Talk:Fundamentalism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

definition dissappeared

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)

New Section entitled "Origins and Development of the Term"

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)

US Liberal/Media BIAS

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)

I agree that those are "muddy" phrases. I would point out that "extremism" is a relative term. Within a conservative church, it might be considered "extreme" to question the existence of God, whereas, in other contexts, that might not be considered extreme at all. Similarly, if you inhabit a world where 99.9% of people are committed Darwinists, then I guess from that perspective, Intelligent Design would be extreme. I would also point out that "Muslim fundamentalists" are only called "fundamentalists" in analogy to Christian fundamentalists - i.e. as a religious group that adheres to a traditional, literalist interpretation to its foundational religious text. It's therefore not necessarily disparaging to Christian fundamentalists to use the term "fundamentalist" in this way. Finally, I agree that no observer who has seriously studied the terms would classify Dobson as a fundamentalist. Adam_sk 16 December 2006

Basic beliefs of fundamentalists

Why is there nothing here on Islamic fundamentalist beliefs?2toise 14:08, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. JeMa 16:46, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

The basis for the whole of this subject is wrong. Fundamentalism is not christian. That is a sepetate subject that exists as such. christian fundamentalism. On the Wikipedia in the Dutch language I have started the description for fundamentalisme. When this is stable I will translate it and propose that as a neutral replacement for the current text. GerardM 11:48, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The derivative nature of the general term, "Fundamentalism" - its use as an analogy to Christian Fundamentalism - has been researched. If you take a contrary approach, please discuss it here. Thank you for the advance notice. Mkmcconn 17:14, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no need for an analogy. It only muddles the water and does not make clear what fundamentalism is. FYI I have notified in the ne.wikipedia my intentions as much as I did in the en.wikipedia. As to the research into Christian fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism is the right platform for such research.

No. Wikipedia does no original research, in this article, or in any other, JeMa 17:46, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

You'll have no argument from me, if you wish to shorten the direct discussion of Christian fundamentalism in this article, or to add more (much needed) material on other kinds of fundamentalism. That would be progress in the direction this article has been taking from the beginning (when it made a strict equivalence between fundamentalism and christian fundamentalism).

You are still laboring undering the impression that the word "fundamentalism" has one narrow specific meaning. JeMa 17:46, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

However, if you are considering removing the discussion of how this term, born in a Protestant Christian context came to be used, analogously, to refer to a comparable phenomena in other religions: then, I would object that this is a novel approach, not taken in the books referred to for the substance of this article, and I will ask you to defend this approach. Mkmcconn 17:39, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The word "fundamentalism" is just that - a word. Scholars of religion have very precise definitions of what this word means. What is the big deal? The word "fundamentalism", by itself, now has nothing to do with American Protestant Christians. We should not confuse the history of how this word developed a hundred years ago, with how this word is used by religious schoilars today. (I obviously am leaving out the incorrect and perjorative colloquial uses of this word.) This shouldn't be a big deal.

In the real world there are many fundamentalist forms of Judaism, of Christianity, of Islam and of Hinduism. What is wrong with discussing this? Do not be afraid of the word. I fear that you are seeing the use of this word as a sort of attack on Christianity. Yet it is not being used in that way. We just are uysing the word the same way that it is used in books by scholars of religion. JeMa 17:46, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

Respectfully, isn't it you who are making the big deal? or, have I misunderstood? The history of this word is part of the meaning of it. In the real world, the word "fundamentalist" is used by WESTERN, non-adherents of the religions being described. Scholars of religion are drawing analogies between these other anti-modernist movements, and the phenomenon of Christian Fundamentalism. This analogy is fundamental (excuse the pun). Mkmcconn 00:04, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For the other issue, however, you are quite right that the word "fundamentalism" no longer refers exclusively to Christians. It is used in a general way, which assumes the analogy to fundamentalist Christianity, finding in other religions, points of similarity in approach and attitude. There is no reason why Christianity should dominate this article, other than the fact that this is the form of fundamentalism with which most contributors apparently are familiar. Mkmcconn 00:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The equivocation of fundamentalism with literalism on this page is incorrect. Fundamentalism is not a literal interpretation of scriptural law, but a selective, reductionistic adaptation of religious principles to act as a foil for secularizing and progressive influences. Basically, it's a leaner and meaner ideology which offers people disillusioned by the relativization of belief principles an opportunity to reassert their dogmatic beliefs. The reason that modern times have given such a sharp rise to modernization is that conditions of globality have brought about a relativization of nation-states, and a perceived need for a nation-state to weave a re-telling of its own historical identity in this context. The sort of cultural vacuum that globalizing conditions create, which leads to said perceived need, also offers the opportunity for fundamentalists to re-assert their faith systems and ideologies. A connection with Nietzsche's philosophy of the "Will to Power" can also be drawn, as fundamentalist leaders, in the wake of the destruction of divinely-commanded, absolute morality, can assert themselves in charismatic fashion, essentially taking God's place.

Wow, that last bit is the most warped understanding of fundamentalism I have seen and explains to some extent the hostility Christianity faces from uninformed people. I am not saying there are not some people who use edited versions of Christ's teaching to grab power; that has gone on for thousand of years. But that kind of thing is exactly what Martin Luther and others who have called for a return to the "fundamentals” were protesting about. The twisting of Christianity for personal power is wrong. Anything masquerading as Christianity which glorifies any one other than Christ and accrues power to any human is perverted- not of the foundation.

Fundamentalism outside religion and the Dutch version of the article

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)

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)

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)

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)

Andries read Basic beliefs of fundamentalists and you will find that the gist of the article in nl:wikpedia is as discussed there. GerardM 13:53, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Fundamentalism as a disease

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

)

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)

Scientific?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Does prejudicial mean that is not according to your viewpoint? Really fundamentalist in viewpoint.. GerardM 07:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

msg:usage

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)

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)

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)

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)

Controversial or disputed

Andries, take your pick or should we add {{msg:lousy}} to it as well. GerardM 22:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Plan to resolve some issues

The problem with the subject lies in the definition that the two camps are holding:

• An American protestant movement.
• The more general use of the term where it is similar to dogmatitism.

