Talk:Fundamentalism
(→Where would this guy fall in?) |
(→Where would this guy fall in?) |
||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
Warren Steed Jeffs, the FLDS leader who got arrested for various things. {{User:k61824/Sig|}} 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC) | Warren Steed Jeffs, the FLDS leader who got arrested for various things. {{User:k61824/Sig|}} 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
:[[wp:Warren Jeffs|Wp link]] for your convenience. {{User:Toast/SIG}} 23:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC) | :[[wp:Warren Jeffs|Wp link]] for your convenience. {{User:Toast/SIG}} 23:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::Whooo! Hadn't heard of the guy! Where would he fall in? Any available tar pit. A slimeball of the first water. The FLDS have got the catholic priests beaten by all appearances. {{User:Toast/SIG}} 23:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:38, 28 May 2009
Come on, people, this article is still the crappy stubbed toe I wrote days ago! It needs more brainz! humanbe in 20:20, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
Contents |
Reactionary vs. radical
While I tend to view "fundamentalism" as reactionary, in a desire to return to the past the root (haha) of "radical" is "root". So which is it? A reaction to and against modernism, or a "radical" desire to return to the "roots" of their faith? Perhaps we could simply use a better word instead of either? ħuman
00:06, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- The Wiktionary defines "reactionary" as follows:
- "1. Unthinkingly opposed to change; urging a return to a previous state.
- "2. Very conservative."
- Fundamentalists are not opposed to change; they want to change the Free World into a theocracy. They are not urging a return to any widespread previous state of being, and therefore are not conservative (read the rants of John Lofton over at The American View for background on this point).
- Therefore, I put that "reactionary" is an entirely unsuitable word for fundamentalists. Not to mention that it is also a snarl word used by communists to refer to anti-communists, including liberals.
- Simply advocating a "return to the past" does not make one conservative or "reactionary." I favor the use of "radical," both for the reason you suggested, and because they aim to transform society by striking at what they perceive to be the "root cause" of society's problems (i.e., "Godlessness").
ListenerXTalkerX 00:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- That's why I think we need to find a better word than "reactionary" or "radical". They are both - they want to rollback modern changes to an "imaginary" past, and they want to do it in a radical manner. So can we think of a better word? ħuman
01:38, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- I have just explained why fundamentalists (or, if that word be used loosely, some fundamentalists) are not reactionary. Fundamentalists are not guided by the past, although they may ally themselves with those who are, for political gain; they are guided by a utopian vision of a theocratic world.
ListenerXTalkerX 02:17, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- I just remembered a quote from Pete Seeger illustrating the difference between a reactionary and someone who simply professes a desire to "turn back the clock" to an imaginary past:
- "I like to say I'm more conservative than Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other."
ListenerXTalkerX 02:30, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- Would "anti-modern" or "quixotic" be any good?
ListenerXTalkerX 13:18, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- "Quixotic" is a little too poetic for me. "Anti-modern" might fit the bill in many cases (ie. the Taliban) but some fundamentalist movements are pretty invested in modernity and all of its trappings--otherwise there would be no televangelism or Conservapedia. I think "radical fundamentalism" is the way to go....TheoryOfPractice 13:23, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- If we're using Wiktionary to define our terms it gives the first definition of "fundamentalist" as: "One who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts." It seems to me that this "strict interpretation" may make them want to re-create a world more in-line with that in which the original texts were created - or they may "strictly interpret" their holy book to include within it instructions to change the world in other ways. For instance they may think that they need to prepare the world for the second coming of Jesus Christ. (I can never remember if those are the Premillenialists or the post Postmillennialists.)--Bobbing up 14:00, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- Those are the premillenialists.
- I am probably conflating "fundamentalist" with "Dominionist" a little bit above, but a strict interpretation of the Christian Bible definitely called for massive changes, both in Jewish practice and in the contemporary Greco-Roman world, so no Christian fundamentalist would want to roll back to that (at least not completely — although the state of science at that point would probably suit some of them just fine).
ListenerXTalkerX 14:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- If we're using Wiktionary to define our terms it gives the first definition of "fundamentalist" as: "One who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts." It seems to me that this "strict interpretation" may make them want to re-create a world more in-line with that in which the original texts were created - or they may "strictly interpret" their holy book to include within it instructions to change the world in other ways. For instance they may think that they need to prepare the world for the second coming of Jesus Christ. (I can never remember if those are the Premillenialists or the post Postmillennialists.)--Bobbing up 14:00, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- "Quixotic" is a little too poetic for me. "Anti-modern" might fit the bill in many cases (ie. the Taliban) but some fundamentalist movements are pretty invested in modernity and all of its trappings--otherwise there would be no televangelism or Conservapedia. I think "radical fundamentalism" is the way to go....TheoryOfPractice 13:23, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- I have just explained why fundamentalists (or, if that word be used loosely, some fundamentalists) are not reactionary. Fundamentalists are not guided by the past, although they may ally themselves with those who are, for political gain; they are guided by a utopian vision of a theocratic world.
