as per the context of your comments) to St Francis and Saint Catherine. Whatever sense that they were "fundamentalist," if any, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Jews reported on in the article posted by OP.
Orlanth wrote:Ghandi lived in accordance with his religious creed so firmly that he discarded most of his possessions and even as his personal influence expanded he embraced poverty. His fundamentalism is clear and there for all to see, a strict adherence to fundamentalist Hinduism was behind his lifestyle choices.
What you're describing has nothing to do with fundamentalism.
You can deny this if it doesnt fit your ideology, but it wont be any less true
It's not about my ideology; it's about using words appropriately.
Orlanth wrote:Fundamentalism isn't a good or bad thing, its an application of religion or other doctrine firmly.
To the extent that that means anything, it is not fundamentalism. I have already outlined three clear and concise characteristics of fundamentalism.
Orlanth wrote:it is ironic that you are in fear of closed minded religious types and yet are in flat denial yourself.
I decided to look at the article linked in the OP. Yes I handt done so before, the concept of fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context needed looking at more.
However taking a look and as expected its ultra-orthodox Jews causing the problem to the little girl. There are plenty of Ultra-Orthodox Jews around, there are plenty of them in Israel and around London and New York amongst other places. Are they fundamentalists, yes? Why are they fundamentalists, because they abuse little girls? No, because they follow Judaism with fundamentalist zeal. Why do they not shave the sides of their heads, to better oppress little girls? No, because the Bible tells them not to. Most other Jews and Christians have ignored that particular verse, I dont even know where to find it by memory, and I consider myself faithful.
You see Jewish fundamentalism is easy to see, because men in particular must adhere to certain dress codes. Often many of these fundamentalists are known as Hassidic.
There is no excuse to write off entire strict religious communities as evil, or to deny their fervour because one may prefer to assume that strict adherence to faith is evil.
Some might honestly at first say. "We hear all the time about evil fundamentalist douchbags, so isnt that what fundamentalism is?"
Such people need educating calmly, take the OP for example. Yes some othodox Jews can be closed minded and wixkedly dogmatic, but that doesnt mean they all are, or even a majority. in fact how often do such stories surface? Not often, and thereare plenty of ultra-Orthodox jews around.
Same applies to christians Hindus and Moslem fundamentalists also. however they dont make the press, they live thier lives in their millions.
"Monk prays for the sick."
"Robed man milks goat."
"Hassid repairs watch at his shop."
They arent riveting headlines, for newspapers to rpint, but its indicative of what most fundamentalists are doing the world over.
Orlanth wrote:
Fundamentalism is ultimately a requirement for honest application of religion. Sadly it doesnt eliminate hypocrasy or guarantee benign lifestyle choices not does it preclude them.
I disagree. One need not be especially strict in their application of religious principles in order to honestly adhere to them. The man who sees the Bible as a metaphor, and therefore subject to a good deal of interpretation is no less Christian than the man who sees the Bible as the literal truth and therefore less so. Or, at the very least, neither is more or less and honest about their faith.
Orlanth wrote:His fundamentalism is clear and there for all to see, a strict adherence to fundamentalist Hinduism was behind his lifestyle choices. You can deny this if it doesnt fit your ideology, but it wont be any less true.
Even if we accept your assignment of fundamentalism to Gandhi, we are still left with "Is fundamentalism good?"
After all, Gandhi was quite the bastard, being highly selective regarding his use of love.
Orlanth wrote:No, because they follow Judaism with fundamentalist zeal.
So, in other words, they are fundamentalists because they are fundamentalists?
No.
They are fundamentalists because of the reasons that I already stated above.
(1) insitence of textual literalism
(2) confusion between religion and ideology
(3) intolerance for divergent viewpoints
The sense in which you keep referring to "applying religion" "firmly" and with "zeal" seems to indicate that you think religion is a program (an ideology) that can be applied to a greater or lesser extent. That itself is a fundamentalist view of religion. But it is not the only view.
One non-fundamentalist view of religion is that religion is not some collection of proscriptions and prescriptions to be applied but rather a coherent worldview that transcends rote legalism. A person can be "strict" -- although I would prefer the term "devout" -- without rigidly applying some set of "rules" to their lifestyle.
Fundamentalism itself is not neutral. Whether exercised through Christianity or Islam or Judaism, fundamentalism entails at its basic and definitional level a very certain intolerance. This "intolerance" is not as simply holding one belief over others. I am a Christian: I believe that God exists and that people who say God does not exist are incorrect. That's not fundamentalism.
Rather, fundamentalism is believing that truth is collected into a finite packet of unambiguous dogma. That's why they are called "fundamentalists" -- they "boil down" the significance of some religion into an ideology composed of what they claim (usually via textual literalism) are its "fundamental" tenants. What does it mean to have this finite packet of truth? Listen to Crossan, man. The inevitable realization, if you believe that you alone have the truth, is that no one else does. And if you got rid of them the world would be no worse off. in fact, it would be better off because their opinions, their science, their religion, their very lifestyle are all offensive to God because they are clearly contradictory to the contents of that little truth-packet.
This why grown men, who profess belief in an all-benevolent creator-deity, can spit on little girls in the public street.
You don't start with genocide. But fundamentalism -- the thing that really is fundamentalism as opposed to your idea that fundamentalism is simply really, really believing your religion -- is a one-way street. It's a conveyor belt toward tragedy.
In the best of times they are obnoxious twits which normal people try to ignore; in the worst of times they're dangerous psychotics who go around murdering and oppressing anyone who is different from them.
That's right. Notice how in your wording the fundamentalists stay the same and it's the times that change. To be punny about it, I'm sure that's often a point of pride among them.
What I meant in the worst of times is not only when times are bad for everyone, but also when the fundamentalists gain power and motivation to use it. While I know that it's breaking Godwin's law, think about the fundamentalists of the Nazi party. It had nothing (most of the time) to do with religion, but rather, political viewpoints based off of a philosophy of intolerance.
But when they gained power... well, everyone knows the rest. Of course, when you have a fundamentalist philosophy, motivation is notoriously easy to get. So the danger is them having power over others... which they will inevitably use to force others to be more like them or suffer.
dogma wrote:The world does become much less complicated when you eliminate the possibility of change as a positive variable.