The result can be seen in some of the latest edits where the fundamentalists of the fist definition are accused of cherry picking what they believe; the example given is correct from a second definition point of view. The whole argument was deleted because it was "spurious".

I propose to resolve this by splitting the topic of fundamentalism into two articles, with Fundamentalism a page that only points to the articles on all types of fundamentalism.

NB I have used the term fundamentalism for years and only recently (on wikipedia) did I learn that a fundamentalist movement existed. GerardM 05:52, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your comments say much more about your peculiar use of the term, and your awkward reading of this article, than they do about how this article should be divided. It does not fit English usage. The article, read for what it actually says, should lead you to conclude that it is a mistake to make of "Fundamentalism" a single movement; rather, it is a term of comparison by which similarities are drawn between otherwise un-like movements. There is no "Fundamentalist movement" that encompasses all of the movements that are so compared. But you do not reflect much understanding either of this article (which does not claim that there is such a thing as a "fundamentalist movement"), or of fundamentalism (which is, in fact, a description of various religiously motivated ideologies and temperaments - and you have denied this). Mkmcconn — 19:19, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that you mistake English for American. And as there are multiple ways to understand a term, even the term fundamentalism changed to include moslems, they could also be called Islamic dogmatics, it only points out that there are multiple ways of giving meaning to the term. Which is an excellent argument for splitting the article and resolving this issue. GerardM 05:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article has already been split. It used to be one article on fundamentalism, and now has become two articles: one on fundamentalism in general, and the other on the Protestant Christian movement. Material that belongs in the other article should go there. Mkmcconn — 15:54, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: Reinstatement

I have reinstated the following paragraph.

Yet another criticism of fundamentalism is the claim that fundamentalists are selective in what they believe and practice. For instance, the book of Exodus dictates that when a man's brother dies, he must marry his widowed sister-in-law. Few (if any) fundamentalist Christians adhere to this doctrine

It was deleted by Pollinator on the principle that it was "totally irrelevant to any Christian belief, whether fundamentalist or other. This is Levitical law, not Christian.". Given the paragraph that states

"Christian fundamentalists (major separate article) see their scripture, a combination of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, as both infallible and historically accurate. The New Testament represents a new covenant between God and man, which is held to supersede the Old Testament where contradictions arise"

I do not see how the paragraph is a strawman, as it occurs in the Old testement and is not contradicted in the new. -- Chris Q 15:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, it strikes me as a silly criticism. The reasons that Levirate marriage would not be practiced are at least as clear to the Christian fundamentalist, as the reasons that dietary laws would not be binding. The paragraph should be deleted. There are plenty of other, more solid criticisms to choose from. Anyway, it doesn't belong in a general article on Fundamentalism. There is a separate article for Christian fundamentalism. Mkmcconn — 16:29, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It IS a silly criticism. The comment on homosexuality has no bearing here either. Homosexuality is addressed in the New Testament, clearly, as a universal moral law, (Romans 1) whereas the Levitical law is not reinforced. In fact just the opposite occurred. The issue of how binding is the Levitical law upon Christians was dealt with by the early church, which released (Acts 15) gentile Christians from almost all ceremonial law, but asked them to observe only a couple points, possibly as a courtesy to the Jewish Christians. The placement of this criticism in the article does not add any valid information; it only reveals the critic's lack of understanding of the topic, and unwillingness to learn the topic at hand. The first two paragraphs in the criticism section contain some valid points. The remainder are primarily examples of scapegoating. The criticism list keeps growing, showing mainly that the critics, lacking any further real ammunition, are willing to fill their cannons with pebbles to continue the attack. Accordingly, and in agreement with Mkmcconn, who does understand the topic, I am going to delete the irrelevant paragraph. There are valid criticisms but this ain't one!Pollinator 02:26, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the second point - unless similar examples can be found for Jewish, Islamic, and Hindu fundamentalism - but I'm curious; what Scripturally literalist arguments are there against the levirate? Certainly it's not the case that the whole of the Jewish law was abrogated by the New Testament (after all, "till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.") - Mustafaa 17:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Christian fundamentalists, the Old Testament ceremonial and civil laws are not binding for Christians. They are subject only to those laws which have a universal, moral application. There are basically two different ways that this is understood. Dispensationalism holds that the particular laws continue to be valid, but not for Christian believers. They are binding upon Jews, according to the covenant that God made with them in particular. They will be reinstated when the Temple is rebuilt, near the end of the age. For some others, the "general equity" of the laws abides, but the particular statutes were a "schoolmaster" by which God's people in former times were instructed in justice, in anticipation of the Messiah's appearing. After the Messiah has come, it is no longer the national Israel which is the model of justice, but Messiah himself. Thus, the civil and social statutes are abrogated. Other schemes are offered by Catholics, Adventists, and others, to explain why Christians are not converts to Judaism. Mkmcconn — 18:03, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yet Christian fundamentalists have used these same laws to condemn homosexuality. The same chapter which says a man must marry his widowed sister-in-law also says that homosexuality is an abomination. Hence the accusation of selective application of the bible.

In their view, a universal, moral principle which is not tied to the land of Israel, a local prophetic role, the king and his offices, or the sacrificial and ceremonial laws of the religion of the Jews: it is condemned, because it is wrong. Mkmcconn — 17:59, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Scripturally literalist arguments" against Old Testament law would fall into one of several categories of rationale. Laws promoting ascetic behavior may be superseded because, in such cases, Jesus valued moral and spiritual intent over legalistic behavior. He quotes Hosea 6:6, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," in Matthew 9:13 to justify associating with unclean sinners, and in Matthew 12:7 to supersede Sabbath law. Other laws are superseded by framing them as concessions to human behavior rather than glorifications of God. Jesus states in Matthiew 19:8, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." Similar logic is displayed in easing sabbath restrictions in Mark 2:27: "The sabbbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." The apostle Paul, although he qualfies his remarks as personal opinion due to his belief that the end times were near, argues specifically against changing marital status because it will distract people from the business of spreading the Gospel: "I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage" (1 Corinthians 7:26-27). Literalists could conceivably use such rationale to argue against Levirate marriage. --Schabert 20:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In addition to the reinstatement above, I am adding this counter-point. In doing so, I hope to put this issue to rest.

