Are all fundamentalists extremists?

[aspen]

If not, what is the difference?

 

[tomwebster]

If not, what is the difference?

What is your definition of "fundamentalist?"

 

[rockytopva]

Hopefully this means .... FUN... damentalist!

 

[lawrance]

I think it's more a way they structure there belief system and it really has nothing to do with true Christianity as it's just fundamentally directed and it's foundation is not in Christ truly but only a worldly structure not a true spiritual one.

From what i have seen all the ones i know are real pushy radical types who start yelling and screaming at me and will not listen to what i have to say at all. they are just like the radical mossies in how they base there beliefs, Simpletons !

I think from who i have talked with there god is really the golden calf but they just don't realise that yet
.
Because they all are not really united in any real way so not all would be extremists.

They like to control people for their own ends by frighting people the world is going to end ect ect.

 

[aspen]

Hopefully this means .... FUN... damentalist!

Yeah, you can never take the fun out of a fundy - that is for sure .....

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Here are my thoughts Aspen .....

The labels "fundamentalist" and "extremist" have become derogatory terms used against folks who may simply be conservative bible believers.

At one time movements like Islam had "extremists and fundamentalists" that were easy to identify , movements like (American) skinheads who were pretending to fly under the Christian banner were on the "extreme right" and were easy to identify etc.

Nowadays it is like any (real) Christian who holds to the "fundamental" and original bible teachings are grouped together with the radicals. Especially by the media who love to hate christianity.

Just some of my thoughts on this topic. Thanks.

 

[Thursday]

Fundamentalist, as I have seen it defined, is mainly a belief in complete orthodoxy and orthopraxy in response to a certain set of beliefs. That, I suppose, could make someone radical if the term radical is strictly defined.

If I had to hazard a guess though, your question has more to do with radical in how it is applied to those who foster violent revolution. It could have to do with strict adherence to beliefs, but you could be strict and isolationist.

 

[Tullius]

If not, what is the difference?

A good intellectual question, but I believe the question itself is wrong in its intention to classify one as good and the other bad, if this is indeed the intention.

I welcome all fundamentalists and extremists, they are good people. People like the suffragetts who fought for equality (sure feminists does not want equality but discrimination against men) but the suffragetts that fought for equal law and not affirmative actions were regarded as extremists fundamentalists.

Take the abolitionist who uses peacefull means to spread the word of God that all humans are equal. Many called these people terrorists and ignorant fundamentalist extremists who would ruin the international economy.

I also welcome the communist and fascist who debate in a civil manner (not use threats, intimidation or violence) because diversity is strenght and much innovation comes from multilateral of cultural and academic conflicts.

The question I think would be interesting is:

Are Fundamentalism only metaphysical and lifestyle choice while extremism contains use of force? and if so is holding fundamentalist beliefs that the majority rejects violent use of the mind, a so called mindcrime?

Maybe I'm loosing the topic, but here is my point.


I think all fundamentalists and extremists are good, the question is if one is willing to use force such as intimidation or violence to spread their message and if they are then this is what makes them bad, not the ideologies itself. For example if some sad little man wishes openly that all muslims or christians would die then okay let him hold that belief. But if he is willing and this is empirically demonstrated that he is to use violence to pursue his belief then he should be jailed or worse. And I also think that this goes collectively too for practical reasons. If a christian sect has used violence and everyone in that sect wants violence and encourage it or failed to stop it within their ranks then they should be collectively punished, but if a sect has one individual that uses violence and the rest of the sect condemmes the violence then only the individual should be hold responsible. Like my opinion about the attack in Norway.

 

[Thursday]

I think all fundamentalists and extremists are good, the question is if one is willing to use force such as intimidation or violence to spread their message and if they are then this is what makes them bad, not the ideologies itself. For example if some sad little man wishes openly that all muslims or christians would die then okay let him hold that belief. But if he is willing and this is empirically demonstrated that he is to use violence to pursue his belief then he should be jailed or worse. And I also think that this goes collectively too for practical reasons. If a christian sect has used violence and everyone in that sect wants violence and encourage it or failed to stop it within their ranks then they should be collectively punished, but if a sect has one individual that uses violence and the rest of the sect condemmes the violence then only the individual should be hold responsible. Like my opinion about the attack in Norway.

The question is then is this: how responsible are the progenitors of revolutionary ideas are for the atrocities committed by their adherents? I suppose it would have to be judged on a case by case basis.

 

[veteran]

Here are my thoughts Aspen .....

The labels "fundamentalist" and "extremist" have become derogatory terms used against folks who may simply be conservative bible believers.

