Talk:Fundamentalism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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"). ListenerX^TalkerX 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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." ListenerX^TalkerX 02:30, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Would "anti-modern" or "quixotic" be any good? ListenerX^TalkerX 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.)--Bob^{bing 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). ListenerX^TalkerX 14:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

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. --AKjeldsen^{Cum 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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{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)

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)

Part of the American government religion's faith based dogma is that there is supposedly this hard separation between "church" and "state", in other words a dogmatic assertion that government and religion are completely separate and distinct. The effect this has is that ironically, the greater one's fundamentalist blind faith in the government religion, the less one will perceive their faith based devotion and worship as religious in nature. Thus the American government religion is perhaps the most deceptive religion in this regard, in that part of its religious doctrine or dogma is that it denies it is a religion.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:38, 15 February 2009 (EST)

One of the problems BON is that we know a lot more about Christianity than Islam so it tends to be criticized in more depth. But, as has been mentioned, if you've got some input you may edit the article, or make explicit suggestions here.--Bob^{bing up} 10:25, 15 February 2009 (EST)

And why do you think that we'd block you for saying that?--Bob^{bing up} 10:26, 15 February 2009 (EST)

For the record; it's a "persecution complex" thing, and also like a "double dare". If you precede a critical comment with "Well, you might block me for this..." then you can say what you like; if you're blocked, you're martyred and justified, if you're not blocked, then you're still free and feel justified. However, if you try it on a place like RW where blocking isn't used pretty much on principle, you do end up looking like a bit of a tit. ^postate 14:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is it reasonable to presume that the "neutral third party" is anything but an abstract ideal? Why should we presume that there even exists such a person as to be truly "unbiased"? I would say it is more the exception than the rule if it even exists at all so therefore by Bayesian inference if we are to develop an "operating assumption" it would be more reasonable to assume EVERYONE is biased.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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!!! --"CUR^talk 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. --"CUR^talk 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)

One could be an atheistic zealot, which was about what I meant. --"CUR^talk 17:15, 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. --"CUR^talk 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. ArmondikoV^moral 17:24, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I already acknowleged my mistake on calling him a fundie. --"CUR^talk 17:25, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, there are atheist fundamentalists, all right. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:41, 15 February 2009 (EST)

And to what fundamentalist atheist belief do they wish to return?--Bob^{bing 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. ArmondikoV^moral 08:38, 16 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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:08, 16 February 2009 (EST)

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. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:28, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Yeah, but aren't some fundamentalist movements more like "reforms" - a return to the basics? Like punk rock, or the grunge/garage movement? ħuman 01:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why all Fundamentalists are regarded as "bad people". It suits RW's Mission to Concentrate on the Bad Apples and then tar everyone with the Same Brush, but not all Fundamentalists are Evil.--Tolerance 19:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Because most or all of them we encounter in life are, well, not "evil" but certainly deranged. So we apologize if there was a non-rotten apple that was dumped with the rest of the feathers. (Sorry I could figure out how to mangle the second metaphor into the first) Never mind, I did. Barely. ħuman 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Where would this guy fall in?

Warren Steed Jeffs, the FLDS leader who got arrested for various things. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wp link for your convenience. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 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. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 23:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He kan haz RW snartikle of hiz oun? ħuman 01:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Fundamentalism, redux

I noticed that there isn't any mention of Islamic fundamentalism in here. Islam is much much worse than Christianity when it comes to basic human rights. (sorry, i do not go on wikis much, so I probably edited this wrong)

Good observation. Feel free to help out or we'll toss it on the 'wanted' list. ^{— Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am really no good with wikis. But there are a number of examples. The people in the UK (and other places) calling for people to be beheaded if they insult islam. Sharia courts in the UK, objectification of women...rape being the womans fault. etc.