"However, defenders of fundamentalism argue that according to New Testament theology, large parts, if not all of the Mosaic Law, are not normative for modern Christians. They may cite passages such Colossians 2:14 which describes Jesus Christ as "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us" (NKJV). Other Fundamenatlists argue that only certain parts of the Mosaic Law, parts that rely on universal moral principles, are normative for today. Therefore, in their view, there is no contradiction between such passages in the Old Testament and their belief in biblical infallibility."

Fundamentalist theology is not as convulated and self-contradicting as some would like to believe. Christianity has been around for a long time and has addressed this issue long before its critics ever thought to bring it up. There are varying views within Christianity as to how the Levitical Law applies to today, but very few if any Christians believe all of it applies in its entirety. And these views are based on their reading of the New Testament not on ignorance or hypocricy. Since the purpose of the page is to inform, not misinform, I am adding the above statement so that readers may have a richer understanding Fundamentalist beliefs.

Credible criticisms

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)

Does this help, a bit? Mkmcconn — 22:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

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)

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)

Separation of article into two parts

When a reference to catholics is removed because it is not "fundamentalist", you sneek protestant fundamentalism back in. The point is that in one way of understanding the term, the American protestant fundamentalist movement does not figure.

Having a hard time understanding your concern here, GerardM. I can't follow your last sentence. Regarding the deleted reference: the comment on tradition was general enough that mere Roman Catholicism was embraced in it. There are Roman Catholic groups that are frequently labelled "fundamentalist", but their belief in extra-biblical traditions does not distinguish them. Mkmcconn — 18:58, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

You have a definite American way of looking at fundamentalism. I do not blame you. Earlier you stated that the article had been split into two. The way that I read this current article is wholy to do with religion. So apparantly the dispute is about religion. I want to seperate religion from the article and you cannot allow that. Your religion is your world. Relgion is not mine. Hence the dilemma. GerardM 19:39, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

GerardM, I think you confuse the definition of the world fundamentalism with the definition. The connotation, in your pov, is intolerance and stubbornness. The definition has more to do with faith in the infallibility of the scriptures. You want to use the connotation as the definition which is, I think, wrong. Andries 19:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

GerardM, you are using the word in an unusual sense that I have never come across. You can rectify my problem by simply supplying some real documentation. Otherwise, I can assure you that according to the books that are listed at the bottom of the article, in the English language (and this is the English wikipedia), "Fundamentalism" denotes perspectives found in various religious communities, which are comparable to one another. Stick to the usual definition found in any modern English dictionary or encyclopedia, and you will cease to go wrong. Mkmcconn — 20:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

You ask for a non religious example in the English language about non-religious fundamentalism. The New York Times has an article titled "Darwinian Fundamentalism": [1] The crux is that some darwinist are fundamentalist in their attitude and thinking. Consequently fundamentalism can not only be found relating to religion in English literature. GerardM 21:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

If I said that the word cannot be used with a secular reference, I overstated myself. The usual reference is to a religious attitude. If someone non-religious or irreligious has an analogous attitude, then it doesn't do any violence to the English language to use the terminology as a kind of metaphor to describe this similarity. But as Andries says, this does not mean that the connotation serves as a definition. Finding an article called Born-again atheist is a similar use of words: a witticism dependent upon the usual (religious) reference of the term, "born-again". The title of Gould's article is a similar witticism. It's a rhetorical use of the word, to make a hostile point, as reading the article would quickly disclose. Gould is relying on the usual reference to religion, to draw a comparison to an unlikely target. He is using the connotation of fundamentalism, to criticize and embarrass certain Darwinists. They are more like their opponents, the fundamentalists, than they are like their amiable namesake. Mkmcconn — 21:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

What does it take to convince you that Fundamentalism is used outside of a religious framework? You ask for certain examples. I provide them and it is a "witticism". Because of a different cultural background my English is not English enough. What does it take to convince you, or is it an article of faith that I cannot be right ? GerardM 15:31, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Historic Fundamentalism simply meant adherence to five defined fundamentals of Christian faith. Increasingly secularists and some "liberal" Christians have redefined and applied the term to anyone they don't like. If you apply the term to sickos, like abortion clinic bombers or terrorists, then accuse fundamentalists of being sickos, as you did, you are simply reasoning in a circle. No historic fundamentalist would accept the many pejorative redefinitions that are used today, nor is it integrity to be accusing them on the basis of the redefinitions. Why are you so anxious to make Fundamentalists the scapegoat? Have you had a negative experience yourself? We all have had such. I was cheated once by a Mennonite (as an illustration; I don't know if he'd have called himself a fundamentalist) in a business deal. Should I define this group on that basis forever? On the whole I have found them to be persons of high integrity.

There are certainly some Fundamentalists (in the historic sense of the word) that have psycological problems, disfunctional families, and such. I once knew one that was definitely bi-polar (and at one point became dangerous). But these can be found in any group, and their presence does not define the group. Have you checked the crime statistics for Christian fundamentalists? You'll find them lower than the population as a whole.

