It makes me laugh how some throw the term "Fundie" around.

A Fundie, so far as I know, is an extreme, right-wing, very NON-LIBERAL individual, yes?

fun·da·men·tal·ism
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

So, that said, it's not likely that a genuine Liberal - one who truly supports progressive causes, is non-religious, and is a genuine supporter of Democratic ideals would actually BE A FUNDIE, right?

Fundies would most likely be found on Freep sites, touting uber-conservative, catchy, talking-head canned rhetoric like "Be a hero save a whale, save a baby, go to jail" or some other sarcastic "conservatives are so persecuted" bulljive. Am I understanding this correctly?

Oddly enough, there are individuals turning up right here in this Democratic, Liberal oasis, spouting CONSERVATIVE JARGON, then calling out card carrying Liberals, and screaming "FUNDIE!"

Huh?

What gives? How weird is that? That would be akin to one of us going over to FreeRepublic and calling a Bush-loving, gay-hating, gun-toting Republican a "dirty Liberal."

In other words, it'd be plain ridiculous.

Do you suppose this is some sort of weird, freepy reverse psychology that the Repukes are using?


Do they not know what "Fundie" even means?

religious text. Christian fundamentalists believe the King James version of the Bible to be absolutely factual and God's word.
It doesn't necessarily describe a political allegiance, but most fundamentalists vote Republican.

A number of DU think fundamentalist and Christian are coterminous. They mistake all religion for that which they see on FOX news.

One thing is sure, you don't find fundamentalists on DU, at least none who admit to being fundamentalist. I find it ridiculous when some address posts to fundamentalists, like a fundamentalist is actually going to be reading their posts.

Certainly, religious people are not necessarily fundamentalist, but in turn, fundamentalists will not be Liberals who frequent DU out of genuine interest in progressive causes.

I'm not sure what all he changed but I remember this being talked about in my church once.

but it is one version, and an English translation. I know if has fewer books than the Catholic Bible. The whole problem of translation exposes the problem of literal interpretations. Some scholars, like Martin Buber, have demonstrated that some of our ideas of Christ's miracles are based on problems of translation. So those who insist on taking everything it says very literally make mistakes and, more importantly, miss the overall message of Christ's life.

The first English translation of Scripture, its interpretation was based on the Latin Vulgate - which itself was a translation of the ancient texts in Hebrew and Greek.

Here's the problem: there were errors in translation in the Vulgate. Therefore, the KJV is a translation of a mistranslation or misrepresentation of scripture. It is also written in now archaic language - and many words no longer hold the same meaning as they once did 500 years ago.

The Revised Standard Version was done sometime in the 1930's. It was the first real attempt to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew, and come up with a good English translation. The New RSV, published in 1990, took an even closer look at the texts. Many of their revisions were looking at matters such as inclusivity: does "man" mean "male," or "all people?", and so on.

If you want the best translation available, go for the NRSV. It is the closest thing to what the text actually says, vs. what people think it says.

Fundies hang on to the KJV for many reasons. But I suspect that the real reason for most of them is fear: "OMG, don't tell me the Bible really doesn't say THAT! Well, I'm going to believe the one I know."

"1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

If you strip "fundy" from its religious connotations and use the adjective "religious fundy", I would say that there can also be "political fundies" or "liberal fundies". Thus you could have "rigid adherence to liberal principles and intolerance of other views".
How tolerant is DU to other views? How tolerant should anyone be of a view which is based on ignorance or bigotry or xenophobia? How often do you find education of the ignorant versus a chorus of "heretic, heretic" (or the code-words here of "freeper or troll").
Does any group really have room for an iconoclast?

who imposes their faith upon politics. These people cannot be reasoned with because "gawd is the only proof I need" and after all, one cannot successfully argue with gawd.

