Could we please stop saying "fundamentalist" when we mean "extremist" ?

[Smith_3]

Martin Luther was a "fundamentalist" Christian in the sense that he believed in the "fundaments" of Christianity, that is, that the teachings of the bible are of higher value than the twisted practises of the Catholic establishment. Jimmy Carter is a "fundamentalist" democrat because he believes that the original ideas behind the democratic party are better than the watered down version that some self proclaimed democrats preach to get elected and then don't follow.

The religious right are not "fundamentalist" Christians. They don't believe in the "fundaments" of loving your neighbour and your enemy.

They are "extremists" who take small bits and pieces of the Christian scripture, rip them out of their context, strip them of their initial meaning, and blow them out of proportion to further their own selfish agenda. In the name of all who believe in the "fundaments" of Christian Religion, I call to stop asigning the "fundamentalist" status to these sinfull bigots who wear horns like a lamb but speak like a dragon.

[Richard Steele]

1. We didn't START calling the extremists "fundamentalists"- that's their chosen term. So, then...no.

[EFerrari]

5. But then, we're letting them frame themselves as somehow

more pure than everyone else when they're really wackjobs from another planet sent to torture us because we don't brush long enough.

lol

/ack

[Warpy]

13. It's easier to write than "dead letter literalists"

or even the most appropriate term, "Dominionists."

Mainstream Christians have been dropping the ball on these wack jobs for decades in the name of Christian solidarity. Now all Christians have gotten a bad name for their tacit acceptance of Dominionist blasphemy, to the point that a lot of young believers refuse to self identify as Christians.

I'll continue to use "fundies" as shorthand when my hands are too sore to keep typing "Dominionists" or "Christian Reconstructionists." The latter two terms are the more accurate, but we do what we can, and damn the language police.

[hyphenate]

30. Agreed

I call them "fundies" most of the time, but in the past especially I've called them "RRR" (Radical religious right), religious right, idiots, morons, etc.

I have heard the term "Dispensationalist" which is cool, or Armageddonites, or a few other things. but "fundies" is simpler to type and adhere to.

These people are not following a religion started 2000 years ago, or even close to it. Many of the principles they're drooling over are only a couple of hundred--if that--years ago. They call themselves "fundamentalists" and so that's what we call them.

To the OP, BTW: "Fundaments" is not a word--the word is "fundamentals."

[Angela Shelley]

2. Those who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old,

are definitely "fundamentalists".

[Smith_3]

4. Ah, that number is actually no where in the bible :-)

Its a calculation of some sort, done by trying to follow bloodlines etc.

Also, one can find passages supportive of evolution in the bible if one looks carefully ;-)

[RainDog]

27. but Smith_3, you can find passages

supportive of evolution, just like they can find passages that promote killing gay people. the point is that they DON'T find those things - because they are fundamentalist, a group that denies reality.

yes, the calculation for the age of the earth is where that age comes from, but do you know any fundamentalist who would say, yes, the creation story is just a myth, a metaphor for life, and no different than any other creation story? if so, that would be one rare fundie.

so, while your post is trying to find a way to make fundies somehow acceptable in their religious stances, it ain't gonna happen for anyone who has been through the grinder with these people over evolution or women's rights or civil rights or constitutional issues of the separation of church and state.

[Smith_3]

28. there are no passages that promote killing gay people

the books of leviticus and deuteronomium cite, historically accurately, the laws of the jewish community during the times they were living in the desert. these rules were specific for this time and this group of people and have no connection whatsoever to present day life.

the "rules" which a "fundamentalist" christian in the true sense of the word needs to follow are the words of the christ. most notably the sermon on the mount but the others too. there you will find nothing at all about gays. there you find that women and men are equal. there you find that wrongdoings of the establishment are to be criticized.

the sole reason for having a "new testament" is to set the "old testament" into perspective. extremists often cite the old testament because it better suits their needs.

[Richard Steele]

31. Maybe you should be telling THEM that, not us.

Good luck with that.

[hyphenate]

32. You, sir, are dead on

But that is exactly the reason why these people are so ridiculous--they pick and choose the texts they choose to follow, reject the rest and consider themselves following the "biblical" texts. It's similar to someone taking a first grade primer and imitating the language thereof, with little to no understanding that we are basically talking like babies. These people are stunting their growth by refusing to acknowledge that what followed for culture and meaning 2000 years ago can't be realistically applied 2000 years later when mores, ideology and education have changed drastically.

[RainDog]

37. believe me, I know this doctrinal stuff

or at least one version of it. the new testament, according to fundies, is the fulfillment of the OT. That's why Ann Coulter can yearn for the conversion of the Jews. That's why fundies look back to the O.T. to read the prophecies of Isiah, etc. that are supposed to be proof of a messiah, among other things. And provide moral lessons, such as endurance and faith. The law was put in place to show people that it is impossible to work to be good and be able to be one with god..)
Oh abandonment! Oh Winter! Instead, forgiveness, through human sacrifice, was all that was needed. Oh yeah, and the belief that he returned to earth as the undead.

Kierkegaard noted that the story of the foundation of Christianity rested on an unresolvable issuein the story of the patriarch Abraham...

