Fundamentalism

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Undid revision 5558493 by Assfef (talk)this is not wikipedia)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Other uses}}
+
{{Whoops|Bat Fuck Insane}}
{{Merge to|Religious fanaticism|date=April 2012}}
 
   
'''Fundamentalism''' is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against [[Liberal Christianity|Modernist theology]], primarily to promote continuity and accuracy. <ref>George M. Marsden, "Fundamentalism and American Culture", (1980)pp 4-5</ref> The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the [[Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy]] of that time.<ref>Buescher, John. "[http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24092 A History of Fundamentalism]", [http://www.teachinghistory.org ''Teachinghistory.org''], accessed August 15, 2011</ref> The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.<ref>{{cite journal | title = Beyond Theology: Toward an Anthropology of "Fundamentalism" | journal = American Anthropologist | date = Jun 2001 | first = Judith | last = Nagata | volume = 103 | issue = 2| id = | accessdate = 2011-01-13}}</ref> "Fundamentalism" is sometimes used as a [[pejorative]] term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "right-wing fundamentalists").<ref>{{cite book |last=Harris |first=Harriet |title=Fundamentalism and Evangelicals |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |year=2008 |isbn=0-19-953253-2 |oclc=182663241}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |first=Roland |last=Boer |editor=Tony Bennett, Lawrence Grossberg, Meaghan Morris and Raymonnd Williams |title=Fundamentalism |encyclopedia=New keywords: a revised vocabulary of culture and society |publisher=[[Blackwell Publishing]] |location=[[Cambridge, Massachusetts]] |year=2005 |pages=134–137 |isbn=0-631-22568-4 |oclc=230674627 57357498 |url=http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/newkeywords/PDFs%20Sample%20Entries%20-%20New%20Keywords/Fundamentalism.pdf |format=PDF|accessdate=2008-07-27}}</ref>
+
'''Fundamentalism''' is the most absolutely right point-of-view in existence. In fact, it is actually the '''only''' point of view that anybody has, except for a few (meaning: most of the planet) heathenistic [[Satan]]-worshipping infidels, but their opinions don't count for anything (similar to [[women]] and [[Gay]] people).
   
==Christian==
+
=Fundamentalism in Practice=
{{Main|Christian fundamentalism}} {{See also|Evangelicalism}}
+
Fundamentalism is fun AND mental!
Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among [[conservative]] [[Presbyterian]] theologians at [[Princeton Theological Seminary]] in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the [[Baptists]] and other denominations around 1910-1920. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of [[Liberal Christianity|liberal theology]] and [[higher criticism]].<ref>Mark A. Noll, ''A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada'' (1992) pp 376-86</ref>
 
   
The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the [[Niagara Bible Conference]] (1878–1897), which defined those tenets it considered ''fundamental'' to Christian belief. The term was popularized by the ''[[The Fundamentals]]'', a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by the brothers Milton and [[Lyman Stewart]]. This series of essays came to be representative of the "[[Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy]]", which appeared late in the 19th century within some Protestant denominations in the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the ''General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church'', which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":<ref>George M. Marsden, "Fundamentalism and American Culture", (1980) part III</ref>
+
{{q|This joke made me feel more humiliated on [[Mentalist|another page]]|Osama bin Laden|Being Mocked}}
  +
{{q|I know what you mean, it's so great having someone who really understands me. I love you Osama|L. Ron Hubbard |Being Mocked}}
  +
{{q|In fundamentalist Russia, Sinner stones YOU!!|Fundamentalist Russia|biblical law}}
  +
It primarily involves finding a piece of writing that you love so much that you could never imagine being without it, and sticking it up your fundament. It may hurt, it may lead to painful side affects, but there is nothing more praiseworthy than someone with the word of God so deeply lodged in them that even medical science would have a hard time removing it!
   
* The [[Biblical inspiration|inspiration]] of the Bible and the [[inerrancy]] of scripture as a result of this.
+
FREDDY PHELPS! READ THE NEW BOOK ''Go Ask [[Fred Phelps]].
* The [[Virgin birth of Jesus|virgin birth]] of Christ.
 
* The belief that Christ's death was the [[Atonement in Christianity|atonement]] for sin.
 
* The bodily [[resurrection of Christ]].
 
* The historical reality of [[Miracles attributed to Jesus|Christ's miracles]].
 
   
By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists." In practice, the first point regarding the Bible was the focus of most of the controversy.
+
=History=
  +
Fundamentalism has no official history, because it has always existed and always will exist because it is right (Okay, I said it, now put down the sword... please?). Something can only have history if it falls within the boundaries of [[time]], and since rightness is eternal, there can be no history. However, some history has occurred. Around 2000 years ago some character with long hair from Israel claimed that maybe God loves everyone, but true rightness quickly prevailed over him and he was terminated.
  +
There are many other histories that are absolutely correct to various people. Most of these are complete [[bullshit]]. They include:
  +
*The idea that the universe was sneezed out by the great green arkleseizure
  +
*The idea that the universe consists of atoms
  +
*The idea that dinosaurs are dead
  +
*The idea that Uncyclopedia is the source of all truth
  +
In fact, the universe was sneezed out by the lesser YELLOW arkleseizure of latter day Wisconsin, and therefore consists of nasal cheese, upon which astral dinos feed.
  +
Uncyclopedia, as everyone knows, is only full of true lies, and will soon be sued by the [[governator]].
   