Christian Fundamentalists are generally ultra conservatives who would support destroying the bill of rights in order to create a "Christian Nation" Actually, this strand of religion is not unlike the Taliban as they both want the same things. The only difference is in who's name they want to accomplish it in.

eom

That's why I thought it foolish to see someone bashing Liberal ideas, then caling the Liberals who support them fundies. Chances are, such a person doesn't even know what a fundamentalist is. They must just like name calling?

That's my view as well. The really far out there extremist.

To me they are our version of the Taliban. :shrug: They don't represent real Christianity to me by forcing on it onto other people and actually follow his teachings.

Indeed most fundies are right wing. However, I have known some fundies, those more interested in the New Testament, who are quite liberal. After all, the literal acts of Christ were quite liberal. They are few and far between, but liberal fundementalists do exist.

That's interesting...maybe the freepers were accusing DUers of being Liberal fundamantalists?
Does that mean like a diehard Liberal? Or a Liberal who is also very deeply religious?

And are reflexively screaming at liberals just because we're liberals. I've found that to generally be the case. These are fools who will cut off their nose to spite a liberal time and again(latest example, the nuclear option, what, they don't think they will ever want to filibuster again).

Regular Republicans and conservatives are at least logical and consistent. Neo-cons and freepers are irrational, brainwashed, and completely crazed. That is why I gave up trying to discern their motives long ago. I think it basically comes down to "Rush is against it, so am I" or some such like move by a RW authority figure.

Makes perfect sense. Next time a freeper appears in my line of vision accusing a genuine Liberal of being a fundie, I'll just say, "Hey, Anus. You're fucking nuts."

I bet it will feel LOVELY.
:-)

Thanks for the laugh to go with my morning cup of coffee;)

I do what I can to help my fellow man.

Freepers are just fucking nuts. One cannot rationally explain the behavior of an insane twerp.

"Fundie" is a cloyingly cute abuse of language--used by those who eat "veggies."

The problem is the Dominionist movement--those "Christians" who have politicized their religion. Theocracy Watch is one source of information:

www.theocracywatch.org/relig_inst.htm

This explains Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Charismatics, etc. These sometimes overlapping groups are not inherently political. In fact, some have historical memories of oppression by Established Churches.

Check elsewhere on the site to see how certain "Christians" (Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, the Bob Jones University crowd) moved to take over the Republican party--& take over leadership in religious groups.

Of course, this may be a bit too complex for some.

Except for the veggie part.
(???)

But most certainly the fundamentalism and subsequent invasion of the Republican Party by the individuals you described is chillingly familiar and understood. It is the politicizing of Religion (or Religion as these folks understand it) that many feel is most patently offensive.

Perhaps I ought to pass on your link to the individuals Mad Hound and I were discussing earlier.

Thanks for the info!

Check out one of their legal efforts here:

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.html

Scroll to the bottom of the page and read "The discussion and implications of the restoration act"

reactionaries who insist that the Bible is to be taken literally (according to their own strict, warped interpretation) and who feel it their obligation to impose this view on all of us.

I believe that is the word's etymology. I can see why Republicans would want to obscure this by broadening the definition.

...who can be of any political persuasion.

in the ways it's used today.

Anyone who wants to indulge in a bit of Arab-bashing will instantly spout the phrase "fundamentalist Islam". But the Koran contains chapters about a woman's right to divorce her husband and even to demand sexual satisfaction from him. Not really in keeping with our image of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a pretty fundamental tenet of the Bible, but you don't see the "fundies" paying too much attention to that particular phrase.

One could argue that religious fundamentalists, in practice, tend to be individuals who believe in a literal translation of certain select phrases of their holy text, often to the exclusion of all others.

In this case, ironically, "revisionist" is arguably a more appropriate word.

I personally know several who are and do.

Remember what Jesus preached about justice and compassion.

Or is the Democratic Party for atheists only?

to describe themselves, while DU should certainly be sensitve of those people who use the word and arent part of that group, we shouldnt pretend the word doesnt largely refer to that one group

I think you are overblowing it a bit. There is a legitimate conflict in the word because of what the wacko right has done.