You don't have to tell a Catholic. Newman didn't know what he was in for when he wrote his "essay" on the Development of Christian Doctrine but then again, whatever his troubles, at least he didn't have to deal with Pius X.
Melissia wrote:What I meant in the worst of times is not only when times are bad for everyone, but also when the fundamentalists gain power and motivation to use it. While I know that it's breaking Godwin's law, think about the fundamentalists of the Nazi party. It had nothing (most of the time) to do with religion, but rather, political viewpoints based off of a philosophy of intolerance.
Apart from numbers 3, 4, 8, and parts of 23 (and the anti-Jewish rhetoric in #24, although that's not a separate point), could you point out which "fundamentals" were the problem?
biccat wrote:Apart from numbers 3, 4, 8, and parts of 23 (and the anti-Jewish rhetoric in #24, although that's not a separate point), could you point out which "fundamentals" were the problem?
I know your question wasn't directed at me but are you seriously asking which of the Nazi party's 25 (minus the few you mentioned) planks are problematic?
biccat wrote:Apart from numbers 3, 4, 8, and parts of 23 (and the anti-Jewish rhetoric in #24, although that's not a separate point), could you point out which "fundamentals" were the problem?
I know your question wasn't directed at me but are you seriously asking which of the Nazi party's 25 (minus the few you mentioned) planks are problematic?
I personally find problems with all but a few of them (parts of 1, 5, 9, and 24, specifically).
But yeah, I am seriously asking that question. Because if you put aside the fact that they were part of the Nazi platform, they aren't really that far out of the current political mainstream.
Yeah, the Nazis were a real political party that engaged real issues, similar to those that have faced many nations. Did you expect it would be something like:
The poster I quoted (see earlier post) suggested that Nazi "political viewpoints [were] based off a philosophy of intolerance," and that it was Nazi "fundamentalists" who were dangerous when they had power over others.
I'm asking which particular political viewpoints were based on a philosophy of intolerance, and how a fundamentalist application of that philosophy could lead to the obvious problems. I don't think it's entirely self-evident (well, it is to me, but I'll admit to a certain political bias against socialism).
The "fundamental" principle of Nazi ideology is racism. Not just in the American sense but in the sense of nationalism and social Darwinism. Whatever quaint to-do list was penciled on a beerhall napkin in 1920, this core of racism is the self-confessed, dominant theme of Nazism. But you know that. I'm trying to figure out if you're trying to turn this into a kind of ironical turn on socialism as part of a larger feud with Melissia or what. I'm having trouble seeing how you're going to do it, however.
biccat wrote:Because if you put aside the fact that they were part of the Nazi platform, they aren't really that far out of the current political mainstream.
But sure, if you put aside the antisemitism, prejudicial nationalism, and xenophobia (ie. ignore all the horrible characteristics of Nazism) it isn't too far outside the American (I assume this is what you mean.) political mainstream.
dogma wrote:The world does become much less complicated when you eliminate the possibility of change as a positive variable.
You don't have to tell a Catholic. Newman didn't know what he was in for when he wrote his "essay" on the Development of Christian Doctrine but then again, whatever his troubles, at least he didn't have to deal with Pius X.
They dont tally with fundamentalism in general either.
(1) Many fundamentalists can be insistant of textual literalism. However many as a culture do not impose that view on others. Amish for example are happy to let others live to their own standards and have methodologies by which their own can explore foreign ways of life and if they wish abandon the Amish way of life. Other fundamentalist groups have similar doctrines.
(2) Fundamentalists can be ideologically confused, but many are not only well read regarding their own choices but also well versed in knowledge outside their field. Ignorance is not mandatory for fundamentalism. Furthermore many of the most dangerous fundamentalists are not in the least bit confused either, though they may like to instill confusion in others.
(3) Fundamentalists can be intolerant for divergent viewpoints, no shock there. However it is far from a requirement for practicing fundamentalism, isn't it just a tad hypocritical to assume otherwise.
Manchu wrote:
But fundamentalism -- the thing that really is fundamentalism as opposed to your idea that fundamentalism is simply really, really believing your religion -- is a one-way street. It's a conveyor belt toward tragedy.
This is just hysteria. ZOMG fundamentalism leads to tragedy!! There are enough people who are taught to hate and fear religion already out of ignorance, why add to it?
(1) Amish are textual literalists. If every other person on earth were to die, the Amish would not think that any insight into the absolute truth about the world was lost. Please contrast this with saying that fundamentalists necessarily force their views on others. I think you'll find that I didn't incorporate that into any of my three characteristics of fundamentalists.
(2) The confusion of ideology and religion is not really a problem of ignorance, per say, in the sense of not understanding other religions. Plenty of fundamentalists know things about religions aside from their own. The confusion that I'm talking about is seeing religion as basically a set of precepts/rules/regulations (like wearing certain clothes, abstaining from certain foods, not engaging in pre-marital sex, etc) about human interaction with the world.
(3) It is not hypocritical to say that fundamentalists are characterized by severe intolerance of divergent worldviews. I already addressed this. There is a difference between me saying "those who do not believe in God are wrong" and a fundamentalist who says "those who do not believe in God will be punished for it."
Orlanth, it is supremely dishonest of you to accuse me of sewing fear and hatred of religion. Aside from your appeal to the dictionary, that is the dumbest thing you've said so far.
biccat wrote:Because if you put aside the fact that they were part of the Nazi platform, they aren't really that far out of the current political mainstream.
But sure, if you put aside the antisemitism, prejudicial nationalism, and xenophobia (ie. ignore all the horrible characteristics of Nazism) it isn't too far outside the American (I assume this is what you mean.) political mainstream.
Well, yeah. If you ignore all the horrible characteristics of Nazism it's not too far outside the political mainstream. And I don't just mean American.
Lets look at some:
1. the principle of self-determination of all peoples. (see UN Charter, Article 55)
5. Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens. (see Immigration Law)
6. no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen. (Article II, section 1, limiting the office of the President to "natural born citizen[s]")
7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. (see here for one advocate of a "living wage")
9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties. (see essentially the Equal Rights Amendment, which doesn't speak to duties but certainly addresses equal rights)
I could go on. But surely you see that these aren't completely stupid or unheard of, especially given a political science background. Some of the more far-left perspectives (see 11-15) aren't as popular in the US, but would probably be seen as more favorable in Europe).
