Talk:Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism not new

I dont mind to write simple. But i wonder if my edits would be liked when i see an article like this... "Religious fundamentalism is a new development in society. People " what is this supposed to mean, now we are targetting simple minds we can tell simple lies? I am political, so i will not destroy this piece of secret service artwork. Otherwise i am not impressed. nero burning christians wasnt fundamentalist, burning witches wasnt? the inquisition wasnt? the slaughter of the madhist armys in the past centurys wasnt? the bloody struggle of the protestants had none to do with it? bs.77.251.189.88 (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the older kind of all-embracing belief is ancient, probably very ancient. What was new was the aggressive re-invasion of a liberal society (the United States in the early 20th century) by a distinctly unliberal politico-religious campaign.

The growth of mass media in the 20th century promoted ideals of democracy and freedom of religion into parts of the world where they were very threatening. Recent islamic fundamentalism can be seen as a reaction to the spread of liberal/democratic ideals from the US (and to some extent UK and France) to the Middle East, where such ideals were seen by some as dangerous. Versions of Islam were very much more tolerant in, say, 1960, than they are now.

Consequently, I think this article is really about the use of the term 'religious fundamentalism' to describe that 20th century phenomenon, not the huge canvas of religious intolerance over the ages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree historical origin of term needs review. CLAUnderwood (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Merging

I've merged Fundamentalism and Religious fundamentalism together because they literally said the same thing - one was copied from the other - with a few extra bits added. I think we it's easiest to cover religious and non-religious/athiest fundamentalism under the one page. Osiris (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Terminology section needs work

Currently "Some people who are called religious fundamentalists do not like that name, as the term has other meanings. They do not like it because 'religious fundamentalist' has some negative ideas about it. Many people who are politically progressive or liberal sometimes do not like religious fundamentalists. They believe bad things about them like that they are not clever, they are not educated, or that they do not respect people's human rights."

Comment: "believe bad things" is not neutral, though I think a well intentioned effort to reflect diverse opinions; but as is, it promotes divisiveness, and is circular evasive wording.

"Some people who are Christian fundamentalists do like that term and use it to name themselves. But they do not like being called religious fundamentalists because Islamic fundamentalists are in this same group."

Comment: what's unsaid but understood is that different varieties of fundamentalists tend to disagree and dispose each other. If this is an inherent element, it should be worth a section. Secondarily, the statement makes clear identification as a 20th century American Christian concept is problematic. CLAUnderwood (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

History section needs work

Currently, "Fundamentalism began as a movement in the U.S., starting among conservative Presbyterian academics and theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the first decade of the Twentieth Century.[12][13] It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations during and immediately following the First World War.[12][13] The movement's purpose was to reaffirm orthodox Protestant Christianity and zealously defend it against the challenges of liberal theology, German higher criticism, Darwinism, and other movements which it regarded as harmful to Christianity.[12][13]

"The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which defined those things that were fundamental to Christian belief. The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals", a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by Milton and Lyman Stewart[12][13]"

If Fundamentalism is just a 20th century American Evangelical anti-modernist term and movement, it would make no sense to use Fundamentalism in reference to some expressions of Islam, Judaism, other religions, or atheism or secular movements, or non 20th century expressions; yet it does, and is so used. CLAUnderwood (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Work needed...

The article may need to be changed, as follows:

• Fundamentalists say that they have scriptures, that tell them what to do. >These scritures do not contain errors, if there are different texts, these texts also do not contradict each other.
• Even though these scriptures may have been translated several times (and there may be several versions), they still think these texts need to be read literally.
• There may be one person, or several people who say how the scriptures need to be seen.
• If there are several views, these people will prefer the "more conservative" option (which most of the time is the older one; so: no sex before marriage, only marriage between man and woman, no abortion, etc)

If rewritten, the differences between Christian fundamentalism, and for example Islamic fundamentalism need to be clearer.

In total, probably a lot of work. Eptalon (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)