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.

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.

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?

dogma wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Manchu wrote:

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.

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.

Manchu wrote:I don't understand what you mean by sets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)

You probably remember sets, just need a reminder.

In context here fundamentalism with a bubble around it and relgion with a bubble around it are not intended to be drawn as seperate bubbles.

I think we should call a truce, this is getting too heated and I dont think either of us will back down.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't understand what you mean by sets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)

You probably remember sets, just need a reminder.

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.

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.

Manchu wrote:

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.

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

Yes they are.

There are plenty of harmless fundamentalists out there.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

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

Yes they are.

There are plenty of harmless fundamentalists out there.

O rly?

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.

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 WEBSTER http://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.

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.

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.