What is viewed as being fundamentalist? Orthodox theology? Conservative ideology? Believing in predestination and the rapture? Mixing politics with religion? Strict control of external appearance and behavior? All of the above? I ask because the term fundamentalism can be thrown around at many different groups, of which people may disagree over which group is really fundy. Even among denominations largely viewed as fundamentalist, some of the groups will insist that they are not fundy, while others wear the badge proudly. For the purposes of this forum, what is meant by "fundamentalist"?

I guess that's a question specifically for me. I've done quite a bit of reading trying to get a handle on the definition of fundamentalist religion and it seems no two books agree. The kind of religion I consider dangerous is the kind that says, "If people (self and others) don't believe the right things they go to hell." The kind of religion that makes people willing to die, kill, excommunicate, shun, ostracize, or in some other way negatively treat themselves or others for no other reason than religious beliefs (usually in rewards or punishment now or in the afterlife) is what I consider dangerous.

I guess that would include all the things you mentioned and practically all orthodox Christians and Muslims. There is a kind of religion emerging that seems not to be harmful from a humanist perspective. For that reason I don't condemn all religion.

I've had some more thoughts on definition for fundamentalism. "Now a days, fundamentalist is something people call those they don't like" is what I was told by the first person I asked about it. Another quip that gets thrown around is "A fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something." I'm not sure who said it first but if I remember correctly, according to something I read in one of his autobiographies, Jerry Falwell liked to say it.

I think it's a very bad definition because all people get angry at times. For that very reason it can hardly have been a serious definition to begin with. I don't think Falwell considered it serious. As I say in a post above, no two authors seem to agree on exactly what constitutes fundamentalism. Some people say there is such a thing as fundamentalist atheism as well as fundamentalist religion per se and not only Christian fundamentalism. I think most people agree that there is such a thing as fundamentalist Islam.

I think perhaps black and white thinking often accompanies the idea of fundamentalism. That, of course, could apply to certain kinds of atheism. But what constitutes black and white thinking? And is black and white thinking good or bad? Some people carry the badge of fundamentalism with pride. I have been accused for disliking anyone who holds to the fundamentals of the faith. See the subtle difference? For these people it's the very foundation of truth and reality--the structure of the faith--that they cherish and hold onto. They see themselves as loyal, stout-hearted soldiers of the Cause, people who will not cave in come hell or high water. They see any compromise of the fundamentals of their faith as being cowardly and weak-kneed. Can I disagree with those values?

I can and I do. Too much of a good thing ruins anything. But who am I to determine the exact line between stout-hearted loyalty and stubborn pig-headedness? I do think that I have it figured out just about exactly right for all people for all time. Huh??? Did I hear someone snicker???

Yeah right. I am only the hundred-billionth person to get that idea--what else is new?

So what we need for our discussions is an objective definition for fundamentalist religion. After all, how are we going to fight it if we cannot define who or what it is that we want to fight??? I give up....well, I do think people who are willing to kill or even excommunicate their kin over religion are taking things too far. I think it is important that each of us be the best we can be within the constraints of our situation. For some, this will mean strict religion with rules and sure predictions of what will happen everyday and what constitutes a "good enough" person. Perhaps they also need the reassurance of eternal existance and a heavenly parent. But when they impose this on other adults I think they are taking it too far. Of what value can it be to them, what earthly human good can they derive from it, to control the beliefs and thoughts of every human being within their world?

The following three posts are copied over here from the New Forums.

Originally Posted May 25, 2007

Originally, I wrote this article under another name for Iron Chariots Wiki from a "stub." In other words, the first sentence was there waiting for someone to expand it into an article. I don't know if they will keep it but I figured it fits in here, too. Enjoy.

Christians who may be reading this are also invited to comment.

[align=center]*********************[/align]

Fundamentalism, in a religious context, is when a religious group believes that its scripture is the absolute truth, an exact representation of the world, its origins, and/or its eventual fate. Fundamentalism is a sociological phenomenon that is observed in religions other than Christianity. This article deals only with the Christian situation. Christian fundamentalism has its roots in the 1800s. The liberal and conservative strands of Christianity can be traced to the Age of Enlightenment in the 1700s. Two major items are believed to have brought about the fundamentalist movement; these are higher biblical criticism as practiced by German scholars since the Enlightenment, and evolution theory as published by Charles Darwin.

A few terms need clarification. These are: higher biblical criticism, and Age of Enlightenment or just Enlightenment. Higher biblical criticism is the study of who wrote the Bible. Religious Tolerance has a fairly good article by B. A. Robinson on biblical criticism. I disagree with Robinson on one point. Robinson says, �Biblical criticism originated with anti-Christian writers who valued reason and logic over faith and revelation.� My problem is with the term �anti-Christian.� I have studied some of the theologians or writers Robinson refers to, and from my perspective as an ex-Christian I think they were every bit as concerned for the true Christian faith as were the fundamentalists. Thus, I disagree that they were anti-Christian; I also disagree that they �valued logic and reason� over �faith and revelation.� The rest of the article looks fine.