And it was used then, as now, to describe Christians who believe in the fundamentals of the faith. At that time, most fundamentalists voted Democratic. But the constant attacks on fundamentalists have pushed many of them away.

Reading DU, one could easily get the impression that the party is for atheists only.

You must have somehow missed the 9,000 threads about the Pope croaking.

And BTW, this atheist agrees with Richard Dawkins. Fundamentalism is just a symptom. The disease is religion.

:eyes:

In NYC in 1922, Harry Emerson Fosdick preached a sermon "shall the fundamentalists win?" "He argued against doctrinal belief as a requirement for church membership and advocated open admission, so that collectively, through the church, personal and social betterment might be pursued. That sermon and his defense of it brought forth repeated attacks by conservative Presbyterians (including William Jennings Bryan, Democratic candidate for President in 1896 and 1900 and former secretary of state in the Wilson administration). Finally in 1925, he resigned his pulpit.
He had won, however, the support of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. who obtained the pastorate of his own Park Avenue Baptist Church for Fosdick and soon built him the new Riverside church."

Fundamentalism, at its origins was a response to the social gospel of preachers like Washington Gladden, Walter Rauschenbusch, WDP Bliss, and Phillips Brooks (who wrote O little town of Bethlehem). People like Edward and Francis Bellamy (author of the Pledge of Allegiance) were also part of this movement, which was a combination of socialism and christianity.

At least one of the fundamentalist leaders, Bryan, was a Democrat. I am not sure where Rockefeller was politically. Perhaps a Republican, but the Republicans of the time, 1912, were somewhat progressive ala Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and LaFollette.

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1997/55/55h026.html

The Christian History Timeline - The Rise of Fundamentalism: 1870-1950

Growing Concern: 1870-1900


1876
What will eventually be called the Niagara Bible Conference first meets (meeting annually until 1901); it inspires Bible and prophecy conferences nationally, which defend the Bible's verbal inerrancy and promote holiness and premillennialism

1881
Presbyterian theologians B. B. Warfield and A. A. Hodge write "Inspiration," which defends the inerrancy of Scripture; such articles begin to appear increasingly

1889
Moody Bible Institute founded, inspiring the founding of hundreds of Bible institutes and colleges that will become centers of fundamentalism

1892
Charles Briggs, liberal professor of Old Testament at Union Theological Seminary, New York, is convicted of heresy for his liberal interpretations of the Bible

Defining the Issues: 1900-1920


1909
Scofield Reference Bible, whose notes teach dispensationalism and Keswick holiness, published; will become best-selling Bible among fundamentalists

1910-1915
The Fundamentals published; promotes conservative teaching

1910
Northern Presbyterian Church affirms five essential doctrines: inerrancy of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, Christ's substitutionary atonement, his bodily resurrection, and miracles

1919
World's Christian Fundamentals Association formed, the largest and longest-lasting (until the 1940s) international fundamentalist association

1920
Curtis Lee Laws, editor of the Baptist Watchman-Examiner, coins the term fundamentalist

1920
Conservatives in the Northern Baptist Convention organize the Fundamentalist Fellowship to combat spreading liberalism

Public Confrontations: 1920-1930


1923
J. Gresham Machen's Liberalism and Christianity defines liberalism as another religion

1923
Baptist Bible Union formed to gather ...



The rest is subscriber-only...

It simply implies the attempt to return to the fundementals of a given religion. It lends itself to extremism certainly.

have nothing to do with Chrisitanity. They do not adhere to the principles of Christ. If you adhere to those, fine, but these hard right wing Fundies do not. Quit trying to cry Christian persecution. Won't work.

The Dems could successfully reach out to most Christian fundamentalists. There is no reason why one cannot believe in a literal Genesis and also support the Kyoto protocol, for example.

Interesting how one word conjures so many different opinions and responses - all good ones. Thanks guys. This sheds light.

the term fundamentalism doesn't necessarily have to apply to religion. Someone can be fundamentalist in their liberal beliefs - meaning that said beliefs are exempted from reality checks.