Probably one of RIA's more controversial topics. You're probably going to get sledged if you're against or for fundamentalism. Personally, I don't like the idea; it strips people of most human rights (especially women) and it never seems to have a positive impact anywhere you look. To me, being a fundamentalist means that you have closed your eyes to logic and scientific reasoning.

UPDATE (23/4/2008): When I first added this topic in 2004, I really meant Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. This list is more of a link to my past, when I was at a low ebb. What I felt about them then doesn't relate to how I feel now. But hey, if you wanna talk about evangelical fundamentalists, then go right ahead.

Hated? Controversial, certainly, and an opinion on either side is likely to get you smacked around a little.

Personally, I think fundamentalists of any stripe, be they Christian, Muslim, or secularists are tiresome and generally not exploring the full potential of their brain. In this I include anyone who see their "truth" as revealed and not subject to discussion, reason, or potential change.

I'm sure this will get me pegged yet again as not being a Christian, and so be it. My faith, and personal belief in God, are exactly that. Personal, and not subject to the railings of "true believers," nor requiring me to constantly and publicly reaffirm.

Love it. . .reminds us that people who seem to have any theological answer for the questions answered (with increasing accuracy) by science have no place in imposing dogma (legal or otherwise) on others. Shite dries faster when exposed (openly) in the sun. . .

No one is a fan of fundamentalism however I have yet to see a post where an Evangelical has supported dissolving the federal government and imposing Christian orthodoxy on the nation through tyrannical measures. I HAVE however heard liberal secularists argue that anyone who doesn't agree with them should be excluded from public discussion and it was their duty to impose their minority opinion on the nation regardless of what the majority of people felt. Once again I just have to point out how weak Daccory's logic is: things are neither good nor evil they just are and it's how we react to them that make our perception of what works and what doesn't work. WHAT? That would be a good defense of implementing just about any tyrannical state. What exactly defines work? If a society works better by exterminating the weak and elderly is that defensible and morally just? You said that things are neither good nor evil right? So it would work better for the masses if we removed the social burden, no? And what would the influence of one's perception be for him to react in a manner that works for everyone if something wasn't intrinsically good nor evil? Or should everyone act in a manner that is only working for oneself? If at all cost please define the penumbral parameters for the term work? Your assertions are frankly ridiculous. I am really embarrassed for you. ********DACCORY, this is why I am embarrassed for you: Your philosophy is based on weak emotion- things you wish were true absent the realities of life. You then fabricate baseless theory from wants instead of ares. Many people on this site continually misrepresent Christianity in general. Though I personally believe Jesus was our Savior it is more important to love thy neighbor above all else: it is much better to live like a moral individual than profess undetered devotion or any skepticism. I don't personally believe Christianity then is the only correct religion. I do believe God is speaking to us through a Natural Law that exists just as much as you and I with- most importantly- our capacity for reason. It is through the cleansing process of reason that the individual and mankind seek the truth. These truths manifest themselves in principles and traditions that structure ordered civilizations. Liberalism eschews all tradition and portends to defend freedom by enunciating rights to earthly desires- this ideology is fatally flawed; and we can see this in your argument. You contend that extermination of the weak and elderly wouldn't work because they can offer society wisdom. But what if they couldn't offer us any earthly benefit whatsoever? What if they were bed ridden and delusional? Or outright insane? Absent from your assertion is an ability to explicitly say direct extermiation of the innocent is an intrinsically evil act- a deviation from God's Law. By developing an argument therefore on the notion of earthly benefits- or workable as you say- one leaves himself trapped while his philosophy deteriorates around the principle of power. What if the vast majority of people felt that it would be workable to exterminate all those detained at insane asylums or bed ridden elderly who can barely speak who offered us no wisdom. What would your argument against the people as a collective body and exterminating them be? What if the majority did deem them a burden- which they are?

Somebody needs to define fundamentalism on this site before anyone starts rating it, because the word means so many different things to so many people. For some, it would apply to Islamic terrorists. For others, it means kind, gentle Christian people. Or, it could be used to describe everyone in-between who has any kind of religious belief system. Some people would call me a fundamentalist just because I believe the Bible is true. But I don't wear that label at all. I'm more of an evangelical.

