This term “fundamentalism”

Oct 20th, 2008 | By Katie Kish | Category: Commentary

Fundamentalism is one of the most problematic and misread/misused terms in all of the discussions I see about politics and religion, even on this site. It is used in an inappropriate context and is made into an uncontested term. It has been given this really horrible negative condentation… It has been turned into a short hand inprecise pejorative of modernist arrogance. Its like the word terrorism, what are we even talking about anymore when we talk about terrorism? It is automatically assumed that we know what we’re talking about when we say “the war on terror” but what the hell does that even mean?!The easy way of seeing this is to think of where the term fundamentalism *should* be used. To do this we have to look at the history of it. The fundamentalists come from the 19th century. They were against all biblical reforms and humanistic developments. The protestant biblical hermeneutics were threatening classical thinking of the church and the fundamentals were striving to protect that classical way of thinking. The modernizing and liberalizing of the classics resulted in this modern reaction of trying to restore classical and originally revealed words as to access their original knowledge.

Thus it is use most correctly when we are using it in response to liberalizing modern biblical hermaneutics - or to give this some modern condentation, those that strive to keep the constitution in its original form, those that treat it as a pseudo-sacred text and as the inviolable foundations of which the U.S law is based on.

When people start talking about “fundamentalist islamic terrorists” or something of that nature I want to rip my hair out. Not only are the more common areas of Islam *not* fundamental on any level, that entire phrase has almost lost meaning. Its the same as when people refer to the conservatives in the United States as fundamentalists.

The American movement of American Portestantism that came up a centruy after the fundamentalists stressed the infallibility of the Bible, all the way through to historical records, such as creationism and a physical resurrection. However - just because someone is a conservative who doesn’t believe in abortion doesn’t mean they’re a fundamentalist. If you’re refering to a creationist who wants to stone gays and ignore millions of years of history … then fine, throw out the word fundamentalist. But seriously, Fox News, CNN and bloggers everywhere throw the term around like it holds no real context. This is tres stupid, and not to mention, tres annoying. Please stop.

Now I understand the argument that “words change meaning” over time. That is absolutely true…like naughty, the immediate thought with crack, gay, nice, queer, punk, brat, hot (or hawt)… etc. But the issue with fundamentalism is that people are still technically referring to what it *used* to be, it hasn’t changed meaning at all - people still mean it as being a totalistic commitment to something. If people were using the word correctly there wouldn’t be any “fundamentalist atheists” out there…and someone deeply in love with Christ but who is a member of the United Church of Canada also wouldn’t be called a fundamentalist.

[/rant]

Last 5 posts by Katie Kish

Pledge Your Virginity to Your Father - November 9th, 2008
Science Types and Their EQ - November 2nd, 2008
I Used to Love Jesus - October 4th, 2008
Nica’s Nothing Turns Out to be My Something - October 3rd, 2008
Artistically Challenged - August 26th, 2008

Tags: atheism, atheist, christian, Fundamentalism, fundamentalist

7 comments
Leave a comment »

Barry Greenstein October 20th, 2008 2:06 am :
Katie- only been able to skin this right now. Up at 2:00 AM, and my head is playing tricks on me. But this seems like interesting reading. I absolutely agree with your sentiment:

“If you’re refering to a creationist who wants to stone gays and ignore millions of years of history … then fine, throw out the word fundamentalist. But seriously, Fox News, CNN and bloggers everywhere throw the term around like it holds no real context.”

AND

“Thus it is use most correctly when we are using it in response to liberalizing modern biblical hermaneutics - or to give this some modern condentation, those that strive to keep the constitution in its original form, those that treat it as a pseudo-sacred text and as the inviolable foundations of which the U.S law is based on.”

On a humorous note, my personal “dis-favorite” is “fundagelical” because it sounds like the name of a freakin’ candy bar and describes a conflation of “fundamentalism” and “evangelism” that I do think is dangerous (the fundamentalist part. Evangelism is just damned annoying.)

[Reply]
Rodrigo Neely October 20th, 2008 12:14 pm :
Well then I need a word for people who actually believe in their scriptures. All of them. Like a husbands right to beat his wife in Islam, and the condemnation of homosexuality in both the new and old testament in the bible. Because these people exist in large numbers, they influence politics, and they do not write blog posts about making nice with people like you Katie.

[Reply]
katie kish Reply:
October 20th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
i guess you skipped over the part when i said if you’re using it correctly then i see no problem with it. such as referring to people who are actually fundamental about their religions. and i dont write about people “being nice”, rodrigo. I simply don’t see the positive effect that comes out of being an asshole to the assholes. And i write about people being intolerable to those who mind their own business such as people who don’t beat their wives, and don’t believe in every word of the bible yet want to be part of a religion. “these people” may exist in large numbers, but they’re not the only religious ones out there - and I don’t like when people attack everyone in religion based on those people’s demonstrations.

use fundamentalism when it is appropriate - but a lot of people don’t. and then it loses its actual meaning and just tags everyone as a wife beater. you may use it appropriately but others around here and other places, do not.

[Reply]
Rodrigo Neely October 20th, 2008 2:05 pm :
My mistake.

I agree that nothing can be gained from being assholes to assholes, but I do think that Secular Humanism should be promoted, and indeed popularized.

I just don’t know what the best way to go about it.

[Reply]
Barry Greenstein Reply:
October 21st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Rodrigo-

“I just don’t know what the best way to go about it.”

There are times when I am in sheer awe of your humility. Whoah. Sometimes, I have this little existential crisis, and I ask myself if we humanists are the arrogant, judgmental nay-sayers our detractors proclaim us to be. And then, I read something like this. And I think, the best of us question and criticize ourselves as much as we do unto others, because we seek knowledge and we do not want to be ignorant. And in this context, to say “I don’t know” is a skeptic’s highest honor.

Thank you.

[Reply]
Joe Reply:
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
“My mistake.”

The most fundamentally holy thing any one person can say to another.

[Reply]
Butale December 23rd, 2008 2:07 am :
sometimes a word can be overtaken by events to mean what it does not imply,meaning any word can mean the meaning we give it if abused. this does not mean that the word may be bad, however the word fundamentalism may mean what it means if used appropriatly. But even this depends on the perspective and understanding of the individual using it, this implies that the word may be relative from person to person hence differences in the views and feelings expressed by different people.

[Reply]