Editing a wiki is really just clicking "edit", typing, and hitting "save" - which you appear to have mastered. We'd love it if you could write up a paragraph or two - do it here on the talk page if you're nervous. No need to learn any fancy "wiki markup", other people can add that. If you have sources you want to refer to, just include them as text, we'll do the rest. Oh, and there is one thing you should learn (it's easy), and that is how to sign your talk page posts. You type "~~~~" (four tildes - top left key on your board, shifted) and the software will automatically replace it with your IP/username (you should sign up!) and a datestamp. Thanks! ħuman 19:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I will look for some sources, I know there are quite a few in the BBC newspapers. Then I will definitely write a bit to get it started. signed: iwillregisterlater =P ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.119.210.17 / talk / contribs}

That's the last we'll see of this guy. --Gulik (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why, because the BBC is a TV thing, not a newspaper? ħuman 03:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What about Jewish fundamentalism. I just WIGOWorlded this item about ultra-orthodox Jews clashing with police over opening a car-park on the sabbath. Генгис^marauding 10:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, fuck the Fundamentalist Jews too!!!! ħuman 10:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks Human for making me look like an anti-semite. Генгис^marauding 11:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I did see something (it may have been P&T's Bullshit!, not sure) that featured and ultra-ultra orthdox fundie Jew. It was quite bizarre how closed off they all were from everywhere else, you wouldn't be able to tell from his accent that he was actually English, and like 2nd or 3rd generation at that. It was interesting, but as I can't remember the source, probably not worth adding. ^postate 11:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I met an Amish in Illinois who asked me where I came from. I told him I was from England - "What language do you speak over there?". So yes, these fundamentalist communities can be very inward looking. Генгис^marauding 12:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Islamist_demonstration_outside_Danish_Embassy#The_protest This is one of the main things I was talking about. The reaction to the Danish cartoons. People make fun of jesus all the time, and this never happens. The subjication of women is pretty well known. There is a Taliban section i noticed which deals a bit with islamic Fundamentalism. Mosinmatt (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah well I tried. Guess this will just have to stay only about Christians, and not the people blowing up innocent people, or flying planes into buildings. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mosinmatt / talk / contribs}

Tried what? The comment at the top was posted 10 days ago and you expect a full article to be practically re-written to include such a massive subject? I also see that you made absolutely no edits to the article, so please, don't complain when you haven't actually tried anything. Please by all means even start an article on Islamic fundamentalism as I reckon that might be a better way of organising things. ^postate 19:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fundamentalism Is Useful for Maintaining Order in Society

I noticed the bigoted anti-theist and religion-hating bent of this article, and I would like to point out that fundamentalism is actually quite useful for maintaining an orderly society. It helps to put a proper amount of respect for authority into the mindset of the populace and thereby prevents them from degenerating into hippie-like anarchic personalities and other moral degenerates. Neoconservative intellectual Irving Kristol actually noted this: "People need religion. It's a vehicle for a moral tradition. A crucial role. Nothing can take its place."

Granted depending on how you define 'fundamentalism' perhaps you don't need it to quite that degree to cause this effect, but still it is good for promoting an orderly and virtuous society.

My question to you is how can you maintain the proper respect for authority in a society without religion? Surely you must have some idea for how to prevent people from getting out of control.

-Johanan Raatz

Authority receives respect when it does respectable thing. - π 05:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Iran and the United States have much more order than Norway and Denmark. Empirical evidence is a bitch. 06:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly where you are going with this Publius, and let me preempt you by saying that it depends on what you are measuring. There are some statistics in Western Europe that I do not like very much at all. Johanan Raatz

Religion can inspire both great good as well as great evil. Fundamentalists inspire facepalms and lulz. People commit immoral acts even with religion, some do so in the name of God. It is possible to be moral without religion. Common decency and respect are all that is needed.--Thanatos 06:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the Taliban were pretty good at maintaining order in Afghanistan. I guess it depends on where your priorities lie.--Bob^{Not Jim} 11:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

But isn't that the 'At least Mussolini made the trains run on time' argument. Repression is 'good' at maintinign order, but is that desirable? Bob Soles 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That was the point I was making actually. Fundamentalist religious societies are pretty horrible places to live. The most ordered states are police states, but I doubt anyone would volunteer to live in one. And as for Johnathon's point:

• My question to you is how can you maintain the proper respect for authority in a society without religion? Surely you must have some idea for how to prevent people from getting out of control.

