Originally posted by sasquatch672 I think the time is right for no1 to expound on the Founders' deism, or lack thereof, and to give us their perspective on religion in government beyond what's expressed in the Constitution.
No1, take it away...
Does this mean you have finished your contributions in this thread ?
Originally posted by ivanhoe [b]Marauder: "Please give an example of "liberalism" (which kind?) adhering to a strict and LITERAL basic principle. Such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authoritative text which must be believed to be without the possibility of error."
Ho ho ho .... you are implicitely using your own definition of what constitutes ...[text shortened]... en proposed by others in this thread. Which ones do you want to incorporate in your definition ?[/b]
Actually, I was using your definition with the term "literal" being explained in detail.
EDIT: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage They must interpret something literally. What?
This depends. You don't have to take this literally, of course .... 😉.
Fascists do not have "authoritative" scriptures as far as I know. The interpretation of their or other people's texts necessarily don't have to be literal ..... I think ...
Originally posted by ivanhoe This isn't exactly my definition yet, but who knows ....
What is your definition ?
The dictionary definition you gave is good enough for me; there's seems little sense in having dictionaries if we're unwilling to accept that the definitions in them are to be used as standard. I'm not much into semantics; if a word has a widely accepted standard meaning, I'm willing to use it in that way.
I would still maintain that the phrase "secular fundamentalist" makes no sense unless you can point to an authoritative text that the SF could interpret "strictly and literally" (literal comes from the Latin word "litteralis" meaning "of a letter" does it not?).
Originally posted by sonhouse What do they call that argument? Strawman I think.
I'm sure child pornographers would like to take over the
government too but that doesn't invalidate my point.
And the lack of real argument here makes me think you WANT
fundamentalists to control everyone's lives. If that happened I would
make myself a volunteer at McMurdo Station.
Right. Is "trying to take over a government an adequate and necessary criterium in establishing somebody is a "fundamentalist" and thus a criterion in your definition of what constitutes a "fundamentalist" ?
Originally posted by sonhouse I think fundamentalists are defined among other aspects, by their
desire to make their religion a government. I think the
Christian right would qualify in that regard as well as the
muslim extremists as in Iran or the Afghan Taliban.
They all have one thing in common: Extreme pressure on
people to convert.
Sonhouse: "They all have one thing in common: Extreme pressure on people to convert."
So, this would be a criterion in your definition in order to establish whether someone is a fundamentalist or not ? Correct ?
Originally posted by no1marauder The dictionary definition you gave is good enough for me; there's seems little sense in having dictionaries if we're unwilling to accept that the definitions in them are to be used as standard. I'm not much into semantics; if a word has a widely accepted standard meaning, I'm willing to use it in that way.
I would still maintain that the ph ...[text shortened]... rally" (literal comes from the Latin word "litteralis" meaning "of a letter" does it not?).
marauder: "The dictionary definition you gave is good enough for me .... "
What is your opinion regarding the other criterions proposed by various people in this thread to establish what a "fundamentalist" is ?
Originally posted by no1marauder Actually, I was using your definition with the term "literal" being explained in detail.
EDIT: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"
From your previous post a few of your(?) criteria can be distilled:
- a fundamentalist must adhere to a strict and literal basic principle.
- such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authorative text, which must be believed to be without the possibility of error.
Marauder, do you adhere to the above criteria or not ?
Originally posted by sasquatch672 I would like to refocus this thread and stop Ivanhoe from asking people what their definition of this odd thing or that odd thing is. You guys are screwing around, parsing words, and beating around the bush.
Ivanhoe, do you or do you not agree with Nicolaas's statement that accepting the views of others is important?
Nicolaas: "Individual views are important, but so is accepting other people views as well."
The above statement is perfectly acceptable. I support it.
Interesting that so many people's paragon of a "fundamentalist" Muslim is either someone from the Taliban or a group like Al Qaeda. So many scholars think their ideologies are NOT based on a proper (or even literal) interpretation of Islamic texts, in toto.
Originally posted by ivanhoe From your previous post a few of your(?) criteria can be distilled:
- a fundamentalist must adhere to a strict and literal basic principle.
- such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authorative text, which must be believed to be without the possibility of error.
Marauder, do you adhere to the above criteria or not ?
Originally posted by ivanhoe Fascists do not have "authoritative" scriptures as far as I know. The interpretation of their or other people's texts necessarily don't have to be literal ..... I think ...
Never heard of Mein Kampf? Never heard of the Red Guards and their devotion to the Little Red Book?
To be sure, when Stalin, Hitler or Mao gave orders, I don't think their lackeys had too much room for interpretation. (Mussolini, I'm not sure). Since fascists take their orders directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak, there is no need for any text, even though their writings received from some quarters the adulation ordinarily reserved for more venerable texts.
Other texts may also serve. The Nationalists in my country used the Bible to their own ends. Perhaps they even believed their own lies; I cannot tell.
07 Dec '05 17:372 edits
Fundamentalist Christian Intolerance
Back to Top