Are Fundamentalists Hijacking the Labels?

[Sunstone]

Are fundamentalists hijacking the religious labels? When you and others think of a Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu, do you think of a fundamentalist Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?

For the purposes of this thread, please discuss the four religions known to have fundamentalist movements -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Also, for the purposes of this thread, Christian Evangelicals may be considered to fall within the fundamentalist camp.

 

[Photonic]

Well, as the word fundamental implies purity of the ideal, I believe they are being judged by this group.

Fundamental - serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : basic

So yea, in my view, I believe they ARE hijacking the religions, but honestly, isn't that what their religion is?

 

[Breathe]

I believe they hijack the labels. Fundamentalists have a very literalistic form of their religion, and interestingly, they often end up being quite, well, political and as if they are deliberately trying to be controversial.

If someone says "I am a Christian", it doesn't mean they are rolling around licking a snake's fangs saying gibberish like "tetom tetem mekeme tadakado kopana lokalaka" while holding a sign showing their opposition of gay marriage and evolution, for example.

Some fundamentalists will pretty much hold what their do -- their doctrine and practices, and what they hate -- to be the correct one, what God wants. God likes what they like, hates what they hate, prefers what they do. How lucky are they to have the correct interpretation.

Worse still, some non-believers of that religion may see them as being "the norm" if they do not know better, and less fundamentalist ones may see them as a "more faithful" believer.


My $0.02.

 

[Onkara]

There are Hindus who are political and nationalist, but in my personal opinion Hinduism is not very political or fundamental in that respect. I do not consider the label to be associated with fundamentalism.

One significant factor is that India has Nationalist politics which may form identity on the Hindu name due to the geographical borders. This is one reason why I prefer "Sanatana Dharma" over "Hinduism" when considering the theological aspects.

 

[Splarnst]

I don't know enough about Hinduism to know how a fundamentalist Hindu differs; I can only extrapolate from other three examples.

 

[Villager]

Christian Evangelicals may be considered to fall within the fundamentalist camp.

Because?

Exactly who is doing the hi-jacking?

 

[Sunstone]

Well, as the word fundamental implies purity of the ideal, I believe they are being judged by this group.

Fundamental - serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : basic

So yea, in my view, I believe they ARE hijacking the religions, but honestly, isn't that what their religion is?

Are you seriously suggesting that more fundamentalist manifestations of a religion are somehow truer of that religion than less fundamentalist manifestations of it? Really?

 

[Sunstone]

Because?

Because (1) Evangelicals sometimes like to distinguish themselves from Fundamentalists -- especially since 9/11 -- but the differences are slight to insignificant; because (2) I say so and I wrote the OP. If you want to define the terms differently, start your own thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are fundamentalists hijacking the religious labels?

Some try. Some do not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are fundamentalists hijacking the religious labels?

I don't get the impression they try to "hijack" a label any more than others try to do the same.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Most Christian denominations I know of avoid the label “fundamentalist” at all costs as they look on the term as being too derogatory. The most religiously zealous of them prefer to give that label to radical Islam and Islamism and describing them as the lunatic fundamentalists and they in spite of a strong belief in the inerrancy of the Bible but they still insist they are not fundamentalist. Maybe they should invest in more dictionaries rather than Bibles and they will know they are just as much in the lunatic fundamentalist camp as radical Islam.

 

[Villager]

the differences are slight to insignificant

Why is that? Neither 'fundamentalists' nor evangelicals think so. Why are they misguided?

 

[Willamena]

Well, as the word fundamental implies purity of the ideal, I believe they are being judged by this group.

Fundamental - serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : basic

So yea, in my view, I believe they ARE hijacking the religions, but honestly, isn't that what their religion is?

"Fundamental" is whatever they say it is.

 

[Villager]

The term 'fundamentalist' is useless as a theological term. Everyone, from Hindu to atheist, insists on having the fundamentals right. One would be suspected of insanity if one did not. So the term is used by amateurs, and, because it has acquired pejorative use, by bigots.

That seems to be the usage in this thread, unless we can see otherwise.

 

[Revoltingest]

The term 'fundamentalist' is useless as a theological term. Everyone, from Hindu to atheist, insists on having the fundamentals right. One would be suspected of insanity if one did not. So the term is used by amateurs, and, because it has acquired pejorative use, by bigots.
That seems to be the usage in this thread, unless we can see otherwise.

Of course, it's easy to be a "fundamentalist" atheist....alls ya gotta do is not believe in gods.

 

[beenie]

While I see that there are "fundamentalists" in these four religions, and they tend to be the most...audible...I don't think THEY are hijacking the religious titles as much as the media is.

Again, I'm not denying that these people exist (they do, and I've seen them myself), but the problem of their existence is greatly sensationalized for political/strategical purposes as well.

When I hear "fundamentalist", I think of "literalist", and I find that troublesome in and of itself.

 

[Villager]

When I hear "fundamentalist", I think of "literalist"

That meaning has been the usual one for some decades now. However, it does not mean that any sort of literalism is referred to, as 'Do not steal' has no metaphoric value; and neither does it mean complete textual literalism, because nobody believes that deity rides on the clouds. Fundamentalism as 'literalism' applies when a literal interpretation is not merely adopted, but insisted upon when a figurative meaning is possible.

 

[beenie]

That meaning has been the usual one for some decades now. However, it does not mean that any sort of literalism is referred to, as 'Do not steal' has no metaphoric value; and neither does it mean complete textual literalism, because nobody believes that deity rides on the clouds. Fundamentalism as 'literalism' applies when a literal interpretation is not merely adopted, but insisted upon when a figurative meaning is possible.

Agreed, and that's when it becomes dangerous. When people can't separate literalism from figurative, we should be worried.

 

[Villager]

When people can't separate literalism from figurative, we should be worried.

Agreed. Better teaching is necessary.

 

[Sunstone]

The term 'fundamentalist' is useless as a theological term. Everyone, from Hindu to atheist, insists on having the fundamentals right. One would be suspected of insanity if one did not. So the term is used by amateurs, and, because it has acquired pejorative use, by bigots.

That seems to be the usage in this thread, unless we can see otherwise.

Thank you for your generous implication that I am a bigot. I'm putting you on ignore.