Talk:Fundamentalism/Archive 2

message: A few months ago, last time I had access to a computer, I did quite a careful edit on the definition. I don't expect it all to remain unquestioned or unedited, but it's all completely dissappeared, together with what I wrote about having changed it on the talk page (saying that I'd proposed these changes several months before with a little bit of positive feedback). That's not very nice.
Here's the meaty part of what I wrote, please have a look:
Fundamentalism has come to refer to a modern trend, found more or less in all large traditional religious communities, that is of extreme concern primarily because of its association with intolerance, violence and terrorism.
"Fundamentalism" originally referred to a movement in North American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism (see below, "History"), stressing that the Bible is literally inerrant, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. This original "fundamentalism" holds as essential to Christian faith five fundamental doctrines: i) the Creation (theology) of the world, ii) the Virgin birth, iii) physical resurrection, iv) atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and v) the Second Coming.
The term is now used much more widely, indeed often simply as just an emotive, pejorative term. One of the crucial questions is, to what extent is "fundamentalist" a subjective judgment?
Because it is a current issue going to the heart of the stresses of modernity, truly impartial historical perspective is hard to obtain; and more original research is desperately needed, so at this point a proper encyclopedic article is hard to write.
As "fundamentalism" seems to be currently quite a subjective term, one promising approach is to investigate (or at least make explicit as a basis for further debate) the premises or criteria on which the judgment is based.
In its broadest usage in general terms, it denotes strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles; or, in the words of the American Heritage Dictionary: "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."
However, in particular instances this broad definition becomes untenable because it would categorize even some radically liberal religious leaders as "fundamentalist", e.g. John Shelby Spong : Bishop Spong's Christianity could be classified as fundamentalist as it is "characterized by a return to fundamental principles", but these are radically historical and not traditional principles; he suggests "rigid adherence to those principles", for example, in the title of his book "Here I Stand". Based on the view that the Bible is not literally "Word of God", he shows willingness to interpret it in more intuitive than rational ways. Such radical theologians also do not typically show the intolerance associated with the normal use of "fundamentalist".
Since this is not what is normally meant by "Fundamentalism", the broad definition must not be specific enough. To begin with, "radicalist" and "fundamentalist" need to be distinguished using consistent, non-arbitrary general criteria.
Towards a more specific, generally workable definition, the following criteria have been proposed:
*The particular movement or view is modern, i.e. emerging since the early twentieth century.
*Some or all of the beliefs or practices adhered to as "fundamental", though traditional, are commonly evaluated by modern scholars as not actually original historically in the teachings of the particular religion's founder or early phase(s) of the religious tradition.
*From this conflict between tradition and historical analysis, fundamentalism typically becomes anti-historical (Karen Armstrong), opposed in principle and in general to the application of historical or textual criticism to religion.
*The adherence to traditional views or practices as "fundamental", deprived of rational credibility by modern scholarship, is therefore based primarily on traditional authority.
*Fundamentalism is often, but not always, associated with Biblical literalism, the view that the traditional religious scripture in question is absolutely inerrant, and epistemologically an emphasis on Divine Revelation as the only ultimately reliable source of knowledge.
*In a conflict between arguments from authority and rationality, fundamentalism typically chooses the side of authority.
*Fundamentalism may be associated with the modernist increased emphasis on the authority of personal experience, especially in religion [Sharf 1998]; both modern shifts in religious authority structure might have the same causes, but alternatively they might just be consequential.
*In fundamentalism, the concept of "faith" is such that it is set in an antagonistic relationship with reason.
*"Fundamentalist" has especially come to refer to any religious enclave that intentionally resists identification with the larger religious group in which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon which the larger religious group is supposedly founded have become corrupt or displaced by alternative principles hostile to its identity.
*Fundamentalists typically feel alienated in modern society, oppressed by the cultural hegemony of secular values, and they feel their very existence and personal autonomy is continuously subject to the gravest challenges. These seem to be symptoms of identity crisis (psychology), as defined by psychologist Erik Erikson. This sense of conflict is usually incomprehensible to other moderns who are at ease with modern secularism (who are not necessarily un-religious but are comfortable with the modern privatization of religion).
*Fundamentalists typically are locked in an embattled relationship with others outside their group, and this often leads to extreme intolerance, violence and terror.
Karen Armstrong, a religious scholar who writes for a popular audience, says in The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism that her aim in writing the book was to help to shed light on the motivation of fundamentalists and help others to begin to understand and sympathize with them, in order to help relieve or even resolve the violence and terror primarily associated with "fundamentalism" in popular perception and the media.
Often groups described as fundamentalist strongly object to it because of the negative connotations it carries, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups which they find objectionable.
Some of the beginning and ending paragraphs are maybe a little waffly for such a prime position as the definition, but surely some of the points are useful?
--Bhikkhu Santi 05:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: definition dissappeared