I find it hard to believe he's serious. I'm an atheist, but I don't run around killing people because I'm "out of control" as a result of having no religion.--Bob^{Not Jim} 12:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is: "FSTDT". But there is a point, fundamentalism is good for maintaining order from the POV of the priest class (or more generally, any ruling class) that are obeyed. From the POV of anyone who doesn't accept the fundamentalist rules, or has any degree of objectivity it's a complete nightmare - or their too busy being tortured and forced to confess/repent to care much about the politics of the situation. ^postate 13:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"From the POV of anyone who doesn't accept the fundamentalist rules, or has any degree of objectivity it's a complete nightmare"

Not necessarily, what if the "priest class" happens to be giving out orders in line with objective principles? This is the primary idea behind Plato's republic and it's modernized form in Strauss's philosophy. If we are proper philosopher kings then you should have nothing to worry about.

Remember, men come in three types: Those motivated by pleasure, those motivated by honor, and those motivated by wisdom and reason. However in a regular democratic society guess which group has the most sway? That's right, the group motivated by pleasure. In order to correct this imbalance you need other things in a society such as fundamentalism. And there is nothing bad about that at all.

Johanan Raatz

You don't Bob, but that does not mean others will not. For example, let's say that I deduce that reducing abortions, or protecting ExxonMobil's property rights from Latin American socialists is good. Now without a "higher authority" to back me up, why are people as likely to respect the correct opinion more than whatever the "popular" opinion is?

It's no mistake that after Nietzsche declared God dead at the turn of the last century that all manner of ideologies that invert Hegel appeared -with such examples as Nazism and Communism. Once you get rid of the idea of God the idea that essence precedes existence goes away shortly thereafter. Once you invert that order you wind up with existentialism which allows people to make up their own morality as they go along. We can't have that, because it is the same as giving people a blank check. --Johanan Raatz

You seem to be attributing some impressive causal powers to Nietzsche et al. How exactly did a passage from The Gay Science lead to Nazism? For that matter, why did Nazism only arise after Nietzsche wrote "God is dead," given that he wasn't the first to do so? As you should know, one of the charges brought against Socrates was that he was corrupting the young by advocating for false gods or none at all. According to Strauss and the Straussians, this accusation is accurate. Socrates was certainly more influential in his time than Nietzsche was in 19th century Europe. So why don't we see the classical Greek version of Nazism in Athens as a result of Socrates's teaching (and that of his students)?TallMan 00:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, the essence of your argument is that, once religion is gone, morality and rational thinking are also gone? The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 19:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Intriguingly yes that's correct. Hold on let me get you some articles I wrote on this:

On religion and the climate needed to foster reason: http://uwmpost.com/article/53/22/4420-Faith-reason-and-sophistry

On religion and the climate needed to foster morality: http://uwmpost.com/article/52/12/2772--One-Nation-Under-God- (the argument here is more towards the end)

Johanan Raatz

So, let me get this right. We have to invent mythical beings, and have these mythical beings invent the idea of Divine punishment - because without this superstitious dread we won't be able to operate as good people? In other words, if religious people were not afraid of imaginary punishments they'd all be on the streets killing, raping and stealing?--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob. That's exactly what I was thinking, I just couldn't phrase it into words. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 19:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong Bob, many religious people would not be good by themselves were it not for a unitary executive in the sky. It's just that without said sword of Damocles, many who are not religious are prone to just as much evil -only they do not have the same motivation. The people are essentially the same by themselves it's just that one group is more prone to being afraid to do evil. Look for example at what happens without this at the behavior of the 60's counterculture.

If you are an atheist and don't need religion to be good, kudos for you. It's just this is not how most PEOPLE (be they religious or atheist) operate.Johanan Raatz

Do you actually have empirical evidence that less religious societies have a higher rate of crime or disorder or whatever? Professor Moriarty 21:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this comment astounding:

• "Don't get me wrong Bob, many religious people would not be good by themselves were it not for a unitary executive in the sky."

A large number of people on this site are athiests like me or are non-religious. Are athiests really such a uniquely moral group when compared with theists? By your argument athiests are the most naturally moral people on the planet. While the idea is flattering, I rather doubt it is true.--Bob^{Not Jim} 22:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHA "It's just this is not how most PEOPLE (be they religious or atheist) operate." I remember when I was in college and I thought I knew all about "most people". Pretty funny, considering I hadn't met them yet. "Most people" are not you or I, they are some mass we can look down our noses at. When I learned to start including myself in lame "most people" generalizations I started making a hell of a lot more sense. ħuman 02:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Er....Etymology?