It is important to distinguish between "Fundamentalism" as the name of a militant style and "fundamentalism" as a theology.
+
=Fundamentalism Today=
  +
Fundamentalism is embodied today by such absolutely righteous organizations such as [[Islam]] and the [[Mormon Church]]. In recent years, Satan has been attracting more people to his evil position, but God hates them anyways so they will all burn in hell. People like [[George W. Bush]] and [[Fred Phelps]] are leading modern-day crusades to expand the absolutely, undoubtfully right truth that is Fundamentalism.
   
Fundamentalist groups generally refuse to participate in events with any group that does not share its essential doctrines. In contrast, Evangelical groups, while they typically agree on the theology "fundamentals" as expressed in ''The Fundamentals'', often are willing to participate in events with religious groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines.<ref>Carpenter, ''Revive us Again'' (1997) p 200</ref>
+
=Fundamentalists Love Tolerance=
  +
Fundamentalists, or '''fundies''' as the like to be called, love everybody on this God-created Earth. They especially love new ideas and scientifically proven concepts, especially evolution (see [[Hell]]), which all of them believe should ''certainly not'' be shoved down the throats of small school children along with Intelligent Design and Creationism, but, rather, be presented as the best scientific theory for the origin of life. In that sense, these so-called "fundies" believe fully-heartedly that [[God]] has commanded them to be respectful of other people's beliefs and refrain from bringing disagreements to the Supreme Court. It is also well-known that they love to engage in intelligent discussion of controversial issues. Their primary form of communication is speaking in tongues (ooogaboogacadooga), which they believe is the ideal language for debate. They are known for being quite talented in the field of linguistics as well.
  +
==Fundamentalism and Hypocrisy==
  +
Some Satan-worshipping foolish infidels (who will certainly burn in [[Hell]]) have started to spread the ridiculous view that Fundamentalists (a.k.a. [[God]]'s servants on Earth) are somewhat hypocritical about some issues. This is about as true as [[Scientology]]. As with most issues, fundamentalists always wish to protect the unborn life (if they are not gay), but obviously you want to execute those bloody drug dealers and murderers? Their logic: The Word (i.e., the [[Bible]]) says so.
   
==Islamic==
+
Fundamentalists are also known for ragging on Catholics and, well, everyone else for being too dogmatic and legalistic, yet have no issue with telling the majority of the world's population that they are going to [[Hell]] to burn for eternity. 10 out of 9 fundamentalists see no logical flaw in this practice. 10 out of 10 fundamentalists spend at least four hours per day with their own fists deep within their asses, because God said it felt good.
{{Main|Islamic fundamentalism}}
 
The [[Shiite]] and [[Sunni]] religious conflicts since the 7th century created an opening for radical ideologists, such as [[Ali Shariati]] (1933–77), to merge social revolution with Islamic fundamentalism, as exemplified by Iran in the 1970s.<ref>William E. Griffith, "The Revival of Islamic Fundamentalism: The Case of Iran", ''International Security,'' June 1979, Vol. 4 Issue 1, pp 132-138 [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2626789 in JSTOR]</ref> Islamic fundamentalism has appeared in many counties;<ref>Lawrence Davidson, ''Islamic Fundamentalism'' (Greenwood, 2003)</ref> the [[Wahhabi]] version is promoted worldwide and financed by [[Saudi Arabia]].<ref>Natana DeLong-Bas, ''Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad'' (Oxford University Press, 2008)</ref>
 
   
The [[Iran hostage crisis]] of 1979-80 marked a major turning point in the use of the term "fundamentalism". The media, in an attempt to explain the ideology of [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] and the [[Iranian Revolution]] to a Western audience described it as a "fundamentalist version of Islam" by way of analogy to the Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S. Thus was born the term "Islamic fundamentalist", which would come to be one of the most common usages of the term in the following years.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.google.com/archivesearch?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=Islamic+fundamentalist&scoring=n&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1990&as_hdate=1991&lnav=d4&hdrange=1992,2005|title=Google News Search: Chart shows spikes in '79 (Iran hostage crisis), after 9/11 and in '92 and '93 (Algerian elections, PLO).|accessdate=2008-12-09}}</ref>
+
[[Image:Fundamentalism.gif|left|thumb|178px|Fundamentalism today.]]
   