message: I see that yesterday, someone with username "Strongarm" added a section to this article entitled: "Origins and Development of the Term".
I agree that there is a bit of a deficiency in the article as to the origins of the term, one which I had previously attempted to rectify by writing an article on the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy within the Presbyterian Church (USA).  I welcome Strongarm's comments as extending my article both temporally and to other denominations.  
That said, a couple concerns:
1)  there are obvious NPOV problems with this new section;
2)  It somewhat seems to me that this material would be much more aptly placed in the article Fundamentalist Christianity, and referenced in the Fundamentalism article by link.
3)  I would argue that the relationship of the Five Fundamentals and the series of articles entitled The Fundamentals is more accurately presented in my article, since the Five Fundamentals, after all, were published in 1910, whereas The Fundamentals were published serially between 1910 and 1915.  I therefore would object to characterizing the Five Fundamentals as a "narrowing" of fundamentalism as expounded in The Fundamentals, since, chronologically, the Five Fundamentals came first.  
4)  As for Strongarm's comment on the Five Fundamentals: "Another version put the Deity of Christ in place of the Virgin Birth" - I would note that the Five Fundamentals as a position within the PC(USA) were always constant.  Other denominations (Baptist, I think) ultimately expounded other versions of the Five Fundamentals.  I'm a historian of Presbyterianism, so I'm not as familiar with these other versions of the Five Fundamentals, and I'd appreciate someone who knows about this topic writing about it, but I think that should be done in a way that doesn't conflate the Presbyterian Five Fundamentals with other versions of the Five Fundamentals.
Adam_sk 16 December 2006
: I think there is a rather serious NPOV problem with this section, especially with the bit near the bottom that says:
:"...(along with descriptions like "intolerant", "closed-minded", "bigoted", "sexist", "homophobe", and the ever-popular "hate-monger!") if he opposes the Left’s social agenda on any point: abortion on demand, the granting of special-rights/protected-minority-status to homosexuals, the distribution of contraceptives in the schools, the Government subsidy of obscene and blasphemous art, the indoctrination of children through an anti-American, anti-Western, anti-private-property, anti-free-enterprise, anti-Christian curriculum, the prohibition of religious expression in the schools and public arena, etc. Such champions of the left..."
:This seems more like a mini-rant by a hardline religious conservative than a factual encyclopedia to me.
:: I hate to do something like this unilaterally, but I did post my views on the topic a couple weeks ago, so I feel like that's fair notice.  And, of course, if people think it's the wrong decision, I'm sure they'll change it back.  
:: But at this point, I'm going to go ahead and delete the section "Origins and Development of the Term" for the following reasons: 1) NPOV problems; 2) the previous article already gave a general overview of the origins and development of the term, and the new "Origins and Development of the Term" section is too specific - especially since it deals exclusively with Christian fundamentalism, and is therefore more appropriate for the article Fundamentalist Christianity - or even the subsection of the Fundamentalism article about Christian fundamentalism - I think that foregrounding the history of Christian fundamentalism in the US so prominently is misleading as to the broader usage and development of the term "fundamentalist".  
:: I would again stress that I think the material in this section should probably be on Wikipedia somewhere (though in NPOV language), I just don't think that this is the right place.
Adam sk 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section entitled "Origins and Development of the Term"

message: Christian Fundamentalists who support Intelligent Design are being called 'extremists', and leftwing extremist suicide bombers are being called 'fundamentalists' - in an attempt to undermine the meaning of the word 'fundamentalist' by the liberal media. It reminds me of Hitlers propoganda against the Jews - and also of 'Newspeak' when I see twisted word-debasing and groups who outright slander/lie in order to promote an objective; DEFCONameria.org spent upwards of $200,000 in order to slander the fundamentalist leader Dr. James Dobson. These are all well documented. -jbk
Well to be fair, those "extremist suicide bombers" are what we would consider right wing, morally outraged by the "sinners" of this world. And it is not fair to say that Christian Fundamentalists shouldnt be called extremists for having faith in intelligent design, as far as I know it has yet to be disproven (since random chance would be darn near impossible and as a biologist I know something about this). But the comparison of Nazi Germany Propoganda to the "Liberal Media" is an outrage. If you would like to look at slander check no further than some of your local neo-conservatives found on the fair and balanced programs.
-deo
Both posts would be comical if they weren't serious, because of the muddy mixing of categories. Just two examples: Fundamentalism (a theological position) doesn't equate to neoconservative (a political position), and Dobson is hardly a fundamentalist. If you gather ten fundamentalists together, nine of them will tell you why Dobson is wrong. He's an evangelical - and that's not the same thing. Pollinator 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US Liberal/Media BIAS

message: ::: Not only does fundamentalism refer exclusively to Christians, it does not even refer exclusively to religion. It may be a term in comparative religion but that only makes for again an other seperate keyword. As to the argument that "it is because most contributors are only familiar with christian fundamentalism", the flip side is that that is also a reason why the article would benefit from a rewrite. As this is NOT about christian fundamentalism. This is an other keyword. Thanks, GerardM 06:59, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: GerardM, as you know I have read the Dutch version and I think the English version is much better. Even worse the Dutch version fundamentally wrong. Fudamentalism is only about religion. And as someone said hereabove neither the Dutch or English wikipedia is a place for original research See Wikipedia:No original research. Andries 10:21, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries, just look at the comments above, they acknowledgde that religious fundamentalism has only such a big emphasis because that is what people are used to. Stating that what is written on nl:wikipedia is "orignial research" is a bit much. Just changing things because you are of the opinion that is a hazardous road to follow because it leads to edit wars and "NPOV". Just binning everything and starting over is worse because that is vandalism. Be brave, but be carefull. GerardM 10:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: GerardM, I agree that I followed a hazardous road in the Dutch version that may lead to edit wars but I had no option when most of the content was wrong. If I delete content that is wrong and say clearly so why, and when it is supported by others and the dictionary, as was the case on the Dutch version, then it is no vandalism. My edits on cult and thought reform had been reverted too which I didn't like at all. And that was only because they were unreferenced not because there was any information that indicated that I was wrong. But that is wikipedia. Andries 11:12, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamentalism outside religion and the Dutch version of the article