Manchu wrote:The "fundamental" principle of Nazi ideology is racism. Not just in the American sense but in the sense of nationalism and social Darwinism. Whatever quaint to-do list was penciled on a beerhall napkin in 1920, this core of racism is the self-confessed, dominant theme of Nazism. But you know that.
I do? While racism was one of the most glaring failures of Nazism, you'll have to show something more than simple racism. In fact, it wasn't racism so much as nationalism, which is not as easily separable from racism in pre-war Europe.
Manchu wrote:I'm trying to figure out if you're trying to turn this into a kind of ironical turn on socialism as part of a larger feud with Melissia or what. I'm having trouble seeing how you're going to do it, however.
It's not an 'ironical turn on socialism' - the failures of that particular ideology are painfully obvious. I'm simply asking for Melissia to explain her statement, given the historical record of the Nazi rise to power.
I appreciate you assuming the worst of me, however. It's always nice to have one's perceptions confirmed.
Orlanth, it is supremely dishonest of you to accuse me of sewing fear and hatred of religion. Aside from your appeal to the dictionary, that is the dumbest thing you've said so far.
Manchu, it would'nt matter if you defined fundamentalists as polar bears in pink tutus. However were you to claim said polar bears were out to get us in a way that others might beleive it might attract attention.
I can only go by what you write and very consistently you have claimed fundamentalists to be universally negative based on blatantly erroneous information. This isnt a good sign frankly.
Moving along, you yourself in this very thread have distinguished between fundamentalism and religion. By your own logic, my statement that fundamentalism is an ideological conveyor belt to tragedy is not a statement about religion.
Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: My information is not erroneous.
Moving along, you yourself in this very thread have distinguished between fundamentalism and religion. By your own logic, my statement that fundamentalism is an ideological conveyor belt to tragedy is not a statement about religion.
Already made reference that fundamentalism is not necessarily religious.:
Orlanth wrote:I am not the one confused. Fundamentalism isn't a good or bad thing, its an application of religion or other doctrine firmly.
Consequently I am not limiting my defence to religious fundamentalists exclusively, though I do have them mostly in mind.
I have made distinction between fundamentalism and religion, but I in no way imply they are seperate sets.
Well, if nothing else I now understand why you think fundamentalism is the only "honest" application of religion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess I'd just ask for one more clarification: would you say that fundamentalism is just taking your religion seriously?
Manchu wrote:Sorry, I still don't see what you want her to explain.
I suppose she can speak for herself, if she chooses to respond.
dogma wrote:Sure, and if you ignore all the horrible characteristics of murderers they're really not that different from you and I.
And if someone says "Well the murderers did all that terrible stuff because of their beliefs" then one could rightly ask what beliefs they're referring to.
dogma wrote:The best way to approach an accusation of ulterior meaning is to make a statement laced with ulterior meaning.
biccat wrote:Apart from numbers 3, 4, 8, and parts of 23 (and the anti-Jewish rhetoric in #24, although that's not a separate point), could you point out which "fundamentals" were the problem?
Sigh yet another thread that proves
1) Melissia hates religion
2) Dogma hates religion
3) Cannerous hates religion
4) Manchu likes religion that he agrees with
5)Orlanth likes hitting his head against a wall
generalgrog wrote:Sigh yet another thread that proves
1) Melissia hates religion
2) Dogma hates religion
3) Cannerous hates religion
4) Manchu likes religion that he agrees with
5)Orlanth likes hitting his head against a wall
The whole term fundamentalist is subjective beyond compare. Yes even manchus guys definition of fundamentalism is his own subjective view. One persons fundamentalist is anothers liberal.
Some people are vegetarians while others are vegans. Is the vegan a fundamental fundamental (assuming you accept vegetarianism as a type of fundamentalism)?
biccat wrote:
And if someone says "Well the murderers did all that terrible stuff because of their beliefs" then one could rightly ask what beliefs they're referring to.
Which would be a reasonable question, if one did not simultaneously eliminate those beliefs which are widely held as being responsible for said terrible acts from the set of valid responses.
There is a meme, an old one, about obvious trolls that would be apt in this case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Hoisted by my own Camus.
The pretension in this thread is positively existential.
biccat wrote:Apart from numbers 3, 4, 8, and parts of 23 (and the anti-Jewish rhetoric in #24, although that's not a separate point), could you point out which "fundamentals" were the problem?
I'm not doing this.
No.
So you're just going to compare religious fundamentalists to Nazis and not back up that comment? Figures.
That doesn't make sense. Considering fundamentalism and religion as mathematical sets necessarily indicates that they are separate from one another. They might intersect, but they are not conjoined.
Of course, considering these concepts as sets is itself misguided (What is the set of fundamentalism?), but that's another thread.
Mhmmm a fox news link. They'll just blow the thing out of proportion. Its a sad thing to see but when fox news covers it I don't know what to believe really.
Melissia wrote:What I meant in the worst of times is not only when times are bad for everyone, but also when the fundamentalists gain power and motivation to use it. While I know that it's breaking Godwin's law, think about the fundamentalists of the Nazi party. It had nothing (most of the time) to do with religion, but rather, political viewpoints based off of a philosophy of intolerance.
Apart from numbers 3, 4, 8, and parts of 23 (and the anti-Jewish rhetoric in #24, although that's not a separate point), could you point out which "fundamentals" were the problem?
One doesn't take into account whether certain groups of "Germans" want to join the Greater Germany. I think it's justification for warring with the Czechs. Two is also a warmongerer, but it at least has some justification. I don't particularly care for seven's anti-alien bit; it seems a bit draconian. Nine implies (from my perspective) that they will force people to work. Eleven through fifteen are all a bit too severe. Seventeen will be stealing from land-owners. I'm certainly not for killing all profiteers with eighteen. I don't know enough about German common law to form an opinion on nineteen. I'd shy away from the compulsory bit of twenty-one. Like nineteen, twenty-one is beyond my ability to comment on. Twenty-five is too absolute. Only a sith deals in absolutes.
generalgrog wrote:Sigh yet another thread that proves
1) Melissia hates religion
2) Dogma hates religion
3) Cannerous hates religion
4) Manchu likes religion that he agrees with
5)Orlanth likes hitting his head against a wall
GG
Don't forget matty.. matty thinks it is a boil on the arse of the world.