==Hindu==
+
=Random Facts About Fundamentalists=
{{See also|Hindutva|Ayodhya dispute}}
 
Hinduism is a conglomeration of distinct intellectual or philosophical points of view, rather than a rigid common set of beliefs,<ref> Georgis, Faris (2010). Alone in Unity: Torments of an Iraqi God-Seeker in North America. Dorrance Publishing. p. 62. ISBN 1-4349-0951-4. http://books.google.com/books?id=vFZrxLjtiI8C&pg=PA62.</ref> thus the basic definition of fundamentalism cannot apply to Hinduism considering that it does not contain any fundamental thoughts to abide to.{{OR|date=July 2012}}
 
   
The allegations such as "A recent phenomenon in India has been the rise of Hindu fundamentalism that has led to political mobilization against Muslims. After eight years of agitation, Hindu fundamentalists destroyed the 450-year-old [[Babri Mosque]] in December 1992. The [[Shiv Sena]] is a political party founded in 1966 originally to express Hindu fundamentalism. It is allied with the nationalistic [[Bharatiya Janata Party]].<ref>Sumit Sarkar, ''Beyond Nationalist Frames: Postmodernism, Hindu Fundamentalism, History'' (2002)</ref>" are considered mere speculation and are thought to be aimed at disrupting Hindu nationalist groups such as the Shiv Sena, [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]] and others.<ref>PTI (2009-11-24). "Sudarshan contests Liberhan's claim : India: India Today". Indiatoday.intoday.in. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/72219/India/Sudarshan+contests+Liberhan%27s+claim.html. Retrieved 2011-01-26.</ref>
+
* They are always correct, or if not they blow themselves up to make people believe they are.
  +
* They are good at making bombs but not much else.
  +
* They have one book in their houses. Unfortunately, most of them are [[illiterate]]
  +
* History dictates that they are shit at predicting the end of the world.
  +
* Despite being the most immoral people on earth; they are, in their view the most moral people in all the galaxies.
  +
* Secretly they all want to see what it's like in the butt.
  +
* Because of their [[homophobia]], they have bad haircuts, regard [[polyester]] as a proper fabric, have ghastly colour co-ordination and don't think [[inbreeding]] is wrong
  +
* They have frequent nightmares about being chased down darkened corridors by (deep breath) giant [[African-American]] [[socialist]] [[climate change]] believer [[lesbian]] [[feminist]] [[death metal]] [[devil]]s with sharpened pitchforks (or whatever variant is natural for other contexts than the United States).
   
==Non-religious==
+
[[category:God]]
Some Christian theologians, some fundamentalists, and others pejoratively refer to any philosophy which they see as literal-minded or they believe carries a pretense of being the sole source of objective truth as ''fundamentalist'', regardless of whether it is usually called a [[religion]]. For instance, the [[Archbishop of Wales]] has criticized "atheistic fundamentalism" broadly<ref name="McGrath 2007">[[Alister McGrath]] and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, ''The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine'', [[Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge]] (SPCK), February 15, 2007, ISBN 978-0-281-05927-0</ref><ref name=autogenerated5>[http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/press/display_press_release.php?prid=4542 Yr Eglwys yng Nghymru | The Church in Wales<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite news| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7156783.stm | work=BBC News | title='Atheistic fundamentalism' fears | date=December 22, 2007 | accessdate=May 3, 2010}}</ref> and said "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous,"<ref>http://www.atheistnation.net/news/?atheist/article,00139</ref> He also said, "the new fundamentalism of our age... leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours."<ref>BBC News, 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears - 22 December 2007,
+
[[Category:Vital articles]]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7156783.stm</ref>
 
 
In ''[[The New Inquisition]]'', [[Robert Anton Wilson]], recognized [[episkopos]], pope, and saint of the parody religion [[Discordianism]], lampoons the members of skeptical organizations like the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP—now the [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]]) as fundamentalist materialists, alleging that they dogmatically dismiss any evidence that conflicts with [[materialism]] as hallucination or fraud.<ref>Pope [[Robert Anton Wilson]], ''[[The New Inquisition]]: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science''. 1986. 240 pages. ISBN 1-56184-002-5</ref>
 
 
In France, the imposition of restrictions on some displays of religion in state-run schools has been labeled by some as "secular fundamentalism".<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/12/19/edscarf_ed3_.php "Secular fundamentalism,"] [[International Herald Tribune]], December 19, 2003
 
</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3405453.stm "Headscarf ban sparks new protests,"] [[BBC News]], January 17, 2004</ref> In the United States, private or cultural intolerance of women wearing the [[hijab]] (Islamic headcovering) and political activism by Muslims also has been labeled "secular fundamentalism" by some Muslims in the U.S.<ref>Ayesha Ahmad, [http://www.islamonline.net/english/News/2002-04/23/article17.shtml{{dead link|date=May 2011}} Muslim Activists Reject Secular Fundamentalism], [[IslamOnline]], April 22, 1999. See also [http://www.minaret.org/dinner5.pdf Minaret of Freedom 5th Annual Dinner, Edited Transcript], Minaret of Freedom Institute website.</ref> {{dead link|date=May 2011}}
 
 
The term "fundamentalism" is sometimes applied to signify a counter-cultural fidelity to some simplistic principle, as in the pejorative term "[[market fundamentalism]]" applied to an exaggerated religious-like faith in the ability of unfettered laissez-faire or free market economic views or policies to solve economic and social problems. According to economist [[John Quiggin]], the standard features of "economic fundamentalist rhetoric" are "dogmatic" assertions and the claim that anyone who holds contrary views is not a real economist. Retired professor in religious studies Roderick Hindery first lists positive qualities attributed to political, economic, or other forms of cultural fundamentalism.<ref>Hindery, Roderick (2008). [http://propagandaandcriticalthought.com/RHComparativeEthicsArticle2008.htm "Comparative Ethics, Ideologies, and Critical Thought"]</ref> They include "vitality, enthusiasm, willingness to back up words with actions, and the avoidance of facile compromise." Then, negative aspects are analyzed, such as psychological attitudes, occasionally elitist and pessimistic perspectives, and in some cases literalism.
 
