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.

Orlanth wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

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.

I think Mr. Crossan earned a gold star next to his name today.

Manchu wrote:

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:

Manchu wrote:

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.

Orlanth wrote:

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.

What reality exactly am I denying?

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.

Meh. Fundamentalists.

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.

It is, or so they would like to think.

The world does become much less complicated when you eliminate the possibility of change as a positive variable.

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?

Manchu wrote:

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:

Rudolf Hess wrote:(1) Round Up Jews.

(2) Force them into concentration camps.

(3) Work them to death.

(4) Also, the gays.

(5) Summon Cthulhu.

(6) While we're at it, feth France.

?

I mean, I even drive a VW.

What's your point?

Manchu wrote:What's your point?

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.

Manchu wrote:

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.

Newman!

Manchu wrote:

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

Your definitions don't add up with what the dictionaries say.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fundamentalism
strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism
a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles


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?

Orlanth wrote:
strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline

What are the basic principles of Christianity?

Point by point:

(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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Sorry, I still don't see what you want her to explain.