You Be The Judge....[NDC]...
JYOB
Robert
m11.aol.com:
> http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/nazi_jihad.jpg
Can't items 3 and 4 on that list also apply to Christianity?
volkfolk
"Robert" <noe...@screwspam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C7AE736DE46s...@207.115.63.158...
Yes, and it is true of all zealots of every stripe through out the ages.
Intolerance knows no boundaries
Scot
GrtflMark
>From: Robert noe...@screwspam.com
>Date: 4/10/2004 6:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <Xns94C7AE736DE46s...@207.115.63.158>
...no, they don't - unless you go back to the Middle Ages which is irrelevant.
I'm glad someone else here is posting the truth - and it's interesting to note
the comparison has nothing to do with "fundamentalism"...that is a code word
used by the liberal left to mean "republican" or "politcally conservative in
America" .......if "fundamentalism" were the problem - then those who loathe
all fundamentalists, like Neil, should also loathe:
Hassidic Jews - they're "fundamentalist" Jews
Zen Buddhists - They're "fundamentalist" Buddhists
Quakers - they're "fundamentalist" Protestants
should we loathe all these groups as being "dangerous"? Absolutely not - and
gfor good reason, they do not pose a threat to peaceful society.....Does the
liberal left tag these groups as "dangerous" and rail against them and the seed
of all that is evil in religion? No - because it does not fit their political
agenda. THAT is what you need to remember. When the leftist lunatics use the
phrase "fundamentalist", they are speaking in political terms - not religious
one. When they use that code word - it is a half of the full hate-label:
"RIGHT-WING Fundamentalist". They are trying to create a politcal spin on
Christian religion - as an anathema to liberalism. They need to give their
enemies political currency - so they combine "right-wing" with "fundamentalist"
to smear all Christians - and eventually they and their sponsors - the liberal
media - just drop the "right-wing" part to try and brain-wash the public to
hate all Christians. They pick the people with the worst behavior and point to
them as representative of the Christian faith - which they are not. They then
try and meld the poor behavior of people like Swaggart and Falwell and
Robertson to the Christian fiath and make them one and the same in the eyes of
the public.
They're not - so don't believe it.
The behavior of Swaggart, Falwell and Robertson don't represent the Christian
faith any more than the behavior of Jim Jones did - it respresents Swaggart,
Falwell and Roberston - and the evil of Jim Jones.
These people and the faith are NOT one in the same - that's obvious - but
that's NOT what the leftist lunatics want you to believe. It doesn't suit
their political agenda.
Now they call Al Queda "fundamentalist" to try ans smear Christians with the
stigma of terrorism. Is the Taliban and/or Al Queda "fundamentalist"?
Hell No, they're not - and any good Muslim will tell you that.
The Taliban and Al Queda aren't fundamentalists - they are blasphemers and
sacrilegious violators of their former faith. Who are the true Muslim
fundamentalists? The Shiites (frequently called the Twelve-Imam Shiites) - who
do not recognize Ali as the 12th Imam foretold of in the Quran - NOT the
Taliban and NOT Al Queda.
Are Swaggart, Falwell and Robertson 'fundamentalists" - not really - but that
does not suit the agenda of the leftist lunatics. It is not their faith that
perturbs the leftist lunatice - it is the political threat these (frequently
flawed) individuals pose to the political power of the liberal left that pisses
off the leftist lunatics. SO, they try to wrap their politics around their
religion so that they can throw the baby out with the bath water - then they
never have to address the mess of the truth that might be left behind which
contradicts thier mantra.
It is NOT "fundamentalists" that are disturbing, or the enemy of freedom - it
is extremists who advocate the violent overthrow of those who disagree with
them and terroists. Being Pro-Life does NOT fall into that category. Killing
an abortionist does - but that represents the sickness and insanity of a
person, not the tenant of a religious faith. It is the criminal, in that case,
which must face justice - not the spiritual belief of some people that life
begins earlier that you might think it does, and that life in that form should
have rights and be respected like any other human being.
JC Martin
-JC
GrtflMark
>Date: 4/10/2004 11:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <t03ec.5026$Fo4....@typhoon.sonic.net>
>
>On a ladder, fundamentalism is one step closer to extremism or fascism.
>
>-JC
...not on any ladder that your can construct either physically or
conceptually...... "extremism" and "fascism" are not even ON the same ladder as
"fundamentalism".....now, they MIGHT be on the same ladder as "fanatacism" -
but THAT is not on the sme ladder as "fundamentalism" ....there are a lot of
"fanatics" who are not "fundamentalists" and have nothing to do with that label
- take Boston Red Sox or Cub fans, for example....
Neil Krueger
grtf...@aol.com wrote on 4/10/04 11:23 PM:
> Zen Buddhists - They're "fundamentalist" Buddhists
Wrong.