The Etymology given is very funny - I thought "Fundament" referred to the genitals, not ass, until I checked. However isnt it worth a mention how the term arose through the publication of a series of Protestant pamphlets called "Fundamentals of Christianity" early last century? like pretty well every edit I am ever likely to do,I can't provide the details so for quality I cant put it in. :) PardreObe (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Amusing how this talk page has now run full circle to a comment I made in the first section. You could try to put it in, maybe if you can't come up with enough details others will jump in and help? ħuman 22:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest a pseudo-derivation from 'Fun? Damn! (Go) Mental.'

The problem is - the term covers a variety of positions from 'back to basics' (anti-ritualism and similar, being fairly harmless) to the 'we are the saved and you are damned and we will enjoy seeing you punished' and 'don't like it - verbal maintenance it.'

Militant atheism is easier to say than 'the category of atheists who would be classed as militant if atheism could be codified into something resembling a religion.'

Note there are no militant agnostics.^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

I didn't want to step on anyone's toes on my first edit, but I signed up because I felt that the "Etymology" section of fundamentalism was, while humorous, is evidently satirical in a mostly serious examination of fundamentalism (note that "explorations of fundamentalism" is one of the core links on the homepage.) I supplanted it with a serious treatment of the etymology of fundamentalism; I suggest the previous article be moved to a "Fun"-designated page. Pacra 3:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Pacra, except that I am willing to step on people's toes, and have therefore submitted my first edit. Since I have preserved the jokes while making it clear what's factual and what isn't, hopefully mine will survive. ... It was, in fact, reverted with no comments that I can find in less than one minute. Admittedly, I'm new here, so maybe I missed something, either commentary or protocol, and if someone can correct me, I'm listening. However, I have my reasons for this edit: as it stands, the "Etymology" section contains no factual information, and is seriously misleading given that it's completely satirical in an otherwise straightforward page. (And if you think it's obvious that it's satire, consider how many folks still believe things like the derivation of "posh" or "rule of thumb".) Essentially, it exists only to be insulting, and, bluntly, isn't even all that funny. Honestly, I'd delete it entirely, but figured that since at least some people, such as PardreObe above, found it entertaining, I settled for tightening it up. (And admittedly, using the alternate meaning of "fundament" is kind of clever, but let's be honest about where it comes from.) I realize that the editorial guidelines allow and even encourage snarkiness, but the existing section isn't snark, it's just a cheap shot inexpertly made, and I'd much prefer to leave that sort of thing to the irrationals. Fogboy (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Monkey say and monkey do

Fundamentalists seem to put more emphasis on talking the talk than walking the walk - how many are into blood doning, VSO(equivalent) and similar. All mou' and no trews, and by their deeds ye shall know them as they say.

212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cover?

Ah, go on. a bit of work and a quick polish and it's there. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"fundy loons" in intro? Apart from that, the intro is cover blurb material - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's up to scratch at all, actually. ^postate 14:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put it down to bronze. The criteria for silver (and I assume people are agreed on them because they haven't been quibbled with) state that the article should be referenced more thoroughly than this. There's a lot of stuff that could have "citation needed" stuck on them, for instance. ^postate 14:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So stick the "fact" tag on them. No one has bothered to argue with your medal criterion because it seems interesting. Doesn't mean it is perfect. ħuman 07:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Jigsaw674's edits

I'm not sure about Jigsaw674's edits. In particular, the discussion of "redistributive schemes of government" (don't drink from the well; it's been poisoned) strikes me as out-of-place. It may be that fundamentalists are or tend to be opposed to government interventions in the economy, but this is surely a contingent matter and not part of fundamentalism per se. I'm also not happy with the edit to the sola scriptura claim; the original text was problematic, but the replacement isn't stellar either. I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that fundamentalists think the Bible is the only source of faith (whatever that means); again, while most American Protestant fundamentalists probably think this, it has to do with their Protestantism rather than their fundamentalism. The article currently runs together biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy; they're not the same thing (though they share an article on RW), and fundamentalists think the Bible is inerrant and to be taken literally. Most of the discussions of the Five Fundamentals I've seen take inerrancy and literalism to be separate, and leave sola scriptura out of it.TallMan (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on

