Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Your quoted definition: quote:
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
|
Contradicts your statement:
Quote:
|
If militancy is fundamental to a worldview, then being a militant whatever, is a fundamentalist approach
|
You have defined fundamentalism as limited by those "fundamental values" upon which it is based, and that is not anybody's definition of fundamentalism but your own. You can't even follow the definitions you quote. Is English even your first language?
I'm trying to have a discussion about a recipe of characteristics that leads to militant behavior. You're trying to debate the nomenclature we use for those characteristics. YOU WIN!!!! I said it already -- name it what you will. I don't care to hear anymore debate about the name we call this thing, I'd like to move on and discuss a social formula that may result in the problems we see coming from Islamic Fundamentalism. Call it BOB for heaven's sake -- I DON'T CARE!
Just, please quit derailing this into a liturgy of why you feel we've hurt your feelings by using a word. APOLOGIES -- AGAIN!!! I apologize, acquiesce, and then beg you to move on, yet you continue to rant and rail. Please just stop it and let's get back to discussing the issues. [/QUOTE]I think it's pretty logical and simple Timber. Fundamentalism is AMORAL. It is a completely relative term. A fundamentalist Christian is the opposite of a liberal Christian, as they hold to the fundamental ideas, whereas a liberal compromises, personalises, alters, or adds elements. Same with a Jew, Muslim, Communist, whatever.
I would not call Stalin a fundamentalist communist because of his approach to the economy during the war for example.
It can be argued that fundamentalist Islam, is in fact militant, because a literalist imitative approach to the faith results in that behaviour. Do you see? A literal interpretation of the Bible - in particular, the Christian NEW TESTAMENT,
results in an entirely different set of behaviour outcomes. What you often find Americans calling "fundamentalists" are actually more revisionistic - looking at the old testament rather than the new for example.
I do note, that the problem is in America, and the incorrect labelling is most often done by Americans. As said, within the Christian Churches, the Anglican Church, Sydney diocese, is regarded by fundamentalists, and Liberals (Uniting Church) alike as being what it regards itself as - fundamentalist.
I have to go... but if you can see the word "fundamentalism" as a
method to having certain beliefs, rather than the certain beliefs themselves, we'll be in a clear position.