- That's why I think we need to find a better word than "reactionary" or "radical". They are both - they want to rollback modern changes to an "imaginary" past, and they want to do it in a radical manner. So can we think of a better word? ħuman
- One way that I've had this point explained is that fundamentalists do not usually want to change society back to the roots; they want to change their religion back to the roots, and then reshape their society in the image of that reformed religion. A subtle but important distinction. Also, I agree that fundamentalism is not at all reactionary - quite the opposite, in many cases it is indeed actually revolutionary, and in any case, it is very much a modern phenomenon. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:57, 4 January 2009 (EST)
"regressive"
Not sure this quite gets it--I see where it's coming from, the idea of returning to a "purer" incarnation/interpretation of religious belief. It doesn't quite sit well with me, though: in part because it's an awfully judgemental word to throw around in the definition (the judgemental part should come in, don't get me wrong, but we should think about defining the word in more neutral terms.) Also, the people who consider themselves to be fundamentalists of one sort or another would probably not use the word "regressive" to describe their worldview. Moreover, fundamentalism involves this sort of double move--looking to the past to bring about a better future--that isn't really regressive. I still think "radical" is the best choice...TheoryOfPractice 16:36, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- This is probably the longest discussion I've seen over a single word in the first line of an article. I don't think regressive is quite appropriate (though usually true); radical is misleading; reactionary maybe. Other words we could use: dogmatic, extremist, hardline, zealous. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 16:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- You know, upon re-reading, there's no need for a word there at all. "Fundamentalism is a tendency exhibited by significant minorities within most major religions" seems just fine to me. Perhaps later in the article we could address the radicals, the reactionaries, the regressives, etc.? ħuman
17:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- You know, upon re-reading, there's no need for a word there at all. "Fundamentalism is a tendency exhibited by significant minorities within most major religions" seems just fine to me. Perhaps later in the article we could address the radicals, the reactionaries, the regressives, etc.? ħuman
- This is probably the longest discussion I've seen over a single word in the first line of an article. I don't think regressive is quite appropriate (though usually true); radical is misleading; reactionary maybe. Other words we could use: dogmatic, extremist, hardline, zealous. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Political fundamendalists
Are political extremes also sometimes referred to as fundamentalists (Marxists e.g.)? Toast 17:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)
- Probably, but I suspect there are far fewer of them (like, there may be many communists, but how many would be "fundamentalist marxists"?). It's certainly possible, especially if the politics in question has a "strong" founding text or basis. Mao's red book? The works of the founding Fathers in the US (and "originalism")? I bet Researcher would know... ħuman
17:46, 4 January 2009 (EST)
Islamic Fundamentalism
y'know, there's something called "islamic fundamentalism" out there that hates science even more, and kills women for BEING RAPED. Just to remind you. — Unsigned, by: 173.48.208.204 / talk / contribs
- Even more than what? This article is about the phenomenon of fundamentalism in general, across all religions, not any specific faiths. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 09:04, 15 February 2009 (EST)
block me if you like, but...
the fundamentalism article mentions christianity explicitly 20 times or so, and islam? at most once?, when islamic fundamentalism is at least as serious a problem as christian fundamentalism.
can you still say it's not biased? — Unsigned, by: 173.48.208.204 / talk / contribs
- You're free to contribute--just know that if your writing is shit, it's probably gonna get eviscerated, or just deleted. People probably won't be inclined to deal with editing poorly-written tripe from a drive-by Bunchanumbers to bring it up to snuff....TheoryOfPractice 09:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- Please also start signing your talk page comments: write ~~~~ at the end. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 09:38, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- Please also start signing your talk page comments: write ~~~~ at the end. Wėąṣėḷőįď
- You're free to contribute--just know that if your writing is shit, it's probably gonna get eviscerated, or just deleted. People probably won't be inclined to deal with editing poorly-written tripe from a drive-by Bunchanumbers to bring it up to snuff....TheoryOfPractice 09:11, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Dawkins
Can I put a Link to Dawkins from this Article?--Tolerance 17:04, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- Sure- he is a fundamentalist athiest. Go non-overlapping magisteria!!! --"CURtalk 17:06, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- Fundamentalism is a tendency exhibited by significant minorities within most major religions Dawkins is not operating within a religious discourse or world-view. Atheism is not a religion. TheoryOfPractice 17:08, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- Acknowledged, but if there ever was an athiest equivalent to fundamentalism, Dawkins fufills the criteria. --"CURtalk 17:10, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- but if there ever was an athiest equivalent to fundamentalism, But there isn't. So he doesn't. TheoryOfPractice 17:13, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- Acknowledged, but if there ever was an athiest equivalent to fundamentalism, Dawkins fufills the criteria. --"CURtalk 17:10, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- Fundamentalism is a tendency exhibited by significant minorities within most major religions Dawkins is not operating within a religious discourse or world-view. Atheism is not a religion. TheoryOfPractice 17:08, 15 February 2009 (EST)
Fundamentalism and zealotry are ways to describe religions. Atheism is by definition the absence of religion. So no. TheoryOfPractice 17:22, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- <buzzer> Wrong. Zealotry is the belief that your way is the only right way. So yes, he is a zealot. --"CURtalk 17:23, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- Maybe, but definitely not a fundamentalist because you'd have to have strict aherence to dogma. Unless you want to count science as a dogma and any respected scientist would therefore be a fundamentalist. ArmondikoVd hominem 17:24, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- I already acknowleged my mistake on calling him a fundie. --"CURtalk 17:25, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- Oh, there are atheist fundamentalists, all right.