Now join me hymn #61: god said to abraham kill me a son, abe say what? you must be putting me on...

okay, so Kierkegaard noted that absolute faith was necessary for Abraham to make that sacrifice, otherwise all value of the act was lost. hmmm. Saturn devouring his children... anyway, God spared Issac and substituted something else. So this OT story is central to fundie faith.

I know the beatitudes, but I also know that after Jesus died and the apostles started going to diff. cities, those cities would write them letters...also letters to Paul...which asked for instruction in daily life. These passages are taken literally, too... the only ones who go for speaking in tongues, tho, are the charismatic or Pentacostal christians... who Baptists used to put in the same class as Snake Handlers in Appalachia. but as political bedfellows, I guess it was okay for Jerry to nuggle up to Pat...

anyway, as far as how fundaments may be defined, your version is not the same, but your version is not how politically powerful fundies define it, so if you want that to change, you need to meet up with them and tell them to get right with god, as Miss Lucinda Williams would say.

amen.

[JackintheGreen]

10. Well, they are fundamentally stupid.

[terisan]

16. I would say they have been exposed to the Light, but have chosen the Darkness. nt

[EFerrari]

3. I think that's a very good call.

:thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Some quotes from "fundamentalist" Martin Luther.

"The Devil can so completely assume the human form, when he wants to deceive us, that we may well lie with what seems to be a woman, of real flesh and blood, and yet all the while 'tis only the Devil in the shape of a woman. 'Tis the same with women, who may think that a man is in bed with them, yet 'tis only the Devil; and...the result of this connection is oftentimes an imp of darkness, half mortal, half devil...." (Martin Luther)

"Women...have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children." (Martin Luther)

"If I had to baptise a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words 'I baptise thee in the name of Abraham.'" (Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them." (Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"He who hears this name from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away." "If I had power over the Jews, as our princes and cities have, I would deal severely with their lying mouth." (Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country." (Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"What shall we Christians do now with this depraved and damned people of the Jews? ... I will give my faithful advice: First, that one should set fire to their synagogues. . . . Then that one should also break down and destroy their houses. . . . That one should drive them out the country." (Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"We are at fault for not slaying them ." (Martin Luther)

"...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!" Martin Luther, in his book, "The Jews and Their Lies",1543)

"What shall we do with...the Jews?... I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings...are to be taken from them... I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews... I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb... set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them... their homes also should be razed and destroyed." (Martin Luther)

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Yes, he is not a good choice to hold up in my opinion.

[terisan]

15. Possibly Luther made the error of resisting evil. Fought evil with evil. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Jews and women Evil?

He also urged the nobility to kill the peasants during the peasants revolt.

[terisan]

19. I was referring to his resistance to the Church and its evil practices of the time.

He turned against the Church of Rome and some of its practices, yet he still persecuted Jews and disrespected women.

He also had no compassion for mentally ill or mentally retarded people.

Luther may have been gutsy but I have never considered him to be enlightened.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Spare us from the "gutsy" ones.

As an ex-catholic you'll get no argument from me about the miseries that Mother Church has inflicted on the world.

But the Protestants can hardly brag about fighting "evil".

Millions of people have been killed, maimed, beheaded, slaughtered, by people protecting their version of God and doing "good".

[terisan]

33. Agreed. Also ex. Protestants wasted no time "making their bones." Bloodthirsty lot. nt

[RainDog]

21. My favorite Luther quote

was when he encourage the faithful to "shit on the devil." LOL Erikson had a blast with that one with his psychoanalytic explanation of Luther's anality. A lot of people now think Freud had some important things to say, historically, but he was bound by his time, too.

The issue with ML is that he was historically of his time. We no longer live in his time and many, many things have happened since then to advance human understanding of the world we live in. At this point in time, I'd say the fundamentalists are as corrupt as the catholic church/state of his time - was because they serve govt. I couldn't believe the crap I heard from Pat Robertson's mouth (who, btw, wouldn't actually be considered "just" a fundamentalist because he's also a Pentacostal, like John (anoit my head with Crisco oil) Ashcroft. He twists republican economic and imperial policy to make it sound "godly."

Martin Luther is a great example because he is so obviously dated in his thoughts. He shows that people of faith now have to understand that, even if they choose to remain bound in a past reality, they cannot deny the right of the rest of us to this one, or, say, the inspiration to try to continue the work of the enlightenment... which is ultimately about the human rights of every person everywhere, not religious nationalism. They also have no right, even tho they believe in "The Great Commission," to try to proselytize others.

[jgraz]

42. Wow, I guess he WAS a fundamentalist

Those quotes coulda easily come from Robertson or Falwell.

[L. Coyote]

7. But, but, religion is the BEST cover for fascism. Don't steal the Emporer's divine robe!

He's got nothing else on! :rofl:

[B Calm]

8. I prefer calling them the RELIGIOUSLY INSANE!

[etherealtruth]

20. The most accurate describer I've heard. eom

[Hamlette]

11. no, fundamentalists as defined are dangerous.

Fundamentalists believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Every word of it.

If you want another definition, you can have it but I'll stick to the one the rest of us use.