 
===Atheist===
 
{{See also|Criticism of atheism|Scientific imperialism}}
 
The term "atheistic fundamentalism" is controversial. In December 2007, the [[Archbishop of Wales]] [[Barry Morgan]] criticized what he referred to as "atheistic fundamentalism", claiming that it advocated that religion has no substance and "that faith has no value and is superstitious nonsense."<ref name=autogenerated5 /><ref name="autogenerated1" /> He claimed it led to situations such as councils calling Christmas "[[Winterval]]", schools refusing to put on [[nativity play]]s and [[cross]]es removed from chapels, though others have disputed this.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/christmas2007/story/0,,2230951,00.html | work=The Guardian | location=London | title=Sorry to disappoint, but it's nonsense to suggest we want to ban Christmas | first=Polly | last=Toynbee | date=December 21, 2007 | accessdate=May 3, 2010}}</ref> Winterval was a name given to a whole series of winter festivals, and was not a renaming of Christmas.
 
 
In ''[[The Dawkins Delusion?]]'', [[Christian theology|Christian theologian]] [[Alister McGrath]] and his wife, [[psychologist]] Joanna Collicutt McGrath, compare [[Richard Dawkins]]' "total dogmatic conviction of correctness" to "a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged."<ref name="McGrath 2007"/>
 
 
Richard Dawkins has rejected the charge of "fundamentalism," arguing that critics mistake his "passion"&mdash;which he says may match that of evangelical Christians&mdash;for an inability to change his mind. Dawkins asserts that the atheists' position is not a fundamentalism that is unable to change its mind, but is held based on the verifiable evidence; as he puts it: "The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe" in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will."<ref name="autogenerated3" /> Dawkins has stated that, unlike religious fundamentalists, he would willingly change his mind if new evidence challenged his current position.<ref name="autogenerated3">Richard Dawkins, [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece "How dare you call me a fundamentalist: The right to criticize ‘faith-heads’,"] [[The Times]], May 12, 2007</ref>
 
Put another way, Dawkins states:
 
:...Maybe scientists are fundamentalist when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by 'truth'. But so is everybody else. I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to dispute it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that...<ref>Chris Lawrence 2009, http://thinkingmakesitso.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/delusion-delusion-2/ quoting Richard Dawkins: The God delusion, Bantam, 2006, p282.</ref>
 
 
==Criticism==
 
{{Refimprove section|date=August 2008}}
 
Many criticisms of fundamentalist positions have been offered. One of the most common is that some claims made by a fundamentalist group cannot be proven, and are irrational, demonstrably false, or contrary to scientific evidence. For example, some of these criticisms were famously asserted by [[Clarence Darrow]] in the [[Scopes Monkey Trial]].
 
 
Sociologist of religion [[Tex Sample]] asserts that it is a mistake to refer to a [[Muslim]], [[Jewish]], or [[Christian]] Fundamentalist. Rather, a fundamentalist's fundamentalism is their primary concern, over and above other denominational or faith considerations.<ref>Tex Sample. Public Lecture, Faith and Reason Conference, San Antonio, TX. 2006.</ref>
 
 
A criticism by [[Elliot N. Dorff]]: "In order to carry out the fundamentalist program in practice, one would need a perfect understanding of the ancient language of the original text, if indeed the true text can be discerned from among variants. Furthermore, human beings are the ones who transmit this understanding between generations. Even if one wanted to follow the literal word of God, the need for people first to understand that word necessitates human interpretation. Through that process human fallibility is inextricably mixed into the very meaning of the divine word. As a result, it is impossible to follow the indisputable word of God; one can only achieve a human understanding of God's will."<ref>Dorff, Elliot N. and Rosett, Arthur, A Living Tree; The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law, SUNY Press, 1988.</ref>
 
 
A criticism of fundamentalism is the claim that fundamentalists are selective in what they believe. For instance, the [[Book of Genesis]] dictates that when a man's brother dies, he must marry his widowed sister-in-law.<ref>[http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen038.html BLB (KJV) Gen 38<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Yet fundamentalist Christians do not adhere to this doctrine because there are laws considered addressed to the nation of Israel. The following passage is where the law comes from and it relates to the Israelite not being blotted out.
 
 
<blockquote>"If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. (NIV [[Deuteronomy]] 25:5-7)"</blockquote>
 
 
However, according to [[New Testament]] theology, parts relating to sins, such as animal sacrifices ([[Book of Exodus|Exodus]] 29:36) and dietary concerns, are not normative for modern Christians; this is related to the view that Christ sanctified and fulfills the Law for the person.<ref name=AFAC>{{cite book|last=Stuard-will|first=Kelly|title=A Faraway Ancient Country.|year=2007|publisher=Gardners Books|location=United States|isbn=978-0-615-15801-3|pages=216|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=q469xc7mbksC&lpg=PA1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false|author=Emissary|editor=Karitas Publishing}}</ref>
 
 
<blockquote>"Sacrifice a bull each day as a sin offering to make atonement. Purify the altar by making atonement for it, and anoint it to consecrate it. (NIV Exodus 29:36)"</blockquote>
 
 
Jesus is considered the fulfillment of the law.
 