> Quakers - they're "fundamentalist" Protestants
Wrong again. What exactly is your definition of "fundamentalist"? It seems
from this that you don't know what the word means....
Peace,
Neil X.
The Iron Muffin
> Zen Buddhists - They're "fundamentalist" Buddhists
>
> Quakers - they're "fundamentalist" Protestants
As usual, HatefulNarc is way off base.
Zen Buddhists are not "fundamentalist" Buddhists. Chan (Zen) is an OFFSHOOT
of Buddhism, with strong Taoist influences.
Quakers are not "fundamentalist" Protestants. Quakers (unlike Protestants)
believe in ongoing revalation, rather than considering a literal
interpretation of the bible to be the final word in all spiritual matters.
Once again, HatefulNarc has proven that he knows little to nothing about the
subject matter he chooses to discuss.
--
The Iron Muffin
DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Who are you? Where are you?
How are you?
Jeff Frank
Pandora's box was opened. The "foothold for Democracy" was a completely
unrealistic expecation and no reason to go to war.
"JYOB" <jy...@aol.comTOG> wrote in message
news:20040410172434...@mb-m11.aol.com...
Robert
news:20040410232344...@mb-m19.aol.com:
>>Subject: Re: You Be The Judge....[NDC]...
>>From: Robert noe...@screwspam.com
>>Date: 4/10/2004 6:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <Xns94C7AE736DE46s...@207.115.63.158>
>>
>>jy...@aol.comTOG (JYOB) wrote in news:20040410172434.08142.00000121@mb-
>>m11.aol.com:
>>
>>> http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/nazi_jihad.jpg
>>
>>Can't items 3 and 4 on that list also apply to Christianity?
>
> ...no, they don't - unless you go back to the Middle Ages which is
> irrelevant.
>
History is irrelevant?
GrtflMark
>Message-id: <Xns94C8230BA7E4sp...@207.115.63.158>
.....well let me answer that with a question that illustrates the absurdity of
your question:
Have you warned Julius Caesar today about those who would betray him?
....of course not - it's irrelevant and way too late.....
GrtflMark
>Date: 4/11/2004 12:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <BC9E3D9D.1CD35%n...@comcast.net>
>
>in article 20040410232344...@mb-m19.aol.com, GrtflMark at
>grtf...@aol.com wrote on 4/10/04 11:23 PM:
>
>> Zen Buddhists - They're "fundamentalist" Buddhists
>
>Wrong.
.....I believe that you may debate this, but my point is not "wrong"......In
Japan the "mainstream" Buddhists are the "Nicherne Shoshu" Buddhists (I know -
I practiced this faith/life philosophy for 3 years) The "Zen" monks are
considered "fundamentalist" with respect to them. Now, some folks would say
that "Taoism" is a more fundamentalist form of Buddhism - but that's wrong.
That's kind of like saying that Judiasm is a fundamentalist form of
Christianity - which recognizes all the Jewish prophets, but which was started
as an "offshoot" or subsequent to Judiaism. In fact, Islam recognizes about
all of the Jewish AND Christian prophets - so you could say that Christianity
is a fundamentalist form of Islam - but that would be wrong. They are
distinctly different faiths.
>
>> Quakers - they're "fundamentalist" Protestants
>
>Wrong again.
...Again - not really, but I may have picked a comparison that's a bit unwieldy
to explain....here is a better one:
http://www.usenews.org/group/rec.outdoors.rv-travel/message-327203.html
I too have no clear idea of what is meant by "religious right" (extreme or
not), so I won't try to define it. But I WILL take a stab at "Protestant
fundamentalist." As I see it, I'm one of those and don't mind sticking my neck
out by saying what I think it means - and does NOT mean:
A "Protestant fundamentalist" IS someone who believes in the fundamentals of
the Christian faith as spelled out in the New
Testament (Bible) RATHER than dogma set by the Roman pope or some
(any) denominational hierarchy.
A "Protestant fundamentalist" IS NOT someone who thinks government
and/or non-believers should be compelled to accept or abide by their beliefs,
or that "infidels" should be hunted down and killed.
A "Protestant fundamentalist" IS someone who thinks Christians should exercise
an influence for 'good' in the culture even if they don't think exactly alike
on all topics - RATHER than someone who thinks the
culture should miraculously accept Christian ideas of 'good'.
A "Protestant fundamentalist" IS NOT someone who hates unbelievers,
but instead has a healthy contempt for hateful/harmful BEHAVIOR and tries to
help both perpetrators and victims see the consequences of bad acts.
A "Protestant fundamentalist" IS someone who is unwilling to compromise his own
beliefs in order to blend in with the liberal
culture, and recognizes that his beliefs are often unpopular.
