Is the word "fundamentalist" used too strongly?

Post Reply New Topic

I was looking at some old articles on a political website from the 9-11 attacks, and it said "now remember, the hijackers were not normal religious believers, they were fundamentalists".

I was quite suprised by that, I wouldn't have associated "fundamentalist" with being violent. I would have thought lots of the Christians I know were "fundamentalists" as they have literalists Bible beliefs, but they are very peaceful and loving people.

If I remember right the term itself came from a famous book called "the fundamentals" that was published in the USA at a time when stricter and liberal Christians were becoming more divided? I dont even know if should apply to other religions as they may not have the same divide or same kind of issues.

a Christian who attacks abortion clinics or similar acts, I would have thought of them more as an extremist than a fundamentalist. I would think of a "fundie" as being a bit stuffy and old fashioned and taking the bible as literal truth, but not violent. It kind of sounds as if only progressive and liberal believers are safe and all strict literalist believers are dangerous, which I don't agree with.

Well, "fundamentalist" is usually considered somewhat synonymous with "extremist" simply because fundamentalism is considered an extreme take on more things.

At this point in time, fundamentalism has taken darker connotations given the fact that a lot of religious extremists are fundamentalists for some religious perspective.

Is this to say that liberal or progressive believers are safe? Well.... actually yes. The idea is that the liberals and progressives are updating their religion to match society while the conservatives are stuck on an outdated idea. Now, this might not be fair, but it seems hard to say that fundamentalists won't continually get more and more and more out of touch with prevailing norms unless they change their perspective.

Ya, I don't understand what fundamental and violent has to do with each other...I mean the word "fundmental" does not mean violent. Some people believe that there are certain things in a religion that cannot be adjusted to match the norm of society while other things can be. Like some Christians believe that we cannot perform same-sex marriages inside the church while they don't mind having modern style worship music, although I think it is really rare to see people rap in church. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's just the media/government's way of blaming religion for their covert operations. People hate religion anyway, so it is a good scapegoat. The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach, so I try not to think about it anymore.

Given that over 70% of the U.S. population claim to be religious, I think it would be erroneous to claim that people hate religion; you are talking about the U.S., right?

Anyway, there's a difference between a religious fundamentalist and a religious extremist. Fundamentalists tend not to be violent, just stiff and old-fashioned (as one earlier commenter noted). I would know, because I have some fundamentalist relatives. Extremists, while also fundamentalists, commit violence on behalf of their religion. Extremists are also sometimes called terrorists.

Furthermore, you don't have to be religious to be an extremist. Bombing abortion clinics and gay bars would be examples of extremism/terrorism.

Yes I am talking about the U.S. and 70% may consider themselves to be religious but they're not 'crazy' enough to attend Church regularly or take the Bible literally.

Considering yourself religious is one thing- Toeing the line is quite another.

edit: And also, the entire world is not defined but what the U.S. believes. I believe that scapegoating the 'fundamentalists' is a government/media mind control tactic. Sure they can't tell us we aren't free to believe - It's a free country right? But they are trying to wear us down.... I don't know why I ever bother posting here... You wouldn't even address my statement, you just decided that my opinion was erroneous... Ay caramba where are my sedatives......

It does irritate me that some people will use the term "fundamentalist" to describe anyone who isn't atheist/agnostic/pagan.

Yes. Once again, people play semantics to demonize groups of people.

If you hold any religious beliefs (or really, any beliefs that matter), you must be a fundamentalist. Reformist, unorthodox, etc. all all terms that mean you water down what you believe so that it suits you better. Might as well reject the whole thing than follow only what you like and say you count as a believer.

There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism....it means to be faithful to the whole of what you are taught. In religion, fundamentalists got a bad reputation because many preachers were uneducated, and their take on what they read wasn't always correct. However, the "educated" preachers were often used to push things that really contradicted what the faith adhered to.

An extremist is a person who holds to beliefs so tightly that anything is justifiable to carry out what they believe.

An example would be violence at an abortion clinic. Certainly, a Christian could see abortion as murder, but the Word of God says that vengeance belongs to God and that He will repay. It's not the place of the Christian to act as God's sword against evil doers. A fundamentalist would protest and pursue every legal avenue to shut down such a practice (e.g. protesting and petitioning). An extremist would take matters into their own hand, often resulting in violence against others.

Just because some people do not attend church regularly does not mean that they hate religion in general. I know of some religious people who rarely attend church.

Fundamentalists believe in the fundamentals. They take the stories literally. They view religion in black and white terms. It is an extreme way to believe.

Simple. Extremists are 99% of the timefundamentalists. It would be very odd to find an extremist who was... well... moderate?

So no, not all fundies are extremists. But its pretty safe(and even correct) to call extremists fundamentalists. It just unfairly paints the nonviolent people as well.

How about atheist extremists like serial killers that aren't motivated by religious faith? ^.-

Atheists are fundamentalists too. They are concerned with the fundamentals of life, not about the possibilities of spirits and such.

Fundamental:

You are correct.

Luckily they are mostly in the portion of fundamentalists that are not extremists in their actions.

On the other hand, I once argued that some secular organizations such as ALF or PETA, Greenpeace are fundamental extremists.

This is why I hate the terms "fundamentalist" and "moderate." Such terms have inaccurate connotations, such as the idea that fundamentalists are more sincere or more serious about their faith. This is just not true. Moderates do not "follow only what [they] like," they simply have different (and, I would argue, more accurate) interpretations of some aspects of the faith than do the simple-minded fundamentalists who fail to see beyond the most superficial surface side of Scripture.

I dont think we are talking about solo extremists here, but rather the type that promulgate a social cause. Serial killers are only serving themselves.

Besides, dont most of them kill ritually, often for spiritual reasons?