Are Fundamentalists Hijacking the Labels?

[Jainarayan]

This is one reason why I prefer "Sanatana Dharma" over "Hinduism" when considering the theological aspects.

Not that it's going to happen any time soon, but if my (non-practicing RC) family finds out I've embraced Sanatana Dharma, there will be scorn aplenty. I can hear it now:

Them: "Oh so now you're Indian?"
Me: "No, are you Hebrew? You follow an orthodox Jew".

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

Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hindutva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are also Vedic literalists. Someone I've conversed with absolutely rejects the Proto-Indoeuropean hypothesis for the origin of Sanskrit. The person also believes (ironically, the opposite of bible literalists) that the Vedas were revealed millions of years ago.

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm not sure whether it's propagandists or fundies trying to hijack the labels. Probably both, I think they're often the same people/groups.

 

[Quintessence]

From my vantage point, they cannot "hijack" the language. Words can (and do) have multiple definitions, and I'm more than happy living with that reality. I don't assume any given Christian I meet is "fundamentalist" any more than I assume they're Franciscans or part of Christian Science.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think most people, generally speaking, having an underlying association that people who are more fundamental are somehow "more" religious, or more "purely" religious - despite whether they see this as a good or bad thing.

 

[Photonic]

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

Dunno, you seem to be quite capable of putting words in my mouth, you tell me what I should be saying.

 

[beenie]

I think most people, generally speaking, having an underlying association that people who are more fundamental are somehow "more" religious, or more "purely" religious - despite whether they see this as a good or bad thing.

Hmmm, the way I see it is that they think of themselves as being more religious or more purely religious. I see them as trying, but perhaps misguided.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hmmm, the way I see it is that they think of themselves as being more religious or more purely religious. I see them as trying, but perhaps misguided.

Yes, some people hold that perspective as well.

 

[ChristineES]

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.

I don't think they steal the labels. It's just that people paint Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc with a very narrow brush.

I don't fit into the stereotype of Christianity. I am a very religious person, but I don't spurt biblical quotes into conversations, I try hard not to judge, I certainly can't preach, I am not preacher material. I am not perfect by any means. I hope I can be somewhat of an example, although I wonder if I truly am.
I think the difference is that I wasn't raised in a Christian home. I became a Christian in my late teens and was raised agnostic (with no religion).

 

[SageTree]

I think religious labels period are hi-jacking what I'd call Spiritual-Self Realization...

Which are also labels that I'm hi-jacking to post...

Am I a fundy?

You decide.

 

[Sunstone]

Dunno, you seem to be quite capable of putting words in my mouth, you tell me what I should be saying.

If I've put words in your mouth, I apologize.

 

[Villager]

Perhaps misguided, but who does the misguiding? A person who says, or implies, that it is necessary to believe in creation in six days in order to be a Christian is either misguided or is deliberately misrepresenting Christianity, making it susceptible to falsification if not ridicule, and also proposing a false basis for Christian faith. It is evangelicals who say that faith only is required, not intellectual belief or the use of sacraments, which are counted as necessary works, which destroy faith. So if fundamentalists are Bible literalists, they are diametrically opposed to evangelicalism, not at all as the opening post alleges.

 

[JacobEzra.]

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.

When I think of Fundamentalist Jews, I think of Kahane. Muslim fundamentalist, I think of Wahabi Saudi's. Fundamentalist Christians, I think of Catholic bashing "evangelicals".

With Hindus, I have no idea. I am not very exposed to Hindu religion.

 

[Villager]

Catholicism may be said to be the original fundamentalism, with its insistence that 'On this Rock' referred to a mere man, and that 'This is my body' referred to actual bread.

 

[SageTree]

I'd think that people long long long ago, before the written word who killed each other over the squabbles about Gods/Goddess would fit the 'original' bill.

 

[Villager]

That's anachronistic, as it happens. The lore depended on the story myth, the literal truth of which nobody cared about.