message: GerardM and Hannes, where are the example of psychologists who see fundamentalism as a disease. I will give the article a NPOV warning until this matter is resolved because I don't want to revert the edit again. I don't ask for empirical evidence just for some examples (anecdotal evidence.Andries 12:51, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I had asked for examples on the Dutch version already one week ago but I didn't get them. Besides I think it is not true. Some societies have a high percentage of fundamentalists e.g. Saudi Arabia. Are these people all crazy according to these psychologists? If so, then these psychologists have to re-consider their opinion, I think. By the way, I read in a Dutch newspaper that people who belong to an orthodox, strict church of Christianity are generally happier than people who don't belong to it. I.e. an indication that fundamentalists have better mental health than people who are no fundamentalists. Because of the lack of examples on the Dutch version, I will remove the paragraph. Andries 19:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The external link is enough to make plain that fundamentalism is seen as a disease. It has been there all along and therefore in it not a POV only held by people in the Netherlands but not Andries. GerardM 16:19, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  In your opinion, is this a standard, scientific view?  Or, is it as it appears to be, religious hostility expressed as though it were science - bad science?  Mkmcconn 16:47, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: GerardM & Mkmcconn, first of all it was me who provided the link. I had read the article  already 2 years ago. The author says nowhere in the article that fundamentalism is a disease. He only says that people who leave a fundamentalist world view with which they have been intensely involved can face psychological and social poblems. An analogy. The same can happen to e.g. top sporters who get an injury and can't sport anymore as is known to psychiatrists. You can read this in the booky A study of gurus -feet of clay by the British psychiatry professor Anthony Storr. Of course, the top sporters will have problems with the transition to a life without sport. But there are no psychologists who think that the intense inolvement of people in a sport is a disease. Andries 17:46, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  These appear to be reasonable and relevant observations.  It's hard to see the relationship between your summary and GerardM's. Mkmcconn 21:11, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I noticed that this paragraph is still there or has been reinserted. I searched on google to find at least one main stream psychologist who thinks that fundamentalism is a disease but I have not found one. I think the paragraph shoulc be removed unless somebody has references for this POV. Andries 16:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't even know what you are talking about, when you say "fundamentalism is not restricted to religion."  My guess is that most other people would not follow you either, as "fundamentalism" and "religious fundamentalism" are practically equivalent terms.  I suppose that it is for that reason that I also cannot follow your critique of fundamentalism, that it "places what is fundamental above everything else."  Pardon me but, you appear to be toying with words, instead of describing the phenomenon of fundamentalism.  How would you dispel this impression?  Can you refer to any books or articles that use this term in your way?  Mkmcconn 20:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the german wikipedia on fundamentalism. "Während es unbestreitbar unter diesen Gruppentypen Überschneidungen gibt, lassen sie sich nicht prinzipiell gleichsetzen. Fundamentalisten sind dadurch charakterisiert, dass sie kompromisslos auf den ursprünglichen Grundlagen (oder dem, was sie darunter verstehen) ihrer Religion oder Partei bestehen und darüber keine Diskussion zulassen." GerardM 21:15, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  English translation of the German wikipedia on fundamentalism "Even though there are without doubts overlaps between these types of groups they are principally different. Characteristic of fundamentalists is that they will not change their opinion, not even in small things about what they consider the roots of their religion or party and will not allow any discussion about it. " Andries 18:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree that fundamentalists will not allow discussion about what they consider the roots about their religion. They will allow discussion but will not change their opinion. And as I said so many times before, I don't think that the term fundamentalism referring to politics is usual, official or scholarly, both in English and Dutch language.  Andries 20:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your reply is exactly why this is a pointless discussion; a fundamentalist will not change his opinion. When I provide a source, it is not "scholarly". At some stage scholarly is incesteous; you only repeat what someone before you said and what someone from way out things is not "scholarly". GerardM 21:06, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: GerardM, I try to be open for evidence that I am wrong but there is only one example on the German version of political fundamentalism i.e. "Volksgruppen" and I have never heard this example or its equivalent in Dutch or English language. Andries 21:24, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Frankly, the German version as you report it, does not sound very studied in the issue, and in my opinion has allowed a prejudicial opinion to become part of a Wikipedia article.  Accordingly, it appears to need revision. Mkmcconn 21:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: It was my intention that the footer should only be placed under articles that deal primarily with cults or purported cults. This is not the case with fundamentalism. That is why I removed the footer. Andries 19:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries, you cannot have it both ways. When you decided that fundamentalism and cults are related, you cannot have it only for cults and not have it for fundamentalism. These boxes are there to show the relation; it is their purpose. Again, you are the one who posted the disputed message. You dispute it, fine. You can ask for arbitration but you can not remove it. GerardM 21:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: GerardM, I don't mind so much about the footer placed below articles that don't deal primarily with cults such as this one. But others do. I had removed it because of complaints from e.g. guru and mind control. Andries 19:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamentalism as a disease

