Is the word "fundamentalist" used too strongly?

Post Reply New Topic

You can take any belief and turn it into an extreme idea. Oftentimes, these ideas which are believed to be more sincere and consistent can rationalize violence and all sorts of atrocities under the guise of justice. If you look at any fundamentalist idea, it can't be argued logically because their beliefs are perceived as facts. Only common sense and perhaps emotional pleas can penetrate such extreme belief systems.

Any beliefs? Umm... here's the definition:
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles (basic doesn't mean commonsense but rather foundational)

Not all beliefs stress a strict and literal adherence to a set of principles, and some ideas are notable for their squishiness.


Umm.... ok? Well, the issue is that there is something wrong with fundamentalism in the eyes of others if you are taught beliefs that seem strange and perverse to them. There is also something wrong with fundamentalism if you are taught beliefs that are wrong and refuse to revise them in relation to the world.

I don't think that fundamentalists only have a bad reputation due to a lack of education. I think part of the matter is that the world is increasingly rejecting their ideas.


To joke around here isn't it true that "If you hold any religious beliefs (or really, any beliefs that matter), you must be an extremist"?

In any case, honestly, I have to say that your definition of extremism includes anyone with a spine. I would say that *I* hold to beliefs so tightly that anything is justifiable to carry out what I believe, so long as none of these things conflict with that prior belief system. The issue is that this has nothing to do with what is extreme and what isn't because "extreme" is a term that is relative to other people, and maybe the issue is dedication, but I would also have to argue that a lot of it really likely refers to the actual belief system.


Umm.... honestly, I actually don't think that modern Christians are consistent about abortion, and so I don't accept your example.

I mean, seriously, you are saying that the deaths of *millions* of people aren't enough to consider a government illegitimate. What then is enough? If a government can never be shown illegitimate through action, then how can you ever accept the revolutionary war? How can you even accept action against an evil government, I mean, seriously, are you going to condemn people who rebelled against Hitler's Nazi Germany? It seems to me that if a government never can lose legitimacy by their actions, then when *can* a government cease to be legitimate? It isn't as if the much asserted verses in Romans 13 really answer that question, but submission to a government because of it's status as a government just brings up the question of when a government becomes a government! It isn't as if Romans 13 was likely channeling John Locke who wrote a millennium and a half later either, so I don't even see a social contract as getting you out of this, even if I accepted that the social contract provided an answer, which I don't think it does as the creation of a government group and so on is never even unanimous at the start, and it is ridiculousness of other positions can be seen in the following quote by Lysander Spooner:



A journalist, Damon Linker, actually poses this question:



And honestly, I have to agree with his position, and disagree with your own characterization, as this isn't just a matter of "vengeance" this is a matter of addressing large-scale murder.

You might try to come up with some sort of answer, but I doubt that your position is really consistent, but rather an ad hoc mess put together.

Your confidence in common sense is admirable but unfortunate. I have had long discussions with people who are deeply emotionally attached to the most nonsensical ideas and they are impervious to any sense, common or otherwise.

I agree. I can name a couple actual Fundamentalist Christians who won't hold a hate sign any time soon, if at all. Pick an age. They believe strongly enough, but actual violence isn't their thing for the most part. Every religion has A holes, though, don't get me wrong.

AG wrote:

If you carry out any idea that is truly believed to the fullest degree, then you wind up with extremism. Having a spine is one thing, but the strongest spine is flexible.

I think beliefs should not really be believed, but just for the sake of our sanity, we should pretend that we believe them as much as possible.

I can understand your second statement, and it makes sense, but if one cannot avoid consistency, then it hard to fake belief.

"Consistency for the sake of consistency is foolishness."
-Voltaire

It's fun to pretend. It doesn't harm anyone and it can enrich our lives.

You reminded me of "The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made. "

I believe that humans believe things in order to band together. We form alliances by how we identify ourselves. We conquer tribes who differ in opinion. It's all just an excuse to steal. So, if we understand that we have this self serving gene or original sin, then we can realize why we get passionate about beliefs. The problem is that we have this inherent need to believe that what we believe is real.

It's funny how the imagination works.

The thing is pretending to be sincere. I mean, I can do both to a certain extent, but I have a great deal of problem emphasizing the pretend part of the sincerity.

In any case, to address your Voltaire I offer you this:
"A witty saying proves nothing."
-Voltaire

Proving nothing has been a difficult exercise for physicists for years. It's gratifying that Voltaire solved that.

I completely agree, you articulate just what i believe, thank you.

From an online friend of mine -

"The term comes comes from 1910 book series The Fundamentals, which are all about Christian doctrine reacting to various 19th-century concerns. So applying the phrase to other religions is a kind of strained metaphor at best; radical Muslims are not responding to 19th-century German Higher Criticism, and their concerns are not at all the same as those of American Protestant fundamentalists."

I associate the term fundamentalism with right-wing evangelical politics, and I'd consider this politics fundamentally (heh) hostile to the United States' present liberal (in a broad sense, not necessarily Democratic progressive sense) order of freedoms of speech, religion, etc. These would be the people who wish to establish their religion through force of law, persecute those of differing beliefs, and base the criminal law on their particular doctrine (e.g., laws against homosexuality, extramarital sex, etc.). These would be the people who want "intelligent design" taught in public schools.