[Yorick]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: [QB]To Timber and Yorik, Yorik, your interpretaion of fundamentalism is quite different than TL's, the Waco incident in the 90's with the Branch Davidians , the entire Taliban regime, Iran's regime, all fit with Timber's definition of fundamentalism. Your personal view of what fundamentailist is is different, cool, call it something else, like Morgeruatism, or Timberism if it makes you more comfortable, but don't get nasty and snippy, I've been avoiding this forum because I felt the need to walk away and let cooler heads prevail rather than let loose against some members whom I don't agree with and get myself banned.

Branch dravidism was a CULT. By definition a minority offshoot of existing beliefs. It is not fundamentalism. It is radicalist, extremist, but not fundamentalist, relative to it's origins.
In determining what is fundamentalism and what isn't you need to look at what the professed beliefs are, look at the majority of followers of those said beliefs, and then compare which follows the tenets fundamentally, liberally, radically, extremely, conservatively, reformatively etc etc etc etc.

Branch Dravidism was a radical and extreme offshoot of it's mother.
The Taliban was a radical and extreme application of Islam. You could probably argue it was fundamentalist, but that would involve researching what the fundamental beliefs of Islam actually are. The Taliban followed Wahabist Islam, which was a reformation of Islam to a fundamental level. No honoring of the prophets. Only honoring Allah. Strict intepretations of the original tenets of the faith

Yorik, this is from the definition you posted on the first page (last post on that page), it fits quite nicely within T.L.'s definition, you highlighted parts of it that agreed with your idea of it and ignored several parts of your definition, if you take out the part about the US it would read rather more like this "An organized, militant Evangelical movement in opposition to Religious Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture." the church you described (your father's) is hardly militant, nor does it seem overly intolerant, it doesn't go about saying any who don't adhere to it's dogma are damned, it may believe in the fundamental teachings of Christ, but that doesn't (by your own definition) make it fundamentalist. now can we please stop arguing about what the definition of "is" is , and continue onward in the topic.

If militancy is fundamental to a worldview, then being a militant whatever, is a fundamentalist approach.... ack back in a tic