message: First of all, I am of the opinion that fundamentalism is not restricted to religion. That is one of the points of contention between me and Andries. Secondly, his challenge was to provide examples of people who consider fundamentalism as a disease. As such the "proof" was staring in his face. As to what I believe, I have not added this to the article. I do believe that fundamentalism is problematic as it places what is fundamental above everything else. This attitude is what makes discussion impossible and coexistence problematic. GerardM 17:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even know what you are talking about, when you say "fundamentalism is not restricted to religion."  My guess is that most other people would not follow you either, as "fundamentalism" and "religious fundamentalism" are practically equivalent terms.  I suppose that it is for that reason that I also cannot follow your critique of fundamentalism, that it "places what is fundamental above everything else."  Pardon me but, you appear to be toying with words, instead of describing the phenomenon of fundamentalism.  How would you dispel this impression?  Can you refer to any books or articles that use this term in your way?  Mkmcconn 20:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the german wikipedia on fundamentalism. "Während es unbestreitbar unter diesen Gruppentypen Überschneidungen gibt, lassen sie sich nicht prinzipiell gleichsetzen. Fundamentalisten sind dadurch charakterisiert, dass sie kompromisslos auf den ursprünglichen Grundlagen (oder dem, was sie darunter verstehen) ihrer Religion oder Partei bestehen und darüber keine Diskussion zulassen." GerardM 21:15, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  English translation of the German wikipedia on fundamentalism "Even though there are without doubts overlaps between these types of groups they are principally different. Characteristic of fundamentalists is that they will not change their opinion, not even in small things about what they consider the roots of their religion or party and will not allow any discussion about it. " Andries 18:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree that fundamentalists will not allow discussion about what they consider the roots about their religion. They will allow discussion but will not change their opinion. And as I said so many times before, I don't think that the term fundamentalism referring to politics is usual, official or scholarly, both in English and Dutch language.  Andries 20:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your reply is exactly why this is a pointless discussion; a fundamentalist will not change his opinion. When I provide a source, it is not "scholarly". At some stage scholarly is incesteous; you only repeat what someone before you said and what someone from way out things is not "scholarly". GerardM 21:06, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: GerardM, I try to be open for evidence that I am wrong but there is only one example on the German version of political fundamentalism i.e. "Volksgruppen" and I have never heard this example or its equivalent in Dutch or English language. Andries 21:24, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Frankly, the German version as you report it, does not sound very studied in the issue, and in my opinion has allowed a prejudicial opinion to become part of a Wikipedia article.  Accordingly, it appears to need revision. Mkmcconn 21:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific?

message: I have been reading Andries's talk page and I found a reference to the msg now posted on the article. As fundamentalism is part of the body, by rights it should be on the fundamentalism page. It is another demonstration on where fundamentalism is placed. GerardM 07:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my intention that the footer should only be placed under articles that deal primarily with cults or purported cults. This is not the case with fundamentalism. That is why I removed the footer. Andries 19:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries, you cannot have it both ways. When you decided that fundamentalism and cults are related, you cannot have it only for cults and not have it for fundamentalism. These boxes are there to show the relation; it is their purpose. Again, you are the one who posted the disputed message. You dispute it, fine. You can ask for arbitration but you can not remove it. GerardM 21:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: GerardM, I don't mind so much about the footer placed below articles that don't deal primarily with cults such as this one. But others do. I had removed it because of complaints from e.g. guru and mind control. Andries 19:32, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: msg:usage

message: Andries, take your pick or should we add  to it as well. GerardM 22:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial or disputed

message: :::::: Perhaps this is their view, and perhaps something should be added that that effect in the criticism. However, to merely delete the criticism is not correct, because IT IS a criticism, regardless of your POV. As soon as I get a chance, I am reinstating the paragraph, and adding your rebuttal. Would you like to author the counterpoint?
::::::: What I'm asking you to do is not clutter up the article with every crackpot view that comes along.  Just because someone makes up a criticism, does not mean that it belongs in the article.  In controversial topics, we have to make a difference between credible arguments and less credible ones.  Long lists of silly criticisms will not be answered.  They are not worthy of an answer.  Including them does not make a neutral article.  Mkmcconn —
::::::: On the other hand, you might be able to rescue the criticism by putting it in a better form.  Let me try, for your sake:
:::::::: "Fundamentalisms, while wishing to be the authentic expression of their religion, do not always appear to outsiders to be so pure.  It is not obvious to outsiders, why fundamentalists distinguish themselves by adherence to one principle, and not another.  Why condemn homosexuality as a sin, but not typically advocate the death penalty for sins like sabbath breaking or adultery?  Why are biblical fundamentalists not believers in a flat earth, or a solid sky?  Why do Muslim fundamentalists make allowance for Muslims to live under non-Muslim rule, in order to gain mastery of Western technology?  Why do they seem to have no problem with women in the professions? To outsiders, the principles seem arbitrary and somewhat pragmatic, by which fundamentalisms reject one aspect of modernity, but embrace another."  Mkmcconn — 22:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does this help, a bit? Mkmcconn — 22:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks!  That works - well, at least dispensationalism works, given that so many of the Old Testament commandments are specifically addressed to Jews, although I'm not too clear on how you weed out the ones that still apply in that case.  The other solution seems reasonable, but not entirely literalist. - Mustafaa 18:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, that's a good example of the reason that "literalist" is a very sloppy equivalent to "fundamentalist".  Fundamentalists may choose a more literal interpretation on some particular point, than their non-fundamentalist counterpart; but that doesn't mean that if they have a non-literal interpretation, they are not a fundamentalist.  For example, no Protestant fundamentalist interprets literally, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you."  Rather than this being an inconsistency, it is more the case that literalism is not a reliable distinguishing characteristic.  As a matter of fact, their liberal critics sometimes adopt the more literal interpretation - saying, for example, that the Bible indicates belief in many gods, a flat earth, a solid sky, and the existence of a physical abyss under the earth where hell is located.   No fundamentalist believes that these views are intended in Scripture.  Yet, "literalism" continues to be used, improperly, as though it were equivalent to "fundamentalism".  Mkmcconn — 19:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Credible criticisms

message: If I strain to agree with GerardM I can concede his point to this extent:
Because of the extremely negative connotations of the word in religious controversy (True-believerism, obscurantism, anti-modernism, anti-intellectualism, sectarianism, and so on and on), fundamentalism presents itself as a handy metaphor for condemning any unfashionable enemy ideology that has the audacity not to simply go away.  Thus Secular Fundamentalism, Pagan Fundamentalism, Fundamentalist Atheism, Fundamentalist secularism, Free-market Fundamentalism, Leftist Fundamentalism, etc., etc.  These are instances of using the word "fundamentalism" to depict the target of criticism as an irreconcilable extremist, who has abandoned reason in the pursuit of his cause, which he prosecutes with a religious zealotry that (the writer will predictably say) threatens the well-being of the rest of us.  Mkmcconn — \
I think  that this is exactly what GerardM is trying to get at;  and it does deserve some mention in the article, somewhere, that this is how the word has evolved.  However, because it is a polemical, and (really) metaphorical use of the word, it is not a proper subject for an article of its own. Mkmcconn — 23:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wider meaning or application