At one time movements like Islam had "extremists and fundamentalists" that were easy to identify , movements like (American) skinheads who were pretending to fly under the Christian banner were on the "extreme right" and were easy to identify etc.

Nowadays it is like any (real) Christian who holds to the "fundamental" and original bible teachings are grouped together with the radicals. Especially by the media who love to hate christianity.

Just some of my thoughts on this topic. Thanks.

That's the more correct definition. Fundamentalist is simply a term used in a derogatory manner for a Bible believing Christian, BY those in the world who hate that they will not get on the New World Order beast kingdom boat!

The fact that the same ones who use that word Fundamentalist against Bible believing Christians in a derogatory fashion as they also do for Islamic extremists, reveals the godless unbelieving Socialist-Communist's play on words to try and smear. It's a very old political game. Socialists and Communists use it a lot.

 

[aspen]

A good intellectual question, but I believe the question itself is wrong in its intention to classify one as good and the other bad, if this is indeed the intention.

I welcome all fundamentalists and extremists, they are good people. People like the suffragetts who fought for equality (sure feminists does not want equality but discrimination against men) but the suffragetts that fought for equal law and not affirmative actions were regarded as extremists fundamentalists.

Take the abolitionist who uses peacefull means to spread the word of God that all humans are equal. Many called these people terrorists and ignorant fundamentalist extremists who would ruin the international economy.

I also welcome the communist and fascist who debate in a civil manner (not use threats, intimidation or violence) because diversity is strenght and much innovation comes from multilateral of cultural and academic conflicts.

The question I think would be interesting is:

Are Fundamentalism only metaphysical and lifestyle choice while extremism contains use of force? and if so is holding fundamentalist beliefs that the majority rejects violent use of the mind, a so called mindcrime?

Maybe I'm loosing the topic, but here is my point.


I think all fundamentalists and extremists are good, the question is if one is willing to use force such as intimidation or violence to spread their message and if they are then this is what makes them bad, not the ideologies itself. For example if some sad little man wishes openly that all muslims or christians would die then okay let him hold that belief. But if he is willing and this is empirically demonstrated that he is to use violence to pursue his belief then he should be jailed or worse. And I also think that this goes collectively too for practical reasons. If a christian sect has used violence and everyone in that sect wants violence and encourage it or failed to stop it within their ranks then they should be collectively punished, but if a sect has one individual that uses violence and the rest of the sect condemmes the violence then only the individual should be hold responsible. Like my opinion about the attack in Norway.

What a thought-provoking post! Thank you! I will respond when I have more time.

blessings!!

That's the more correct definition. Fundamentalist is simply a term used in a derogatory manner for a Bible believing Christian, BY those in the world who hate that they will not get on the New World Order beast kingdom boat!

The fact that the same ones who use that word Fundamentalist against Bible believing Christians in a derogatory fashion as they also do for Islamic extremists, reveals the godless unbelieving Socialist-Communist's play on words to try and smear. It's a very old political game. Socialists and Communists use it a lot.

I agree it has become a derogatory term, but I think it started out as a positive reaction to theological liberalism and eventually, Modernism. In our post-modern world, I tend to see both modernism and fundamentalism as characters of a bygone age. There is simply no way to recognize multiculturalism within the framework of either paradigm - and like it or not, we live in a diverse world of ideas.

 

[[email protected]]

Hey Aspen, I like your quote about Bush's foot. As with some true things, it is humorous as well.

I am attaching to this post some highlights from a rather chilling article in the Huffington Post. The writer, believe it or not, was sympathetic to the exercise of our religion. Bad times do indeed make strange bedfellows.

---------------------------------quote follows---------------------------------------------
We are increasingly hearing from the Obama administration and some members of Congress that we need to be really concerned about "homegrown terrorists" and "Christian extremists".

For example, during a recent Congressional hearing U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee warned that "Christian militants" might try to "bring down the country" and that such groups need to be investigated.

In addition, according to a shocking document obtained by Oath Keepers, the FBI is now instructing store owners to report many new forms of "suspicious activity" to them. According to the document, "suspicious activity" now includes making "extreme religious statements" and believing in "radical theology".
Not only that, a Department of Homeland Security report* on "right wing extremism" from April 2009 lists the following people as potential terrorists....
-those that believe in "end times" prophecies
-those that believe abortion is wrong
-those that stockpile food, ammunition or weapons
-those that are against same-sex marriage
-those that believe in "New World Order" conspiracy theories

I don't know about you, but when the federal government starts targeting people based on their religious beliefs, that makes me very nervous.
-Michael Snyder - BLN Contributing Writer
(from a column on "conspiracy nuts")
(*) Huffington Post 08/29/11