Usually people that make broad sweeping generalized attacks have either had a bad experince in their past, which becomes a prejudice against the whole group; or they are totally ignorant of the subject. In the end, it all becomes personal. My wife is a Fundamentalist. You say she is a sicko? I say she is one of the kindest, purest-hearted persons I ever met. That's why I married her. Where are you going to go with this, Gerard? Are you attacking my wife? Pollinator 16:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Pollinator that concepts that have only pejorative meaning are a form of circle-thinking. But even if this is true we in Wikipedia can only give the official, scholarly or common meaning of a word, whether we like the meaning or not. I think that GerardM is right in one respect and that is that the connotation of intolerance and lack of openness for proof of being wrong should be mentioned in the article. This connotation is quite strong, at least here in the Netherlands, even among English speaking people living here. Andries 20:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

There are two ways of understanding the term fundamentalism. There is the historic religious way. There is a non religious way. I am not familiar with the historic religious way and therefore I do object when it is said that I think certain things of people who term themselves Fundamentalist in this way. To prove the point I have never edited the article on Christian Fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism in the second way does not need to be only negative. There are values that are fundamental to me that I do not want to compromise on. They are the values I believe in, they are not necessarily values held by everyone in society. As I have to abide by the laws of the land, I have to abide by the laws of my one core values. When I reread the Dutch article I still believe that I do and did not want to say that fundamentalist values are bad per se. Fundamentalist views become bad when they go together with intolerance toward other people.

One personal (to me fundamental) value is: My freedom ends where your freedom starts. To me it means that there is room for both of us as long as we live and let live. I can discuss this but I do not forsee that I will change my point of view on this issue. When you believe in a God, and a precise teaching, that is your business. You have to abide by the law of the land as much as I do. In the same country, we are equal under the same law.

In a non religious article on fundamentalism, you first describe that it has to do with unmutual core values. Then, you describe the problems with fundamentalism. Then you refer to other articles related to fundamentalism. My major point of conflict with the current article is that fundamentalism is not only about religion. GerardM 22:09, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

If you are not familiar with the historic religious way, you are basically in the same boat as the young man who studied a tropical plant and wrote his dissertation on it. I asked him what the primary pollinators were, and he hemmed and hawed. I told him he didn't know the plant, and he needed to go back to his studies. You have to get the basics before you go on to the fine points. Pollinator 05:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Then I ask, once again, why you are so bent on tearing down such law-abiding citizens? Pollinator 05:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

GerardM, please provide references for the meaning that you assign to fundamentalism then we can talk further about changing the article. I care about intellectual accuracy and that is why, I think, in controversial subjects such as these that references are pivotal. Andries 00:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

The recent changes of definition are not of acadmic/scholarly origin. When American hostages were held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, the media began calling them Fundamentalists. Since then it's become almost a sport to find other dangerous groups to which to apply the label.

I think what GerardM is trying to say is that there has been a shift of meaning of the word. According to him the word fundamentalist is now informally applied to everybody who is a member of a strict religious organization and who uses violence to reach its nationalistic or religious goal, almost irrespective of the person's beliefs. I have to admit that the word (here in the Netherlands) has a connotation of violence and intolerance. But I still think it is wrong to use the connotation as the definition and apply it for non-religious matters as well.Andries 08:18, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

The shift of meaning is deliberate. See Appeal to fear, Transfer, Stereotype, Scapegoating, and Oversimplification in Propaganda. They all fit. Wikipedia is cheapened if it becomes a propaganda machine. Pollinator 16:02, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

When a word has gotten itself a meaning that is outside of what _you_ want it to mean, you can stick your head in the sand and call foul. The truth of the matter is that because of the unwillingnes to acknowledge that some things do move on, it does indeed become a propaganda machine; the propaganda is yours. Does that make it better, less POV ??

In contrast to what Andries says I say, fundamentalism has not necessaraly to do with religion, it has to do with truisms for which it is not acceptable to discuss the merits of that "truth". To me it does not have an association to the original meaning, ie this American protestant movement, it is you who reads a negative attitude towards these people from me where there is none. If anything, experiences like this make me feel angry. You can change the article and state that the issues have been resolved, but that would only mean that you ignore them, resulting in further mutual isolation. GerardM 04:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wider meaning or application

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).

Fundamentalismus/Fundamentalisme/Fondamentalisme is of English-American origin

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)~

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)

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)

Dispute notice and purported cults

Why is this article labelled "disputed" just because one editor has a problem accepting what the dictionary says? Why does the msg "purported cults" survive at the bottom of this page, when as is discussed above, the so-called fundamentalisms have absolutely nothing in common with one another, except the fact that they are earnestly opposed and feared by someone else? This is an egregious abuse of both terms, cult and fundamentalism. Mkmcconn — 02:03, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

With equal justification it can be said that it is disputed because some editors will not allow for words to acquire new meanings. As this is not an American encyclopedia, America is not what things are measured by. Things in an American deadwood publication is not the ultimate arbitor for what is "right" or "wrong". Andries acknowledges that fundamentalism has a broader meaning and as such allowances should be made.

When you talk religion, dogmatism and fundamentalism are largely synonym in their meaning. Dogmatism is typically associated with the Roman Catholic church while fundamentalism apparantly with American protestants. However when associated with other religions, fundamentalism is nowadays used. Note that in both instances there is no room to openly discuss the values involved as the values are not allowed to be open for discussion when you want to remain true to a religion. GerardM 13:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Allowances are made in the article, and can be expanded here or in some other article. However, the meanings which are subordinate and derivative are identified as such. The religious meaning came first, and continues to be primary despite its application outside of religion.

You might find an instructive example in a word like "evangelism", which has evolved to be applicable outside of a religious context. Similarly, you may find many examples of fundamentalism that have nothing to do with religion (like "Free market fundamentalism", etc.), but the use of this word continues to harken back to its root in a religious context, and from there it summons up the appropriate connotations. It is still a metaphor, the referent of which is described in this article. — Mkmcconn — 22:42, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, the reason why I had originally made the link with cult was because of the following sentences.

"Other critics of fundamentalism take the view that a fundamentalist approach introduces the danger of a partisan attachment to an individual leader or leading body, when the followers believe that entity to be a living voice of authority to direct them infallibly in the interpretation of the sources of truth."

I then added the following sentence that in my view gave a summary of these sentences "They are vulnerable for joining or recruitment by cults." In hindsight I am not sure whether that was correct. I do not have empirical proof of its correctness. So feel free to remove it. The sentence that I added is also why somebody re-inserted the cults message, which, I think, should be removed because fundamentalism and cults are not strongly linked. Andries 22:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

nonsensical sentence in the Christian section

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

1. God interprets His own intent AND
2. (God) fulfills His will for those who trust Him, AND
3. (God fulfills His will) through (those who trust Him), and despite their faulty understanding

(...) 194.149.80.4 15:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Yipper) Ok, how about:

This is because they believe that God interprets His own intent and fulfills His will for those who trust Him, doing so through them despite their faulty understanding; nevertheless it is the church's obligation to understand the Scriptures, believe what they say, and act accordingly.

what do you think of that?