message: I checked some older dictionnaries. Dutch, German (Thieme), French (Petit Larousse 1974) and English dictionaries and I could only find the term in the English dictionaries. I infer that the corresponding term comes from American-English in all languages. So in German, Dutch and French the American-English origins and meaning should be described. Andries 09:52, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Which may point only to an origin and does not mean that the meaning of the word may not have wandered from what it originally meant in American-English. There is something called evolution and it also aplies to the meaning of words. Otherwise "discrimination" would be good. GerardM 04:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Discrimination is still a good thing, just as prudence is; and fundamentalism still primarily has to do with religion.  Mkmcconn — 04:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamentalismus/Fundamentalisme/Fondamentalisme is of English-American  origin

message: I cannot parse this sentence:
This is because they believe that God interprets His own intent and fulfills His will for those who trust Him, and through them, and despite their faulty understanding; and, nevertheless, it is the church's obligation to understand the Scriptures and to believe what they say, and act accordingly. 
Should it be 
... for those who trust Him, and works through them,  despite their ... ?
(Yipper)
:I think the quoted sentence must be parsed like this:
::This is because they believe that 
#God interprets His own intent  AND
#(God) fulfills His will for those who trust Him, AND 
#(God fulfills His will) through (those who trust Him), and despite their faulty understanding
(...)
194.149.80.4 15:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonsensical sentence in the Christian section 

message: "No Jews, even the Orthodox, read the Tanakh in a literal fashion, but most Orthodox Jews read the Mishnah and Talmud in what may be termed a fundamentalist way. All Haredi Jews, and many Modern Orthodox Jews, hold that these texts are divine and infallible."
What is "what may be termed a fundamentalist way"?  What way is that?  Who holds that the Mishna and Talmud are divine or infallible? Jayjg 22:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: In order to maintain an unbiased and unaffiliated standpoint on this article, I propose that the capitalisation given to the words "he", "his", "him" etc. when applied to the Christian God be removed, as this practice is (as far as I am aware) limited to practitioners of the Christian religion. Please note that I do not object to the inherent personification of this deity, and to the fact that male pronouns are used exclusively to refer to him (as no sexism is implied; it is merely a writing convention). CNash 13:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to capitalisation 

message: I removed the dispute notice.  Following the addition of a section on "non-religious" fundamentalism, I think that the requirement in order to end the dispute has been satisfied. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dispute notice 

message: From the article:
"Originally the term fundamentalist referred to all Protestants who held to the inerrancy of the Bible as well as other historic doctrines. This is now often referred to as 'evangelicalism'."
This last sentence (that the position once referred to as fundamentalism is now often called "evangelicalism") seems at best incomplete, and is probably unnecessary.  Without going in detail into the nature of Protestant evangelicalism (a tricky matter in itself, and covered in detail in its own article), I think it fairly clear that the usual definitions of evangelicalism, certainly the summary provided by the Wikipedia article on the matter, are not consistent with the above statement.  Specifically, evangelicalism has connotations of personal experience and lifestyle that fundamentalism lacks, and fundamentalism (in its original usage) denotes a hermeneutical position which is not necessarily implied in "evangelicalism".
Seems best to me to delete that reference to evangelicalism entirely, or at least to contextualize by noting that such use of the term is controversial and likely to be rejected by a very large number self-proclaimed evangelicals, no few self-proclaimed fundamentalists, and many of those who have spent a good deal of time studying the currents of religion in society.  That some report on the likes of CBS news uses the words in a screwy fashion (a story on "evangelicalism" that offers no clearer definition of the term that it applies to both Gary Bauer and Tim LaHaye) shouldn't be an excuse to be this sloppy in the article (which the piece on evangelicalism generally isn't).  Unless, of course, documenting the broad range of uses of these words is one of the goals of the article--but this particular reference doesn't do a good job of that, either.
--Thuloid 07:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable reference to evangelicalism 

message: Most 'Christian' countries went, or are also going through a similar stage in their development.It isn't clear what "stage" this sentence is refering to.
The governments of many Muslim countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, are Islamic, and include people with fundamentalist beliefs. More secular politicians are often to be found working in opposition movements in these countries.What does Islamic mean? Who considers these states Islamic and on what basis? Secular politicians are often to be found working in opposition movements everywhere in the world - So what? In predominantly Muslim countries all significant opposition movements tend to be less secular than their governments. --Yodakii 13:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentalism and politics 

message: "Avowedly Fundamentalist Christians do not believe that it is possible to infallibly interpret the Bible on every point, and yet, they usually do not perceive this as a contradiction to their main premise concerning the necessity of infallible scriptures. Nevertheless, they typically believe, it is the church's obligation (imperfectly realized) to understand the Scriptures, to believe what they say, and to act accordingly."
It seems to me that this is very opinionated. The author doesn't allow for an explanation of the so-named contradiction; he shuts out their view as inconsistent and flawed. Now, to say that it is criticized as such by a cited source would be fine. However, I think it's improper to dismiss the view so subtly, using only his logic. The transitions could also use some NPOV-ing, wouldn't you say? ElAmericano 03:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: Opinions? 