A "Protestant fundamentalist" IS NOT a street fighter, a fanatic, or an
abortion doctor killer - hysteria in the press notwithstanding.
A "Protestant fundamentalist" IS someone who cares enough about his fellow man
to warn them of the consequences of rejecting God, His Commandments, and His
Son -- and to sincerely attempt to persuade others to become reconciled to God.
NOW, THEN . . . you may feel free to call me a "Protestant fundamentalist".
What you are NOT free to do is equate those beliefs with some kind of dangerous
extremism - of the right OR left.
Will
In God we trust.
Those words - which are not mine, explain it better than I did and maintain the
integrity of the point I made in my post - "Fundamentalism" is NOT the problem.
What exactly is your definition of "fundamentalist"? It seems
>from this that you don't know what the word means....
On the contrary, Neil - my point is precisely that it is you who do not
understand the concept and who has been incorrectly throwing that language
around here. That's my take - YMMV - unless you give it some more thought.
>
>Peace,
>Neil X.
...I notice that you don't take issue with my use of Hassidic Jews as an
example - or my discussion concerning the 12-Imam Shiites as the example of
Muslim Fundamentalism....Interesting .... and also you're choosing to nit-pick
things rather than acknowledge the whole of what I said and address the primary
point of my post - that's a sign you're fighting the truth a bit
here......Take care...
Robert
news:20040411012643...@mb-m12.aol.com:
That hardly makes history irrelevant. Yesterday the White House released a
pre 9-11 memo. That memo is a historical record, and guess what? It's also
EXTREMELY relevant today. Granted it's more recent history than Julius
Ceasar, but you get the point. In fact if you look at the origins of this
thread it's comparing Islam to the NAZI's. It's comparing the current with
the past. With HISTORY. Go figure....
Loco Brian
> Zen Buddhists - They're "fundamentalist" Buddhists
Wrong.
> Quakers - they're "fundamentalist" Protestants
Wrong again. What exactly is your definition of "fundamentalist"? It seems
from this that you don't know what the word means.... >>
1. 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
therein lies the similarities. Intolerance. Which is why fundementalists are
often lumped together with conservatives and republicans since those groups
tend to be intolerant of others with opposing views. Stuck in their own dogma
and unwilling to see any other side but their own.
Neil Krueger
grtf...@aol.com wrote on 4/11/04 1:44 AM:
>> Subject: Re: You Be The Judge....[NDC]...
>> From: Neil Krueger n...@comcast.net
>> Date: 4/11/2004 12:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>> Message-id: <BC9E3D9D.1CD35%n...@comcast.net>
>>
>> in article 20040410232344...@mb-m19.aol.com, GrtflMark at
>> grtf...@aol.com wrote on 4/10/04 11:23 PM:
>>
>>> Zen Buddhists - They're "fundamentalist" Buddhists
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> .....I believe that you may debate this, but my point is not "wrong"......In
> Japan the "mainstream" Buddhists are the "Nicherne Shoshu" Buddhists (I know -
> I practiced this faith/life philosophy for 3 years) The "Zen" monks are
> considered "fundamentalist" with respect to them. Now, some folks would say
> that "Taoism" is a more fundamentalist form of Buddhism - but that's wrong.
> That's kind of like saying that Judiasm is a fundamentalist form of
> Christianity - which recognizes all the Jewish prophets, but which was started
> as an "offshoot" or subsequent to Judiaism. In fact, Islam recognizes about
> all of the Jewish AND Christian prophets - so you could say that Christianity
> is a fundamentalist form of Islam - but that would be wrong. They are
> distinctly different faiths.
>>
>>> Quakers - they're "fundamentalist" Protestants
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
> ...Again - not really,
> <snip definitions>
Fundamentalists are simply members of any religion who believe that the holy
texts of said religion are literally and absolutely true. For example, in
Christianity, fundamentalists believe that Jonah literally was swallowed by
a whale, and that the world literally was created 6000 years ago. For
fundamentalists, the word of the holy text (New or Old Testament of the
Bible, the Koran, whatever text we're talking about) is absolute and
non-negotiable, never allegorical, and infallibly true.
**Intolerance of opposing religious points of view or interpretations is an
essential element of fundamentalism.**
Fundamentalism is only loosely a synonym for "conservative" or "right wing"
religion. Many conservative religions do not qualify as fundamentalist.
The New Heritage dictionary definition:
fun搞a搶en暗al搏sm
1. 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.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement
originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in
opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the
inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
Note that rigidity, intolerance, and infallibility of scripture are all
elements of the definition.
The Quakers certainly do not qualify as fundamentalist, and the word has
little relevance to Buddhist worship at all. The only Buddhists that
qualify as fundamentalists are the Soka Gakkai/Komeito movement in Japan,
whose intolerance of opposing religious and political thought is legendary
and whose theology is antithetical to mainstream Buddhism.
