What is Fundamentalism?

Rutgers ^ | 8/8/02 | unknown

[tpaine]

WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?

Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and immorality of today's world. The knowledge and technology explosion has left many people confused and afraid. Their understandable longing for security leads some to look for a way to cut through the complexities of modern life and reestablish fundamental truths.
Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth.

FUNDAMENTALISTS AND POLITICS

Fundamentalism arises from a person's general approach to life. Not all fundamentalists are Christians or even religious. A fundamentalist's unyielding adherence to rigid doctrinal and ideological positions may find expression in his or her social and political, as well as religious, attitudes.

Violent fundamentalists are those who believe that the "rightness" of their cause justifies even the most heinous of crimes. They are right, and others have no rights. Whether "religious" and secular, down through the ages violent fundamentalists have been responsible for terrible atrocities--crusaders slaughtering Muslims, inquisitors torturing heretics, Nazis gassing Jews, communists annihilating counterrevolutionaries, capitalists tyrannizing the poor.

[H.Akston]

You never define what you consider to be the fundamental principles of human rights, akston.

You've never asked me outright. But if you had half a brain, you'd know it was "Life, Liberty, and Property". (see post 100)

-- I stand by our U.S. Constitutions Bill of Rights. You deny its supremacy, and are proud to admit it.

That is such a lie, too.

You can not possibly stand by the Constitution, if you violate property.

"... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" - 5th Amendment.

The things you have said indicate to me, that you don't really believe in this human right.

I've said countless times that the Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution (vs. say you, or the Federal Govt.) Supreme.

[tpaine]

You have consistently denied the supremacy of our constitution in favor of socalled 'states rights'.
You deny that states are forbidden to violate the rights of life, liberty, and property by the 14th amendment.

In short, you are NOT telling the truth about your views.

[tpaine]

The Squalid 14th Amendment, esp. the clause about no compensation

for slave property,

threw these out of balance. Property has been at a disadvantage in this country, ever since.
________________________________

Slave property. -- Say no more. Thanks.

[H.Akston]

You have consistently denied the supremacy of our constitution in favor of socalled 'states rights'.

I could have sworn that the 10th Amendment protections of States was actually located inside of the document known as the "Constitution", which is supreme. In other words, States Rights that are not delegated to the Federal Government, have supreme protection!

You deny that states are forbidden to violate the rights of life, liberty, and property by the 14th amendment.

The 5th forbade such violations long before the 14th came along, if the the Supremeacy Clause had been literally interpreted. The Supremeacy Clause incorporates the 5th Amendment into all State Constitutions - the 14th is superfluous, when it comes to prohibiting States from violating life, liberty and property without due process of law.

You're just in love with the 14th Amendment, along with the ACLU, and radical egalitarians who think that only the central government can determine what's "equal protection". It's a wonder today that separate bathrooms at State rest stops are still legal.

Radicals = the Problem.

[tpaine]

You're just in love with the 14th Amendment, along with the ACLU, and radical egalitarians who think that only the central government can determine what's "equal protection". It's a wonder today that separate bathrooms at State rest stops are still legal.
__________________________________

How weird you are hugh.
I am no fan of central government. OR state government. -- They BOTH must obey our constitution.

-- You pander to authority, as the article says, because you are afraid/confused by modern life. You crave the security that only an all powerful state can give you.

Fundamentalists = the Problem.

[tpaine]

BTW, I pushed abuse on #104. And I'm pleasantly surprised that the Mod pulled it. - Thanks.

-- If you really want to play flame war, lets take this to the back room. - Here:

For FReepers Locked Out of the latest Don Matthews Cop Killer Thread
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/734375/posts

[H.Akston]

If you pay for something, under common laws that say that you legally bought property, and then the government comes along and declares it to all of a sudden NOT be property, and doesn't pay you compensation for the taking, it would be fine with you, unless you're a hypocrit.

Your radical views on on liberty, violate property.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm

[H.Akston]

Glad to get your silly post 104 off the screen. Thank YOU.

[H.Akston]

-- You pander to authority, as the article says, because you are afraid/confused by modern life. You crave the security that only an all powerful state can give you.

I pander to authority?!??? That's a laugh.

You're afraid of this article,

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm

which exposes the truth about how we got to where we are in today's society. No wonder everyone's so confused. There's no consent of the governed behind many of our laws -like every court case that was based on the 14th Amendment - Brown vs Board of Education, Busing, Title IX that is destroying mens' sports, affirmative action laws, - it all has a faulty basis.

I crave the freedom FROM the all-powerful Government that the original Constitution, unperverted by the RADICAL republicans' 14th Amendment, provides!

My are you ever confused.

[H.Akston]

I am no fan of central government. OR state government. -- They BOTH must obey our constitution.

Then you must despise violations of Article V - like are described here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm

[tpaine]

Your constant reposting of a link to the 'Squalid 14th' thread proves only one thing, akston. -- You are far gone into some sort of dementia where that thread was a triumph for you.

- It wasn't. Anyone can read it, and see that your position on the 14th was destroyed.

It's a great amendment, and could be acknowledged as the greatest if, -- as I suspect, -- it will someday be quoted by the USSC as our only protection from states over-regulating the right to bear arms.

[H.Akston]

I am no fan of central government. OR state government. -- They BOTH must obey our constitution.

It's [the 14th] a great amendment, and could be acknowledged as the greatest if, -- as I suspect,

But Congress violated the Constitution's Article V, in order to shove the 14th Amendment into the Constitution. You can't say that the Central Government MUST obey the Constitution, AND think that the 14th Amendment is "great". Unless of course, you're a hypocrit.

I just love this article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm

[Kyrie]

Thanks, H. Akston.

I was coming to that conclusion myself, albeit slowly...

I'll just let this thread be.

See you around.

[CWRWinger]

Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth.

I knew of a couple of druggies who lived very simpleton lives, no car, no insurance, no credit, no voting record, etc. They also actively engaged in distorting the truth.

One drug abused himself to death, the other one still doesn't have a clue, but still rants about his 'rights' are being violated.

[H.Akston]

- It wasn't. Anyone can read it, and see that your position on the 14th was destroyed.

It sure doesn't look that way to me. It looks like I made a lot of good points that were agreed with, and never refuted.

That article is more important than what I said about the 14th, though.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm

"...We return to 1865. As the legally reconstituted Southern states were busy ratifying the anti-slavery Thirteenth Amendment, the Republican-dominated Congress refused to seat Southern representatives and Senators. This allowed the remaining, rump Congress to propose the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with Article V's requirement of a 2/3 majority for sending a proposed amendment to the states. Never mind that Congress also clearly violated that Article's provision that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The only thing being destroyed, is your argument against me, and the Constitution's Article V by the RADICAL republicans.

Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law...."

and all this was well after Lee's surrender. There was no "rebellion" or Constitutional excuse for this tyranny.

[tpaine]

It wasn't. Anyone can read it, and see that your position on the 14th was destroyed.
_________________________________
It sure doesn't look that way to me. It looks like I made a lot of good points that were agreed with, and never refuted.
That article is more important than what I said about the 14th, though.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
_________________________________

Yep, but the article itself was well refuted also, as anyone can read. - You are obsessed by the subject.
This country has many serious political problems, in part caused by fundamentaists just like you, hugh.
-- Our basic problems are NOT caused by the 14th amendment, they are caused by not honoring it, and the rest of our Constitution.

[H.Akston]

The article is not refuted, it stands like a rock. The radical republicans undermined 'consent of the governed' in this country.