 
<blockquote>"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (NIV [[Gospel of Matthew]] 5:17)" </blockquote>
 
 
They may also cite passages such as {{bverse|Colossians|2:13-23}}.
 
 
<blockquote>"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.</blockquote>
 
 
<blockquote>Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.</blockquote>
 
 
<blockquote>Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."
 
</blockquote>
 
 
[[Howard Thurman]] was interviewed in the late 1970s for a BBC feature on religion. He told the interviewer, "I say that creeds, dogmas, and theologies are inventions of the mind. It is the nature of the mind to make sense out of experience, to reduce the conglomerates of experience to units of comprehension which we call principles, or ideologies, or concepts. Religious experience is dynamic, fluid, effervescent, yeasty. But the mind can't handle these so it has to imprison religious experience in some way, get it bottled up. Then, when the experience quiets down, the mind draws a bead on it and extracts concepts, notions, dogmas, so that religious experience can make sense to the mind. Meanwhile religious experience goes on experiencing, so that by the time I get my dogma stated so that I can think about it, the religious experience becomes an object of thought."<ref>An Interview With Howard Thurman and Ronald Eyre in ''Theology Today'', Volume 38, Issue 2 (July 1981). [http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1981/v38-2-criticscorner1.htm PTSEM.edu]</ref>
 
 
Tom O'Golo declares that fundamentalists that use violence to further their cause contravene the root truth of all faiths:
 
{{quote|A genuine fundamentalist is also a radical, someone who tries to get the root of the matter. A major weakness with many or perhaps most radicals is not that they don't dig, but that they don't dig deep enough. Consequently many fundamentalists end up defending or acting upon beliefs which are not really at the heart of their doctrine. For example any religious fundamentalist who harms others in the pursuit of his or her radicalism is strictly out of order as no true religion ever encounters anything but love, tolerance and understanding. 'Thou shalt not kill' is at the heart of all genuine faiths, certainly the [[Abrahamic religions|three based upon Abraham and God]]. That trio comprehensively condemns intentional harm to others (and to the self as well) for what ever reason. Dying to protect one's faith is acceptable; killing to promote it isn't. Arguably, it is blasphemous to say that God needs an earthly army to fight Its battles, or perform Its revenge. God is quite capable of fighting Its own battles.<ref name=Golo>{{cite book|title=Christ? No! Jesus? Yes!: A radical reappraisal of a very important life|author=Tom O'Golo|year=2011|page=105}}</ref>}}
 
 
[[Albert Camus]] opposed both Nazi [[fascism]] and [[Stalinist]] communism, leading to a split with [[Jean-Paul Sartre]]. In the ''[[Myth of Sisyphus]]'' he developed the concept of philosophical suicide. This is any ideological system or belief that claims to bridge the gap between man's yearning for absolute unity versus what he saw as the inherent irrational nature of the universe.{{Citation needed|date=July 2011}}
 
 
Influential criticisms of Fundamentalism include [[James Barr (biblical scholar)|James Barr]]'s books on Christian Fundamentalism and [[Bassam Tibi]]'s analysis of Islamic Fundamentalism.
 
 
There are also some criticisms against the political usage of the term ‘fundamentalism’. ‘Fundamentalism’ has been often used by a political group to attack their political enemies. The term would be used flexibly depending on the political interests and context of the time. According to Judith Nagata, a professor of Asia Research Institute in the National University of Singapore, “The Afghan ''mujahiddin'', locked in combat with the Soviet enemy in the 1980s, could be praised as ‘freedom fighters’ by their American backers at the time, while the present Taliban, viewed, among other things, as protectors of American enemy Osama bin Laden, are unequivocally ‘fundamentalist.’<ref>Nagata, Judith. 2001. ''Toward an Anthropology of “Fundamentalism."'' Toronto: Blackwell Publishing, p.9.</ref>”"
 
 
==Controversy==
 
{{Refimprove section|date=January 2009}}
 
The [[Associated Press]]' ''[[AP Stylebook]]'' recommends that the term fundamentalist not be used for any group that does not apply the term to itself. A great many scholars have adopted a similar position.<ref>[http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/may/12/can-anyone-define-fundamentalist/ "Can anyone define 'fundamentalist'?] Terry Mattingly, ''Ventura County Star'', May 12, 2011, Accessed 2011-08-06.</ref> A good many scholars, however, use the term in the broader descriptive sense to refer to various groups in various religious traditions including those groups that would object to being classified as fundamentalists. That is the way that the term is used in ''[[The Fundamentalism Project]]'' by Martin Marty, et al., from the University of Chicago.<ref>See, for example, Marty, M. and Appleby, R.S. eds. (1993). ''Fundamentalisms and the State: Remaking Polities, Economies, and Militance.'' John H. Garvey, Timur Kuran, and David C. Rapoport, associate editors, Vol 3, The Fundamentalism Project. University of Chicago Press.</ref>
 
 
[[Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement)|Christian fundamentalists]], who generally consider the term to be pejorative when used to refer to themselves, often object to the placement of themselves and Islamist groups into a single category given that the fundamentals of Christianity are different from the fundamentals of Islam. They feel that characteristics based on the new definition are wrongly projected back onto Christian fundamentalists by their critics.
 
