Posted on 08/08/2002 1:04:36 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic-center.rutgers.edu ...
Obviously written by a fundamentalist.
_________________________________
Several 'gun events' involving so-called assault weapons have led to the CA gun control acts.
This is reasonable, and seems likely, but I believe it to be unprovable.
?? - Weird statement. But believe what you like.
______________________________
State legislators have cited these incidents publicly as their reason for the 'laws'.
And of course if a state legislator says it, it must be a fact. I always trust what a state legislator says. That should be proof enough for anyone. Evidence? I suppose. Conclusive? Depends on how much you trust two things: a state legislator's self-understanding, and a state legislator's probity. Many people would claim that the intent to ban assault weapons was present in the legislators long before the 'gun events,' and that these 'gun events' were only pretexts for the legislation. This would seriously dispute the claim that the legislation was a "reaction" to the "events"--except as one "reacts" to an opportunity to do what one has long desired. And certainly this would not be an "extreme" reaction.
So-called 'conservative' fundamentalists are having extreme reactions to gun laws, not the socialist legislators who admitedly hate guns.
Calm down, -- you're confused about the arguments point.
_______________________________
Why 'conservative' fundamentalists support these acts is the question. Got any answers?
If I cared to take the time, I am sure that I could produce several possible "answers." But they would be nothing but conjectures that I would be unable to support with evidence. But if you read carefully, you will find that your question was in fact my question to you. In an earlier post, you said that this fundamentalist support was an "extreme reaction." Now, are you saying that you DON'T know what it is a reaction to?
No, as I explained, I agree with the author above:
"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."
You believe that the legislator's actions were a reaction to the 'gun events' simply because they say so. And you are certain that the fundmentalist FReeper's posts were also a reaction...to something. But now you aren't sure what. Funny, I thought that the author of the article you posted WAS certain:
fundmentalists react to immorality and complexity--although he gave no evidence for this.
Exactly, but he did explain his theory:
"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."
-- Your inablity to understand the authors opinion, or my agreement with his words, is regretable.
- I'd suggest that this inablity is a result of your own 'passionate commitment'. Try to control your emotions.
---------------------------
this is nothing but opinion stated as if it were established fact.
No, you are irrationaly attempting to SAY that the author put it out as 'fact', but quite clearly, it is just his theory.
People who fear or detest fundamentalism may decide that Stanley is "right on." They may quote him as an expert to support their own attacks on fundamentalism. But as to the questions of why people become fundamentalists and why fundamentalists behave in the way that they do:
never assume that they have been definitively answered simply because you liked the sound of Stanley's answer.
Are we to assume that Stanley is wrong because you did NOT like 'the sound' of his answer?
----------------------------
-- After all, you people are fighting against the very constitutional principles that you profess to honor. Figure that one out.
Were you still talking to me? Or to the invisible crowd of fundamentalists? If to me, then please provide links to my attacks against constitutional principles. Or perhaps you are saying that because I am testing your argument as an adversary, and you are a champion of the Constitution, therefore I must be an enemy of the Constitution. Is that it?
Beats me. -- I only know that you are very emotional on the subject, & very confused in some of your arguments.
You defend fundamentalists who support gun controls, yet say you support the 2nd amendment. Reconcile your own statements, made right here. No links are necessary.
Perhaps. I was reading his article as if it were an essay rather than an editorial. In an editorial, you can say anything you want and everyone knows it's just your opinion. In an essay, it is customary that you defend an arguable thesis. If you state something without support, it should be from the realm of common knowledge. What form of writing would you call his article?
Are we to assume that Stanley is wrong because you did NOT like 'the sound' of his answer?
Not at all. You should, however, wonder whether fundamentalism is a reaction to immorality and complexity, or a reaction to something else entirely, or perhaps an inevitable outgrowth of some other phenomenon and not an "extreme reaction" at all.
I only know that you are very emotional on the subject...
The biggest objection I have heard to participation in written discourse is that it is nearly impossible to ascertain the emotion of the writer unless the writer makes it explicitly clear. Could you point out where I make my emotion explicitly clear? Or do you have some proprietary method of discerning a writer's emotion through nonverbal cues? Could you share that method with the rest of us?
...very confused in some of your arguments.
It is always possible for anyone to be confused in their arguments. However, when I asked for evidence that fundamentalism was a reaction, you responded with examples of actions by fundamentalists that you didn't like. When I asked again, more specifically, you responded that you had already given specifics and that I hadn't addressed them. You appeared not to understand the use of letters to stand for propositions or events. These suggest that, rather than me being "very confused" in some of my arguments, you are simply being confused by them. Reading more carefully might help.
You defend fundamentalists who support gun controls, yet say you support the 2nd amendment. Reconcile your own statements, made right here. No links are necessary.
Please quote my defense of fundamentalists who support gun controls. I simply take issue with the simplistic assertion that "fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and immorality of today's world." There are many forms of "fundamentalism" in the world, and to expect a pat answer like this to apply to all of them (or indeed to ANY of them) is absurd. --Anyway, show me my defence of gun grabbers and I'll attempt to reconcile it.
What's the fun of being Godless if you can't take the attention TP?
I wrote: This is reasonable, and seems likely, but I believe it to be unprovable.
You wrote: ?? - Weird statement. But believe what you like.