Frankly, I find that blaming religion for intolerance perpetuated in its name, often in contradiction to the broader teaching of that particular religion, makes as much sense, logically, as blaming the Catcher in the Rye for the murder of John Lennon.
OTOH, in hierarchically structured religions, there are authority figures who have a responsibility to dissuade adherents of their faith from fundamentalist outlooks. The temptation of fundamentalism is that it will provide for and preserve order, which is a big concern for most hierarchies, so they don't always live up to that responsibility. And of course many religious authority figures actively promote fundamentalist attitudes to a greater or lesser extent. I agree with you that the trouble isn't necessarily the religion itself but rather the mode of its adherents, a point entirely glossed by Russell and now the New Atheists. Of course, for them -- like Orlanth -- there is no appreciable difference between religion and fundamentalism; i.e., they see fundamentalism is "the honest application" of religion.
That doesn't make sense. Considering fundamentalism and religion as mathematical sets necessarily indicates that they are separate from one another. They might intersect, but they are not conjoined.
Seperate as in not the same, but not seperate as in intersecting. Some persons are relgious, some are fundamentalists, some are both, some are neither.
If that's what you meant than your point to me cannot also be true. You criticized me for sewing hate and fear of religion because I think fundamentalism is bad.
Manchu wrote:If that's what you meant than your point to me cannot also be true. You criticized me for sewing hate and fear of religion because I think fundamentalism is bad.
Actually I criticise you sowing hatred and fear of fundamentalists, religious ones were the best examples. That was consistently explained in the above posts.
Also I did not accuse you of sowing hatred of non fundamentalist religion, which would have to be the case if your above comment made any sense.
You still have not adequately explained why you want to recategorise fundamentalism in order to make your opinions appear valid, note that you are not me, I am happy to follow dictionary definitions.
Orlanth wrote:Actually I criticise you sowing hatred and fear of fundamentalists, religious ones were the best examples.
Actually, no you didn't:
Orlanth wrote: There are enough people who are taught to hate and fear religion already out of ignorance, why add to it?
In fact, you have not consistently explained a coherent distinction between religion and fundamentalism but, from the very beginning, you have basically conflated the two. Let's just take a look:
Orlanth wrote:Fundamentalism of itself is harmless, it is in fact a more honest approach to religion by attempting to apply it.
Orlanth wrote:Fundamentalism is ultimately a requirement for honest application of religion.
Orlanth wrote:Fundamentalism isn't a good or bad thing, its an application of religion or other doctrine firmly.
Orlanth wrote:Why are they fundamentalists, because they abuse little girls? No, because they follow Judaism with fundamentalist zeal.
Orlanth wrote:I have made distinction between fundamentalism and religion, but I in no way imply they are seperate sets.
What does this all mean? From the outset, it is clear that you believe religion is simply a set of rules and regulations. Those who apply them "firmly" or "with zeal" are fundamentalists. Your unspoken assumption is that these rules and regulations that make up religion reflect absolute truth for the believer and therefore ought to be followed to the letter (pun intended) by any sincere believer. Thus, the only "honest application of religion" is fundamentalist. In your mind, fundamentalism and religion are only distinct inasmuch as your recognize that a person can be somewhat religious and not also a fundamentalist. But, according to you, this is not as "honest" as fundamentalism (so that person is 'dishonestly' religious) -- in effect, the best and most authentic way of being religious is being fundamentalist. This is the basis for your claim that religion and fundamentalism are distinct at the same time that you "in no way imply they are separate sets." Ipso facto, there is no meaningful distinction between religion and fundamentalism for you. To the extent that a person is religious and not fundamentalist, his religion is "dishonest."
Orlanth wrote:You still have not adequately explained why you want to recategorise fundamentalism in order to make your opinions appear valid, note that you are not me, I am happy to follow dictionary definitions.
I am not recategorizing or redefining fundamentalism. I do not accept your cherry-picked dictionary definitions because they do not measure up to a genuine understanding of the subject matter. In fact, you don't even consider any of the several definitions supplied by the very sources you quote which tend to agree with the three characteristics that I outlined above. Any appeal to a dictionary is at best a rhetorical fib (something like your laughable claim of St Francis as a fundamentalist) but this example is blatantly in bad faith. You keep badgering me about why I want to "rredefine" fundamentalism but you are the one who is doing the redefining. You say that you are willing to accept dictionary definitions (apparently in contrast to myself) and yet you leave out any dictionary citation beyond your position that fundamentalism is just being "honest" about your religion.
Orlanth wrote:Fundamentalism isn't a good or bad thing, its an application of religion or other doctrine firmly.
What does this all mean? From the outset, it is clear that you believe religion is simply a set of rules and regulations. Those who apply them "firmly" or "with zeal" are fundamentalists.
Well actually I don't categorise religion that way, though I understand that some do. However those that are fundamentalists are those that (Oxford Dictionary) 'strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline'. I dont consider the word zeal as being out of place as a shortened discriptor.
Manchu wrote:
Your unspoken assumption is that these rules and regulations that make up religion reflect absolute truth for the believer and therefore ought to be followed to the letter (pun intended) by any sincere believer. Thus, the only "honest application of religion" is fundamentalist.
Well I wanted to end this pointless exercise but you are trying to put words in my mouth. For a start I never indicated it was the 'only' honest application of religion, but you seem adamant on misinterpreting my own words as much as the word fundamentalism. I really do not think there is any point of continuing this conversation.
You arent listening or reading.
Manchu wrote:
I am not recategorizing or redefining fundamentalism. I do not accept your cherry-picked dictionary definitions because they do not measure up to a genuine understanding of the subject matter. In fact, you don't even consider any of the several definitions supplied by the very sources you quote which tend to agree with the three characteristics that I outlined above.
Case in point.
Cherry picked? So Manchu knows what words mean, Oxford University Press and Marriam Webster, they are the amateurs. *Blink* ok.
Also just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I lack any 'genuine understanding of the subject matter'. What do you base this on sonny?
Why am I still arguing with a bigot?.....