Given the global reach of the internet, RIA is still an 'infant' website for opinions to be voiced but I do feel sometimes that a small group of reviewers use it as a pulpit, a platform on which to push very nasty ideas under the guise of religion. Religious argument does not argue case, it simply says 'it is' with no supporting evidence. Since there are umpteen religions, Christianity isn't the only 'correct' one. If there were a bunch of Islamicists continually ranting on here, I'd say the same thing about that too...and there might be as the site grows more popular. I believe there IS a creator of all this wonderful universe and every living thing in it is created for a purpose. Claims that only one way is the right way are frankly ridiculous since there are obviously other ways that work too. Things are neither good nor evil they just are - and it's how we react to them that makes our perception of what works and what doesn't work, depending on what our goals are. What happened to love, tolerance and consideration of the other person? I haven't yet seen a single comment from a 'die-hard Christian' on this site that offers any of that to other viewpoints...just nasty, hateful words. Surely that goes against the Bible's message. By all means, it is reasonable to comment on one's faith when appropriate but not in every single posting as some do. UPDATE TO ESCHEW: Maybe I need to explain myself better to avoid misinterpretation and I hope I do so now, if a little longwindedly: I did, in the original post, say that Islamic fundamentalists do the same thing as the fundamentalist Christians: theirs is the religion that condones stoning whilst if you read carefully some postings on this site, fervant Evangelists have said on many occasion that certain 'disbelievers' (eg homosexuals) will be going to hell. I also fail to see how 'liberal' - the very word means freedom - can in any way be harmful to a free, open culture? Unless you have created a fear around it (which fundamentalists do...for them there's always someone or something to fear, eve God himself! - which for me goes AGAINST the word of God) To try and explain what I mean by 'what works and what doesn't; If you want to go direct to New York, you don't make the journey via Hong Kong. You can do it that way, but it would take longer. Neither is right nor wrong but one way will get you there quicker than the other. So taking Lance's point about exterminating the weak and elderly is a good example. It might to some who would prefer to get rid of a burden on society seem right to exterminate the elderly, but does that work, given where society might want to go? What about the loss of experience, wisdom, not to mention all the other things like love, protection, etc? So it is in all our interests and works better if we provide for the elderly so that they can live happier and contribute to society more (generally the elderly hate to feel an encumbrance) How do we then provide this care so that all of us benefit? Similarly, whilst some might judge it useful (or in their interests) to destroy a given people because they are a nuisance, that is not going to work, (think of all the myriad of problems that would lead to) It is best to engage those people and learn to live with them without fear, resulting in tolerance and a better understanding which would prove a better way of making life work. Different outcome but fairer for all. To make a judgment about anyone is not something Jesus would have done. The Bible I believe is a book of healing, Jesus was in his soul a teacher and healer and the parables are meant to guide us in the best way of using our minds and creative ability...(we only understand an eighth of what our brain/minds are capable of doing.) In a closed, limited and moralistic structure of thinking as eschewed by fundamentalist teachers of the Bible, we are unable to open the mind enough to see what immense potential we as people have to create a better harmonious world for ourselves. This is what Jesus meant when he said: you can move mountains. Ask and I shall answer. The Bible is showing us that life is a set of belief patterns that engages us with the world according to our patterns. Another example, You might think that homosexuality is wrong, I don't...it's just another expression of love. Viewed from my perspective, I see yet another wonderful example of God's world, harmless to anyone else and a conduit of greater potential by two people working together as opposed to against each other. Now another person might see it as a threat to their world...I don't know why since that is his belief pattern, but that viewpoint might be based on unnecessary fear. (I believe fear is the 'sin' Jesus spoke about.) Nevertheless, neither view is wrong nor right, but which one works better and contributes to the wellbeing of all involved? This really is the only judgment the individual should make. What's to be embarrassed about?

I don't see where all the flamers are on the fundamentalist side. Their belief in the Bible as historically true and its prophecies inevitable are upsetting to some but I haven't seen the fundamentalists call for the stoning of other RIA reviewers, or condemning them to the fires of hell. Why is it so bothersome what they believe in (Virgin Birth, Armageddon, 2nd Coming of Christ)? Aren't they entitled to their faith? Or is it their faith that is so upsetting, causing many here to characterize them as turning off part of their brains or closing their eyes to logic? Doesn't faith always defy logic, regardless of your religious sect? Are not the Islamofascists more objectionable in the way they act upon their faith? Daccory's silly contention that there is no right or wrong, only things that work, has been dissected by Lance (among many, many thoughtful points) and isn't that the liberal attitude that so many liberal Americans and Europeans adopt, that is so harmful to a free, open culture? Fundamentalists see it and call it wrong. They are lumped into one, fanatical group and characterized as closed-minded and stupid. Maybe they are just not afraid to make the moral judgement.

Definitely a controversial topic. I have made some comments critical of fundamentalists of all stripes, and I have received mail about it. But I will say that so far, the fundamentalists who have written to me to complain have been polite. I suspect that there are many who lurk, not actually writing opinions, but rating opinions they disagree with as unhelpful. I much prefer those who write, because at least I read their opinions and try to see where they are coming from. That doesn't mean I will agree with them, but maybe I could understand.

It makes me tired.

This one is genuinely controversial here--anything you write is bound to get unhelpfuls from whichever side you appear not to support. I won't make you wait long--I think you have to turn off part of your brain to be a fundamentalist of any stripe (and I include some Christians, some Muslims, PETA people, hippies, NRA fanatics, and a number of others who see truth as revealed and not subject to discussion, reason, or potential change)