What does this mean?

"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)

Definition of Fundamentalism

I don't think that the article's current definition of fundamentalism as simply an "antimodernist movement" is very accurate. The dictionary definition is, in my view, both clearer and more comprehensive: "a religious movement...characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism". Can we work on bettering the current definition? Acegikmo1 18:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a concise definition; I like it. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:43, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Which one? Acegikmo1 19:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The one you offered instead, is better. Although I think that "antimodernism' is something that these movements have in common, more or less, the idea of "return" to fundamental principles is really what is in view. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:09, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, the definition is too narrow. While I do agree that the current defenition is wrong, I object to the defenition as it sees to narrow it down to religion. The crux to my objection to the current article is exactly that it is not only relevant to religion. Your objection to my standpoint is that you do not allow it to be more than just religion. All my suggestions to come to an accomodation you reject, which is your right. But as much as you have that right, I am within my right to reject changes that do not improve the article by accomodating the new meaning of the word. GerardM 19:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You will be helped by admitting that you have an idiosyncratic view of this issue, which is not reflected in other encyclopedias or dictionaries. I have no objection to this work being in some sense ahead of others -- more up-to-the-minute somehow. I just think that what we do here shouldn't ultimately seem to rest on our own pretense of expertise. So, other sources and common use should continue to be our guides. I've yet to see from you how this broadening of meaning eclipses the standard meaning. In fact, I've offered you many examples to show how the "broader meaning" assumes the narrower one described in this article (which is summarized well in this definition). I am not opposed to opening an additional section, explaining that there are non-religious movements which are analogous to the religious ones. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Several challenges were given to me to prove that there is more to fundamentalism than just religion. There were quotes from the NY-times, the German wikipedia etc all this was thought not to be enough. The only thing it thought me is that your meaning of fundamentalism is fundamental to you. So what we have is a situation that is not pretty, but it is the best to be had. By the way if a broader meaning follows a narrower meaning, it does not follow that for all who now the broader meaning the old meaning is implicitly known; it is not. GerardM 21:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a new, more specific definition of fundamentalism that does not explicitly state it is a religious movement. Perhaps something that mentions that fundamentalism is more than anti-modernism and that it is often related to religion? Acegikmo1 23:36, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there justification in seperating out a "religious fundamentalism" page? -- Chris Q 07:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When the word "fundamentalism" is used by itself, it almost always has a religious reference. Even when it does not, it is with rare exception used as a metaphor for the religious phenomenon. It is true that the way that the word is used is changing - but all words are changing. We must reflect the standard use, and we may reflect the change that is taking place. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And, I've tried to make clear that I do not oppose creating separate articles on fundamentalisms of various types, religious and non-religious. If there is a stable definition, there's no reason why there shouldn't be articles on Democratic fundamentalism, Economic fundamentalism, Free-market fundamentalism, Marxist fundamentalism, Anarchist fundamentalism, etc. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that you will find in practically all of these cases, that "X fundamentalism" in those contexts, when it is used negatively, means "X over-simplified and intolerant of either nuance or opposition, like religious fundamentalism"; and when used positively, it means "pure doctrine of X", and "a return to the basics of X that have been lost through apostasy". That might be political apostasy, ideological apostasy, or whatever: not necessarily religious. I just want the fact to be reflected accurately, that "fundamentalism", just like "apostasy", continues to have the tinge of religious nuance that is derived from its original use (which is far from obsolete), even when used outside of a directly religious reference. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You insist on something that for many people just does not exist in that way. It was only reading the en:wikipedia that I learned about fundamentalism in the old meaning. You insist on the religious nuance as it is important to you. The current defenition is an improvement but to me it is not good.

You have used arguments like it does not exist in that way and were proven wrong. Why do you insist on this heavy emphasis in the article on religion while there is an article on the original fundamentalism ??

GerardM, I am not the one who is basing my opinion on my own opinion. I'm looking at encyclopedias, dictionaries, and common English usage. You are right that there is an article on Christian fundamentalism. The use and meaning of the word has changed, so that now it no longer refers to a movement in Protestantism (just as this article says). I have watched this evolution happen in my own lifetime. And the word is evolving further. But it still predominantly refers to religion. This is not at all hard to verify; and to fail to acknowledge this as a fact strikes me as being as big a mistake as saying that "evolution" doesn't primarily have to do with biology. Mkmcconn (Talk) 14:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Objection to capitalisation

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)

I see where you are coming from, but I think in some instances it would be appropriate to leave a capitalised pronoun. Certainly in any quoted material, you would leave the original capitalisation. I also think that in some instances, leaving those words capitalised may help to illustrate how a particular facet of the discussion would be seen by a practioner of Christianity.

Non-religous fundamentalism

I seem to be unable to retrace this discussion: What argument was given to support that fundamentalism is not necessarily a religious phenomenon? Aliter 17:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's an observation of the changing standards of usage, which GerardM alleged in Europe has evolved to such an extent that "Fundamentalism" now stands on its own, without conscious reference to religion at all, historical or otherwise. "religion" is merely a qualifier, he said, "fundamentalism" explains itself. He argued that, there is already an article on Christian fundamentalism; and for that reason, this article pushes a religious POV.

That's the explanation for the disputed notice. I argued history and standard usage, and he argued etymology. Since it seemed to be an argument between him, and me, and wasn't of much interest to others, I had to compromise and allow the dispute notice to stand, and he allowed the article to retain its present standpoint. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Hoxha was maybe a fundamentalist, but not a stalinist. He broke early the contact with the Soviet union, and went into an alliance with China. -fratersolberg ____________________________

---

Fist of all, excuse me for my English:

If I had more time I would like to include in the article the definition of "Fundamentalism" made by the anthropologist Ernest Gellner in "Postmodernism, Reason and Religion":

He considered the postmoderns prone to affirm that there is no truth (and it means, no reality) or only a personal truth (multiple realities) but unable to face all the results of that affirmation.

