Talk:Religious fundamentalism

Original author : User:Stevertigo

We can gather that from the history, Steve.

The article was quite biased in many places. As to the paragraphs below: the first strikes me as not NPOV (and I'm not sure how to rewrite it so that it says something that can be attributed to anyone other than Stevertigo). Besides, it probably belongs in an article about Christian fundamentalism in the United States or (if we have something to say about Jewish or Muslim fundamentalists in the U.S. under the title "fundamentalism") religious fundamentalism in the United States. As to the second paragraph, I wasn't sure what this had to do with fundamentalism, and it struck me as, again, an idiosyncratic observation that is so vague that I'm not sure how we would decide that it is NPOV.

The excised paragraphs follow. --Larry Sanger


 * The above example is emblematic of many powerful socio-political issues that can unify a large number of people who otherwise bear many differences. These groups may not agree on most other issues, but may find a common ideological and political agenda, and put aside their religious differences for the political purpose of advancing such agenda. Oftentimes, that commonality is a direct reflection of the similarities between religions. For example, though Christian fundamentalists may object to the core beliefs of Islam, they can find similarly conservative and historically related social values in Islamic and Jewish fundamentalists.

I understand, and I feel gratified that the rewrite is better than what was there. Included in the area of fundamentalism is the politics and agendas that underly action on specific issues, and I was also unclear on how to add this without going off on a tangent. I would suggest fundamentalism as a disambiguation page leading to here, should I actually come up with a different kind of fundamentalism. As for putting a particular stamp upon things... I will take that with a Grain of salt

-Stevertigo

Thanks for the gracious reply, Steve. --Larry Sanger


 * Fundamentalists, in this sense, have engaged in criticism of more liberal movements, such as William Jennings Bryan's famous prosecution of a teacher for teaching evolution in the Scopes Trial, and ongoing opposition to the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade.

This sentence is ambiguous. I read it first as "liberal movements, such as William Jennings Bryan's famouse prosecution of a teacher for teaching evolution". DanKeshet

I take it you mean that you couldn't figure out what it meant so that you could simply change it...? :-) --Larry Sanger

LOL - Ill tell you what IM itching to change, is those capital 'F's along the bottom there. Capitals are used for specific, specified names, and to date I know of none to date, unless its minor, and therefore not fundamental to the discussion. Sv

Well, I used the capital "F" to specify the original use of the term (or, it's my impression that it's the original use--I don't know where I got that impression). But I don't own this article; go ahead and change them, if you think that they detract. --Larry Sanger

Yessir. sv


 * There has been ongoing opposition to the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade.Arguably, an even wider array of issues than these are deeply informed by Fundamentalist religious views in the U.S. 

Considering the fact that the Roman Catholics were the earliest and are still the most influential leaders in the anti-abortion movement (consider the papal encyclical, Evangelium Vitae), maybe this sentence could be adjusted somehow ... unless it's the intention to imply that Roman Catholicism is Religious fundamentalism? Mkmcconn


 * Fundamentalism generally refers to the strict adherence by people to doctrine, and that doctrine to be held in higher esteem over other doctrines

I don't know what this sentence means, from the comma to the end of the sentence, so I can't fix it. Mkmcconn

I'm just going to be bold, and suggest that this entry promises to become flypaper for stereotypes. I don't know how to fix it, because the subject it treats is so personally distant and faceless, that I can't figure out who is being spoken of. This was fixed a little when someone recently added facts about The Fundamentals, but (maybe it's just me) these very relevant facts seem not to be what people have in mind when they undertake to describe "Fundamentalism". Mkmcconn


 * I repent of all my criticisms, given the tremendous improvements made by recent contributions. Wiki works. Mkmcconn

-

It seems to me that we have developed two identical articles - this one (religious fundamentalism) and Fundamentalism. This subject requires one page for a general overview, which can link to pages on specific fundamentalist groups. The trouble is that that we seem to already have two separate overview pages! I thus vote for moving all of the content from this entry, and moving it over to (and integrating it with) the Fundamentalism entry. This entry could then be deleted. We should, of course, keep the specific articles on Islamic Fundamentalism and the Islamist movement, on fundamentalist Christianity, and on fundamentalist Judaism, Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox. These should be linked to from within the main article. Any thoughts? RK


 * I agree. What's the wiki way to do that?  Merge the content to separate articles? Mkmcconn


 * The content can be copied from here, and pasted into the article on Fundamentalism. Much of the pre-existing content there already exists in this version, and thus much of the older material can be erased. The remaining material can be integrated as necessary. I am just waiting to see if anyone else has any other thoughts to add before making this change. RK