Is Fundamentalism a Religious Movement or a Psychological Disorder?

[Subduction Zone]

So what ? If one believes in a set of fundamentals, one is a fundamentalist. I doubt the word was coined in the 1920ś. It was co opted in an effort to define people of certain characteristics. It cannot apply to just a specific group, else the term fundamental can only apply to this group.

When I was a high school baseball coach a long, long time ago, I was big on teaching the fundamentals of baseball, imagine, I was an atheist baseball fundamentalist, wow ! My bad.

Words change meanings all of the time. That is not being co-opted. The one key problem with fundamentalism is a literal interpretation of selected parts of the Bible. That tends to cause all sorts of problems that have been outlined above.

 

[shmogie]

Fundamental beliefs. Jesus had fundamental religious beliefs. There was nothing evil, dysfunctional or psychologically aberrant about them.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the great minds of American thought, called the teachings of Jesus, "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."

On the other hand, there's liberal fundamentalism. Fundamental liberal beliefs - straight from Hell and the devil himself. Liberals are now advancing the perverse, the profane, the unnatural, the slaughter of the innocents, open borders, pornography, confiscating firearms from lawful citizens; disrespect for law enforcement, legalization of illicit drugs, reverse racism, social divisions, the abolition of traditional American values and beliefs, antisemitism, godlessness, anti-constitutionalism, socialism, forced redistribution of wealth, a weakened national defense, massive government growth, raising taxes, non-functional single payer healthcare by the government, sanctuary cities for criminals, a massive, plantation-style, government welfare system, regressive progressivism, attacks on religious free speech and Christianity, vitriolic intolerance of conservative beliefs, dogmatism, nihilism, and anti-intellectualism, to name a few.

"The violent and decadent society that the liberals so despise is the very one they have created. They wanted sexual promiscuity, drugs, disregard for the law, no censorship of pornography, no laws against sodomy or public profanity, abortion on demand, quick and easy divorces, acceptance of homosexuality, Miranda rights, a welfare system that paid women to have illegitimate children, a tax system that penalizes marriage, and a godless education system. And they got it. Every last bit of it." - Charley Reese, former Orlando Sentinel Opinion Columnist

In her book "Godless - the Church of Liberalism," Ann Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

So,

Beware of Liberal Fundamentalism

Liberal Fundamentalism

Excerpt: "It is certainly arguable, then, that “progressive” liberal fundamentalism substantially undermines the basic effectiveness of the government and other societal elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of liberalism, attempts to build a Utopian liberal society in America have only led to heightened outbreaks of AIDS, VD, porno-related crime, social divisions, divorce, abortion, drug addictions, deficit spending, the welfare state, a crushing tax burden, the breakdown of the family unit, moral depravity, and numerous other such scourges which have resulted in enormous societal suffering and discontent. As a result, liberal fundamentalism is strongly associated with left-wing fanaticism, reverse-racism, anti-intellectualism, elitism, nihilism, godlessness, and societal violence."

I agree with most of what you have written. You left out another
creation of this new society, mass shooters.

Yet no where will the progressives own up to any of it. 60 years ago guns were easier to get, and there were no mass shootings. The more the progressive agenda unrolled, the more mass shootings. Not their fault, it is the nasty legal gun owner and the NRA who are responsible. Though I know of no mass shooting that involved an NRA member, and know of several potential ones that were ended by an NRA member and his firearm.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with most of what you have written. You left out another
creation of this new society, mass shooters.

Yet no where will the progressives own up to any of it. 60 years ago guns were easier to get, and there were no mass shootings. The more the progressive agenda unrolled, the more mass shootings. Not their fault, it is the nasty legal gun owner and the NRA who are responsible. Though I know of no mass shooting that involved an NRA member, and know of several potential ones that were ended by an NRA member and his firearm.

You are looking at the wrong cause.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

From the Christian perspective, fundamentalism is simply adherence to the fundamentals of the faith in the NT. The Apostolic Church was composed of fundamentalists, they adhered to the fundamentals of Christianity as detailed in the NT.
This game with words to deride people is disgusting, immoral, and disingenuous.

The OPś beef isn´t with fundamentalists in the Church, his beef is with Christianity, and this is a convenient way to take the cheapest of shots.