Consider the differences between "true," "plausible," "probable," and "provable." I find that statement to be plausible, perhaps even probable, but not provable. Reasons for human behavior are generally not provable. An example: Two men pass on a crowded street. The first waves at the second; the second looks the other way. Why did the second person look the other way instead of waving back? Was it because A) the second man was fearful? B) he thought the first man was trying to curry favor? C) he saw the first man as having inferior social status? D) he didn't recognize the first man? E) he didn't even notice the first man waving and just happened to look at something else? I'm sure that you could invent at least ten plausible reasons for such an event. Notice that in case E) his action is not a REaction to anything. If you wish, then, to prove that his action was a reaction, let alone an "extreme reaction," this would amount to disproving case E). If you asked him, this man might publicly claim that E) was the true case. Would that be proof? If you thought that A) was the correct answer, would that be proof? How would you go about the task of proving which reason was correct? I would suggest that such a proof would be impossible. The reasons for human behavior are impossible, or nearly so, to prove.
The author and you both claim to know the reasons for the behaviors collectively called "fundamentalism." And I claim that unless you have a private source of revelation, your guess as to what causes fundamentalism is nothing but a guess. And it smacks to me of the same kind of oversimplification of a complex universe that the fundamentalists are accused of.
Exactly, but he did explain his theory:
If by "explain" you mean that he proposed a plausible mechanism to show how fundmentalism might arise from a desire for certainty, I suppose he did. But you aren't suggesting that a plausible explanation is in the same league as evidence, are you?
Let me say it this way: others have already suggested that the theory of memes explains the growth of the Christian religion, including fundamentalism. If the specifics of this theory were in conflict with the assertion about "complexity and immorality," is there any evidence that the author gave, or that you can give, that would preferentially support your thesis over the theory of memes?
Or if someone suggested that there was a psychological phenomenon that was 1) pleasant, even addictive, and 2) more likely to be experienced in a fundamentalist context, and that this was the real explanation of the growth of fundamentalism, is there any evidence that the author gave, or that you can give, that would preferentially support your thesis over this one?
I continue in my claim that the reasons for most human behavior, and in this instance the reasons for fundamentalism, are unprovable. This should not be confused with defense of the actions of any particular fundamentalist group. If you believe that my argument is in support of the fundamentalist actions already mentioned, let me express my condolences for your inability to understand me, and discreetly suggest that:
this inablity is a result of your own 'passionate commitment'. Try to control your emotions.
Any insight into the Godless? - VA
Godless fanatics, VA?
-- Nope, never met any here at FR that boasted about it anyway. Quite a few though that impressed me the other way, however.
How bout you?
What's the fun of being Godless if you can't take the attention TP?
Ya lost me VA. - There are attention shunning godless fanatics here on FR? Where? How did you find them if they hide out?
Are you having fundamental fantasies again VA? - Tell the nurse to give you more meds. And get rest.
Certainly not you. :)
The lock would be on the inside if the occupants were trying to lock God out.
Life, Liberty, and Property, are all equally sacred, in a just society. "Fundamentalists" can usually be found genuflecting towards one, to the neglect of the others.
I wouldn't label their excesses "fundamentalism", though. I would call it "radicalism". Where there's trouble, you'll find a radical lurking - radical abolitionism, radical feminism, radical egalitarianism, radical environmentalism, radical anti-nuclearism, radical liberalism. The problem with these things is that they aren't fundamental.
Life, Liberty and Property, are fundamental. Any more narrow focus is radical, and an obstruction to justice.
Are you considering ex-slaves after the war to still be 'property', Akston? - Bizarro.
They never even considered compensated emancipation. That wasn't a concept that fit in their religion.
Fighting for human freedom is a 'religion' to you? Again, strange terminology, imo.
Life, Liberty, and Property, are all equally sacred, in a just society. "Fundamentalists" can usually be found genuflecting towards one, to the neglect of the others.
Really? Where did you get this weird insight? Got some examples, - and/or facts?
I wouldn't label their excesses "fundamentalism", though. I would call it "radicalism". Where there's trouble, you'll find a radical lurking - radical abolitionism, radical feminism, radical egalitarianism, radical environmentalism, radical anti-nuclearism, radical liberalism. The problem with these things is that they aren't fundamental.
Sure hugh, whatever sounds right to you, you just chatter on. - If it keeps ya happy.
Life, Liberty and Property, are fundamental. Any more narrow focus is radical, and an obstruction to justice.
Such profound nonsense, akston. - Are you using a babblefish type word generator?
Really? Where did you get this weird insight? Got some examples, - and/or facts?
Sure, dipwad. It's amazing how you get curious about my thoughts. That wouldn't happen if you honestly thought they were babble. Start being honest with yourself about me. Since you're incapable of thinking (creatively) for yourself:
Abortion clinic bombers violate property (and sometimes life) in the name of life.
Radical abolitionists violated property in the name of liberty.
Radical abortionists violate life in the name of liberty.
Radical Islamics violate life and property, in the name of (their) religious liberty.
Radical environmentalists violate property, in the name of animal life.
Radical capitalists (can't think of any nowadays) would violate liberty in the name of property.
Read James Madison's "Note to speech on the rights of suffrage", if you think you can understand it. It is a painstakingly thorough inquiry into what type of governmental structure will insure that that personal rights (liberty) and property rights are kept in balance. Radicals (what the author of this piece you posted calls "fundamentalists") can usually be found worshipping life, liberty OR property, to the neglect of the other two. The only legitimate fundamentals (if you're talking about politics) are life, liberty, AND property. They must all be balanced.
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.
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.