 
Many Muslims protest the use of the term when referring to [[Islamist]] groups, and object to being placed in the same category as Christian fundamentalists, whom they see as theologically incomplete. Unlike Christian fundamentalist groups, Islamist groups do not use the term fundamentalist to refer to themselves. [[Shia Islam|Shia]] groups which are often considered fundamentalist in the western world generally are not described that way in the Islamic world.
 
 
==See also==
 
{{portal|conservatism}}
 
{{colbegin|2}}
 
*[[Catholic Traditionalism]]
 
*[[Evangelicalism]]
 
*[[Faith-sufferer]]
 
*[[Fundamentalist Christianity]]
 
*[[Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy]]
 
*[[The Fundamentalism Project]]
 
*[[Fundie]]
 
*[[Historical-grammatical method]]
 
*[[Haredi Judaism]]
 
*[[Ideologies]]
 
*[[Independent Fundamental Baptist]]
 
*[[Indoctrination]]
 
*[[Islamic fundamentalism]]
 
*[[Islamism]]
 
*[[Jack Chick]]
 
*[[Jesus Camp]] (documentary)
 
*[[Pentecostalism]]
 
*[[Sectarianism]]
 
*[[Seventh-day Adventist Church|Seventh-day Adventism]]
 
*[[Sola scriptura|Sola Scriptura]]
 
{{colend}}
 
 
==Citations and footnotes==
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
 
==References==
 
* Appleby, R. Scott, Gabriel Abraham Almond, and Emmanuel Sivan (2003). ''Strong Religion''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-01497-5
 
* Armstrong, Karen (2001). ''[[The Battle for God]]: A History of Fundamentalism''. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-39169-1
 
* Brasher, Brenda E. (2001). ''The Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism''. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-92244-5
 
* Caplan, Lionel. (1987). "Studies in Religious Fundamentalism". London: The MacMillan Press Ltd.
 
* Dorff, Elliot N. and Rosett, Arthur, ''A Living Tree; The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law'', SUNY Press, 1988.
 
* Keating, Karl (1988). ''Catholicism and Fundamentalism''. San Francisco: Ignatius. ISBN 0-89870-177-5
 
* Gorenberg, Gershom. (2000). ''The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount.'' New York: The Free Press.
 
* Hindery, Roderick. 2001. ''Indoctrination and Self-deception or Free and Critical Thought?'' Mellen Press: aspects of fundamentalism, pp.&nbsp;69–74.
 
* Lawrence, Bruce B. ''Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt against the Modern Age.'' San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.
 
* Marsden; George M. (1980). ''Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925'' Oxford University Press.
 
* Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby (eds.). ''The Fundamentalism Project''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 
** (1991). ''Volume 1: Fundamentalisms Observed''. ISBN 0-226-50878-1
 
** (1993). ''Volume 2: Fundamentalisms and Society''. ISBN 0-226-50880-3
 
** (1993). ''Volume 3: Fundamentalisms and the State''. ISBN 0-226-50883-8
 
** (1994). ''Volume 4: Accounting for Fundamentalisms''. ISBN 0-226-50885-4
 
** (1995). ''Volume 5: Fundamentalisms Comprehended''. ISBN 0-226-50887-0
 
* Noll, Mark A. ''A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada''. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
 
* Ruthven, Malise (2005). "Fundamentalism: The Search for Meaning". Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280606-8
 
* Torrey, R.A. (ed.). (1909). ''The Fundamentals''. Los Angeles: The Bible Institute of Los Angeles (B.I.O.L.A. now [[Biola University]]). ISBN 0-8010-1264-3
 
* "Religious movements: fundamentalist." In Goldstein, Norm (Ed.) (2003). ''The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law 2003'' (38th ed.), p.&nbsp;218. New York: The Associated Press. ISBN 0-917360-22-2.
 
{{reflist}}
 
 
==External links==
 
{{Wiktionary|fundamentalism}}
 
*[http://swordofthelordbook.com The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family, book by Andrew Himes]
 
*[http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/may/12/can-anyone-define-fundamentalist/ Can Anyone Define Fundamentalist?] Article by [[Terry Mattingly]] via [[Scripps Howard News Service]]
 
* {{In Our Time|Fundamentalism|p00545gy|Fundamentalism}}
 
*[http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1502/1502Watson.htm Richard Dawkins' ''The God Delusion'' and Atheist Fundamentalism] by Simon Watson, published in [http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/home.html Anthropoetics XV,2 Spring 2010]
 
*[http://www.awid.org/eng/content/download/62360/695057/file/Shared%20Insights%20-%20Women's%20rights%20activists%20define%20RFs.pdf Shared Insights: Women's Rights Activists Define Religious Fundamentalisms]
 
*[http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2006-1530&page=8 The Appeal-and Peril-of Fundamentalism ] by Dr. [[Bert B. Beach]]
 
*[http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/ ''The Fundamentals''] not complete at 2011-07-26.
 
