That will teach you to rely on Webster.
From: Gunnar Jauch [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:57 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The fundamentalism Problem
am 25.2.2004 17:41 Uhr schrieb [log in to unmask] unter [log in to unmask]:
> I propose a definition.
> A "fundamentalist" in the perjorative sense is someone who professes to
> accordance with principles or beliefs that she says are of the utmost
> importance to her, compelling or informing major life decisions, where:
> those principles or beliefs are not subject to proof or falsification by
> currently available means; and (ii) the person employing the perjorative
> disagrees with either the principles or beliefs at issue, the decisions
> upon them, or, most frequently, both.
> Tom Kissane
> In a message dated 2/22/2004 10:46:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, Richard
> <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>> Dear List
>> Danger: a tongue is firmly placed in a cheek!!
>> Let's consider this "Fundamentalism" Problem that Gunnar raised. Maybe
>> can find a solution.
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
I fail to see the meaning of "fundamentalism in a pejorative sense" -- since
fundamentalism is incompatible with tolerance, this sounds like a pleonasm.