> NOW, THEN . . . you may feel free to call me a "Protestant fundamentalist".
You have previously posted that you are not Christian at all. So why would
I do that?
> What you are NOT free to do is equate those beliefs with some kind of
> dangerous extremism - of the right OR left.
Whether or not fundamentalists are dangerous is a matter of interpretation.
On the other hand, their extremism is intrinsic to the definition above.
Indeed, I do believe that fundamentalists of all stripes are dangerous
because intolerance of all types leads to extreme, dangerous behavior.
> "Fundamentalism" is NOT the problem.
I do in fact believe fundamentalism--Christian, Islamic and Jewish--is the
primary problem facing the world today. Intolerant religions, and the
actions supported and committed by them, are a scourge to our planet.
> ...I notice that you don't take issue with my use of Hassidic Jews as an
> example - or my discussion concerning the 12-Imam Shiites as the example of
> Muslim Fundamentalism
Orthodox Judaism is a classic example of a fundamentalist religion. My
knowledge of the various schisms of Islam is minimal, so I simply don't know
which sects are fundamentalist. There certainly are many.
Peace,
Neil X.
RossMcGibbon
without just being mental?
Or am I talking out of my fundament?
--
RossMcGibbon
For music reviews, arts, opinions and more - www.vanguard-online.co.uk
JC Martin
news:20040411000600...@mb-m24.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: You Be The Judge....[NDC]...
> >From: "JC Martin" jcma...@sonic.net
> >Date: 4/10/2004 11:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <t03ec.5026$Fo4....@typhoon.sonic.net>
> >
> >On a ladder, fundamentalism is one step closer to extremism or fascism.
> >
> >-JC
>
> ...not on any ladder that your can construct either physically or
> conceptually...... "extremism" and "fascism" are not even ON the same
ladder as
> "fundamentalism".....now, they MIGHT be on the same ladder as
"fanatacism" -
Fanaticism and fundamentalism are one in the same. Both create the illusion
in one's minds that his or her belief is an absolute or functionally static
and therefore must be enforced onto the masses. And remember
this...fundamentalism grew out of a reaction to liberalism in the early 20th
century. It's based in a fear that progress and new ideas will destroy
society. It's a reactionary state of mind and any amount of progress we've
made as a society was born out of liberal ideas. That's a fact. Yet,
that's not to say that liberalism doesn't have their own fanatics.
Fundamentalist anarchists are no better than those on the right, though at
least you could argue that something new can be born out of the ashes of
chaos. Strict conservatism which mixes with religion (fundamentalism)
stagnates a population and removes their dignity (see the Middle East). In
America, we have a group of people which wish to take us backwards in that
direction and it's a dangerous direction for a free and democratic society.
Functionally, the two concepts can't coexist in a pure form. History proves
this time and time again.
-JC
Rich Morris
JC Martin wrote:
>"GrtflMark" <grtf...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040411000600...@mb-m24.aol.com...
>
>
>>>Subject: Re: You Be The Judge....[NDC]...
>>>From: "JC Martin" jcma...@sonic.net
>>>Date: 4/10/2004 11:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <t03ec.5026$Fo4....@typhoon.sonic.net>
>>>
>>>On a ladder, fundamentalism is one step closer to extremism or fascism.
>>>
>>>-JC
>>>
>>>
>>...not on any ladder that your can construct either physically or
>>conceptually...... "extremism" and "fascism" are not even ON the same
>>
>>
>ladder as
>
>
>>"fundamentalism".....now, they MIGHT be on the same ladder as
>>
>>
>"fanatacism" -
>
>
>Fanaticism and fundamentalism are one in the same. Both create the illusion
>in one's minds that his or her belief is an absolute or functionally static
>and therefore must be enforced onto the masses.
>
I tend to think of fundamentalism as a particular belief set, whereas
fanatacism refers to the strength of the belief. One could probably
make a case that it is possible to be fanatical about almost
anything--even moderation ;)
>And remember
>this...fundamentalism grew out of a reaction to liberalism in the early 20th
>century. It's based in a fear that progress and new ideas will destroy
>society. It's a reactionary state of mind and any amount of progress we've
>made as a society was born out of liberal ideas. That's a fact.
>
Well, don't discount the notion that there are groups out there who are
simply exploiting fundamentalism for political power. Conservatives
seems to latch onto that particular vice more than liberals, imnsho. If
I can posture as someone who is spiritually devout, I can use that as a
means to recruit followers. Same thing with draping myself in the flag.
