Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:46, 15 July 2004

IT IS AN EXCELLENT RESEARCH, OBJECTIVELY INFORMATIVE I WISH IT WAS MORE DETAILED. THERE IS ONE POINT THOUGH, FUNDAMENTALISTS DO USE TECHNOLOGY FOR INSTANCE TELEPHONE, FAX INTERNET AMONG OTHER TECHNOLOGIES AND THAT CONTRADICT WITH PORTRAYING THEM AS ANTI-MODERN EVENTHOUGH I BELIEVE THAT YOU MEAN BY THAT MODERN WAY OF DRESSING UP, OR BEEN MORE MATERIALIST AND LESS SPIRITUAL MAYBE THANK YOU FOR THIS NICE PIECE.

Archive1 Dutch Talk page

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Seperation 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": 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Mkmcconn — 22:42, 15 Jul 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 ... ?

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)