-- What Should We Do About Fundamentalism? --
In terms of what we can do about fundamentalism, there are three choices.
(a) We can ignore them and do nothing.
(b) We can attempt to dialogue with them.
(c) We can be more aggressive and iconoclastic.
Both church and society have tended to take the first option. Should they not be left free to hold the beliefs and live the life-styles they choose?
There is much to be said for this, provided their fundamentalism does not bring harm to others. Only in very extreme cases, as in the Jonestown phenomenon, can we be sure they are also harming themselves and even then it may be too late to intervene.
When fundamentalists themselves become aggressive, either on a personal level or on a question of social policy, this first option may have to be abandoned. Then we turn to the second option of attempting to convince them of a more fruitful path. But how successful can one be in genuine open dialogue? Fundamentalism by its very nature tends to build up an invisible wall of protection against all external threat and gives fundamentalists a kind of immunity to all thoughts which are in conflict with their beliefs.
The certainty they hold of their position tends to make them dogmatic and even arrogant.
The third option - the aggressive and iconoclastic attack - is certainly better avoided when one is dealing with people on a one-to-one basis but it may have to be employed when fundamentalists are collectively promoting a cause which is dangerous to society or detrimental to the religious tradition it claims to be preserving.
Jewish fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, and Muslim fundamentalists all do their own respective causes great harm, and their fellow-religionists should perhaps be spelling this out more clearly, even though they are often reluctant to do so.
It is ironical that fundamentalism emerged as a counter to modernism, which it saw as its chief enemy; yet fundamentalists have failed to realize that what they embrace is itself a modern phenomenon and one which may be called a religious aberration.
However, as James Barr has said, "Fundamentalism as a movement will last a long time and will constitute a powerful influence upon religion and society for many decades to come.
http://www.snowstarinstitute.org/why_fundamentalism_can_be_harmfu.htmI don't think "fundamentalism" is a useful term, because like a smallish sweater on a broad-beamed babe, it has been stretched too often to cover too much.
It once had a far more useful, because of far more specific, meaning. From 1910 to 1915 a group of Protestant scholars published ninety articles, which were eventually compiled into twelve books, defending such things as the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and a host of others.
People who affirmed these doctrines were properly termed "fundamentalists."
Now "fundamentalist" is used to designate anybody of any group who sincerely believes the published doctrines of the group (fundamentalist Democrat, fundamentalist Druid, even fundamentalist Darwinist) --- but with the pejorative connotation that the individual is also
Jewish fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, and Muslim fundamentalists all do their own respective causes great harm, and their fellow-religionists should perhaps be spelling this out more clearly, it's been along day - I'm tired - so maybe I'm missing something here?
Are you equating the Jewish and Christian fundamentalists on the same plane as the muslim fundamentalists?
If the muslim fundamentalists kept their violence within "their fellow-religionists" - that would be a different story. Conversely, I don't see a whole lot of Jews or Christians slaughtering and vowing to annihilate everyone who does not follow their religion