Or putting the 10 commandments in a State building. But your point is
very well taken ... there has to be a group out there who prefer not to
think for themselves and want to be led in order for a leader to
emerge--and I think that fundamentalists are particularly vulnerable in
that regard. We have all seen the bumper sticker, or some close
variation: "God said it, the Bible reports it, I believe it, that
settles it". These folks would like to put Jesus at the steering wheel,
but wind up taking their direction typically from a fundamentalist
preacher , or a politician.
>Yet,
>that's not to say that liberalism doesn't have their own fanatics.
>
>
You got that right! SDS, Weather Underground, Charles Manson ...
>Fundamentalist anarchists are no better than those on the right, though at
>least you could argue that something new can be born out of the ashes of
>chaos. Strict conservatism which mixes with religion (fundamentalism)
>stagnates a population and removes their dignity (see the Middle East). In
>America, we have a group of people which wish to take us backwards in that
>direction and it's a dangerous direction for a free and democratic society.
>Functionally, the two concepts can't coexist in a pure form. History proves
>this time and time again.
>
Indeed ... there is a great irony at work here. We putatively want to
bring democracy to a country, Iraq, which seemingly would prefer a
religious government (which is decried by us, mostly because it is the
wrong religion I guess), while at the same time in our own country
forces are at work to bring conservative religion more and more into our
own democratic republic.
JC, a thoughtful post; I enjoyed it.
Richard
>
>-JC
>
>
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Jonathan Miller
>>
>>History is irrelevant?
>
>.....well let me answer that with a question that illustrates the absurdity of
>your question:
>
>Have you warned Julius Caesar today about those who would betray him?
>
>....of course not - it's irrelevant and way too late.....
By your standard, why should we do anything to fight terrorism? Sept.
11th was like, two-and-a-half years ago.
The Inquisition is relevant here because of JYOB's "peaceful islam?"
subject line. Right-wingers sneer at the idea of Islam as a "religion
of peace", because in their minds, every last Muslim is a
suicide-bomber-in-waiting. It's the same as assuming that every last
Christian is just waiting for their chance to burn witches, torture
Jews or murder OB/GYNs.
Fundamentalism likes to call itself "old time religion" but it's a
relatively new idea. Karen Armstrong pointed out that it starts when a
society is confronted with rapid modernization. It began in Europe
and America during the industrial revolution, in the Middle East when
it was dominated by Europe, and in India since independence from
Britain.
The problem with Fundamentalism is that it can't tolerate critical
examination. To avoid being confronted with it's inconsistencies, it
promotes ignorance - "If Man evolved from monkeys, why are there still
monkeys?" * and things like that. When people start to think for
themselves anyway, it turns violent and people get burned at the
stake.
Take care,
Jon.
* Man didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from the
same ancestor. A fundamentalist will tell you that that's morally
relativistic legalistic hair-splitting.
grtflmark
>Message-id: <BC9EE955.1CD78%n...@comcast.net>
Neil - here is what you said about intolerance and fundamentalism:
>**Intolerance of opposing religious points of view or interpretations
is an
>essential element of fundamentalism.**
Here is what the dictionary definition YOU picked said:
>1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by
a
>return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those
principles,
>and OFTEN (I added the caps) by intolerance of other views and
opposition to secularism
Something that is defined as occurring "OFTEN" is not and "essential
element" of fundamentalism.... hell, "OFTEN" isn't even "most of the
time" or "a majority of the time"..."a lot" does not mean "a
majority".
Your own hand-picked "definition" contradicts what you said...Neil -
you are being a little desperate here and trying to spin the
definition with an overlay of your own prejudices (and they ARE
prejudices) to make the definition MATCH your prejudice ----- it's a
bit an obvious lie, Neil... the definition YOU picked supports MY
point more than your own ---- unlike a lot of times when liberals
"rewrite" the truth - the words are right there contradicting what you
say for all to see... please, look at how you are projecting your own
prejudice onto this definition and into this discussion.
I prefer the definition of "fundamentalism" in the Random House
Dictionary of the English Language:
fun-da-men-tal-ism (fun'da men'tl iz'em), n.
1. (sometimes cap.) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in
the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that
stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith
and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as
essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation
of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by
the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. The beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. Strict adherence to ANY (my caps) set of basic ideas or principles
It was in the context of the 3rd definition that I was referring to
the Zen Buddhists - and it does absolutely apply. The first
recognized Buddha was The Gautama Buddha. His teachings are
documented in The Dhammapada. The Dhammapada consists of 423 verses in
Pali uttered by the Buddha on some 305 occasions for the benefit of a
wide range of human beings. These sayings were selected and compiled
into one book as being worthy of special note on account of their
beauty and relevance for molding the lives of future generations of
Buddhists. It has been said that the practices of the Zen Buddhists
most closely follows the path of The Dhammapada and The Gautama
Buddha's teachings - hence the use of "fundamentalist" in the context
of definition #3 above.