Come on, people, this article is still the crappy stubbed toe I wrote days ago! It needs more brainz! human^{be in} 20:20, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Ooh, Robledo, you made it have more of the goodz! human^{be in} 15:01, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Um, now it's funny, etc., but where is mention of The Fundamentals pamphlets of 1915-20 or so? IE, the begnninnninnnning of the actual movement? human^{be in} 03:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

jigsaw674's edits, part two

TallMan, you may have a point. The original article had a few details I thought should be addressed, and as a Christian Fundamentalist, I thought I would take a crack at it. It seems that the same article was cut and pasted for both fundamentalist and Christian fundamentalist.

First, in the section on inerrancy of the bible, the author pretends to know the original intent of the authors of the books of Job, Daniel, Jonah, and Revelation. I find it difficult to believe that someone writing with such sardonic language has a sufficient degree of knowledge of the intent of long-dead authors required in order to make such a sweeping judgment. It's sort of like judging statutory intent for a law passed by legislature - the judges are the only ones who get those memos.

There has been a great deal of study of these works over the past few thousand years, so I won't pretend to be able to condense all of that peer-reviewed research. I will, however, state for the record that prophesies contained in these books have not all come to pass. A rational author would note this, and would allow for the possibility that since (especially Revelation) they contain symbolism that cannot currently be conclusively attributed to past events, they could not (in their entirety) then be said to have been written only for the purpose of comforting an early church in crisis.

The exact authorship of the Book of Job, for example, is uncertain, but has been narrowed down to approximately seven possibles, and the exact date has been narrowed to and 1100 year period beginning as early as 1500 B.C. It would probably help to know the author before concluding intent. I recognize, however, the rationale for the argument that some believe the words to be literal while others are more figurative in their assessments. I tend toward literal, as do many other fundamentalists. Most of us don't want to sell our youngest daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7). We can work on the sabbath in violation of Exodus 35:2. We don't think about Leviticus 11:7 while watching UT spank USC at the Rose Bowl. I planted different crops side by side this year in the garden, and once made it with a woman during her time (without being exiled). These, among many others, are rules from a different time. I cannot rationally explain them.

The thing that got me, though, about the unedited "inerrancy" post was the filthy socialist clause. I felt at the time that this clause was fairly prevalent among the more committed nonbelievers, so addressing the socialist argument was almost a given. Socialism is redistribution of wealth, while actual charity involves a much more personal relationship. Since charity is the command, I doubt even a truly gifted philosopher could convincingly argue that Christ was a socialist. I would appreciate feedback on that one, though.

Then there were some points I deducted for outright falsehoods under "sole source of faith". The New Testament repeatedly states that Christ is the key to the New Covenant. A prime example is John 14:6. There are others.

Some other points I wanted to make while debating charity: whereas the government may be able to reach broad swaths of the population, it creates unwieldy bureaucracies while doing little to address the actual causes of poverty. A charitable individual is apt to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse, while government seems to tolerate these conditions while abusing its authority to tax. Also, government can attribute causality to the awarding of entitlements, i.e., a political party can claim credit for seizing tax revenues to award to a particular group in return for political support. A government cannot tell a lazy person to get off his/her lazy ass, while a private individual or charity can. This is why private charities are preferable: it was the way it was done for thousands of years. Only now will the sky fall if we stop.^{— Unsigned, by: Jigsaw674 / talk / contribs}

So in short "I didn't like the snarky tone about a subject I take way too seriously, so I went ahead and made it more fundy friendly for you." --Inquisitor (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Governments have been engaged in charity for thousands of years too. Keeping the hungry from rioting is a good way to stay in power. ħuman 03:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Inquisitor has the right of it. I think there are legitimate issues with the original tone but the revisions are no better. TallMan (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make some changes.TallMan (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You said the words, "as a Christian Fundamentalist" and I stop caring what you said.Doublethink (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)