Fundamentalists instead believe that there is only One Truth (one Reality) and they know it or, at least, they know the source of the True Knoledgment (And it could be The Bible or a certain book of Physics).

Critic Rationalists believe that there is One Truth (one Reality) and the source of knoledgment about it can be Tha Bible, the Invaders from Mars, or anything that works; and you can never be sure about your knoledgment(It is a dogma: Reality is too big and complex to be understood. An scientist only builds models of reality).

Gellner sometimes doubts and consider himself an "Scientific Fundamentalist" because "if something works or not" is measured by the scientific method so, he thinks, he consider the Scientific Method "The Source of True Knoledgment" and this way he fullfils the definition of "fundamentalist".

---

FBM

_______________________________

dispute notice

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)

Other fundamentalist Christian movements?

Over on the Fundamentalist Christianity talk page, I noted that this encyclopedia defines Fundamentalist Christianity in terms of a self-proclaimed fundamentalist movement within Protestantism. I asked if we should mention other fundamentalist movements within the spectrum of Christian thought (such as Traditional Catholicism or Greek Old Calendarism) in that article, and I was told no, because the term "Fundamentalist Christianity" rather uncontroversially refers to that specific Protestant movement. However, would it be appropriate to mention these other Christian fundamentalist (as opposed to Christian Fundamentalist) movements on this page?--TheMcManusBro 07:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Following the pattern that has already begun to establish itself, follow the flow of the article which traces the expansion of the definition, and insert your observations at whatever place you deem appropriate. We can work together to smooth out the inconsistencies, going forward. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I just added information on Traditional Catholicism below the existing contents of the "Christian views" section. I'll write up a summary of Greek Old Calendarism tomorrow, as I'm too exhausted to read and summarize it now. Thanks for your suggestions, and by all means, edit anything you feel is incorrect or problematic.--TheMcManusBro 08:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I like the material. You can see however that, the tendency in this article contradicts that of the other one. The other article traces how the definition of self-identified Fundamentalists narrowed. This one traces how the definition has expanded beyond all bounds. An interesting phenomenon. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a push here and in some circles to keep on adding new members to the Fundamentalist tag. The Associated Press wrestled with the issue, and realized that the tag was almost always pejorative when applied to new groups, therefore have made it official policy not to apply the tag to anyone except self-identified fundamentalists. This is a policy that's obviously ignored by Wikipedia editors, much to the detriment of NPOV. Pollinator 18:20, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what I would like. If I had my own way, the term would have none of the negative connotations that it presently does. There is something basic to these religions which is denied by modernity, and obviously, with something at stake, there will be resistance. Whoever resists the update, regardless of how radical it is proposed to be, is called a fundamentalist - not only with pure derogatory intent, but also with some accuracy. It's that central accuracy that people like Martin Marty and company have elevated to scholarly usefulness, rescuing this term from its slide into a mere slogan of hate, and enabling people to use it with a degree of scientific plausibility. At the same time, science (as it often does) unintentionally gives hatred a degree of respectability.

The trend is deplorable. And yet, it is the way of the world in reality. I think that our agenda first of all is to reflect that accurately, as well as to accurately portray the destructive impact that this trend is producing in the world. I think that we will find it impossible to deny, against the facts of our times, that a traditionalist of any stripe at all meets the definition of "fundamentalist" as it has come to be established. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Questionable reference to evangelicalism

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)

Fundamentalism and politics

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)

The Feynman quote was never intended to deal with fundamentalism (he was a physicist who never studied religion), so it is both irrelevant and POV. I deleted it. RJensen Rjensen 01:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This section is in the article twice. 69.40.73.40 13:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV: Opinions?

"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)

Characteristics of Fundamentalists

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)

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)

It would be useful to know just which "fundamentalists" Hackwrench thinks he/she is referring to.

To start with, those (in any group) who tend to take everything literally, are more correctly referred to as "literalists" rather than "fundamentalists". That is to say, literalists may well be an extreme version of fundamentalists - in any given field - but fundamentalists are by no means necessarily literalists. Even more importantly, "fundamentalists" may differ quite considerably in their views depending on their geographical/cultural setting. In Christian circles, for example, American fundamentalist views seem to be much more literalist and dogmatic than those of "fundamentalists" in the UK - many of whom probably wouldn't qualify as fundamentalists at all in America. For example, I once met a Southern Baptist family who didn't believe a person could even be a Christian if they smoked cigarettes, let alone a fundamentalist!
Arthur 14:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalism- Getting back to the foundation- in Christianity the foundation is the teachings of Christ as written down by eye witnesses of Christ's life The old testament books referenced in the new testament are included to give background and expanded understanding of the teachings of Christ.. How hard is that? Considering the law and the prophets as defined by Christ is: love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and all your might and you neighbor as yourself. How harmful to society could a pure adherence to this credo be? Humans tend to add so much garbage to the basic message, it is necessary to cut away the weeds periodically and return to the foundation. If you love your neighbor as yourself, you will not attack him for his sin any more than you would want to be attacked for your own sin (a.k.a. destructive behavior). However, it is not loving to ignore a destructive behavior. Therefore, it is not wrong to mention that a behavior is destructive. It is the manner in which the destructive behavior has been opposed which has caused some of the opposition to Christianity by non-Christians. In it’s true, pure, sense a return to the foundation of Christianity is not a negative thing. Some people of the new testament church tried a form of communism. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, this idealized state does not work in application. But that is another article altogether.

Simplistic, factually false, uncited, POV opinion

"Fundamentalists also argue that the Bible has been shown to be 100% historically accurate when compared with other historical texts, and that every prophecy ever made in the Bible has either been fulfilled or has yet to be fulfilled. This would make the Bible, from a historical and prophetical perspective, an infallible text."