Define exactly who you mean, don´t taker an innocuous word and twist it to meet your goals.

More language manipulation. Big Brother would be proud.

I see religious fundamentalists manipulate words all the time. In fact, many types of fundamentalists also do this regularly.

My interpretation of the OP is in an interest in defining characteristics that are shared by people that engage in any sort of retrogressive, constrained view within a constellation of human endeavors. Whether it is religion, politics, economics, cults or any human group or movement.

 

[shmogie]

In my experience it most certainly is. Each of those traits are exhibited to differing degrees by various groups, but overall they're quite accurate.


You're exhibiting one of the key traits right here, i.e., black/white thinking (as you also did in our OOL discussion).


I've grown up in a fundamentalist Christian environment and am still very close with people in my family who are fundamentalists, and to one degree or another they most definitely 1) have a patriarchal view of authority, 2) discipline via reward/punishment, 3) are very focused on sexual issues such as homosexuality, 4) believe that "man's reasoning" is not trustworthy (especially when it comes to science), 5) tend to think in black/white terms, 6) take a literal approach to the Bible, 7) believe the "end times" are just around the corner, and 8) have self-esteem issues.


Well then I guess we're fortunate to have you here to set us straight on what a "true Christian fundamentalist" is!

Are you denying that Christian fundamentalists don't tend to patriarchy (e.g. the man is the head of the household), aren't strict disciplinarians (spare the rod), aren't at all focused on human sexuality (pray the gay away), don't distrust science (young-earth creationism), don't tend to black/white thinking (as you've done repeatedly), don't interpret the Bible literally, and don't believe the "end times" are imminent?

Really? Because I can cite specific examples of right-wing Christian groups doing each of those.

Really ? then they aren´t Christian fundamentalists, and you should name them.

A Christian fundamentalist attempts to follow the fundamentals of the Christian faith as defined by the New Testament, period. As I said, a word co opted from itś true and literal meaning ( OMG, does that make me a literalist ?) to define traits of certain people or groups, usually NOT Christian fundamentalists.

The corruption of the language that has now accelerated massively can make, to use your term, black into white, up down and blue red.
right down the rabbit hole.

I am concerned about it. If you have ever read Orwellś 1984 you know why.

Do you call a Christian who follows the the fundamentals of the faith a fundamentalist ? Or, do you use another pejorative word, with a new meaning ?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with most of what you have written. You left out another
creation of this new society, mass shooters.

Yet no where will the progressives own up to any of it. 60 years ago guns were easier to get, and there were no mass shootings. The more the progressive agenda unrolled, the more mass shootings. Not their fault, it is the nasty legal gun owner and the NRA who are responsible. Though I know of no mass shooting that involved an NRA member, and know of several potential ones that were ended by an NRA member and his firearm.

Besides a political position, do you have any facts to back this up.

There is 1.2 guns per every person in this country.

The record indicates that mass shootings in this country go back to to the 1920's and active shooter situations in schools goes back to the early 1970's. It does seem like a progression, but there is little understanding of the actual causes, though alienation, politics and the mental health of the shooter are contributing factors.

The shooters are predominantly white males and the average age of those males is decreasing. The weapons of choice are firearms that were not widely available 60 years ago, but are now.

If we want to solve the problem, political divisiveness is not likely to be high on the list of solutions.

 

[shmogie]

S

I see religious fundamentalists manipulate words all the time. In fact, many types of fundamentalists also do this regularly.

My interpretation of the OP is in an interest in defining characteristics that are shared by people that engage in any sort of retrogressive, constrained view within a constellation of human endeavors. Whether it is religion, politics, economics, cults or any human group or movement.

So, other people do it. It is still wrong, English is English, words have meanings and have had for many, many centuries.

I have no problem with the OP making comments as you define, I probably have made some about those folk myself.

Why not identify them specifically ? Blanket terms, not as logically defined ,is a wide net, it means and applies to what the user decides it means, always negative.

 

[Jose Fly]

Really ? then they aren´t Christian fundamentalists, and you should name them.

So Answers in Genesis aren't Christian fundamentalists? The Quiverfull Movement aren't Christian fundamentalists? The "Train up a Child" people aren't Christian fundamentalists? Christians who focus on opposing LGBTQ folks aren't fundamentalists? End Times Ministries aren't Christian fundamentalists?

