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'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?