Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:
The comments you've made are statements of opinion, not disparaging.

Its amusing that you're pretending those are mutually exclusive categories.

biccat wrote:
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.

Even more amusing considering that each of the above examples is a statement of opinion.

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?

dogma wrote:

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.

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:Isn't this discussion about fundamentalists in general, and not in the specific "American evangelical Christian fundamentalist"?

I was responding to Frazzled's strange mixed-metaphor of Barry Goldwater and Mother Theresa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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 find your lack of understanding of the relationship between Mother Theresa and Barry Goldwater... disturbing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

AustonT wrote:Aren't the Amish considered fundamentalists? And Hudderites?

Yes they are.

There are plenty of harmless fundamentalists out there.

Yes but only the Amish make awesome furniture.

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.

dogma wrote:

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...

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

AustonT wrote:Aren't the Amish considered fundamentalists? And Hudderites?

Yes they are.

There are plenty of harmless fundamentalists out there.

Yes but only the Amish make awesome furniture.

No, the Shakers made awesome furniture too. Too bad their beliefs led to there being only three of them left.

I thought this was the reason:





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Yes but only the Amish make awesome furniture.

And they know how to market it.

Those crafty bastards hide their haggling behind beards and bi-color clothing.

That was a great movie.

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

AustonT wrote:Aren't the Amish considered fundamentalists? And Hudderites?

Yes they are.

There are plenty of harmless fundamentalists out there.

Yes but only the Amish make awesome furniture.

No, the Shakers made awesome furniture too. Too bad their beliefs led to there being only three of them left.

yea but they're old, so their furniture output is strictly meh. Amish (or Quakers) for maximum furniture pwonage.

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.

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.

I'm not convinced that you have successfully made this point.

fundamentalist.

AustonT wrote:fundamentalist.

Rude comment excised.-Mannahnin

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.

Personal insult excised. -Mannahnin

No, I used your definition to label you because it neatly describes your demeanor.

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.

Unnecessarily sarcastic, unpleasant, and unproductive comments excised.-Mannahnin

The next time one of you insults the other, I'm suspending your posting privileges. You both know better.

Manchu wrote:

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.