What part of "Simplistic, factually false, uncited, POV opinion" is not clear?--Cberlet 03:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I had no problem finding citations to support this text (which, incidentally, I didn't write in the first place). I suggest that, if the text is inaccurate, you should fix it, citing your sources. Alienus 04:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

v. Biblical literalism is already discussed in several paragraphs. --Cberlet 20:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it inaccurate or is it redundant? The former has to be fixed, while the latter has to be merged. In neither case is deletion appropriate. Alienus 20:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is your obligation to actually read the entire page before making such pronouncements. The text is both not accurate, in that it is oversimplistic (and actually misrepresents the more complicated and nuanced web pages cited to justify the flawed insertion); and it is redundant, because literal reading of sacred text is already discussed by editors who have not only read the entire text here, but have also done more than a two minute Internet search on the subject matter.--Cberlet 23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Overly simplistic addition:

• "Christian fundamentalists also argue that the Bible has been shown to be 100% historically accurate when compared with other historical texts, and that every prophecy ever made in the Bible has either been fulfilled or has yet to be fulfilled. This would make the Bible, from a historical and prophetical perspective, an infallible text."

Already in text:

• "Christian fundamentalists often insist that the Bible is infallible in its various prophetic assertions.... Fundamentalist teachings are criticised by questioning the historical accuracy of the religious texts in question when compared to other historical sources; as well as questioning how documents that some believe to contain many contradictions could be considered infallible."

• "For Christian fundamentalists, sacred scripture is considered the authentic, and literal word of God. Fundamentalist beliefs depend on the twin doctrines that God articulated his will precisely to prophets, and that followers also have a reliable and perfect record of that revelation.... Since Scripture is considered the word of God, fundamentalists believe that it is an example of unchanging goodness...."

• "It is important to distinguish between the "literalist" and Fundamentalist groups within the Christian community. Literalists, as the name indicates, hold that the Bible should be taken literally in every part.... Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are for the most part content to hold that the Bible should be taken literally as it's context dictates."

Please delete the flawed, overly simplistic, and redundant material that was recently added. Thanks. --Cberlet 23:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the text, but added a sentence to preserve the link cites. The text I deleted mixed up fundamentalism, inerrancy, and literalism. Not a good thing on such a basic page.--Cberlet 13:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

improved -jbk

I suggest changing Christian fundamentalism to Protestant Fundamentalism because their beliefs do not represent the views of Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditionalists. Also, the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches believe in the inspiration of the Bible, but believe each part of the Bible has to be interpreted based upon its genre:history, poetry, allegory, etc. The Eastern Orthodox, for example, view the Flood story as a fable intended to tell a story. Traditionalists in neither group accept the Bible as literal, but partly so. --204.108.237.194 22:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Where in this paragraph do fundamentalist Catholics and fundamentalist protestants diverge (or fundamentalist Mormons or any other group of Biblical literalists)? Mel Gibson's dad surely believes the same about creation vs. evolution as Ann Coulter's dad. Catholics who "believe in the inspiration of the Bible" are generally not the fundamentalists. --Mrcolj 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible date error

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)

Higher up the page it says they were a 12-volume series published between 1909 and 1922.

Origins of the term

I've always been suspicious of the assertion that the term "fundamentalist" derives from The Fundamentals and think it's more likely that the term was first used during Presbyterian internal church politics. I mean, unlike the series of essays, the Presbyterians were actually aligned in voting blocs on the floor of General Assembly and using the term to describe themselves pretty early on.

It was 1910 when the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA first passed the resolutions that became known to history as "the Five Fundamentals" but I don't think they were initially called "the Five Fundamentals" - I think that's just a usage that grew to designate the 5 propositions. And it wasn't really until later on, as the controversy continued to grow that the term "fundamentalist" really started to stick as a term to describe a group of people within the Presbyterian Church (contrasted to the modernists).

It seems to me that the term "fundamentalist" only moved from being a term used exclusively within Presbyterian circles to a term expropriated by the wider public during the 1920s when two events brought Presbyterian church politics to the national attention: 1) in 1923, when former presidential candidate and secretary of state William Jennings Bryan ran for Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA (he lost by the way), he aligned with the fundamentalists in General Assembly against the moderates; 2) during the Scopes trial, Bryan appeared on behalf of the World Christian Fundamentals Association (founded by a Baptist in 1919), the term "fundamentalist" was used by the media in a broader sense to describe Bryan and his allies.

After the term had entered the public consciousness via Bryan, it could then be applied to Christians in different denominations with a similar set of beliefs, and then eventually to other religions (and eventually other movements) which have a similar orientation.

The Fundamentals also expressed this basic orientation, which is maybe why the Five Fundamentals get labelled "the Five Fundamentals" as opposed to "the Five Essential Doctrines" or something like that. But I don't think anyone was labeling someone a "fundamentalist" on the basis of their work appearing in The Fundamentals before Bryan's notoriety publicized the term.

I might be wrong, since I'm basing this entirely on conjecture and not at all on research, but my hunch is that you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone using the word "fundamentalist" outside Presbyterian circles prior to 1923-25.

"Non-Abrahamic"?

