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.
2011/12/29 22:09:31
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2011/12/30 00:22:28
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2011/12/30 17:12:37
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/12/30 17:17:48
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2011/12/30 18:45:42
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
Maybe you two should like, take a chill pill and take a break for a bit.
Here I'll help.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2011/12/30 19:03:11
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
(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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/12/30 19:08:28
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...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/12/30 19:23:30
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2011/12/30 19:22:55
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2011/12/30 19:37:41
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2011/12/30 19:57:57
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2011/12/30 19:59:24
Subject: Re:Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
2011/12/30 19:59:42
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/12/30 20:14:32
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.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2011/12/30 21:18:49
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2011/12/30 21:19:48
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/12/30 21:20:46
text removed by Moderation team.
2011/12/30 21:23:42
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
AustonT wrote:Aren't the Amish considered fundamentalists? And Hudderites?
Yes they are.
There are plenty of harmless fundamentalists out there.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2011/12/31 12:25:13
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2011/12/31 15:30:04
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
text removed by Moderation team.
2011/12/31 15:40:18
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2011/12/31 15:44:11
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
Manchu did not say that all Fundamentalists are violent.
The example of the Amish demonstrates that the least-harmful Fundamentalists are the ones who voluntarily remove themselves from politics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/12/31 15:45:00
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
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.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2011/12/31 16:41:24
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2011/12/31 16:48:29
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2011/12/31 16:49:49
Subject: Guess fundamentilist is just a codeword for ass in any context
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/12/31 16:58:55
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.