The Nicheren Shoshu Buddhists of Japan recognize a second Buddha not
acknowledged by the Zen Buddhists - Nichiren Daishonin - who provides
additional teachings besides the Dhammapada (The Gosho, etc...). The
are the folks that you hear chanting: "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo". Here is
a link:
http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/bofnd.html
As for the use of the reference to Quakers – while they do not
meet some of the criteria for a “protestant
fundamentalist”, the tenants of George Fox – their founder
– do reflect a set of basic ideas concerning the requirement
that harmony with science be a part of their faith, which is
“fundamental” with respect to other forms of
Protestantism. The Quakers fit more into the category of definition
#3 above – and that is why I cut-an-pasted the words from the
other link (that I included (which discussed “fundamentalist
protestant” better that I did. By the way, in your response
which stated:
>You have previously posted that you are not Christian at all. So why
>would I do that?
…. you were responding to the “other guys” words
– not mine. You certainly may NOT feel free to call me a
“Protestant fundamentalist” I’m not one! However,
that gentleman’s words provided a very good framework of what a
“protestant fundamentalist” is, and the definition above
provides a good definition of “fundamentalist”.
Hopefully, this will help you see that your statement concerning the
definition of “fundamentalist” which states:
>Fundamentalists are simply members of any religion who believe that
>the holy texts of said religion are literally and absolutely true.
…is NOT a complete or accurate definition. Also, your
statement:
>Fundamentalism is only loosely a synonym for "conservative" or "right
>wing" religion.
…is entirely wrong. “Fundamentalism” with respect
to religion has NOTHING to do with a political viewpoint –
“loosely” or otherwise. They are entirely different
considerations. As I’ve demonstrated – there are many
people who have what could be terming “fundamentalist”
religious beliefs who are in NO WAY conservative in their political
viewpoints. The improper “melding” of those who terms is
what the leftist lunatics have attempted through repetition in the
media and from the talking heads to support their political agenda and
allow them to make political attacks on religious subjects and
beliefs.
That’s wrong – very wrong.
As I said previously - It is NOT "fundamentalists" that are
disturbing, or the enemy of freedom – it is extremists and
terrorists who advocate the violent overthrow of those who disagree
with them. The folks that advocate those positions are not
“fundamentalists” with respect to their faiths – but
blasphemers violators of the faiths that they claim to represent.
Will provides the best definition of religious
“Fundamentalists” as I pasted earlier – he puts it
in terms of “protestant fundamentalist”, but you can
change the appropriate words and the same concepts apply to a Muslim,
Jewish or any other type of religious fundamentalist. As
DGDevin
news:vPfec.5098$Fo4....@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Fanaticism and fundamentalism are one in the same.
If I was giving a prize for the silliest statement I've seen on Usenet
today, you would have won. Man, talk about imposing your beliefs on the
language itself.
Neil Krueger
grtf...@aol.com wrote on 4/12/04 1:03 AM:
OK, Mark, you are correct here. Intolerance is not an ESSENTIAL element of
fundamentalism. In fact, I believe I can identify a fundamentalist religion
that is not intolerant--the Mormons. They worship the literal word of their
holy texts, and believe them to be a factual historical record of real
events, yet most of the ones that I have met are not intolerant of those
that think differently.
Unfortunately, intolerance all too frequently springs from fundamentalist
religions. And it is this that leads me to state that fundamentalism is
dangerous, and that fundamentalist religions are the source of much of the
world's woe. Intolerance is dangerous, and intolerance is far too often an
element of fundamentalism. (Note that I am not saying that ALL
fundamentalists are dangerous. That is self-evidently not true.)
> I prefer the definition of "fundamentalism" in the Random House
> Dictionary of the English Language:
>
> fun-da-men-tal-ism (fun'da men'tl iz'em), n.
> 1. (sometimes cap.) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in
> the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that
> stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith
> and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as
> essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation
> of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by
> the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
> 2. The beliefs held by those in this movement.
> 3. Strict adherence to ANY (my caps) set of basic ideas or principles
>
> It was in the context of the 3rd definition that I was referring to
> the Zen Buddhists - and it does absolutely apply. The first
> recognized Buddha was The Gautama Buddha. His teachings are
> documented in The Dhammapada. The Dhammapada consists of 423 verses in
> Pali uttered by the Buddha on some 305 occasions for the benefit of a
> wide range of human beings. These sayings were selected and compiled
> into one book as being worthy of special note on account of their
> beauty and relevance for molding the lives of future generations of
> Buddhists. It has been said that the practices of the Zen Buddhists
> most closely follows the path of The Dhammapada and The Gautama
> Buddha's teachings - hence the use of "fundamentalist" in the context
> of definition #3 above.
