07 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672Does this mean you have finished your contributions in this thread ?
I think the time is right for no1 to expound on the Founders' deism, or lack thereof, and to give us their perspective on religion in government beyond what's expressed in the Constitution.
No1, take it away...
07 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeActually, I was using your definition with the term "literal" being explained in detail.
[b]Marauder: "Please give an example of "liberalism" (which kind?) adhering to a strict and LITERAL basic principle. Such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authoritative text which must be believed to be without the possibility of error."
Ho ho ho .... you are implicitely using your own definition of what constitutes ...[text shortened]... en proposed by others in this thread. Which ones do you want to incorporate in your definition ?[/b]
EDIT: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThis depends. You don't have to take this literally, of course .... 😉.
They must interpret something literally. What?
Fascists do not have "authoritative" scriptures as far as I know. The interpretation of their or other people's texts necessarily don't have to be literal ..... I think ...
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThis isn't exactly my definition yet, but who knows ....
Actually, I was using your definition with the term "literal" being explained in detail.
EDIT: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"
What is your definition ?
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe dictionary definition you gave is good enough for me; there's seems little sense in having dictionaries if we're unwilling to accept that the definitions in them are to be used as standard. I'm not much into semantics; if a word has a widely accepted standard meaning, I'm willing to use it in that way.
This isn't exactly my definition yet, but who knows ....
What is your definition ?
I would still maintain that the phrase "secular fundamentalist" makes no sense unless you can point to an authoritative text that the SF could interpret "strictly and literally" (literal comes from the Latin word "litteralis" meaning "of a letter" does it not?).
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by sonhouseRight. Is "trying to take over a government an adequate and necessary criterium in establishing somebody is a "fundamentalist" and thus a criterion in your definition of what constitutes a "fundamentalist" ?
What do they call that argument? Strawman I think.
I'm sure child pornographers would like to take over the
government too but that doesn't invalidate my point.
And the lack of real argument here makes me think you WANT
fundamentalists to control everyone's lives. If that happened I would
make myself a volunteer at McMurdo Station.
07 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseSonhouse: "They all have one thing in common: Extreme pressure on people to convert."
I think fundamentalists are defined among other aspects, by their
desire to make their religion a government. I think the
Christian right would qualify in that regard as well as the
muslim extremists as in Iran or the Afghan Taliban.
They all have one thing in common: Extreme pressure on
people to convert.
So, this would be a criterion in your definition in order to establish whether someone is a fundamentalist or not ? Correct ?
07 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "The dictionary definition you gave is good enough for me .... "
The dictionary definition you gave is good enough for me; there's seems little sense in having dictionaries if we're unwilling to accept that the definitions in them are to be used as standard. I'm not much into semantics; if a word has a widely accepted standard meaning, I'm willing to use it in that way.
I would still maintain that the ph ...[text shortened]... rally" (literal comes from the Latin word "litteralis" meaning "of a letter" does it not?).
What is your opinion regarding the other criterions proposed by various people in this thread to establish what a "fundamentalist" is ?
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom your previous post a few of your(?) criteria can be distilled:
Actually, I was using your definition with the term "literal" being explained in detail.
EDIT: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"
- a fundamentalist must adhere to a strict and literal basic principle.
- such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authorative text, which must be believed to be without the possibility of error.
Marauder, do you adhere to the above criteria or not ?
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Nicolaas: "Individual views are important, but so is accepting other people views as well."
I would like to refocus this thread and stop Ivanhoe from asking people what their definition of this odd thing or that odd thing is. You guys are screwing around, parsing words, and beating around the bush.
Ivanhoe, do you or do you not agree with Nicolaas's statement that accepting the views of others is important?
The above statement is perfectly acceptable. I support it.
07 Dec 05
1 edit
Interesting that so many people's paragon of a "fundamentalist" Muslim is either someone from the Taliban or a group like Al Qaeda. So many scholars think their ideologies are NOT based on a proper (or even literal) interpretation of Islamic texts, in toto.
Does something similar apply with Christianity?
07 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes.
From your previous post a few of your(?) criteria can be distilled:
- a fundamentalist must adhere to a strict and literal basic principle.
- such a basic principle to be literal must be stated in some sacred or authorative text, which must be believed to be without the possibility of error.
Marauder, do you adhere to the above criteria or not ?
07 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeNever heard of Mein Kampf? Never heard of the Red Guards and their devotion to the Little Red Book?
Fascists do not have "authoritative" scriptures as far as I know. The interpretation of their or other people's texts necessarily don't have to be literal ..... I think ...
To be sure, when Stalin, Hitler or Mao gave orders, I don't think their lackeys had too much room for interpretation. (Mussolini, I'm not sure). Since fascists take their orders directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak, there is no need for any text, even though their writings received from some quarters the adulation ordinarily reserved for more venerable texts.
Other texts may also serve. The Nationalists in my country used the Bible to their own ends. Perhaps they even believed their own lies; I cannot tell.