ListenerXTalkerX 17:41, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- And to what fundamentalist atheist belief do they wish to return?--Bobbing up 05:00, 16 February 2009 (EST)
- Bob, always the voice of reason. You've hit it out of the park--there are no tenets that are fundamental to atheism, therefore no such thing as an "atheist fundamentalist." If we allow for such a thing as an "atheist fundamentalist," a lot of our arguments against religious types who see atheism as a just another religion get put at risk. Don't do it. TheoryOfPractice 08:30, 16 February 2009 (EST)
- Although I think we can conclude he isn't one, is it worth quoting the man himself on the charge? I think he said "don't confuse fundamentalism for passion" because the two are different things. Hence, he's possibly a zealot but not a fundie. ArmondikoVd hominem 08:38, 16 February 2009 (EST)
- Bob, always the voice of reason. You've hit it out of the park--there are no tenets that are fundamental to atheism, therefore no such thing as an "atheist fundamentalist." If we allow for such a thing as an "atheist fundamentalist," a lot of our arguments against religious types who see atheism as a just another religion get put at risk. Don't do it. TheoryOfPractice 08:30, 16 February 2009 (EST)
- And to what fundamentalist atheist belief do they wish to return?--Bobbing up 05:00, 16 February 2009 (EST)
- Oh, there are atheist fundamentalists, all right.
- I already acknowleged my mistake on calling him a fundie. --"CURtalk 17:25, 15 February 2009 (EST)
- Maybe, but definitely not a fundamentalist because you'd have to have strict aherence to dogma. Unless you want to count science as a dogma and any respected scientist would therefore be a fundamentalist. ArmondikoVd hominem 17:24, 15 February 2009 (EST)
See the first line of atheist thumper & the two footnotes. I don't think the that the term "atheist fundamentalist" is very meaningful, but the phrase has certainly been used by critics of Dawkics etc., so it would be appropriate to mention it & refute the concept (e.g. like these articles). Rather than do it in this article, it would probably be best to create an article as "atheist fundamentalist" & outline how the term is used & what's wrong with it. We can then link to it from here, atheist thumper, secular religions, etc. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:48, 16 February 2009 (EST)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but how can you have an "atheist fundamentalist". by the very definition, there must be a foundation for a fundamentalist to hop up and down upon (or alternately, bang heads against). Despite what Andy and his fellow "freakazoids" think, there is no set of beliefs ascribed to by atheists, no text to shape our views, nor any shared views, anymore than there would be with 10000 people gathered in a room who all professed to not believe in Aliens. Some atheists go to church and gain fellowship while ignoring all that "god" stuff, some like to go camping, others hang out and edit wikipedia. Some atheists think drinking is wrong, others spend their lives happily drunk. There are, I'm sure, atheists who do not believe in evolution, and i know for a fact there are atheists who think Obama is the next Stalin. Just because there are aggressive athesits, and fanatical atheists who are devout to their ideals of getting religion out of public life, does not mean those atheists are in any way "fundimental". --EnAttendantGodot 09:27, 16 February 2009 (EST)
- Exactly. The term "fundamentalist atheist" is silly, but the fact that it is used by critics of atheism is reason enough to discuss it. Our thing is analysing & refuting crank ideas, & that should include these kind of nonsense phrases. Similarly I've been meaning to write an article on "evolutionary racism", a term that gets tossed around a lot at CP, refuting the whole concept. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 10:09, 16 February 2009 (EST)
- I've created an atheist fundamentalism article, plus a short section here mentioning the phrase too. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:08, 16 February 2009 (EST)
- I've created an atheist fundamentalism article, plus a short section here mentioning the phrase too. Wėąṣėḷőįď
- Exactly. The term "fundamentalist atheist" is silly, but the fact that it is used by critics of atheism is reason enough to discuss it. Our thing is analysing & refuting crank ideas, & that should include these kind of nonsense phrases. Similarly I've been meaning to write an article on "evolutionary racism", a term that gets tossed around a lot at CP, refuting the whole concept. Wėąṣėḷőįď
New Comment, not sure where to add.
I'd like to add something like the following: "Studies of fundamentalism show that fundamentalism is often the result of a change in power-dynamics by those who traditionally held power in favor of those who were "dismissed" by society or formally removed from power (women, blacks, gays, etc.). This can be juxtaposed to Milinialistic religions where someone who had power loses his power through an invasion (Shirt Dance Religion, Rastafarian). This is one explanation why there is such a desire to "return" to the old ways, before 2nd class members of society began to say "Us too"." --- any suggestions where this could go, if it's really on point?--EnAttendantGodot 09:49, 16 February 2009 (EST)
- It's an interesting theory, & should be added, especially if there's any web sources you can cite on it. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 10:28, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Where would this guy fall in?
Warren Steed Jeffs, the FLDS leader who got arrested for various things. K61824"6+18=24" 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)