As people spoke of me, I was a fundamentalist. But was I?
I noticed earlier that my wording was completely ***** up.
See my edited post.
You're just too fast for me!
They can't, and shouldn't. Just because he drinks and socializes at the bar with alcoholics, and even identifies himself with his "buds" down at Louie's Salon and proudly considers himself one of them, spewing forth the same drunken drivel they do in an attempt to fit in with the culture, doesn't mean he actually an alcoholic himself.
In this case, the analogy is confusing rather than illuminating.
It sounds like "not all fundamentalists are fundamentalists".
It is? I would say that anyone who exposes themselves to unhealthy environments is running a potential risk. "Gosh, you seem like you're drinking an awful lot more these days down at Louie's with the drunks then you used to", would be reason for concern, even if they haven't picked up the disease in themselves yet. Otherwise, if they're managing to keep themselves together despite hanging out with the drunks, then as you say so far there's no trouble for them doing it.
Analogy problem again.
Again, you don't know what truly is going on inside someone. When the "signs" start to show, the sickness is well established. But it starts without the signs. Until then, the best we can tell is that they're still healthy, despite them hanging around with the drunks in an unhealthy environment and culture.
But neither do you know what is going on inside someone.
To pronounce someone mentally ill without outward signs of dysfunction isn't productive.
Moreover, these folk would take offense, which is counter-productive.
Not at all. Fundamentalism is not a valid form of religion.
I thought I'd covered the problem of differing definitions of "fundamentalism" earlier.
(It's hard to keep track of so many discussions in so many threads.)
But in case I hadn't, I go with dictionary.com....
noun
1. ...a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts, especially within American Protestantism and Islam.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.
Who is the authority on things supernatural to say that this type of religious belief is invalid?
I'm not saying they're right.
(I disagree strongly with them.)
But I don't see their flavor of religion as significantly less cromulent than others.
Not every religion is fundamentalist, and not every religious person is fundamentalist, even those who go to fundamentalist churches.
I agree.
We all know that religions can range from nebulous spirituality to literal scriptural interpretation (ie, fundamentalism).
I don't see that this has ever been disputed.
But it is you who is saying they don't have a problem because you don't see it. That is flawed reasoning.
I disagree. If no problem manifests itself, then what is there to treat? Where is the illness?
I've discussed just this issue with my many tenants who are psychologists, psychiatrists, analysts & social workers.
(I'm that kind of landlord....I talk too much, & want to understand their business, & get to know them.)
The general professional approach is that if one is happy, healthy, & in no way suffering from some particular state of mind, then one isn't mentally ill.
Am I wrong.
Possibly.
But I've heard no good argument that mere fundamentalism equates to clinical mental illness.
(I will say fundies are loopy, but that's a different matter. Btw, they think I'm loopy too.)
Someone only starts to show symptoms of the flu after they are infected. Until then, neither you nor I can say they have the flu. We don't know until they show symptoms.
I don't accept this analogy.
Infection with the flu virus has unavoidable medical consequences.
Fundamentalist religious beliefs don't always lead to such.