message: Tendency to take things literally, as in the a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Tendency to see things as either all good and all evil and never a mixture of both.
Lack of curiosity.
Thinking the dictionary gives the exclusive and absolutely correct definition of words, as opposed to being a guide to common usage. They also seem consciously oblivious to the fact that different words that mean something similar can have different nuances, and carry emotional baggage along with it.
Any injury to themselves is never an indication of a fault in themselves, but a fault in another person. Hackwrench 16:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The misfortune of others is attributed to a moral failure on their part. People who are raised non-fundamentalist in an environment of nothing but non-fundamentalism are nevertheless damned for failing to accept the true doctrine.  --Her girlfriend  04:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics of Fundamentalists 

message: I'm not positive, but I think The Fundamentals were first published later than 1909. I want to say 1917. 
Jmhudlow 17:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible date error 

message: When you divide the world neatly into two camps "Us" and "Them", you wind up with something that is horribly POV. While much discussion is made of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, major religions in the West, all of the other religions in the world are swept together into the singular dustbin labelled "Non-Abrahamic Religions". Buddhism is the world's fourth largest religion, with a membership much greater than Judaism. Surely it deserves equal status with Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For this reason, I believe this article is not NPOV, and should be revised. Wandering Star 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Non-Abrahamic"?

message: "English language Bibles are themselves usually translations"
Usually???  There is no need for this word.
:FYI, no one knows what language the Bible was written in.  The OT was likely written in Hebrew, but the NT probably wasn't originally written in Greek or Latin.  Those are just the oldest manuscripts we have.  It may have been Greek, but if you know koinae you'll recognize that if it's in greek at all, it's not written by natives (except maybe the Book of John, which evidences that it was probably written in more than one language in the first place)...  So basically, "All Bibles are themselves translations," proving the nonsensical nature of relying on biblical semantics. -Mrcolj 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of you have cited, so to any outside observers, you both look like you could be incorrect. Specusci 16:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sensical Sentence 

message: Just flipped though this page, saw a quote preceded by this: "According to Lionel Caplan, a so-called expert on religious fundamentalism" and looked down at the bottom to see this, "Caplan, Lionel. (1987). "Studies in Religious Fundamentalism". London: The MacMillan Press Ltd." as a reference.  Now, I'm not an expert on religious fundamentalism or a big-city lawyer, but I am certain that the phrase "so-called expert" should never show up in an article.  Either he is an expert, in which case the "so-called" is a blatant attempt to cast him in a bad light (and isn't true), or he isn't an expert, in which case he shouldn't be called any sort of expert, and if his statement is to be included at all he should be identified by some other term (researcher, Professor of Comparative Religion, Archaeologist, author who may or may not know what he's talking about, etc.) The Literate Engineer 17:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Lionel Caplan? 

message: I added a section on Buddhism. Maybe this is overloaded now. However to state that Buddhism has also a problem with "fundamentalism" should be there. --Kt66 11:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhism

message: I have an issue with this section -
The fundamentalist "wall of virtue", which protects their identity, is erected against not only alien religions, but also against the modernized, compromised, nominal version of their own religion. In Christianity, fundamentalists can be known as "born again" and "Bible-believing" Protestants, as opposed to "mainline", "liberal", "modernist" Protestants, who represent "Churchianity". In Islam there are jama'at (Arabic: (religious) enclaves with connotations of close fellowship) fundamentalists self-consciously engaged in jihad (struggle) against the Western culture that suppresses authentic Islam (submission) and the God-given (Shari'ah) way of life. In Judaism fundamentalists are Haredi "Torah-true" Jews. There are fundamentalist equivalents in Hinduism and other world religions. These groups insist on a sharp boundary between themselves and the faithful adherents of other religions, and finally between a "sacred" view of life and the "secular" world and "nominal religion". Fundamentalists direct their critiques toward and draw most of their converts from the larger community of their religion, by attempting to convince them that they are not experiencing the authentic version of their professed religion.
And in particular, the part about ...fundamentalists can be known as "born again" and "Bible-believing" Protestants, as opposed to "mainline", "liberal", "modernist" Protestants, who represent "Churchianity". If this refers to the fundamentalists' point of view, I suppose it's essentially correct (except that the Fundamentalist also views herself as part of Christianity) - but then the text should read...fundamentalists view themselves as "born again" and "Bible-believing" Protestants, as opposed to "mainline", "liberal", or "modernist" Protestants.
Another section that bugs me in this particular paragraph is this bit:The fundamentalist "wall of virtue", which protects their identity, is erected against not only alien religions, but also against the modernized, compromised, nominal version of their own religion.There is a shift in the article's POV here, from the NPOV to the internal Fundamentalist POV, and while it may seem innocuous I don't think it is. I suggest this instead:The fundamentalist Christian erects a "wall of virtue" to protect his or her identity as a Christian; this "wall" is erected against different religions, including what he or she sees as the modernized, compromised, nominal versions of Christianity. And I hope that's all clear and free of weasel words, but I'm not sure. 66.162.150.4 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Sorry, don't really have time to write articulately on this subject, but found a few relevant bits in this book: The Fundamentalist Phenomenon, edited by Norman J. Cohen. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, MI 1990.
p. 3 Jaroslav Pelikan
"...rightly or wrongly, "fundamentalism" seems by now to have become instead, in the secular media and even in the believing public, a designation for any and every kind of orthodoxy within all the world religions, with the result that there is great confusion about fundamentalist teaching." 
pp. 6-21
The basic doctrines of Protestant fundamentalism, originating in 1910, seem to be:
inerrant Scriptures
Christ's resurrection
redemption through vicarious atonement
the imminent physical second coming of Christ
virgin birth of Christ
p. 22 George Marsden
mentions in not-quite jest: a fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something.
23
quoting Geroge W. Dollar's "A History of Fundamentalism in America" (Bob Jones University Press, 1973): "Historic fundamentalism is the literal exposition of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant eposure of all non-Biblical affirmations and attitudes."
26
This definition is overbroad.
38 Clark H. Pinnock
42 "In my opinion, fundamentalism is orthodoxy in a desperate struggle with secular modernity."
43 Strict fundamentalism "involves a belief in the apostasy of the Church and thus the evils of ecumenism."
45 "...creationists, dispensationalists, inerrantists, and separatists."
56 James Davison Hunter
57 "Fundamentalism is orthodoxy in confrontation with modernity."
59 "All fundamentalist sects share the deep and worrisome sense that history has gone awry. What "went wrong" with history is modernity in its various guises. The calling of the fundamentalist, therefore, is to make history right again."
60-67 not limited to Christianity; examples in Islam/Muslim; Hinduism; Sikhism.
66.162.150.4 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional reference on fundamentalism

message: I think it's great that in addition to Wikipedia providing a good article on fundamentalism, the talk page is full of examples of the very nuts being described in the article.  That really made may day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeamZissou (talk • contribs) 08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The irony of it is... 

