Talk:Fundamentalism

From RationalWiki

Come on, people, this article is still the crappy stubbed toe I wrote days ago! It needs more brainz! human^{be in} 20:20, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Ooh, Robledo, you made it have more of the goodz! human^{be in} 15:01, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Um, now it's funny, etc., but where is mention of The Fundamentals pamphlets of 1915-20 or so? IE, the begnninnninnnning of the actual movement? human^{be in} 03:23, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Reactionary vs. radical

While I tend to view "fundamentalism" as reactionary, in a desire to return to the past the root (haha) of "radical" is "root". So which is it? A reaction to and against modernism, or a "radical" desire to return to the "roots" of their faith? Perhaps we could simply use a better word instead of either? ħuman ^{be in} 00:06, 4 January 2009 (EST)

The Wiktionary defines "reactionary" as follows:

"1. Unthinkingly opposed to change; urging a return to a previous state.

"2. Very conservative."

Fundamentalists are not opposed to change; they want to change the Free World into a theocracy. They are not urging a return to any widespread previous state of being, and therefore are not conservative (read the rants of John Lofton over at The American View for background on this point).

Therefore, I put that "reactionary" is an entirely unsuitable word for fundamentalists. Not to mention that it is also a snarl word used by communists to refer to anti-communists, including liberals.

Simply advocating a "return to the past" does not make one conservative or "reactionary." I favor the use of "radical," both for the reason you suggested, and because they aim to transform society by striking at what they perceive to be the "root cause" of society's problems (i.e., "Godlessness"). ListenerX^TalkerX 00:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)

That's why I think we need to find a better word than "reactionary" or "radical". They are both - they want to rollback modern changes to an "imaginary" past, and they want to do it in a radical manner. So can we think of a better word? ħuman ^{- over 12 edits!} 01:38, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I have just explained why fundamentalists (or, if that word be used loosely, some fundamentalists) are not reactionary. Fundamentalists are not guided by the past, although they may ally themselves with those who are, for political gain; they are guided by a utopian vision of a theocratic world. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:17, 4 January 2009 (EST)

I just remembered a quote from Pete Seeger illustrating the difference between a reactionary and someone who simply professes a desire to "turn back the clock" to an imaginary past:

"I like to say I'm more conservative than Goldwater. He just wanted to turn the clock back to when there was no income tax. I want to turn the clock back to when people lived in small villages and took care of each other." ListenerX^TalkerX 02:30, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Would "anti-modern" or "quixotic" be any good? ListenerX^TalkerX 13:18, 4 January 2009 (EST)

"Quixotic" is a little too poetic for me. "Anti-modern" might fit the bill in many cases (ie. the Taliban) but some fundamentalist movements are pretty invested in modernity and all of its trappings--otherwise there would be no televangelism or Conservapedia. I think "radical fundamentalism" is the way to go....TheoryOfPractice 13:23, 4 January 2009 (EST)

If we're using Wiktionary to define our terms it gives the first definition of "fundamentalist" as: "One who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts." It seems to me that this "strict interpretation" may make them want to re-create a world more in-line with that in which the original texts were created - or they may "strictly interpret" their holy book to include within it instructions to change the world in other ways. For instance they may think that they need to prepare the world for the second coming of Jesus Christ. (I can never remember if those are the Premillenialists or the post Postmillennialists.)--Bob^{bing up} 14:00, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Those are the premillenialists.

I am probably conflating "fundamentalist" with "Dominionist" a little bit above, but a strict interpretation of the Christian Bible definitely called for massive changes, both in Jewish practice and in the contemporary Greco-Roman world, so no Christian fundamentalist would want to roll back to that (at least not completely — although the state of science at that point would probably suit some of them just fine). ListenerX^TalkerX 14:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

One way that I've had this point explained is that fundamentalists do not usually want to change society back to the roots; they want to change their religion back to the roots, and then reshape their society in the image of that reformed religion. A subtle but important distinction. Also, I agree that fundamentalism is not at all reactionary - quite the opposite, in many cases it is indeed actually revolutionary, and in any case, it is very much a modern phenomenon. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:57, 4 January 2009 (EST)

[edit] "regressive"

Not sure this quite gets it--I see where it's coming from, the idea of returning to a "purer" incarnation/interpretation of religious belief. It doesn't quite sit well with me, though: in part because it's an awfully judgemental word to throw around in the definition (the judgemental part should come in, don't get me wrong, but we should think about defining the word in more neutral terms.) Also, the people who consider themselves to be fundamentalists of one sort or another would probably not use the word "regressive" to describe their worldview. Moreover, fundamentalism involves this sort of double move--looking to the past to bring about a better future--that isn't really regressive. I still think "radical" is the best choice...TheoryOfPractice 16:36, 4 January 2009 (EST)

This is probably the longest discussion I've seen over a single word in the first line of an article. I don't think regressive is quite appropriate (though usually true); radical is misleading; reactionary maybe. Other words we could use: dogmatic, extremist, hardline, zealous. weaseLOId^{Ban the ill-tempered little mustelid} 16:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

You know, upon re-reading, there's no need for a word there at all. "Fundamentalism is a tendency exhibited by significant minorities within most major religions" seems just fine to me. Perhaps later in the article we could address the radicals, the reactionaries, the regressives, etc.? ħuman ^{why is there a weird line through the "h" in my username?} 17:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)

[edit] Political fundamendalists

Are political extremes also sometimes referred to as fundamentalists (Marxists e.g.)? Toast 17:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Probably, but I suspect there are far fewer of them (like, there may be many communists, but how many would be "fundamentalist marxists"?). It's certainly possible, especially if the politics in question has a "strong" founding text or basis. Mao's red book? The works of the founding Fathers in the US (and "originalism")? I bet Researcher would know... ħuman^{e society} 17:46, 4 January 2009 (EST)