07 Dec '05 18:59 :: 0 recommendations
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 ?
07 Dec '05 19:01 :: 0 recommendations
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 ?
07 Dec '05 19:20 :: 0 recommendations
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.
07 Dec '05 19:21 :: 0 recommendations
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 ?
07 Dec '05 19:25 :: 0 recommendations
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 19:25 :: 0 recommendations
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 Sta ...[text shortened]... ntry used the Bible to their own ends. Perhaps they even believed their own lies; I cannot tell.
Well, Mein Kampf would count, I guess .... but then again, not for Italian fascists.
The red book is surely an example of an "authoritative" scripture.
Bosse de Nage: "Other texts may also serve. The Nationalists in my country used the Bible to their own ends."
Originally posted by ivanhoe Since Sas wants to keep his thread on track I want to reopen the discussion which occurred there. I will cut and paste the relevant posts.
I have always wondered what the term "fundamentalist" stands for.
What does it stand for in case it is applied to Christians?
What does it mean in case it is applied to Muslems ?
What does it mean if it ...[text shortened]... ar fundamentalists as well roaming the RHP forums and waving their flags in an unmistakable way.
It is a term that is used when people are scared of those people.
There aren't really fundamentalists of any religion or country men.
Originally posted by RBHILL It is a term that is used when people are scared of those people.
There aren't really fundamentalists of any religion or country men.
I certainly agree that fear is a facet in this whole "fundamentalist" issue.
07 Dec '05 19:21 :: 0 recommendations
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 ?
Yes.
As you stated to adhere to the above principles, we can take a closer look.
You formulation leaves a lot to be desired, in particular for a lawyer.
Marauder: "- a fundamentalist must adhere to a strict and literal basic principle."
How, marauder, can a basic principle be "literal" ?
What is a "fundamentalist"?
07 Dec '05 18:37
Back to Top