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)

"the ONLY book"

This article does a great job at saying that most fundamentalists take their scriptures literally and historically, but every fundamentalist group described also believes that their brand of religion is God's ONLY way and that their book is God's ONLY revealed word. This is despite that none of these books actually say anything like that. I was clergy back in the day, and people would constantly say stuff like "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word is the Bible, and that is what God wants us to have and it is all he will ever reveal because it is perfect." I of course would point out that if the Bible was all God wanted us to have, he would have said so in the Bible, which he does not. If revelation had ceased, there would have been a revelation saying so. But the simple fact is, all the fundamentalists mentioned believe the Bible/Koran/whatever is God's only revealed word, and neither the Bible nor the Koran nor the words of Buddah says anything like that. It seems to me that such should be mentioned, more than once, throughout the article. I put in a little springboard near the top, feel free to do your thing to it. --Mrcolj 13:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this in the article, and Cberlet reverted it as "original research that is factually false." Are you disagreeing that most fundamentalists believe that their brand of religion and/or book is God's only brand of religion or book; Or that none of these books say so? --Mrcolj 21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I have seen, Catholic fundamentalists believe in the Catechism. One aspect of that is that the Catholic church created the Bible, and therefore has the right, indeed the responsibility, to interpret it - for all. Just as there are Protestant fundamentalists who believe that their way is the only way, there are Catholic fundamentalists who believe that also, yet they do not emphasize Biblical infallibility; rather they emphasize Papal infallibility. Thus, an absolute and unyielding belief in the sacred text is not necessarily a condition of fundamentalism; I would submit that an absolute and unyielding belief in the sacred institutions of the movement (of which the sacred text might be one) is characteristic of fundamentalism. This would shift the argument of non-religious fundamentalism to simply defining what those institutions are. For the scientific fundamentalist, it might be the scientific method that is given absolute and unyielding belief, but I digress.

Non-sensical Sentence

"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)

I am sorry, Mrcolj, but you are quite inaccurate in what you say. From an exegetical point of view, there is no reason to question the fact that the OT is originally written in hebrew (exept for a few arameic passages, and the deuterocanonical books, originally written in greek). The NT is not originally written in latin, no one has ever thought that, but there is no reason to think that the greek text is a translation (exept for a theory of a proto-Marc in arameic). Koiné is greek, no doubt about it, but it is the greek of the eastern parts of the roman empire during the late antiquity. There are some important differences compared with classical greek , koiné was the language, not only of foreigners, but also of native greek speakers. In fact, some new testament texts are written in a very elabortaed greek, for example the letters of Paul or Hebrews. What do you mean by "the book of John"? Is it the 4th gospel, one of the three letters of John, or the apocalypse? In short, your argumentation is very inaccurate, and your conclusion is false: one cannot say that the hebrew OT and the greek NT are translations. -fratersolberg 22.12.06

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)

Religious-specific language

I'm fixing some religion-specific (i.e. Christian) language that appears outside the section specifically on Christianity.

In particular, I'm replacing "God" with "a god" or "their god" when the religion in question is not specified, and also "Scripture" (note capitalization) - as you can see there are a lot of religions other than Christianity on this article...

Of course, if at a specific point in the article, we are specifically referring to God (the Christian one) or Allah/God (Islam) or anything else, than the religion-specific language should be left in.

Shadowlink1014

Cleanup badly needed

This article needs more links and headings needs to be changed.

What is Lionel Caplan?

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)

Buddhism

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)

NPOV

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)

I missed the tag, but I removed the sentence (Recently, fundamentalist atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Dennet have co-opted the word for their own uses.) SincereGuy 16:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional reference on fundamentalism

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)

The irony of it is...

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).

Catholicism and Fundamentalism

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)Jerseyfriend

The rejection of fundamentalism by the Catholic church goes back a long way. That is why I edited out the section on "Biblicism" by the Scholastics quoted from a 1953 encyclopedia. The Scholastics followed Catholic tradition of biblical exegesis, the interpretation of the Bible on multiple levels. I would challenge the veracity of the 1953 encyclopedia. We should leave Fundametalism as a modern issue. user: leech 27 December 2006.

Upgrading this page

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)

This is a subject in need of original research, are we really ready to write about it without?

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)

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)

Hi, I've rewriten the whole defition section in line with what I proposed above a few months ago. Although the material in later sections is good, e.g. "The fundamentalist phenomenon", it repeats points already in "Definition", "History" and "Origins and Uses of the Term" and this makes the whole article much longer than necessary. I've run out of time for today, and probably won't be back to a computer for a few more months, so please could someone consider cutting and pasting the good points in later sections that are repetitive or in the wrong section (with necessary modifications to make them fit) into the right sections? Perhaps the article needs a simpler structure too. I would suggest seperating out the sections about fundamentalism in particular religious traditions into their own pages for a start.

I hope you like the new definition section. If not, please consider at least the point I made that we need a consistently workable general definition, which doesn't focus specifically on any one religious tradition and which isn't so broad that it would include radical liberals. (I have saved a copy myself in case of "reverters".) Bhikkhu Santi 02:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Questionable inference in the Muslim Fundamentalist section

"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).

Non-theistic fundamentalism

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)

This Term is Broader

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)

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)

(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)

The term is widely used as a pejorative, and the best way to avoid such is to follow the Associated Press guideline in identifying only those who self identify as Fundamentalists. Furthermore the idea of militancy is ridiculous. Christians have always been militant; witness the popes taking secular control and sending Europeans repeatedly on Crusades in medieval times; witness the classic Evangelicals/Methodists "organizing to beat the devil" with their advocacy of abolitionism, women's right to vote in the nineteenth century, prohibition, etc.; witness the social gospel advocates trying to "bring the Kingdom of God on earth" in the early twentieth century. After the Scopes Trial, fundamentalists retreated from engagement with society, and have been about the LEAST militant of historic Christians. They certainly rejected the militancy of the social gospel advocates for they said the Kingdom of God is within. Jerry Falwell got some of them organized for awhile, along with many Evangelicals, conservative mainline members, and even Roman Catholics, but the coalition fell apart. Fundamentalists are deeply concerned with doctrinal purity to the extent that they are not naturally consortium builders; they are suspicious of anyone who disagrees with them on any point. Indeed one of the favorites occupations is criticizing other Christians, including other Fundamentalists. You can find a large number of fundamentalist web sites that criticize any Christian leader you can name. And Fundamentalists have always been enemies of Roman Catholocism. As far as acting together like the military, that too, is ridiculous. You can certainly find a few lunatic fringe Fundamentalists who follow a leader to the point of culthood, but the classic Protestant doctrine of the "priesthood of the believer" is a big thing to Fundamentalists, to the point that they are more prone to split than to follow. Such ideas come from critics who have really formed very large opinions from very small data sets. This trend should be recognized and rejected, if Wikipedia is to create enclclopedic ideas. Pollinator 05:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3