What is Fundamentalism?

Rutgers ^ | 8/8/02 | unknown

[tpaine]

That is why I didn't post his articles religious parts.
-- His point is made quite well without that aspect, in the sections I did post.

[tpaine]

Yep, turnabout is fair play, imo.

[Maceman]

Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth.

You mean, like when liberals argue for higher taxes, price controls on health care and other commodities, and laws that "get tough on business" while allowing the government to continue to snow us with phony budgets and balance sheets?? You mean like when the UN-lovers tell us that America's rightful concern with its own interests is "isolationist"? You mean like the liberals who spew out predictable epithets like "homophobic" and "racist" rather than actually talk about ideas?

Violent fundamentalists are those who believe that the "rightness" of their cause justifies even the most heinous of crimes. They are right, and others have no rights.

You mean, like environmentalist whackos?

Whether "religious" and secular, down through the ages violent fundamentalists have been responsible for terrible atrocities--crusaders slaughtering Muslims, inquisitors torturing heretics, Nazis gassing Jews, communists annihilating counterrevolutionaries, capitalists tyrannizing the poor.

Capitalists tyrannizing the poor. Capitalists paying low wages are like Hitler gassing the Jews? Ya gotta love it. Take all of the hardship imposed on the poor by capitalism (child labor, whatever), and it pales to insignificance besides the damage done by fundamentalist liberal social engineers.

Capitalism at least brings prosperity over time to most people, even if it takes generations. The same cannot ever be said of left-wing social engineering.

I note also that the Muslims are here presented only as victims of the Crusades. I guess Muslim fundamentalism is not that widespread.

But I do agree that fundamentalist liberals here and abroad are the biggest long-term problem that the US currently faces. We'll eventually stop the Muslim fundamentalists, but I doubt we'll ever stop the fundamentalist totalitarian leftists in our government and institutions.

[eaglebeak]

.....

[tpaine]

Socialism is the chief form of modern fundamentalism; why do so many on this thread defend such an anti-rational frame-of-mind?
_________________________________

Indeed, why do so many 'conservatives' on this forum defend such anti-rational attacks on their own constitutional rights? - It's mindboggling.

[Norman Conquest]

"Fundamentalism" is actually believing and trying to live by the principles your religion espouses. Clearly a bad thing.

Much better the mealy-mouthed, watered-down, terminally compromised "let's all be nice" socially acceptable version of religion that God's avowed enemies want you to practice in its stead.

[tpaine]

"Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth."

That's right, don't try to refute it logically. Just make an ad hominem attack against its adherents.
__________________________________
It's pretty hard to make a general point about adherants to a philosophy without stating your opinion on their behaviors. - I've seen the above types of behavior here on FR, mostly in defending governmental positions on guns & drugs.
-- They are made virtually every day, by many different people here, who could all fairly be called 'fundamentalists' of one sort or amother.

[tpaine]

"Fundamentalism" is actually believing and trying to live by the principles your religion espouses. Clearly a bad thing.

Much better the mealy-mouthed, watered-down, terminally compromised "let's all be nice" socially acceptable version of religion that God's avowed enemies want you to practice in its stead.
________________________________

"Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth."

[Dat]

"Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth."

Kind of like Objectivists and Libertarians!

[tpaine]

WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and immorality of today's world. The knowledge and technology explosion has left many people confused and afraid. Their understandable longing for security leads some to look for a way to cut through the complexities of modern life and reestablish fundamental truths.
Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth.
_________________________________

Kind of like Objectivists and Libertarians! - dat
__________________________________
Not really, dat, when taken in the context of the rest of the article.
- Got any more wit-less remarks about the whole thing?
-- Humor on this subject is sorely lacking.

[Kyrie]

Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and immorality of today's world...Their understandable longing for security leads some to look for a way to cut through the complexities of modern life and reestablish fundamental truths. Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth.

Fundamentalism may oppose the immorality of today's world, and may appear to oppose its complexity, but how does the author expect to establish his claim that fundamentalism is an extreme reaction etc.? I skimmed the article from the link you provided, but found no support for these claims. Perhaps you would be so kind...?