A Christian fundamentalist attempts to follow the fundamentals of the Christian faith as defined by the New Testament, period.

And you're actually arguing that none of those groups above "attempt to follow the fundamentals of the Christian faith as defined by the New Testament"?

As I said, a word co opted from itś true and literal meaning ( OMG, does that make me a literalist ?) to define traits of certain people or groups, usually NOT Christian fundamentalists.

The corruption of the language that has now accelerated massively can make, to use your term, black into white, up down and blue red.
right down the rabbit hole.

I am concerned about it. If you have ever read Orwellś 1984 you know why.

You're reacting defensively and emotionally rather than thinking objectively here. That's understandable given that you consider yourself to be a fundamentalist, but try and step back for a second and think of it this way....

Fundamentalist Christians are indeed primarily defined by how they believe in and adhere to what they see as the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Those who are in that group of people also tend to exhibit a set of behaviors psychological traits, such as those I've listed in this thread.

Understand? I'm not saying that Christian fundamentalists are defined by the behaviors and traits I listed, I'm saying they tend to exhibit those traits (as evidenced by the groups I've cited).

Do you call a Christian who follows the the fundamentals of the faith a fundamentalist ? Or, do you use another pejorative word, with a new meaning ?

See above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

S

So, other people do it. It is still wrong, English is English, words have meanings and have had for many, many centuries.

I have no problem with the OP making comments as you define, I probably have made some about those folk myself.

Why not identify them specifically ? Blanket terms, not as logically defined ,is a wide net, it means and applies to what the user decides it means, always negative.

No, words have usages. I hate to say it but that is the dogmatic type of error that a fundamentalist in the list that you objected to would make.

 

[Jose Fly]

Besides a political position, do you have any facts to back this up.

There is 1.2 guns per every person in this country.

The record indicates that mass shootings in this country go back to to the 1920's and active shooter situations in schools goes back to the early 1970's. It does seem like a progression, but there is little understanding of the actual causes, though alienation, politics and the mental health of the shooter are contributing factors.

The shooters are predominantly white males and the average age of those males is decreasing. The weapons of choice are firearms that were not widely available 60 years ago, but are now.

If we want to solve the problem, political divisiveness is not likely to be high on the list of solutions.

I suggest not falling for his obvious red herring. It's a defensive tactic with the hopes of getting folks to follow him down an unrelated rabbit hole so that the original topic goes away.

 

[sooda]

So what ? If one believes in a set of fundamentals, one is a fundamentalist. I doubt the word was coined in the 1920ś. It was co opted in an effort to define people of certain characteristics. It cannot apply to just a specific group, else the term fundamental can only apply to this group.

When I was a high school baseball coach a long, long time ago, I was big on teaching the fundamentals of baseball, imagine, I was an atheist baseball fundamentalist, wow ! My bad.

Religious fundamentalism was reactionary against bobbed hair, jazz, flapper dresses, women’s suffrage and modernity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I suggest not falling for his obvious red herring. It's a defensive tactic with the hopes of getting folks to follow him down an unrelated rabbit hole so that the original topic goes away.

I know. Everything is a plot of the left to destroy this country and fundamentalists are the only guard standing between the chaos of socialism and immorality, and freedom. Rather than deal with the real causes and provide solutions that would help, it is better to create friction and division so that real issues are waved away.

The OP doesn't say that everyone involved in some sort of fundamentalist movement is mentally ill, just that there seems to be a connection. But it is always only one way with people of a certain position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Religious fundamentalism was reactionary against bobbed hair, jazz, flapper dresses, women’s suffrage and modernity.

Most definitely. Old men yelling at clouds to get out of their sky.

 

[sooda]

My understanding is that Christian fundamentalism in the US was also driven by the advent of "higher criticism" of the Bible that gained traction around the turn of the century.

Fear of change.. social or otherwise. Same thing happened in Arabia in 1979 when the Grand Mosque was under siege. It scared the Saudis so bad they went backwards 20 years.

 

[sooda]

I know. Everything is a plot of the left to destroy this country and fundamentalists are the only guard standing between the chaos of socialism and immorality, and freedom. Rather than deal with the real causes and provide solutions that would help, it is better to create friction and division so that real issues are waved away.