 

[idav]

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.

The ones trying to hijack the label may be the ones trying to insert fluffiness into the texts. Not sure about Hinduism their texts might already be fluffy.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Catholicism may be said to be the original fundamentalism, with its insistence that 'On this Rock' referred to a mere man, and that 'This is my body' referred to actual bread.

How is the beliefs of Catholicism = fundamentalism?

Historically, Roman Church, along side eastern Orthodox Churches are the original churches. And share similar beliefs.

Evangelicals did not care around until a century or two ago, and have much more fundamentalist beliefs in reaction to the more historical Catholic church, and a break away from traditional Protestantism which seems much more moderate then evangelicalism.

 

[Willamena]

How is the beliefs of Catholicism = fundamentalism?

Historically, Roman Church, along side eastern Orthodox Churches are the original churches. And share similar beliefs.

Right - they are the bases of all other Christian churches. That's what fundamental (really) means: getting back to basics, originality.

 

[Villager]

That's what fundamental (really) means: getting back to basics, originality.

So the RCC and EOC are fundamentalist? Yes, perhaps that can be agreed. And maybe there's more fundies than meet the eye.

It is not so long ago that internet atheists and skeptics generally took the firm view that the RC Crusades, the Inquisitions, the forced baptisms, the censorship, the abuses of RC schools, convents and other institutions, the association with Nazism and fascism, gave more than enough reason to be atheist or at least skeptical. But Christians persuaded them that there was no correlation between those infamies and the precepts and practices of Jesus and his apostles; and that they represented those precepts and practice, as the contemporary, peaceful, harmless and genuine presence.

But now atheists and skeptics have performed an amazing volte face, and have turned a total blind eye to the offences that once kept Christians up half the night, night after night. And those Christians actually persuaded the knockers that there was indeed correlation between actions and theology, and that literalist, fundamentalist beliefs did indeed give rise to violent actions. They persuaded them that the Reformation really had occurred, that every single Reformer regarded the RCC as antichrist, and that only the Protestant Bible of 66 books was to be used as the final arbiter of Christ's faith, the one and only way to return to the original religion, without the appalling corruptions that had entered Europe, usually by diktat and coercion, in the long Dark Age. The argument took a long time, but there was eventual success.

Now, twenty years on, it seems that success has been taken too far, much too far. Now, RCism and Eastern Orthodoxy, far from being the villains of the piece, are the real deal, the original! Now, internet atheists and skeptics, who used to mock 'fundies' for their literalism, buy into the literalism of 'This is my Body'. They really believe in Transubstantiation. It is truly a miracle, how an atheist can believe in a miracle.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is not so long ago that internet atheists and skeptics generally took the firm view that the RC Crusades, the Inquisitions, the forced baptisms, the censorship, the abuses of RC schools, convents and other institutions, the association with Nazism and fascism, gave more than enough reason to be atheist or at least skeptical.

That might be true for some, but the vast majority of atheists I know simply never believed, or converted because it dawned on them that their former faith was fiction.
There might be some confusion though, because in heated conversation, people will often point to shortcomings in the beliefs of the opposition. Things which they cite
as reasons for disbelief, might be just rhetoric. Personally, I never started believing, & never saw any reason to start.

But now atheists and skeptics have performed an amazing volte face....

Don't you dare use French on me, buster!

....and have turned a total blind eye to the offences that once kept Christians up half the night, night after night.....

I urge caution in generalizing about us heathens from what one sees.
The ones who catch your eye are likely not representative of our vast diversity.

Now, twenty years on, it seems that success has been taken too far, much too far. Now, RCism and Eastern Orthodoxy, far from being the villains of the piece, are the real deal, the original! Now, internet atheists and skeptics, who used to mock 'fundies' for their literalism, buy into the literalism of 'This is my Body'. They really believe in Transubstantiation. It is truly a miracle, how an atheist can believe in a miracle.

I haven't seen any miracles yet.