Well, I believe you are misinterpreting the definition above, though I doubt
I will be able to convince you of it. Definition #3 is not specifically in
reference to religious practice--it is stating that the words
"fundamentalist/fundamentalism" can be used in non-religious contexts to
mean that one is strictly adhering to basic ideas. (In golf, for instance,
I have heard folks called "fundamentalists" who would not allow others to
walk away from a "gimme" putt without actually sinking it. These
individuals were called "fundamentalists" for insisting on strict adherence
to the letter of the rules.) Note that the word "religion" or the phrase
"religious practice" does not appear in definition #3; this definition is
not referring to religious practice. I don't believe it is appropriate to
use definition #3 in respect to a religion--in respect to religion and
religious practice, it is definition #1 that applies. I think I'm on pretty
firm ground to suggest that 90+% of folks who use the word "fundamentalist"
in reference to a religion are referring to definition #1 above (which is
similar to the Webster definition I supplied).
Other than the Sokka Gakai, I don't believe that any Buddhists really
qualify as "fundamentalists." Certainly none of the many Zen Buddhists I
have known practice their religion in a way that I could describe as
fundamentalist, by the definition I supplied from Webster's, or by
definition #1 above.
> The Nicheren Shoshu Buddhists of Japan recognize a second Buddha not
> acknowledged by the Zen Buddhists - Nichiren Daishonin - who provides
> additional teachings besides the Dhammapada (The Gosho, etc...). The
> are the folks that you hear chanting: "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo". Here is
> a link:
>
> http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/bofnd.html
>
> As for the use of the reference to Quakers – while they do not
> meet some of the criteria for a “protestant
> fundamentalist”, the tenants of George Fox – their founder
> – do reflect a set of basic ideas concerning the requirement
> that harmony with science be a part of their faith, which is
> “fundamental” with respect to other forms of
> Protestantism. The Quakers fit more into the category of definition
> #3 above – and that is why I cut-an-pasted the words from the
> other link (that I included (which discussed “fundamentalist
> protestant” better that I did. By the way, in your response
> which stated:
Again, I think you are misinterpreting the definition. By definition #1 in
the dictionary entry you cite, Quakers definitely do not qualify. I know
many Quakers, and I attended my sister-in-law's Quaker wedding last fall.
I've talked extensively with Quakers on many occasions, and they do not
demand strict adherence to any holy text, and do not insist on a literal
interpretation of the Bible. They do have a creed, but that is not
sufficient to qualify them as fundamentalist.
>> You have previously posted that you are not Christian at all. So why
>> would I do that?
>
> …. you were responding to the “other guys” words
> – not mine. You certainly may NOT feel free to call me a
> “Protestant fundamentalist” I’m not one! However,
> that gentleman’s words provided a very good framework of what a
> “protestant fundamentalist” is, and the definition above
> provides a good definition of “fundamentalist”.
> Hopefully, this will help you see that your statement concerning the
> definition of “fundamentalist” which states:
Sorry, it looked to me like these were your words, when in fact they were a
quote from Will in the link you cited.
It might help some if material you are quoting was separated by a dotted
line at the top and bottom of quoted material. I don't always do that
either, but it is a good idea, it makes it clear to the reader who is saying
what.
>> Fundamentalists are simply members of any religion who believe that
>> the holy texts of said religion are literally and absolutely true.
>
> …is NOT a complete or accurate definition. Also, your
> statement:
It isn't complete, but the "inerrancy" (Webster's word) or "infallibility"
(from your definition #1 above) of holy texts is an essential element of
fundamentalism. This, I believe, is truly an ESSENTIAL element of
fundamentalism. If the holy texts are not literally true in the eyes of a
religion, if these words are subject to interpretation as allegory, that
pretty much defines a non-fundamentalist church.
>> Fundamentalism is only loosely a synonym for "conservative" or "right
>> wing" religion.
>
> …is entirely wrong. “Fundamentalism” with respect
> to religion has NOTHING to do with a political viewpoint –
> “loosely” or otherwise. They are entirely different
> considerations. As I’ve demonstrated – there are many
> people who have what could be terming “fundamentalist”
> religious beliefs who are in NO WAY conservative in their political
> viewpoints. The improper “melding” of those who terms is
> what the leftist lunatics have attempted through repetition in the
> media and from the talking heads to support their political agenda and
> allow them to make political attacks on religious subjects and
> beliefs.
>
> That’s wrong – very wrong.
I'm not referring to political perspective here with the words
"conservative" and "right-wing". What I mean is that fundamentalist
religions are conservative on the scale of religions. Congregationalists
and Episcopalians, for example, are referred to as "liberal" religions,
because they do not require a literal interpretation of religious texts.
They interpret the Bible as allegory, not as literal truth.