The Age of Enlightenment, often just called the Enlightenment, lasted from approximately 1750 to 1800. According to the Wikipedia entry on the Enlightenment, the Enlightenment was a result of the work of people such as Galileo (1564-1642) and Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727). The Wikipedia entry further says the leaders of the Enlightenment �believed they could lead their states to progress after a long period of tradition, irrationality, superstition, and tyranny which they imputed to the Middle Ages.� In other words, instead of relying uncritically on traditional Christian belief, they believed reason would be a better way.

When Enlightenment thinking was applied to the Bible (higher biblical criticism), it was discovered that Moses probably did not write the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible), and that most of the prophecies were probably written after the fact. These thinkers analyzed the Bible critically, just like they analyzed other ancient writings such as Homer�s Illiad. For some reason, biblical criticism did not take hold on American soil until after the American Civil War (1861-1865).

After the American Civil War, conservative American theologians became aware of the advances being made by German scholars in biblical criticism. Darwin had published his Origin of the Species in 1859. By 1874, Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminary had published his three-volume Systematic Theology. Hodge argues that the facts in the Bible are for the faith what the facts of nature are for science. Hodge had a powerful impact on conservative Christianity. Because of this, he might well be called the father of Christian fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism came to the fore in 1925 at the Scopes Monkey Trial. According to the Wikipedia entry, the state of Tennessee passed a law on March 13, 1925 forbidding �any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee� to teach "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." In other words, teaching evolution was forbidden.

The following paragraph is a direct quote from the above article in Wikipedia:

John Scopes, a high school teacher, was arrested for teaching evolution from a chapter in a textbook which showed ideas developed from those set out in Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Species. The famous trial was made infamous by the fictionalized accounts given in the 1955 play Inherit the Wind and 1960 Hollywood motion picture of the same name. END OF QUOTE.

According to present-day American scholars such as George M. Marsden (sociologist) and Mark A. Noll (historian), fundamentalism �went underground� for several decades and re-emerged in the last quarter of the twentieth century. Jerry Falwell�s Moral Majority in the 1980s is generally thought to be the formal re-emergence of Christian fundamentalism. Fundamentalism today focuses on three main items commonly called �gay rights,� abortion, and creationism. In other words, Christian fundamentalists are against equal rights for homosexuals�esp. around issues such as "gay marriage," the adoption of children, and in some states the holding of political office. Fundamentalists are also against the teaching of evolution in public schools and against stem-cell research. In addition, they oppose a woman�s choice for an abortion under the argument that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder.

As stated in the opening sentence of this article, Christian fundamentalists believe that the Bible is the absolute truth, an exact representation of the world, its origins, and/or its eventual fate. However, exactly how this truth looks in every day life, or how the world actually came into being, and exactly how it will end, are hotly disputed items of theology over which churches can split. While they all agree that the Bible is the inerrant, divinely inspired, infallible Word of God, they disagree sharply on its true meaning.

Whether �true meaning� or �correct interpretation� is the better term is debatable. I opt for the former because, so far as I know, fundamentalists do not accept that interpretation takes place. A thing is what it is; the question for them is whether a statement is meant to be taken literally or spiritually/metaphorically. Though fundamentalists are often accused of taking the Bible literally in all cases, the fact of the matter is that they don�t. The Bible is so ambiguously written, and contains so many internal contradictions, that taking it literally in all cases is impossible. The Bible is not a step-by-step instruction manual and they don�t take it as such. I don�t know whether any formal studies have been done on this, but personal observation suggests that disagreement regards which portions of the sacred text should be taken literally and which portions should be taken metaphorically or spiritually. Though there is no room to discuss this here, the centuries-long dispute on the appropriate age for baptism�whether infant or believer�s baptism�is one important example of this.

A few books that may lend further insight on Christian fundamentalism are:

Barr, James. Fundamentalism. London, SCM Press, 1977.

Harding, Susan Friend. The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2000.

Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. New York, Oxford University Press, 1980.

Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmmans Publishing Co., 1992.

Originally posted by Ex-COG:

Fundamentalism is a form of rigid authoritarianism. They pick what is thought to be the One Great Truth, and then attempt to force this view on others, usually through a heirachical system of leaders. When fundamentalists are weak, they use the force mostly on their own families and friends; when they gain strength in numbers and power (as in present day American politics) they try to force society in general into their mold.

Originally posted by skeptical believer:



A portion of "Jews and Fundamentalism" Essay written by PROF. SAMUEL HEILMAN