I don't have an answer to that.
So bye.
(2) You picked one of the several definitions offered by that dictionary; not coincidentally, it was the one closest to the position you were arguing;
(3) You left out other definitions that tended to undermine your position and support mine;
(4) You claimed that I was redefining the word in question whereas you simply accepted what the dictionary declared;
(5) I pointed out your dishonesty; and finally
(6) You interpret that to mean that I am trying to discredit Oxford U Press and Merriam-Webster?
Your reverence for the dictionary is somewhat misplaced. After all, it's not the Bible. I reckon this speaks to your fundamentalist worldview. If you had given honest appraisal to the Merriam-Webster definitions you allegedly accept, you would have noted the following:
Merriam-Webster wrote:a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
And Oxford University:
Oxford Dictionaries wrote:a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture
Astoundingly, I didn't even need to consult a dictionary to know that. I'm not claiming to be more intelligent than anyone on this site because of that. But I will claim to be a bit more sincere. On that note, isn't it strange that person who claims that religion and fundamentalism are "in no way ... separate sets" did not, when citing the all-important dictionary, bother to list the definitions of the words as applicable to religion but instead cherry-picked definitions that use the term more generically?
I find your transparent bad faith, especially when coupled with the charge of bigotry, to be utterly repugnant.
You have claimed that by denouncing fundamentalism, I am a bigot against religion. I've read your many posts on this subject and I know that's your usual tactic. The trouble is that I'm not a militant atheist but rather a Christian. Your usual tactic just doesn't apply.
I have provided a cogent argument as to why fundamentalism is NOT a neutral prospect but rather is inherently bad. I'll repeat it here, point-by-point:
(1) Fundamentalists believe that the complete and absolute truth, which is of supreme value, is contained in some finite and unambiguous expression -- usually a text.
(2) Fundamentalists believe that they alone possess/understand/preserve/teach/otherwise monopolize this truth.
(3) Fundamentalists believe that if everyone else were to die, no part of this truth and therefore no part of the supreme value of existence would be lost.
The implications of these three basic premises are expressed throughout the world today in terms of violence and oppression. The consequences of fundamentalism are NOT hypothetical.
Your response is that plenty of fundamentalists do not engage in such abhorrent acts. First, is it a coincidence that these fundamentalists live in places where they are not in control of the government and do not make up the dominant culture? Secondly, even where fundamentalists are not in control of society at large, fundamentalism still produces negative results: the most contentious example is the willful misunderstanding of scientific knowledge called intelligent design.
You're right about one thing, Orlanth. Not every fundamentalist would throw acid on the face of a young woman for being "sexually promiscuous," or the like. You cite the quaint and peaceful Amish as an example of "good fundamentalism." But even among the Amish, there is a practice of shunning. It's not as exciting as burning someone at the stake, but having your family and your friends and all your acquaintances cut off all contact with you because you believe something different from them about God is also pretty tragic.
Fundamentalism is bad for society. Can you dispute this without resorting to name-calling? So far, I'd say no.
Let's see, things associated with fundamentalism that are not inherently violent but are still generally accepted as bad things:
Misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, Islamaphobia, intolerance of differing views, interference in the religious rights of minorities/anyone who is in a different sect/religion/congregation than them, interference in the civil liberties of minorities/anyone who disagrees with them, brainwashing of children (see cults for fundamentalism taken to its logical extreme), cultural dominance by religious figures that don't have to act out what they're preaching, pressuring or coercing unwilling individuals in to joining their belief system, disowning and disavowing anyone who speaks out against their glorious religious leader, cultural thought polices, book burning, banning of undesirable material, denying the benefits of science in favor of folksy remedies which provably don't work, denying the care of individuals who need it most in favor of prayer, hateful speech and intimidation towards minorities/anyone who disagrees with them.... and I probably missed quite a few.
Reminds me of Scientology come to think of it. Then again, the core of Scientology generally fit within the definitions of fundamentalism so...
Melissia wrote:Let's see, things associated with fundamentalism that are not inherently violent but are still generally accepted as bad things:
Misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, Islamaphobia, intolerance of differing views, interference in the religious rights of minorities/anyone who is in a different sect/religion/congregation than them, interference in the civil liberties of minorities/anyone who disagrees with them, brainwashing of children (see cults for fundamentalism taken to its logical extreme), cultural dominance by religious figures that don't have to act out what they're preaching, pressuring or coercing unwilling individuals in to joining their belief system, disowning and disavowing anyone who speaks out against their glorious religious leader, cultural thought polices, book burning, banning of undesirable material, denying the benefits of science in favor of folksy remedies which provably don't work, denying the care of individuals who need it most in favor of prayer, hateful speech and intimidation towards minorities/anyone who disagrees with them.... and I probably missed quite a few.
Reminds me of Scientology come to think of it. Then again, the core of Scientology generally fit within the definitions of fundamentalism so...
As the Reverend Rodney King said, can't we all just get along?
Seriously though. Fundamentalists are important. Few other groups can make you feel quite so good about your own capacity for rational thought in comparison.
Frazzled wrote:Mother Theresa was a fundamentalist.
Incorrect, at least not in the sense of American evangelical Christian conservatives. Also, I don't think that everything or even most things Mother Theresa exclaimed or stood for are necessarily right, true, beneficial, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Manchu wrote:Are you serious?
Frazzled wrote:You bet your ass baby.
The ultimate implication of extremism is tyranny, honeybunch.
Melissia wrote:Let's see, things associated with fundamentalism that are not inherently violent but are still generally accepted as bad things:
Misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, Islamaphobia, intolerance of differing views, interference in the religious rights of minorities/anyone who is in a different sect/religion/congregation than them, interference in the civil liberties of minorities/anyone who disagrees with them, brainwashing of children (see cults for fundamentalism taken to its logical extreme), cultural dominance by religious figures that don't have to act out what they're preaching, pressuring or coercing unwilling individuals in to joining their belief system, disowning and disavowing anyone who speaks out against their glorious religious leader, cultural thought polices, book burning, banning of undesirable material, denying the benefits of science in favor of folksy remedies which provably don't work, denying the care of individuals who need it most in favor of prayer, hateful speech and intimidation towards minorities/anyone who disagrees with them.... and I probably missed quite a few.