message: A Roman Catholic perspective on Fundamentalist biblical interpretation:
Beginning with its document on Revelation at Vatican II (1962- 1965), Catholicsm has taken a strong but not a strident position against the approach to biblical interpretation that is characteristic of Fundamentalist readers.  To sum up, Catholicism considers Fundamentalist approaches to scripture to be tantamount to intellectual suicide.  However, the official Church has done little or nothing to publicize this view to the general Catholic population, with the result that many ordinary Catholics default to reading their bibles Fundamentalistically.  After all, why stir up a hornet's nest by suggesting to the faithful that, for example, in spite of the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke which place Jesus' place of birth at Bethlehem, a man widely known as Jesus of Nazareth was with very high probability born at Nazareth?  Thus, one can attend a Catholic college or university--or even a good Catholic high school--anywhere in the world and be taught the difference between the Catholic approach and the Fundamentalist approach to reading the bible.  But one will probably also be cautioned not to go around beating anyone over the head with one's newfound insights.
Fundamentalism as an American Protestant controversy beginning in the 1920's is a reaction to the Enlightenment.  Thus the tendency over the years among some, and perhaps with increasing venom, to divide the intellectual, ethical, and political world into two camps:  The Fundamentalists and the Liberals.  Now each camp has an epithet with which it can express its contempt for the other.  Yet educated people themselves increasingly talk about our age as Post-Modern, as one in which some of the most cherished notions of the Enlightenment have shown themselves to be like intellectual sawdust.  We are certainly rational, we humans, but the Enlightenment had almost no place in it for emotional intelligence.  The worst of the flaming Liberals and the flaming Fundamentalists are both beholden to Enlightenment Rationalism for their ignorance of emotional intelligence, ignorance of cultural anthropology and ethnography, and all the howling mistakes that flow therefrom.  
Thinking is hard work.  Some of the hardest work involved in thinking is research--is having a decent command of what previous thinkers have said, both those who were wise and those who were famous but crackpots.  When one has done one's homework, one is ready to make one's own contribution--not before.  One is also prepared to contribute in humility, and to allow oneself to be critically examined by other thinkers.  A dialog can then take place, and by give-and- take one can advance the discussion for the benefit of all.  If Fundamentalism is in fact intellectual suicide, it would be because Fundamentalists cut themselves off from the dialog and in so doing proclaim that they refuse to grow.  Are there so-called Liberals who do the very same thing?  I have met some, yes; and if I have then so have others.  But Liberal Education has a more than 3000-year-old heritage.  Against this backdrop, the Enlightenment is just one small phase, to be mined for its gold and discarded for its dross.  So let's all tone down the rhetoric and have a warm latte and a couple of cookies.
Bendzickw 12:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholicism and Fundamentalism 

message: This page still needs more cites and general cleanup. The section on "Criticism of the fundamentalist position," is full of Original Research WP:OR from a narrow theological perspective. I rewrote the section on criticism of the use of the term, as it was highly flawed, but it still needs cites. I did cite the U of C 5-volume study. Anyone else interested in helping spruce up this page?--Cberlet 15:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Upgrading this page