*[http://web.archive.org/web/20030101082327/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm ''The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth''] Online version of "The Fundamentals", not complete at 2011-07-26.
 
*[http://lecturesoncentralasia.blogspot.com/2005/08/thoughts-on-religious-fundamentalism_22.html Thoughts on "Religious Fundamentalism" Identity]
 
*[http://www.icapi.org International Coalition Against Political Islam]
 
*[http://www.rawa.org Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)]
 
*[http://www.ntpi.org No to Political Islam]
 
*[http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejcmmsm/article/index.html Psychological Issues of Former Members of Restrictive Religious Groups] by Jim Moyers
 
*[http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1004/p25s1-wosc.html Q & A on Islamic Fundamentalism]
 
*[http://www.blessedquietness.com/ www.blessedquietness.com] a conservative Christian website, maintained by Steve van Natten
 
*[http://waf.gn.apc.org/ Women Against Fundamentalism (UK)]
 
*[http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=gis The Rise of Religious Violence]
 
*[http://www.montrealmuslimnews.net/fundamentalism.htm Yahya Abdul Rahman's Take On Fundamentalists And Fundamentalism]
 
*[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/home/news-and-notices/news/press-releases/release-archive/releases-2007/fundamentalism-11072007.shtml Roots of Fundamentalism Traced to 16th Century Bible Translations], [[Harvard University]], November 7, 2007.
 
* [http://www.athenaintelligence.org/aij-vol3-a18.pdf The Fundamentalist Distortion of the Islamic Message] by Syed Manzar Abbas Saidi, published in [http://www.athenaintelligence.org/spip.php?rubrique11&lang=en Athena Intelligence Journal]
 
* [http://ibcsr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=176:religion-is-a-celebration-of-excellence-review-of-born-rich&catid=25:research-news&Itemid=59 Fundamentalism linked to intimate partner violence]
 
* [http://www.ukapologetics.net/evangelicalism.htm Evangelicalism - Fundamentalism; WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?]
 
 
{{See also|List of new religious movements}}
 
{{philosophy of religion}}
 
{{Philosophy topics}}
 
 
[[Category:Religious fundamentalism| ]]
 
 
[[ar:أصولية]]
 
[[an:Fundamentalismo relichioso]]
 
[[ast:Fundamentalismu relixosu]]
 
[[bn:মৌলবাদ]]
 
[[zh-min-nan:Goân-lí-chú-gī]]
 
[[be:Фундаменталізм]]
 
[[be-x-old:Фундамэнталізм]]
 
[[bg:Фундаментализъм]]
 
[[bs:Fundamentalizam]]
 
[[ca:Fonamentalisme]]
 
[[cs:Fundamentalismus]]
 
[[cy:Ffwndamentaliaeth]]
 
[[da:Fundamentalisme]]
 
[[de:Fundamentalismus]]
 
[[et:Fundamentalism]]
 
[[el:Φονταμενταλισμός]]
 
[[eml:Fundamentalisum religiåus]]
 
[[es:Fundamentalismo]]
 
[[eo:Fundamentismo]]
 
[[eu:Fundamentalismo]]
 
[[fa:بنیادگرایی]]
 
[[hif:Fundamentalism]]
 
[[fr:Fondamentalisme]]
 
[[fy:Fûnemintalisme]]
 
[[ga:Bunúsaíocht]]
 
[[gl:Fundamentalismo]]
 
[[ko:근본주의]]
 
[[hr:Vjerski fundamentalizam]]
 
[[id:Fundamentalisme]]
 
[[ia:Fundamentalismo]]
 
[[is:Bókstafstrú]]
 
[[it:Fondamentalismo]]
 
[[he:פונדמנטליזם]]
 
[[kk:Фундаментализм]]
 
[[la:Fundamentalismus]]
 
[[lv:Fundamentālisms]]
 
[[lt:Fundamentalizmas]]
 
[[hu:Fundamentalizmus]]
 
[[ms:Fundamentalisme]]
 
[[mwl:Fundamentalismo]]
 
[[nl:Fundamentalisme]]
 
[[ja:原理主義]]
 
[[no:Fundamentalisme]]
 
[[nn:Fundamentalisme]]
 
[[oc:Fondamentalisme]]
 
[[pnb:مڈپوجا]]
 
[[ps:بنسټپالنه]]
 
[[pl:Fundamentalizm]]
 
[[pt:Fundamentalismo]]
 
[[ro:Fundamentalism religios]]
 
[[rue:Реліґійный фундаменталізм]]
 
[[ru:Фундаментализм]]
 
[[sah:Фундаментализм]]
 
[[scn:Funnamintalismu]]
 
[[simple:Religious fundamentalism]]
 
[[sk:Fundamentalizmus]]
 
[[sl:Fundamentalizem]]
 
[[sr:Фундаментализам]]
 
[[sh:Vjerski fundamentalizam]]
 
[[fi:Fundamentalismi]]
 
[[sv:Fundamentalism]]
 
[[tl:Pundamentalismo]]
 
[[ta:அடிப்படைவாதம்]]
 
[[th:ความเชื่อมูลฐานทางศาสนา]]
 
[[tr:Köktendincilik]]
 
[[uk:Релігійний фундаменталізм]]
 
[[ur:بنیاد پرستی]]
 
[[za:Yenzgyaucijcujyi]]
 
[[vi:Trào lưu chính thống]]
 
[[fiu-vro:Fundamentalism]]
 
[[war:Pundamentalismo]]
 
[[yi:פונדאמענטאליזם]]
 
[[bat-smg:Fondamentalėzmos]]
 
[[zh:原教旨主義]]
 

Revision as of 21:18, August 2, 2012

Whoops! Maybe you were looking for Bat Fuck Insane?