Reminds me of Scientology come to think of it. Then again, the core of Scientology generally fit within the definitions of fundamentalism so...
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Fundamentalists don't care about liberty unless it gets in the way of their fundamentalist activities.
Frazzled wrote:
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
If we're talking about classical liberty, the freedom from compulsion and coercion, then defending liberty via extremism naturally entails engaging in compulsion and coercion.
That's really the ultimate paradox of a classically liberal society. You have to ensure freedom from compulsion and coercion, in essence creating the market of ideas, while also setting up a system by which such ideas that entail compulsion and coercion are disadvantaged; effectively compelling, and perhaps coercing, people into accepting classical liberalism.
If we're speaking to a more general sense of liberty, essentially freedom because liberty is little more than "freedom that I like", then it gets even murkier as we will be forced to acknowledge that a brutal dictator is really only defending his freedom to be a brutal dictator.
Melissia wrote:Fundamentalists don't care about liberty unless it gets in the way of their fundamentalist activities.
Unless they're liberal fundamentalists.
Liberal being used in the classical sense.
Manchu wrote:Incorrect, at least not in the sense of American evangelical Christian conservatives. Also, I don't think that everything or even most things Mother Theresa exclaimed or stood for are necessarily right, true, beneficial, etc.
Isn't this discussion about fundamentalists in general, and not in the specific "American evangelical Christian fundamentalist"? Or are you saying that "American evangelical Christian fundamentalists" are bad and other types of fundamentalists aren't necessarily bad?
Presumably the second would violate the forum rule against disparaging other peoples' religions.
Of course Manchu already talked about getting rid of undesirables from the community through shunning and the emotional harm that it causes as it tears families apart. You don't have to be a crazed violent person gunning down your enemies to cause harm.
biccat wrote:However, I'd certainly be interested in getting Manchu's take on it.
I'll give you a couple of examples, as you famously misunderstand/misinterpret abstract statements.
There is nothing wrong with these statements:
"Fascists advocate totalitarian regimes and their viewpoint cannot be reconciled with American democracy."
"What the Democrats are advocating is just socialism and if they get their way it will be disastrous for America."
"The Catholic Church has covered up sex abuse scandals for decades and all Catholics bear some responsibility for this outrage."
I'm not sure what abstract statement you're referring to. Is disparaging someone's religion against the rules or not? The comments you've made are statements of opinion, not disparaging.
How about, for example, these statements:
Fundamentalist Christianity is bad for society.
Fundamentalist Christians are homophobic and misogynist.
Would either of those be acceptable?
How about the following:
The LDS is a dangerous cult.
Islam cannot be reconciled with modern human rights
All Shinto bear some responsibility for Japanese war crimes during WWII.
Of course Manchu already talked about getting rid of undesirables from the community through shunning and the emotional harm that it causes as it tears families apart. You don't have to be a crazed violent person gunning down your enemies to cause harm.
Congratulations you manged to find some violent Amish, there are others. There was a nasty paedo bust a couple of years ago that hit the press.
What are you trying to say that unless all Amish are harmless none of them are? If you do it would not fit the known facts about the Amish community.
At an absolute minimum there are enough harmless Amish to thoroughly debunk Manchu (and others) accusations that all fundamentalists are so inclined.
Your reverence for the dictionary is somewhat misplaced. After all, it's not the Bible.
Oh yeah, that old book about a talking bipedal snake and a 900 year old bloke making a boat with 4 million animals on is WAY more sensible than the stupid dictionary.
After long deliberation I decided that this required a reply. Not to try and educate Manchu, I have given up on that but to challenge the hatefully erroneous content is mistaken as a valid arguement.
Manchu wrote:Regarding the dictionary, here's what's happened:
Actually not. Furthermore to actually guess what I was doing correctly you would have to be at my workstation.
Manchu wrote:
(1) You looked up a word on an online dictionary;
(2) You picked one of the several definitions offered by that dictionary; not coincidentally, it was the one closest to the position you were arguing;
I suppose from the below that you have checked the dictionaries. You will consistently find two defintions for fundamentalist./fundamentalism. The fact that a word has mulitple definitions should not be unusual to any dictionary user. Not is it any way dishonest to pick the relvant definition and discard others.
For the benefit of anyone who may be misled by Manchus comments the two definations refer to fundamentalism in a general sense, this has been discussed above at length. The other definition refers to a specific movement of early 20th century protestants..
Now this thread has not been about 20th century protestants, it certainly bears no reference to the OP (which refered to 21st century ultra-orthodox Jews). Also the majority of the other examples given and discussed such as Mohamandas Ghandi, Francis of Assisi are after all not 20th century Protestants.
Manchu cannot have failed to notice this when he looked at the dictionary definitions, and is being deliberately dishonest by implying there is an alternative relevant defintion that has been summarily ignored. More tellingly none of the definitions given match his own , which his critique has been unwilling to own up to.
Manchu wrote:
(3) You left out other definitions that tended to undermine your position and support mine;
I would welcome him to quote them. He didnt, and he wont because he cant. Two definitions are given. For everyone elses sake I will transcribe them wholecloth.
MARRIAM WEBSTERhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism 1.a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching
[b]b : the beliefs of this movement
c : adherence to such beliefs
2
: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>
OXFORD DICTIONARIES http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fundamentalism Pronunciation:
/fʌndəˈmɛnt(ə)lɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun]
a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture:
there was religious pluralism there at a time when the rest of Europe was torn by fundamentalism
strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline:
free-market fundamentalism
Modern Christian fundamentalism arose from American millenarian sects of the 19th century, and has become associated with reaction against social and political liberalism and rejection of the theory of evolution. Islamic fundamentalism appeared in the 18th and 19th centuries as a reaction to the disintegration of Islamic political and economic power, asserting that Islam is central to both state and society and advocating strict adherence to the Koran (Qur’an) and to Islamic law (sharia)
Manchu wrote:
(4) You claimed that I was redefining the word in question whereas you simply accepted what the dictionary declared;
(5) I pointed out your dishonesty; and finally
Using dictionary defitions from accredited neutral sourcesis not dishonest.
To force a personal definition at odds with accredited neutral sources to redefine the subject matter as something which can be accused of being universally negative is not only dishonest, its hate speech.
