"The problem with fundamentalist religion isn't the fundamentalism"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I heard this argued in an interview I listened to the other day. One of the participants argued that since a number of religions get more positive or non-aggressive as their adherents become more fundamentalist (the examples he gave were Jainism and Quakerism), when fundamentalism becomes negative, it's because it magnifies existing negative traits in the religion.

I'm not sure how I feel about his argument, so I thought I'd throw it out here for discussion.

Do you agree?

Do problems with fundamentalism indicate that there are also problems with the same religion in its more moderate forms?

Or... as the old saying goes, it's the dose that makes the poison. Are the negative aspects of fundamentalism actually positive when they're "toned down" for the moderate forms of the religion?

 

[LuisDantas]

If we define fundamentalism by resorting to scripture when in a tought spot, then I must disagree. No faith or belief can possibly benefit from favoring scripture over discernment.

 

[Songbird]

Interesting topic. I've never associated fundamentalism with Jainism or Quakers or religions with peaceful reputations. In fact, I've mostly associated it with Christianity and Islam, and I bet I'm not alone. I think the definition has recently wandered away from its original meaning of strict adherence to any set of beliefs (thank you, Wiki) to imply popular religious fervor.

To your question, and applying fundamentalism to any beliefs, I'd say both of your last two paragraphs are true - there are problems with some tenets either moderately or extremely, but some work well in moderation and not in extreme. Religious texts are interpreted and carried out varyingly, and tenets vary by sect. So Quakers interpret Christianity in a way that motivates them to become more peaceful as they become more adherent, but Fred Phelps doesn't.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have to disagree.

Fundamentalists magnify both the positive and negative aspects of a religion. But it's the negative aspects that stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't think fundamentalism necessarily demonstrates inherent problems with the specific religion involved but it can demonstrate inherent problems with religion as a concept.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Saying that fundamentalism isn't the problem stems from the same thinking that guns don't kill people.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I heard this argued in an interview I listened to the other day. One of the participants argued that since a number of religions get more positive or non-aggressive as their adherents become more fundamentalist (the examples he gave were Jainism and Quakerism), when fundamentalism becomes negative, it's because it magnifies existing negative traits in the religion.

I'm not sure how I feel about his argument, so I thought I'd throw it out here for discussion.

Do you agree?

Do problems with fundamentalism indicate that there are also problems with the same religion in its more moderate forms?

Or... as the old saying goes, it's the dose that makes the poison. Are the negative aspects of fundamentalism actually positive when they're "toned down" for the moderate forms of the religion?

I agree. I'd rather see a Buddhist fundamentalist than a Scientologist fundamentalist.

 

[fantome profane]

This raises the question what are the actual fundamentals of Christianity? I find it hard to believe that gay bashing and cutting social programs is the fundamental core of that religion, although so called “fundamentalists” would make it seem so.

 

[Jose Fly]

I heard this argued in an interview I listened to the other day. One of the participants argued that since a number of religions get more positive or non-aggressive as their adherents become more fundamentalist (the examples he gave were Jainism and Quakerism), when fundamentalism becomes negative, it's because it magnifies existing negative traits in the religion.

I'm not sure how I feel about his argument, so I thought I'd throw it out here for discussion.

Do you agree?

Do problems with fundamentalism indicate that there are also problems with the same religion in its more moderate forms?

Or... as the old saying goes, it's the dose that makes the poison. Are the negative aspects of fundamentalism actually positive when they're "toned down" for the moderate forms of the religion?

"Fundamentalism" is a phenomenon that isn't limited to religion. Many non-religious pursuits have those who demand strict adherence to a rigid set of rules and exhibit some of the other traits associated with fundamentalist religion. I've seen people get in fist fights over fly fishing and who was a "true pure fly fisherman" and who wasn't. I've seen similar behaviors over golf, cooking, and even science.

The sorts of behaviors and traits we think of when it comes to religious fundamentalism (strict authoritarian view, adherence to hierarchy, black/white thinking, literalism, intolerance of differing views, etc.) are best seen not from a religious POV, but from a psychological viewpoint. The people who tend towards these traits and behaviors can exhibit them in all areas of life, not just religion.

So to answer the question....No, fundamentalists are not reflective of the larger group or their interest.

 

[RossRonin]

I think it's true that the quality of fundamentalism can always be changed from positive to negative (and vice versa) to some degree, by magnifying some tenets above others.

But that's a broad generalization that seems to overlook a more significant point, which is that non-aggression is more endemic to members of one sect than of another, and that mainly as a result of how prominently a tenor of non-aggression is carried through all a sect's doctrines, and how thoroughly the loopholes for aggressive behavior have been excised, in advance.