Fundamentalism is the most absolutely right point-of-view in existence. In fact, it is actually the only point of view that anybody has, except for a few (meaning: most of the planet) heathenistic Satan-worshipping infidels, but their opinions don't count for anything (similar to women and Gay people).

Fundamentalism in Practice

Fundamentalism is fun AND mental!

“This joke made me feel more humiliated on another page
~ Osama bin Laden on Being Mocked
“I know what you mean, it's so great having someone who really understands me. I love you Osama”
~ L. Ron Hubbard on Being Mocked
“In fundamentalist Russia, Sinner stones YOU!!”
~ Fundamentalist Russia on biblical law

It primarily involves finding a piece of writing that you love so much that you could never imagine being without it, and sticking it up your fundament. It may hurt, it may lead to painful side affects, but there is nothing more praiseworthy than someone with the word of God so deeply lodged in them that even medical science would have a hard time removing it!

FREDDY PHELPS! READ THE NEW BOOK Go Ask Fred Phelps.

History

Fundamentalism has no official history, because it has always existed and always will exist because it is right (Okay, I said it, now put down the sword... please?). Something can only have history if it falls within the boundaries of time, and since rightness is eternal, there can be no history. However, some history has occurred. Around 2000 years ago some character with long hair from Israel claimed that maybe God loves everyone, but true rightness quickly prevailed over him and he was terminated. There are many other histories that are absolutely correct to various people. Most of these are complete bullshit. They include:

  • The idea that the universe was sneezed out by the great green arkleseizure
  • The idea that the universe consists of atoms
  • The idea that dinosaurs are dead
  • The idea that Uncyclopedia is the source of all truth

In fact, the universe was sneezed out by the lesser YELLOW arkleseizure of latter day Wisconsin, and therefore consists of nasal cheese, upon which astral dinos feed. Uncyclopedia, as everyone knows, is only full of true lies, and will soon be sued by the governator.

Fundamentalism Today

Fundamentalism is embodied today by such absolutely righteous organizations such as Islam and the Mormon Church. In recent years, Satan has been attracting more people to his evil position, but God hates them anyways so they will all burn in hell. People like George W. Bush and Fred Phelps are leading modern-day crusades to expand the absolutely, undoubtfully right truth that is Fundamentalism.

Fundamentalists Love Tolerance

Fundamentalists, or fundies as the like to be called, love everybody on this God-created Earth. They especially love new ideas and scientifically proven concepts, especially evolution (see Hell), which all of them believe should certainly not be shoved down the throats of small school children along with Intelligent Design and Creationism, but, rather, be presented as the best scientific theory for the origin of life. In that sense, these so-called "fundies" believe fully-heartedly that God has commanded them to be respectful of other people's beliefs and refrain from bringing disagreements to the Supreme Court. It is also well-known that they love to engage in intelligent discussion of controversial issues. Their primary form of communication is speaking in tongues (ooogaboogacadooga), which they believe is the ideal language for debate. They are known for being quite talented in the field of linguistics as well.

Fundamentalism and Hypocrisy

Some Satan-worshipping foolish infidels (who will certainly burn in Hell) have started to spread the ridiculous view that Fundamentalists (a.k.a. God's servants on Earth) are somewhat hypocritical about some issues. This is about as true as Scientology. As with most issues, fundamentalists always wish to protect the unborn life (if they are not gay), but obviously you want to execute those bloody drug dealers and murderers? Their logic: The Word (i.e., the Bible) says so.

Fundamentalists are also known for ragging on Catholics and, well, everyone else for being too dogmatic and legalistic, yet have no issue with telling the majority of the world's population that they are going to Hell to burn for eternity. 10 out of 9 fundamentalists see no logical flaw in this practice. 10 out of 10 fundamentalists spend at least four hours per day with their own fists deep within their asses, because God said it felt good.

Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism today.

Random Facts About Fundamentalists

  • They are always correct, or if not they blow themselves up to make people believe they are.
  • They are good at making bombs but not much else.
  • They have one book in their houses. Unfortunately, most of them are illiterate
  • History dictates that they are shit at predicting the end of the world.
  • Despite being the most immoral people on earth; they are, in their view the most moral people in all the galaxies.
  • Secretly they all want to see what it's like in the butt.
  • Because of their homophobia, they have bad haircuts, regard polyester as a proper fabric, have ghastly colour co-ordination and don't think inbreeding is wrong
  • They have frequent nightmares about being chased down darkened corridors by (deep breath) giant African-American socialist climate change believer lesbian feminist death metal devils with sharpened pitchforks (or whatever variant is natural for other contexts than the United States).
Personal tools
projects