"Conservative/right wing" in this context is similar to when the phrases are
used to describe Constitutional legal scholars--"conservatives" prefer a
strict interpretation of the Constitution or legal texts, and try to figure
out literally what the Founding Fathers meant. On the other hand "liberal"
constitutional scholars do not require a strict adherence to the literal,
historical meaning of the words of the texts in question--they view the
Constitution's meaning as something that changes with the passage of time.
In the same way, liberal religions will view religious writings
allegorically, and conservative religions use a literal interpretation.
The idea of "conservative" and "liberal" religions is taught in theological
schools of all philosophical ilk, and it only refers to the way that texts
are interpreted. Please don't read political beliefs into these words in
this context. It is certainly true that there are many, many political
conservatives in "liberal" religions, and vice versa.
> As I said previously - It is NOT "fundamentalists" that are
> disturbing, or the enemy of freedom – it is extremists and
> terrorists who advocate the violent overthrow of those who disagree
> with them. The folks that advocate those positions are not
> “fundamentalists” with respect to their faiths – but
> blasphemers violators of the faiths that they claim to represent.
> Will provides the best definition of religious
> “Fundamentalists” as I pasted earlier – he puts it
> in terms of “protestant fundamentalist”, but you can
> change the appropriate words and the same concepts apply to a Muslim,
> Jewish or any other type of religious fundamentalist.
Will's definition describes what a fundamentalist is at their best. But all
too often, fundamentalists are indeed intolerant. And indeed, it despite
Will's assertion to the contrary, intolerance is all too often codified into
the dogmas of fundamentalist religions.
Peace,
Neil X.
The Iron Muffin
> I know many Quakers, and I attended my sister-in-law's
> Quaker wedding last fall. I've talked extensively with
> Quakers on many occasions, and they do not demand
> strict adherence to any holy text, and do not insist on a
> literal interpretation of the Bible. They do have a creed,
> but that is not sufficient to qualify them as fundamentalist.
With all due respect, Neil, your last statement is incorrect.
There is no creed to which one must subscribe in order to be accepted into
the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).
JC Martin
news:eCpec.18377$i74.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Not at all. Both words are different in terms of a dictionary definition.
Put in a historical context however and viewed in terms of actionable steps
taken, both can be interchangable. Fundamentalism is not conservative in
the sense that it's at the root of a belief system. In actuality, it rose
out of a fanatical reaction to progress, new freedoms and liberalism.
-JC
JC Martin
news:40799...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
>
> JC Martin wrote:
>
> >"GrtflMark" <grtf...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20040411000600...@mb-m24.aol.com...
> >
> >
> >>>Subject: Re: You Be The Judge....[NDC]...
> >>>From: "JC Martin" jcma...@sonic.net
> >>>Date: 4/10/2004 11:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >>>Message-id: <t03ec.5026$Fo4....@typhoon.sonic.net>
> >>>
> >>>On a ladder, fundamentalism is one step closer to extremism or fascism.
> >>>
> >>>-JC
> >>>
> >>>
> >>...not on any ladder that your can construct either physically or
> >>conceptually...... "extremism" and "fascism" are not even ON the same
> >>
> >>
> >ladder as
> >
> >
> >>"fundamentalism".....now, they MIGHT be on the same ladder as
> >>
> >>
> >"fanatacism" -
> >
> >
> >Fanaticism and fundamentalism are one in the same. Both create the
illusion
> >in one's minds that his or her belief is an absolute or functionally
static
> >and therefore must be enforced onto the masses.
> >
> I tend to think of fundamentalism as a particular belief set, whereas
> fanatacism refers to the strength of the belief.
By definition, that's true. I was speaking in a more indirect sense as to
how these impulses interchange.
>One could probably
> make a case that it is possible to be fanatical about almost
> anything--even moderation ;)
Absolutely. Though you could argue that extreme moderation is a lot
healthier than any set of static belief systems, which refuse to change even
if facts prove their views unessential.
> >And remember
> >this...fundamentalism grew out of a reaction to liberalism in the early
20th
> >century. It's based in a fear that progress and new ideas will destroy
> >society. It's a reactionary state of mind and any amount of progress
we've
> >made as a society was born out of liberal ideas. That's a fact.
> >
> Well, don't discount the notion that there are groups out there who are
> simply exploiting fundamentalism for political power. Conservatives
> seems to latch onto that particular vice more than liberals, imnsho. If
> I can posture as someone who is spiritually devout, I can use that as a
> means to recruit followers. Same thing with draping myself in the flag.
> Or putting the 10 commandments in a State building.
That's a excellent point and one I find to be very true.
Thanks. I enjoyed your response as well. Got me thinking a little this
morning, which is rare these days :-). Time moves so damn fast these days.
Peace,
-JC