Manchu wrote:
(6) You interpret that to mean that I am trying to discredit Oxford U Press and Merriam-Webster?
I do not imply that Manchus is trying to discredit Oxford of Marriam Webster dictionaries, he has insufficient sgtanding for that. I imply he is discrediting himself. Oxford was mentioned as it is considered worldwide to be the body closest to being able to provide a true English language lexicon, and is accredited as such by many lingusitic and academic bodies. Marriam Webster is noted as the highest seeling dictionary organisation in the US.
Even if Manchus redefintion was not intended to marginalise fundamentalism as something universally negative there would still be no reason to accept it above professional lexiconographers.
Manchu wrote:
You have claimed that by denouncing fundamentalism, I am a bigot against religion. I've read your many posts on this subject and I know that's your usual tactic. The trouble is that I'm not a militant atheist but rather a Christian. Your usual tactic just doesn't apply.
Actually none of my other opponents resort to the 'tactics' displayed on this thread, and I do not accuse any of them of bigotry as a matter of course. I have never encountered anyone who has tried what you tried before, I hope I never have to again.
Manchu wrote:
I have provided a cogent argument as to why fundamentalism is NOT a neutral prospect but rather is inherently bad. I'll repeat it here, point-by-point:.
I will not repeat these points. The certainly do describe some fundamentalists, the inflammatory suggestion is that they define all.
Manchu wrote:
Fundamentalism is bad for society. Can you dispute this without resorting to name-calling? So far, I'd say no.
I strongly dispute the suggestion that fundamentalism is universally 'bad'.
I apologise to everyone else for the heated discussion, however universally denouncing cultural groups races or activities is the mark of a bigot though, and bigotry needs to be challenged.
Orlanth wrote:
I strongly dispute the suggestion that fundamentalism is universally 'bad'.
I apologise to everyone else for the heated discussion, however universally denouncing cultural groups races or activities is the mark of a bigot though, and bigotry needs to be challenged.
I dont see what all the fuss is about personally.
You can say that both of you have a point, I mean, there ARE degrees of fundamentalism.
If you take it simply to mean that you stick as rigorously as possible to the scriptures, then thats not really a problem. But if you are willing to resort to violence, then you are taking the piss.
Surely that can satisfy both of you in this debate?
Even me, with my loathing for organised Religion can see the point your making Orlanth, and I can agree with it mostly.
A Jew that buys all those bits of machinery that does all that weird gak on a Saturday so he doesn't break the rule of using his telephone or something is clearly a fundie, but nobody is going to say that he is causing much bother.
Trying to stick super rigorously to your Religion isn't automatically a bad thing, but I very much doubt that Manchu means what you think he means.
Oxford Dictionary wrote:a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture
Within the specific context of religious studies and comparative religion, IME the definition above, and the expansion Manchu has described, are accurate. Religious fundamentalism is not strictly limited to a movement in US Protestantism, but is seen in many religions, most notably but not exclusively Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
I tend to concur that Fundamentalism as a movement is bad for society and civilized interaction between cultures, because it is predicated on both possession of exclusive access to truth, and on literalist readings of scripture, and usually of attempts to implement those literal readings out of context, into modern life and legislation. The scriptures in question having been written in an era when slavery and the oppression of women (for two major examples) were normal and sanctioned by the presiding religious authorities.
A movement which attempts to implement such policies and mores into modern life is distinctly at odds with beneficial progress, and thus a negative and harmful influence.
mattyrm wrote:
I dont see what all the fuss is about personally.
You can say that both of you have a point, I mean, there ARE degrees of fundamentalism.
A fair question and a fair comment.
There are degrees of fundamentalism both in religious and not religious contexts, in fact this is an important point to remember.
Now if some say, as the wooly liberal press likes to say 'A minority of fundamentalists are problems', you and I and many others would laugh at the PC pandering.
One could try to say 'some fundamentalists are problems'. This in all likelihood doesn't go far enough.
So one could go as far as to say 'many fundamentalists are problems'. This again is fair.
One could even go as far as to say 'most fundamentalists are problems'. This is in all likelihood be unfair, but its understandable sentiment in todays climate, I wouldn't challenge that.
However to say 'all fundamentalists are a problem'. That is rather ominous, and not true as fundamentalism is wide enough covering so many doctrines and lifestyles and individuals that it is a rather discriminatory comment.
mattyrm wrote:
If you take it simply to mean that you stick as rigorously as possible to the scriptures, then thats not really a problem. But if you are willing to resort to violence, then you are taking the piss.
Agreed. Iam not in any way an apologist for fundamentalist violence.
mattyrm wrote:
Trying to stick super rigorously to your Religion isn't automatically a bad thing, but I very much doubt that Manchu means what you think he means.
I cannot claim to know the inside of Manchu's head. I made my challenge purely on the information stated. What I think happens is that Manchu made a set of comments which together are highly discriminatory, when challenged decided to defend them rather than hold back and think hold on a sec, if you combine this process and that one you get something unwholesome.
Plenty of people started with the idea that all fundamentalists of evil or stupid, most went away when examples of exceptions could be found. Manchu instead redefined fundamentalism. I accept that this may not have been at first intentional hatespeech. However the ideology of if the facts dont fit the opinion change the facts is a common propaganda tool, when this is done to make a universal negative claim against a people group you step into the methodology of Orwell's 1984 or Josef Goebbels. When this was pointed out Manchu, possibly out of pride, went onward to defend this particular chain of logic rather than go back.
Universal labeling of people groups is evil and insidious and requires challenging, it provides no outlet for individuals to be judged on their own merit and encourages blanket discrimination.
Orlanth wrote:
Universal labeling of people groups is evil and insidious and requires challenging.
What about the universal labeling of people who universally label?
Which would account for some fundamentalists, Also in context the universal label needs to be negative for it to be a problem. If a universal label of leave outsiders alone is applied as a policy of isolationism, as many fundamentalist groups do then there is no harm.
Orlanth wrote:
Which would account for some fundamentalists, Also in context the universal label needs to be negative for it to be a problem.
This contravenes your initial statement.
But, moving past that, a statement to the effect of "All Christians are good." is arguably as bad as "All Christians are evil."