There is always that abusive, egomaniacal, self-serving component of human nature to account for! It is either anticipated by the writers of doctrine and thus thwarted (more or less effectively) from the get-go; or it is blithely or naively overlooked; or worst of all, it is craftily infused by the writers of doctrine right into the tenets of their faith, for their own future advantage.

The powers of rationalization, bribery and coercion have always stood ready to corrupt religion, no matter how fundamental or modern its' persuasions. Crafty, unscrupulous popes, for example, have employed the powers of specious logic, promises of wealth and power, and threats of excommunication and destruction to achieve their means for many centuries, pitting king against king, people against people...though it has all been based on a religion which, in its most fundamental terms, preached "Love works no ill to his neighbor" and "Resist not evil, but overcome evil with good."

Would we accuse the papacy of racking up the "negative" aspects of fundamentalism? Or were the fundamental tenets of Christ altogether tromped in the dust, while the Vicars of Christ raged on?

Could a Quaker or Jainist leader be so "fundamentalist" in their beliefs as to wage war in the authority of their doctrines--which are fundamentally doctrines of non-aggression? It seems almost impossible--until you consider that any religious doctrine can be misconstrued and misapplied to an extent limited only by the abuser's intellect and powers of persuasion.

 

[Man of Faith]

If we define fundamentalism by resorting to scripture when in a tought spot, then I must disagree. No faith or belief can possibly benefit from favoring scripture over discernment.

One persons discernment might be different than the next, so having the scripture helps in dertermining what God is telling us. Hence scripture, which is believed to be God's own words should have a higher priority than discernment, or what humans think or feel.

 

[Levite]

I heard this argued in an interview I listened to the other day. One of the participants argued that since a number of religions get more positive or non-aggressive as their adherents become more fundamentalist (the examples he gave were Jainism and Quakerism), when fundamentalism becomes negative, it's because it magnifies existing negative traits in the religion.

I'm not sure how I feel about his argument, so I thought I'd throw it out here for discussion.

Do you agree?

Do problems with fundamentalism indicate that there are also problems with the same religion in its more moderate forms?

Or... as the old saying goes, it's the dose that makes the poison. Are the negative aspects of fundamentalism actually positive when they're "toned down" for the moderate forms of the religion?

I don't think so. I think that you just get a different set of negative consequences-- some of which may be muted because they turn inward and not outward. For example my best friend is working on her PhD in India right now, studying Jain Dharma, and she's told me a little about Jain thought: and it sounds to me like, taken in moderation, it is an excellent and productive way of life; but taken to an extreme, it strikes me as unhealthy and theologically problematic.

I think the kind of inflexibility bred by fundamentalism of any kind is inherently and essentially unhelpful, unproductive, and harmful-- to one degree or another.

 

[LuisDantas]

One persons discernment might be different than the next, so having the scripture helps in dertermining what God is telling us. Hence scripture, which is believed to be God's own words should have a higher priority than discernment, or what humans think or feel.

That is not a stance that I may agree with.

For one thing, things don't seem to happen at all like that in Real Life (TM).

For another, the implication would be that God chose to create scripture that is wiser than human discernment, which I find more than a bit weird as premises go.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Anything that leaves no room for grey areas or independent thought will ultimately lead to bad things.

 

[yourhopeboundheart]

Anything that leaves no room for grey areas or independent thought will ultimately lead to bad things.

particularly when steered by crafty antagonists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have to disagree.

Fundamentalists magnify both the positive and negative aspects of a religion. But it's the negative aspects that stick out like a sore thumb.

But I think that this magnifying effect is what they were getting at: the argument is that fundamentalism simply creates more of what's there in the moderate form, for good or bad. This would imply that a religion that's very bad in its fundamentalist form is only somewhat bad - although still bad - in its moderate form.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting topic. I've never associated fundamentalism with Jainism or Quakers or religions with peaceful reputations. In fact, I've mostly associated it with Christianity and Islam, and I bet I'm not alone. I think the definition has recently wandered away from its original meaning of strict adherence to any set of beliefs (thank you, Wiki) to imply popular religious fervor.

Good point - I guess the meaning of "fundamentalism" depends on who you ask. I was thinking of it in terms of strict adherence... though I know that it can also mean stripping a religion down to its "fundamentals" and reducing emphasis on peripheral beliefs.

As a side note, IIRC, the fundamentalism movement was originally meant to be inclusive and ecumenical: the idea was that by focusing on the "fundamentals" of Christianity... i.e. on what "really" mattered, they'd be able to create more cohesion between Christian groups that were divided by "unimportant" differences.

 

[drsatish]

What is the FUNDAMENTAL
of
ANY
FUNDAMENTAL Problem?
Satish

 

[Man of Faith]

Anything that leaves no room for grey areas or independent thought will ultimately lead to bad things.

You mean like this statement?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You mean like this statement?

So, you agree?