The OP doesn't say that everyone involved in some sort of fundamentalist movement is mentally ill, just that there seems to be a connection. But it is always only one way with people of a certain position.

I don't see how in hell teaching the fundamentals of baseball has anything to do with religious fundamentalism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't see how in hell teaching the fundamentals of baseball has anything to do with religious fundamentalism.

It doesn't. It is a false dichotomy used to wave away real observations.

 

[shmogie]

I agree, but ac

Besides a political position, do you have any facts to back this up.

There is 1.2 guns per every person in this country.

The record indicates that mass shootings in this country go back to to the 1920's and active shooter situations in schools goes back to the early 1970's. It does seem like a progression, but there is little understanding of the actual causes, though alienation, politics and the mental health of the shooter are contributing factors.

The shooters are predominantly white males and the average age of those males is decreasing. The weapons of choice are firearms that were not widely available 60 years ago, but are now.

If we want to solve the problem, political divisiveness is not likely to be high on the list of solutions.

actual honesty about reality is needed for a solution.

Americans have owned semi automatic rifles for a century, I have owned one for almost 50 years, they are very, very common.

The AR-15 platform is just another semi automatic rifle, it can do nothing more than mine, I can fire 15 rounds just as fast as it can.

High capacity magazines make it able to fire longer. I can see restricting those, but I view restrictions as just another coil around the body by an Anaconda, progressive, and deadly to the 2nd Amendment. Beto spilled the beans, a semi secret democrat goal has been exposed, confiscation.

The AR-15 is the most popular hunting rifle in the country. It is light, shorter for easier handling, very tough and reliable. Perhaps this popularity puts it in the hands, almost always illegally, of crazy shooters,

Personally, being a fan of classic firearms, I hate the look of the AR-15 and derivatives, I never planned to own one
yet I am thinking of buying one, because I can, and democrats go nuts over them. It would be interesting to have someone try and confiscate it.

I have never believed that an inanimate object is the driving force for people who murder. I believe banning any or all firearms will have little effect on murder rates, they will always be available for people to whom laws mean nothing.

It is a societal problem, and complicated. Every knee jerk reaction to " do something""is a feel good play, that will fail.

The hue and cry now is background checks. Every firearm sold legally has had a background check for it´s new owner for decades. When they fail it is because some government entity had not reported what should have been reported on the check.

Another federal program is stupid, but if it appeases the gun haters for a while so be it.

The issue will never be solved until everyone who has a stake sits down and communicates trying to find a solution acceptable to all.

The place to start, that has jurisdiction would be the House Justice committee chaired by Nadler. Of course it is completely tied pu and wasting time on a dead horse, impeachment.

Obviously mass killings are not important to that committee.

There you go. A dim assessment of political reality, of all politicians, of those who hate the second amendment.

30 years ago the legislators would all work together for a solution, and compromise as required. Today they don´t even speak to each other.

The cultural war over guns will rage on, and it could get very ugly.

The last so called assault rifle ban was rescinded, because it was proven by the DOJ that the ban had no effect on violent crime rates.

 

[sooda]

It doesn't. It is a false dichotomy used to wave away real observations.

A lot has happened in the past 100 years. … like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi, the tablets at Dilmun, the Ugaritic tablets.. wonderful, wonderful information that we never had access to before. Noah Kramer spent 50 years translating the tablets found at Sumer...

Scary, Scary stuff...…….

 

[Jose Fly]

Fear of change.. social or otherwise. Same thing happened in Arabia in 1979 when the Grand Mosque was under siege. It scared the Saudis so bad they went backwards 20 years.

Yup. Interestingly, I was just reading an article about a high school in Georgia ending the practice of broadcasting Christian prayers over loudspeakers before football games, and many of the reactions from local Christians generally mirror what you describe...."but...but...we've always done this".

 

[shmogie]

I don't see how in hell teaching the fundamentals of baseball has anything to do with religious fundamentalism.

Oh, religious fundamentalism ! Isn´t a fundamentalist a fundamentalist ?

I define Christian fundamentalism exactly as the term means. One who attempts to live by the faith as defined in the NT, thus making me a Christian fundamentalist. this is totally logical from the definition of fundamentals, unless now that word has been manipulated to mean something else.