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.

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.

I see these extreme reactions from self described 'conservative' fundamentalists virtually every day here at FR.

You see comments posted that you interpret as "extreme reactions"--just as the author of this piece interprets fundamentalism as an "extreme reaction." The author attributes this as a reaction to the perceived immorality and complexity of the modern world. You omit any attribution regarding the source of the "reaction." What do you think the "fundamentalists" are "reacting" to?

And neither the author nor you give any evidence that would in any way prove that these actions are indeed "reactions" to anything. Perhaps the truth is exactly what the author says it is (including the correctness of Catholicism) but no evidence is given for his bald assertions. Of course, he is not available to correct this.

You, on the other hand, have the opportunity to give evidence for your claim. Let me ask you again, and I will make my question as specific as possible: What thing or things specifically do you believe that fundamentalists are "reacting" to? And what evidence can you present here that would support the claim that fundamentalism is a "reaction" to those things--or to anything else, for that matter?

I suspect that the truth is a little different. Perhaps the author detests fundamentalism. Perhaps the author thinks that he understands the "flawed origins" of fundamentalism, and that by thus explaining away this phenomenon simply as a reaction of simplistic people, it will become a little less attractive to all right-thinking folks. Perhaps your aims are not that different from the author's. In this case, neither of you would let a little thing like lack of evidence slow you down!

Please, try to say it isn't so. - I wish it wasn't.

I won't say it isn't so, because I have no hard evidence to establish my claim. In case you haven't figured it out yet, it is nearly impossible to obtain unequivocal evidence for claims regarding the reasons for human behavior, both in individuals and in groups. So it comes to this: it is easy to observe what fundamentalists (or libertarians, or whatever group) actually do, but to say why they do them is nothing but conjecture. And when someone such as this author purports to give the reasons for what fundamentalists do, I would suggest (without proof) that it is more likely that he has an agenda to push than it is that he has rare insight into the human condition.

But don't let lack of evidence slow your agenda down. You're clearly on a roll.

What irks me are the people who rigidly adhere to the idea that government is not to become involved in certain areas of our life, and are insistent upon a hundred limitations and leave no room for social progress put forward by liberal-minded individuals. They refuse to accept the need for social change, and even if they do, they demand that the government stay out of the proccess. They are obsessed with vague ideas on freedom and liberty, even at the expense of other viewpoints and the greater good of the social order- they refuse to protect people from certain substances in the name of vague "liberty". They seem particularly adherent to an outdated document and the related ideas connected to that document, apparently believing centuries old political beliefs laid down by rich white males can be used to solve the complex social and political problems of our day. < sarcasm >

Kyrie:
Fundamentalism may oppose the immorality of today's world, and may appear to oppose its complexity, but how does the author expect to establish his claim that fundamentalism is an extreme reaction etc.? --- Perhaps you would be so kind...?
________________________________

I see these extreme reactions from self described 'conservative' fundamentalists virtually every day here at FR.
- They defend a states 'right' [Ca.] to prohibit 'assault weapons'.
--- They defend the federal WoDs.
They even defend the silly act of congress that we must call ourselves a nation 'under' God, and rant that we should make an amendment to that effect.
On & on, you can go through most any thread, and get such fundamentalist fervor.

Please, try to say it isn't so. - I wish it wasn't.
________________________________
What thing or things specifically do you believe that fundamentalists are "reacting" to? And what evidence can you present here that would support the claim that fundamentalism is a "reaction" to those things--or to anything else, for that matter? Kyrie

Read my post above. I made specific points on the over-reactions I see every day at FR.
You can't address them or understand them? Sorry bout that.

What kind of MORON thinks that English translations of the Bible must be understood literally?? I am exceedingly fundamentalist, and I have NEVER, EVER heard anyone claim this.

Actually you're misunderstanding what is meant by literal. It is not talking about literal vs. figurative speech. Literal Interpretation means that you are faithful to the author's intended message, not treating it as an allegory where you read into it whatever meaning you wish.

There was a time with the ancient Church where people sought to find allegorical meanings to scripture. So the meaning of a passage, depending on who was reading it, not what the author wrote. Literal interpretation means that we seek to determine the author's intended meaning, by studing the context, and applying the proper rules of grammer to it. We do not ignore metaphor, or symbolism, we attempt to find the author's intended meaning for it, rather than choosing one of our preference.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.