The world, including fundamentalism, is indeed complex. Perhaps the author is himself reacting to the complexity by trying to see things in simple terms: fundamentalism is a reaction.

And having produced this "theory of fundmentalism" without the benefit of any evidence, he now forces all of his observations to fit into this framework.

Of course, that is how the social "sciences" seem to operate these days.

[tpaine]

Do Catholics have so little ability to refute actual Fundamentalist, Bible-believing views that they must make up phony beliefs to argue against??
_________________________________
Sorry for the late reply: --

-- I purposely left out the religious parts of his article, because I can't defend them. -- I will defend the portions that I posted. Thanks.

[tpaine]

Fundamentalism may oppose the immorality of today's world, and may appear to oppose its complexity, but how does the author expect to establish his claim that fundamentalism is an extreme reaction etc.? --- Perhaps you would be so kind...?
________________________________

I see these extreme reactions from self described 'conservative' fundamentalists virtually every day here at FR.
- They defend a states 'right' [Ca.] to prohibit 'assault weapons'.
--- They defend the federal WoDs.
They even defend the silly act of congress that we must call ourselves a nation 'under' God, and rant that we should make an amendment to that effect.
On & on, you can go through most any thread, and get such fundamentalist fervor.

Please, try to say it isn't so. - I wish it wasn't.

[f.Christian]

The fact is that this market fundamentalism is simply consistent demand for individual human liberty, nothing less or more. It is now targeted as something bad because “fundamentalism” has been associated with terrorism and mindlessness. But, why not be a fundamentalist here? Why should democracy, for example, be allowed to limit our economic liberty? Who are these majorities, with some kind of mysterious moral authority, to... force others---to conform to various terms before they may carry on their commercial or economic activities? Isn’t it the point of the famous example of the unruly lynch mob that individuals may not be sent off to the gallows or otherwise limited in their liberty unless it has been demonstrated, by way of due process, that they have forfeited their right to liberty?

[tpaine]

Fundamentalist bump. - Any input? Any words of wisdom?

[gitmo]

I too am a fundamentalist and agree with your assessment. Everyone I know spends lots of time studying the original languages, various translations and commentaries on scripture, and studies about the culture and historical background of the scriptures.

Yes, the scriptures are the literal Word of God, but they are also written by men for men. I don't know of anyone who believes God is a rock (Psalm 18:2), a door (John 10:7), nor any of the other figurative descriptions of Him.

Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and immorality of today's world. The knowledge and technology explosion has left many people confused and afraid. Their understandable longing for security leads some to look for a way to cut through the complexities of modern life and reestablish fundamental truths. Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth.

I don't think so. I know fundamentalists who are fighter pilots, Green Berets, computer-system designers, doctors, and change-management experts. They don't fear change. Many of us thrive on change. If it is good change.

Fundamentalists know that there is a thing called Truth. And that truths build upon Truth. If the foundation of a building is corrupt, the building is corrupt and will not stand. The same with civilizations, individuals, and businesses. If their beliefs are correctly built upon Truth, they will be truth. (Sometimes we have incorrectly built upon Truth, with disastrous results. Also, sometimes we have built upon lies, thinking we were building upon Truth. Again, this leads to disastrous results.

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/America---

[LowOiL]

This same author had a problem with Hell too. Obviously he has alot of problems.

If God is love (1 Jn 4:8), how can God damn sinners to hell? The answer: God doesn't! God can't damn anyone to hell. Love keeps no record of wrongs (1 Cor 13:5, Heb 8:12; Is 43:25).

I stopped reading here. The fellow is obviously very confused.

[LowOiL]

From the same author....

God will not damn anyone to hell. If people do go to hell it is only because they have knowingly and willingly chosen to separate themselves from God's love. Hell is like a room with the lock on the inside.

Ahhhhh, like a lock on the inside.

Maybe a lock on the inside with the key forever lost and a flame thrower pointed at your butt on full blast while worms eat your flesh.

[tpaine]

I have nothing against the basic points of your linked article:

Why I Am a Free Market Fundamentalist
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/725625/posts

But I don't much like the use of the term, in that context. A 'free market' is not normally advocated by those who believe in 'strict orthodoxy'. To me, the language tends to confuse the issue.