Orlanth wrote:
If a universal label of leave outsiders alone is applied as a policy of isolationism, as many fundamentalist groups do then there is no harm.
That's not a universal label, its a universal policy.
A universal label applied to outsiders might be "All outsiders are evil." or "All outsiders are good." both of which are incorrect out side a particularly extreme view of the world.
Frazzled wrote:
I find your lack of understanding of the relationship between Mother Theresa and Barry Goldwater... disturbing.
They both died in the same year?
Edit: Woops, Goldwater died in '98, Teresa in '97.
No no no, German chocolate torts. I think you'll find all the great shapers of the last generation had a secret fondness for German chocolate deserts. Except Hitler of course, which explains why he was so grumpy...
The shakers didn't just make furniture, their houses were also of particular quality. Also another fundamentalist group BTW.
I may have missed the boat entirely by now but:
I can't say fundamentalism is universally bad, or even that a majority of fundamentalists are bad. It's become a label we use to brand things we don't necessarily agree with, like socialism for American conservatives. Fundamentalist has become almost a pseudonym for terrorist so that scaremongers, politicians, and journalists can expand their vocabulary.
I'm sure we can agree that fundamentalism is not at it's heart an evil thing. (Cue Melissa: something Texas, christian fundamentalists are evil zombies biting and infecting all they see in a tide of fundamentalist terror). The Amish, Shakers, Millerites of all shapes and stripe fall into this category. Instead even the word has become associated with a sinister undertone. In direct relation to the OP (so long ago) Wikipedia says:
The term Jewish fundamentalism may refer to[1]militant religious Zionism[2] or Ashkenazi or Sephardi ultra-orthodox Judaism.[2]
The term "fundamentalism" ...today commonly refers to the anti-modernist movements of any religion based on literal interpretation of religious scriptures.[3]
That seems pretty disingenuous to me. If fundamentalism in religion is the literal interpretation of religious scripture then why must it always devolve into "a man who lies with a man is an aberration and must be scourged from the land" , and not be "love thy neighbor"? Well because it doesn't sell. Fundamental Christians who practice love and tolerance in the pursuit of an already guaranteed salvation giving free hugs on 22nd and Elm get at most a fluff piece on local TV. But a rabid hate monger spitting racial slurs, misogyny, and bible quotes at passersby; that sells. Because you can hang a label on his neck and direct the public ire at "fundamentalism."
But that's not what fundamentalism is. If a person purports to believe that causcasians should only every intermingle with caucasians we don't call him a white fundamentalist, we call him a racist. A German who wants to expatriate all non-German and non-German heritage citizens of his country isn't called a German fundamentalist, he's a nationalist...or a racist.
The point being not all fundamentalism is bad, nor is it all good. But not everything labeled "fundamental" IS.
In relation to the original article I doubt the Ultra-Orthodox Jews in question are particularly fundamental, as I'm sure somewhere in the Pentateuch or Talmud it says something along the lines of "Don't throw stones at little girls" or "Don't violate the innocence of another man's child by calling her a whore" He (They?) and people of their ilk are rabble rousers using their "fundamental" beliefs to inflict harm on another and protecting themselves with the trusty shield of religion.
AustonT wrote:It's become a label we use to brand things we don't necessarily agree with
No it hasn't.
It is a label for those who believe in strict adherence to specific ideological (including theological) doctrines, believing that theirs is the sole source of truth.
It's a pejorative label because most people recognize this as a bad thing, not because people disagree with something and picked a random label.
That the media primarily uses it in religious contexts is because religious contexts are the origin of the word and so to most people it feels awkward in other contexts. A strict adherant of Mein Kampf would be referred to as (probably anyway) a Nazi, but they'd also be a fundamentalist too if they believed theirs was the sole source of truth.
Really, looking at mass media usage is rarely a good way to understand the definition of a term.
AustonT wrote:The point being not all fundamentalism is bad
I'm not convinced that you have successfully made this point.
It is a label for those who believe in strict adherence to specific ideological (including theological) doctrines, believing that theirs is the sole source of truth.
I'm not convinced that you have successfully made this point.
I never claimed my beliefs are the only source of truth, only that you failed in convincing me of your beliefs. In truth, you haven't really given me a reason why I should agree with you on whether or not there are any positive aspects (outside of the mythical and fantastical world of 40k) aspects of fundamentalism.
AustonT wrote:No, I used your definition to label you because it neatly describes your demeanor.
No it doesn't. Not even remotely close.
Melissia wrote:It is a label for those who believe in strict adherence to specific ideological (including theological) doctrines, believing that theirs is the sole source of truth.
Really, your insinuation that this somehow applies to me is either grasping at straws or trolling. Or both.
In the end, I'm still waiting for you to actually back up your argument instead of merely saying "it's not all bad!" without actually proving that statement.
Yes, I know there's peaceful fundamentalists that don't do violent hate crimes. I've acknowledged that for quite some time. But then I gave a lot of examples on negative things which are not violent which fundamentalists are known for doing. These things are not merely associated with fundamentalism, but rather, have to do with the nature of fundamentalism itself; the unwavering adherence to a set of, in their mind, irrefutable and irreducible beliefs lends itself to bigotry and closed mindedness, after all, there's no need for YOUR beliefs to change, it's impossible for them to be proven false in the first place, so everyone else is wrong until you convince them to believe like you do.
While I certainly would never say I'm anything but stubborn, I don't believe for a second that I know the truth or that I have some irrefutable source of knowledge which I base my beliefs on. My beliefs change as aspects of them are refuted or proven to be on shaky ground, and as that happens I replace my beliefs with stronger ones backed up by what I have learned. This is essentially the opposite of fundamentalism.
Tazz Azrael wrote:People like that dude are the reason why im not even an Atheist.
Are you saying that Bill Maher is evidence that God exists?
Wow i really should have been more clear in what i said lol. I personally don't believe in any form of god/ greater sentient being, so technically i could be an atheist yet i only believe in something if i can talk with it, touch it (you know make sure its not holographic/ a hallucination) see it, ect. I just don't like calling myself an atheist because of people like this Bill Maher who really give us nicer atheists a horrible name. Hope i was more clear, also sorry if i necro the thread.
Extremism in all forms is poison. A small bit of room has to be left for salt.