If you believe every word in the bible is literally true, you believe people who are not Christian should be killed, people who are gay should be killed, people who work on Sunday should be killed.

That's extremist.

Same for Jewish and Islam. Fundamentalists are extremists there too because they too believe in their holy books being literally true and those books are just as nutty as the Bible. If taken literally.

[RainDog]

17. Exactly. Fundamentalist, TO THEM, means

...that you believe the bible is literally true. This is a basic tenet that they claim for themselves. It's a dealbreaker for anyone who wants to preach in one of their churches.

of course, they are selective in what they believe is literally true... this is the height of irony to me... but of course they get to determine the emphasis for "literally true" and make up some stuff, too - like the tribe of Dan making racism okay.

the OP definitinon is misinformed if you think they define fundamentalist without this litmus test.

[uppityperson]

26. Good post. For the OP, no, and this is 1 reason why. Here's another.

You can be a Fundamentalist and not meaning have it be strictly religion. You can be a political fundamentalist, etc, meaning stuck on the what you believe is the extreme fundamental basis of it, and intolerant of anyone who thinks differently.

[Xipe Totec]

12. the twisted practises of the Catholic establishment...

are you pissing to the choir?

[terisan]

14. Your post is enlightening. Teach us some more. Fundamentalists, Evangelicals,

and Extremists. I think that I often use them interchangeably.

However I have found many evangelicals that follow the Two Commandments of Jesus and understand that everyone--even those Muslims-are one's neighbor.

The extremists seem to be people who have staked a claim to sole ownership of the Bible (as well as of the US) and sole ownership of
God. I have often wondered if they are not, in terms of Christianity) committing a kind of blasphemy-claiming that they know the will of God and then speaking FOR God or calling upon God to damn (send to hell) people who do not agree with them.

They often like to tell God what to do or tell us what God is thinking-regarding themselves a special conduit to God and above God. When you damn someone or call upon God to call down his wrath upon someone you are essentially telling God what to do. The ultimate in hubris.I think when Pat Roberts did this, he made a lot of christian ministers nervous and they told him he was out of line.

[many a good man]

44. His/her post is not enlightening, it's wrong

S/he just doesn't like calling them Fundamentalists, because she likes what what she considers the "fundaments" of Xnty.

Fundamentalist is the correct term whether we like it or not.

[provis99]

47. my sense is that evangelicalism and fundamentalism are different ideas

You can be a liberal and be an evangelical (like Jimmy Carter). All evangelical means is that you are "Born-Again" and you believe in spreading the "good news" of the bible (proselytizing). You can't be liberal and be a fundamentalist, though. Fundamentalism is exclusively a reactionary phenomenon, since it wants to interpret the bible literally, and take us back to the moral standards of 3000 year old desert barbarians.

[knitter4democracy]

22. Fundamentalist Christian is a theological term.

It doesn't refer so much to the "fundamentals" of the faith as it does their fundamental belief in the Bible as the inerrant word of God--that every single word in the Bible is literally true.

You're right that they ignore Christ's Two Greatest Commandments, but that doesn't make them non-fundamentalists. It just makes them deceived by dazzling heresies, as the Orthodox would say.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. Yes, well said! nt

[Dukkha]

24. since they're not christians at all perhaps militant cultists would be better

[Der Blaue Engel]

25. No. n/t

[datasuspect]

29. no

i will call them extremists in addition to fundamentalists.

[blogslut]

34. Depends on my mood

If I were orthodox in my particular sect (Church of the SubGenius) I would call them "PINKS". However, most of the time I call them "Fundies". Once in a while I'll use a college word and call them "Dispensationalists". Today, I shall call their leaders "Hucksters" and their followers "Rubes".

Remember kids, anyone can promise eternal salvation. Only the Church of the Subgenius offers you a money-back guarantee. Praise Bob.

[RainDog]

39. LOL!! n/t

[LostinVA]

35. No, I won't -- and, if you believe Martin Luther wasn't an extremist...

And, just as twisted as what he railed against, then I have a really nice bridge in Brooklyn you can have really, really cheap.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. no can do.

Sorry.

[Maven]

38. Uh, nope. Sorry.

[elehhhhna]

40. k&r

[TalkingDog]

43. Fundament:

1. The fundamental assumptions from which something is begun or developed or calculated or explained
- basis, base, foundation, groundwork, cornerstone

2. The fleshy part of the human body that you sit on
- buttocks, nates, butt, backside, bum, buns , can , hindquarters, hind end, posterior, rear, rear end, rump, stern, seat, tail, tail end, tooshie, tush , bottom, behind, derriere, heinie , derrière

3. Lowest support of a structure
- foundation, base, foot, groundwork, substructure, understructure




As long as I know that the meaning of the word declares them to be asses; I would prefer to continue calling them asses, buttocks, butts, backsides, buns, hind ends, posteriors, rears, rear ends, rumps, derrieres, heinies, derrières, fundaments.


My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[mitchtv]

45. I kind of like heretic

they have definitely strayed from Christ's teachings. It is an RC ecclesiastical term, so they would be correct in identifying me as an apostate

[YOY]

46. Absolutely not.

n/t