Ivanhoe:
07 Dec '05 17:46 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by sonhouse
I think fundamentalists are defined among other aspects, by their
desire to make their religion a government. I think the
Christian right would qualify in that regard as well as the
muslim extremists as in Iran or the Afghan Taliban.
They all have one thing in common: Extreme pressure on
people to convert.
The secular ideology of liberalism is also very keen of making their ideology the dominant one in the US, and not only there. They are actively seeking to take over governments.
marauder:
07 Dec '05 18:03 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Marauder: "That makes no sense at all."
Why not ?
Please give an example of "liberalism" (which kind?) adhering to a strict and LITERAL basic principle. Such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authoritative text which must be believed to be without the possibility of error. I would say that the classical definition of liberalism precludes fundamentalism as it stresses intellectual and spiritual liberty rather than enforced adherence to any set of basic principles.
Ivanhoe:
07 Dec '05 18:10 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by no1marauder
Please give an example of "liberalism" (which kind?) adhering to a strict and LITERAL basic principle. Such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authoritative text which must be believed to be without the possibility of error. I would say that the classical definition of liberalism precludes fundamentalism as it stresses intellectual and spiritual liberty rather than enforced adherence to any set of basic principles.
Originally posted by echecero
Given that "fundamentalist" refers to a person who believes there is a need to return to stricter, more "fundamental" views, rules, and ways, often by supporting intolerance of secularism and other deviations away from traditional beliefs of their particular faith, I'm not sure how it would be possible to be a "secular fundamentalist."
Echechero: " I'm not sure how it would be possible to be a "secular fundamentalist."
A secular fundamentalist refers to a person who believes there has to be a strict more "fundamental" view, rules and ways, often by supporting intolerance of religionism and other deviations away from traditional beliefs of their own particular ideology.
I wrote down a variation of what Echechero calls a religious fundamentalist.
Why doesn't it make any sense ? It does make sense to me.
I want to add that fundamentalists have no objections to killing if that killing brings closer their ideological ideals. They are perfectly willing to morally justify that killing.
Sonhouse:
07 Dec '05 18:24 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by ivanhoe
The secular ideology of liberalism is also very keen of making their ideology the dominant one in the US, and not only there. They are actively seeking to take over governments.
What do they call that argument? Strawman I think.
I'm sure child pornographers would like to take over the
government too but that doesn't invalidate my point.
And the lack of real argument here makes me think you WANT
fundamentalists to control everyone's lives. If that happened I would
make myself a volunteer at McMurdo Station.
Originally posted by ivanhoeGenerally speaking, a "Fundamentatlist" is one who choses to believe, follow, etc... the core set or founding set of aspects of a particular thing (belief, idea, etc...) - They are extremely rigid and unbending in their support/belief/etc... of this ideal and tend to react poorly to anything outside of those exact parameters. The views are very conservative in nature.
Sasquatch:
07 Dec '05 16:19 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Sas: " Ivanhoe, while we've gone back and forth, doesn't strike me as particularly intolerant of others."
I have always wondered what the term "fundamentalist" stands for.
What does it stand for in case it is applied to Christians?
What does it mean in cas ...[text shortened]... ion of Christian fundamentalism) bear more than a passing resemblance to fundamentalist Muslims.
I have heard the word tied to numerous descriptions and as we know, everyone's definition of a word is different, so trying to generalize what a Fundamentalist Christian or Muslem or Hindu would be difficult. To add to that there are cultural differences. What Americans may perceive as fundamental about Christianity, a European may not. An East indian American would view what a fundamentalist Hindu was differently than one without exposure to America (meaning lived in India all their life.)
The only one I can really comment about it the "secular fundamentalist" since the two descriptives dont go well together. At its core someone who is secular is more "worldly" than "spiritual." More philosophical than religious. One who has a more worldly philosophical view of things is not someone who tends towards a very narrow, conservative, rigid and unbending point of view. It is almost a contradictory descriptive....
Anywho...That is my few pence on the topic....
Ivanhoe:
07 Dec '05 18:34 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by no1marauder
Please give an example of "liberalism" (which kind?) adhering to a strict and LITERAL basic principle. Such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authoritative text which must be believed to be without the possibility of error. I would say that the classical definition of liberalism precludes fundamentalism as it stresses intellectual and spiritual liberty rather than enforced adherence to any set of basic principles.
Marauder: "Please give an example of "liberalism" (which kind?) adhering to a strict and LITERAL basic principle. Such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authoritative text which must be believed to be without the possibility of error."
Ho ho ho .... you are implicitely using your own definition of what constitutes "fundamentalism" .... and that was exactly what we were discussing.
What do you think constitutes a "fundamentalist" ?
From your previous post a few of your criteria can be distilled:
- a fundamentalist must adhere to a strict and literal basic principle.
- such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authorative text, which must be believed to be without the possibility of error.
Are there more criteria you want to add ?
More criteria have been proposed by others in this thread. Which ones do you want to incorporate in your definition ?
Sas:
07 Dec '05 18:37 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by sasquatch672
I think the time is right for no1 to expound on the Founders' deism, or lack thereof, and to give us their perspective on religion in government beyond what's expressed in the Constitution.
No1, take it away...
Does this mean you have finished your contributions in this thread ?
Marauder:
07 Dec '05 18:42 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Marauder: "Please give an example of "liberalism" (which kind?) adhering to a strict and LITERAL basic principle. Such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authoritative text which must be believed to be without the possibility of error."
Ho ho ho .... you are implicitely using your own definition of what constitutes ...[text shortened]... en proposed by others in this thread. Which ones do you want to incorporate in your definition ?
Actually, I was using your definition with the term "literal" being explained in detail.
EDIT: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"
Ivanhoe;
07 Dec '05 18:46 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
They must interpret something literally. What?
This depends. You don't have to take this literally, of course .... .
Fascists do not have "authoritative" scriptures as far as I know. The interpretation of their or other people's texts necessarily don't have to be literal ..... I think ...
Ivanhoe:
07 Dec '05 18:48 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually, I was using your definition with the term "literal" being explained in detail.
EDIT: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"
This isn't exactly my definition yet, but who knows ....
What is your definition ?
marauder:
07 Dec '05 18:54 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by ivanhoe
This isn't exactly my definition yet, but who knows ....
What is your definition ?
The dictionary definition you gave is good enough for me; there's seems little sense in having dictionaries if we're unwilling to accept that the definitions in them are to be used as standard. I'm not much into semantics; if a word has a widely accepted standard meaning, I'm willing to use it in that way.
I would still maintain that the phrase "secular fundamentalist" makes no sense unless you can point to an authoritative text that the SF could interpret "strictly and literally" (literal comes from the Latin word "litteralis" meaning "of a letter" does it not?).
Ivanhoe:
07 Dec '05 18:55 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by sonhouse
What do they call that argument? Strawman I think.
I'm sure child pornographers would like to take over the
government too but that doesn't invalidate my point.
And the lack of real argument here makes me think you WANT
fundamentalists to control everyone's lives. If that happened I would
make myself a volunteer at McMurdo Station.
Right. Is "trying to take over a government an adequate and necessary criterium in establishing somebody is a "fundamentalist" and thus a criterion in your definition of what constitutes a "fundamentalist" ?