message: I suggest this is one topic that is in great need of more original research; and that we're probably not ready to write a perfect encyclopaedic article on it yet without more research, but something is probably better than nothing here. 
Basically my problem with the definition so far is that it is too broad and also misses the point: "usually a 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."
I suggest that 'fundamentalism' is necessarily a subjective term, because an essential part of it is that the belief that certain traditional beliefs are truly original and fundamental to the teachings of the Founder is actually historically inaccurate, and crucially the holders of 'fundamentalism' believe that ideas that are actually later developments are fundamental and original irrationally and are opposed in principle to applying the historical method to their religion. I remember that somewhere in Battle for God Karen Armstrong proposes that the main defining characteristic of fundamentalism is an anti-historical tendency.
I agree that an anti-historical tendency is characteristic but I think that before this comes a hostility towards reason in place of authority. My experience is that people need a measure of stability, continuity and reassurance which reason cannot always provide, and that this need is taken advantage of by those who would like to set themselves up as authorities, "just do it because I say so". I'm intrigued by the lack of faith that is actually implicit in fundamentalists' opposition to rational inquiry and historical analysis of what their Founder's teachings really meant originally. This also implies a distinction between different uses of 'faith' - one is belief in what one thinks one already knows, the other is a hopeful search for knowledge one feels one doesn't have yet, or some other confident sense of search. I've noticed Theravada Buddhist fundamentalists (in the anti-historical sense) also display the antagonism between faith and reason that is characteristic of the influence of Western Christian culture. You can find a few of them here: http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php . If you so much as mention the name of a monk who has done research into the history of the early sectarian period that reflects badly on the traditional Dipavamsa polemic account you will find the post or the whole thread gets 'invisibled' very quickly! (Here's the research by the way: http://sectsandsectarianism.googlepages.com/home)
Under the current definition, even very liberal Christian leaders like Bishop Spong could be categorised as Fundamentalist - which would obviously be inappropriate, so to me that implies that the definition is not specific enough. Bishop Spong's Christianity could be classified as fundamentalist as it is "characterized by a return to fundamental principles" - according to Bishop Spong, his interpretation of the original teaching of Jesus the Jew is that it was primarily about compassion, self-emptying and "to give life abundantly", he suggests "rigid adherence to those principles" in the title of his book "Here I Stand". But this is not what we mean by Fundamentalism is it? One of the key differences is that his interpretation of the fundamental teachings of Christianity is partly based on ruthlessly rational, historical analysis - and it's quite likely to be more or less accurate; he's also digested the fact that the Bible is not literally "Word of God" and made good use of it in becoming willing to interpret it in more intuitive than rational ways, without labouring under the assumption that it must be consistent or all right, and some would even claim 'inspired'. Second difference is that it doesn't lead him to be intolerant or hostile to others.  
I'm interested in this personally because I'm a Buddhist monk in the Theravada Forest tradition doing research into early Buddhism and critically comparing later developments to the original principles. My project is similar to fundamentalism in that it's meant to be a return to fundamentals, but it's not at all anti-historical or authoritarian - exactly the opposite. I have been hurt by authoritarian systems both before I became a monk and continued finding enough to project the inner results of that onto in traditional Buddhist institutions, so I'm aware that I'm in danger of becoming embattled or seperatist like a Fundamentalist. I don't want to go that way so I'm trying to investigate what makes a 'fundamentalist' in the bad sense so that I can avoid falling into it myself.
I've noticed before a few topics where it really just isn't possible yet to write perfectly free from "original research", particularly the Mahasamghika article: the origins and character of the Mahasamghika sect are still extremely unclear and there is no real scholarly consensus on even basic points. You can read Prebish and Nattier's article and get the impression that the whole matter's neatly sorted, but frankly Prebish's research is consistently appallingly simplistic and innaccurate, and the matter is not at all neatly sorted. 
I wonder if a new tag something like this would be useful: "The topic of this article is still the subject of ongoing research by scholars and it is not yet possible to offer conclusions with the same degree of certainty as in most other articles. The following ideas should be regarded as acutely provisional."?  Bhikkhu Santi 05:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your points. If the definition of fundamentalism is not correct than the complete article maybe questionable. However there is a definition of fundamentalism by Robert Jay Lifton and I think there must be some more by academic research, so lets look there as well. Maybe we should collect them and use them for rewriting the definition. If the term fundamentalism is mainly subjective this must be made also very clear. Thank you for your contribution, so far and feel free to improve this subject matter! --Kt66 00:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a subject in need of original research, are we really ready to write about it without? 

message: "Muslims believe that their religion was revealed by God (Allah in Arabic)"
The "Allah in Arabic" seems to be inferring that "God" is "Allah" in Arabic, not only in the Islamic faith. Is not a more appropriate and sensical word to use "Ilah"? If the inference is that the name of the Islamic god in Arabic is Allah, and not simply that the word "god" is "allah" in Arabic it needs to be more clearly defined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kix Danis (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable inference in the Muslim Fundamentalist section 

message: I do not believe that there should be a section on "Non-theistic fundamentalism". For starters, apart from the obvious logical problems with having a purported "fundamentalism" regarding someone's absence of theism, no atheist, or non-theist refers to themselves as "fundamentalist". The label "fundamentalist atheist" is one used by religious apologists in order to criticise atheists, and atheism. Given that the concept and usage of the term "fundamentalist atheism" is unsound, I think that this section violates Wikipedia's policy of undue weight. 
I also removed the following comment:
"Cline seems to fail to see that the term is referring to atheists who read the bible like a fundamentalist; only they do not believe with that interpretation."
This comment appeared to constitute original research, and did not cite a reference. Given that this article is a controversial topic, I am not surprised that some editors would include original research in order to bolster their own beliefs about atheism.
Please will someone rewrite, or remove this section.
Thanks,
Blind designer 17:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-theistic fundamentalism 

message: The term "Fundamentalism" did, indeed, originate from the big Protestant movement in America, but as it stands today, should probably be extended to refer to various religious groups.  I've been reading Anatomy of the Sacred (5th edition) by James C. Livingston (pp.358-60) recently, and it seems there are aspects common among different types of religious fundamentalism, such as:
A rejection of modernity
A militancy
"Feelings of being dispossessed of their heritage and of being hemmed-in"
Looking back to a previous religious culture for guidance
Inerrant law (e.g., Bible, Shar'iah)
These are taken directly from the book, so care should be used in referencing these. Fennasnogothrim 04:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fundamentalism is now being treated like the words “liberalism,” and “Feminism” a useful and descriptive word that opponents to these beliefs try to redefine as a pejorative insult. I really hope that your source is incorrect, while I disagree with fundamentalism, all the fundamentalist Christians that I have know (which is quite a few) are loving Christians and not hateful militant reactionaries.I think this article needs to state clearly that those that call themselves Fundamentalist are not militant reactionaries, but the word is being used by opponents of Fundamentalism to describe all reactionaries.--Riferimento 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Original person) When I say "A militancy," i do not necessarily imply that they use weapons to harm others.  I mean that, while that is a possibility, they simply act together in a fashion that is common of military: not questioning authority, obeying laws strictly, etc. Fennasnogothrim 23:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The Fundamentalism you're talking about is Christian Fundamentalism, which is different from general religious Fundamentalism. I suggest that we either make this page about general religious fundamentalism with Christian Fundamentalism as a subtopic or we separate them into two different articles. I believe that both are important subjects that need paid attention to in Wikipedia. Fennasnogothrim 07:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Term is Broader