am 25.02.2004 19:16 Uhr schrieb [log in to unmask] unter [log in to unmask]:
> I'm not so sure; under the second of your definitions, I imagine you could
> find admirable applications of the term, assuming the right "basic principles"
> are applied. Put differently, choose your own favorite set of "basic
> principles" -- would a "strict and literal adherence to" them be something
> you would condemn? As a product of the Enlightenment, you may hesitate at the
> words "strict" and "literal", but surely there are some principles that could
> be applied that way without offending you? Perhaps not, but for most people I
> suspect the answer is yes.
> That's the point I was getting at: it's the principles, not the manner in
> which they are pursued, that typically drive whether people regard the
> characteristics associated with "Fundamentalism" as a good or bad thing. If
> they conclude it is a good thing, people tend not to call it "Fundamentalism",
> but rather "ideological commitment", "consistency", or some such.
> I am not a Fundamentalist myself, as the term is commonly applied (thought I
> have some principles I suppose I would qualify regarding, under Webster's
> second defintion). While my dominant experience with "Fundamentalism" is the
> unattractive sterotype that doubtless arises from a certain reality (as most
> stereotypes do), I have met and conversed with a number of self-proclaimed
> Biblical fundamentalists, and have found that the run the gamut from tedious
> to engaging, closed-minded to thoughtful (really), and stupid to smart.
> Certainly, they tend to be socially conservative, but even that is not an
> iron-clad rule.
> I suppose what I am saying is, bring your tolerance -- which I know to be a
> deeply-held principle -- to bear with respect to this group. While I am sure
> you will not likely find many soul-mates among them, I believe you would find
> that there is more there than you expect.
> Tom Kissane
> In a message dated 2/25/2004 12:56:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, Gunnar Jauch
> <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>> Dear Tom,
>> in my view, there is no need to re-define fundamentalism.
>> My Webster gives two versions:
>> 1 A strict belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible (or in the
>> Koran, I would add.), and
>> 2 A movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of
>> basic principles.
>> I fail to see the meaning of "fundamentalism in a pejorative sense" -- since
>> fundamentalism is incompatible with tolerance, this sounds like a pleonasm.
couldn't agree more with your gentle reply (b.t.w.: haw are the K's? Long
time no see, give Kelley my love).
It's just that I keep getting the creeps from people justifying capital
punishment or condemning gay marriages by way of the Old Testament. Dubya,
that pompous fart, said we must protect marriage, "the MOST FUNDAMENTAL
institution of civilization."
B.t.w.: MOST FUNDAMENTAL is awful, (hate to sound like William Safire)
"fundamental" being an absolute. Even his speechwriter is a jerk.
No one dare claim to be in possession of the truth. In Fundamentalism there
is no place for the benefit of doubt, uncertainty. No Love -- sad stuff. No
notion that others may have a point, too.
Perhaps even President Bush.
There was an article in one our Weeklys on NY, the way Bloomberg is carrying
Giuliani's ZeroTolerance policy to its extremes by prohibiting smoking and
dancing in public paces (where the hell's a guy supposed to have a smoke, if
not in a bar, for chrissake? Americans have an undeniable tendency towards
There is a State Agency with the Orvellian name "Multi-Agency Response to
Community Hotspots" (MARCH) controlling nightlife, consisting of about a
hundred inspectors, financed with your tax dollar.
Big Brother knows what's good (or bad) for you. A fine of a couple of grands
for possession of an ASHTRAY in your own friggin' OFFICE -- starts to sound
worse than Singapore...