To me it is a term used to belittle someone for there religious beliefs. That pisses me off. As you can see from some who have responded, it is exactly what they mean. For the record, I am a lapsed Catholic who only goes to church for weddings and funerals.
“Fundie” is in itself not a derogatory term and is identical to “fundamentalist”–the trouble is that being a fundamentalist is a retrograde thing to be. Fundies are superstitious, credulous, primitives who reject the use of reason in favor of obedience to their pastors who tell them what to think.
People who say that speak out of ignorance, and are themselves not applying reason.
And I say that as someone who does NOT consider himself to be a fundamentalist.
How so? To take only one fundie tenet, they believe that the world was created by magic 6,000 years ago with all the life forms we see today. Tell me that’s not BS superstition.
I’ve heard the term “fundie” used in a non-pejorative context. Often used because it is shorter to say (and, on the Internet shorter to type.)
Well, it seems most fundamentalists self-identify as fundamentalists, don’t they?
(I self-identify as an atheist, and that’s hard to spell (people always seem to flip the e and the i). If someone wanted to start typing athy instead, that wouldn’t bother me, though usually the people who are trying to insult me as an atheist start adding whole words instead of taking away letters. :D)
If someone uses the term “fundie” to refer to themselves or their position, can I use it, too?
Yes, I use “fundie” as a pejorative… just as I would use other terms that factually describe a position I see as repugnant, such as “homophobe” or, as has been mentioned, “white supremacist” (or, to invoke Godwin, “fascist,” although I try to be careful to only use these terms when they truly apply).
However, since it was first pointed out to me that “fundie” is more insulting than necessary, I’ve tried to use “fundamentalist” when I mean “fundamentalist,” since “fundamentalist” means exactly the same thing. All “fundie” adds is a millisecond of time not spent typing and an ad hominem attack. Since I often would be wrong to use the term “fundamentalist” to describe “people who believe things that I don’t see any evidence for,” I more often use “theist” now in the general, and “some theists” when I’m describing particularly wacko beliefs.
BTW, if you want to call me an “athy” (for “atheist”) or a “rashy” (for “rationalist”) or maybe a “freethy” (for “freethinker”), feel free. I’ve had plenty of people tell me I’m going to hell (or the equivalent) for failing to believe in their particular deity of choice, or that I must be an immoral scumbag who eats babies for breakfast if I don’t belong to a church, so any negative connotations of a slang term seem mild in comparison.
You may disagree with the claim that the world was created by a supreme deity, but that doesn’t make it “BS superstition” (and FTR, a great many of them do NOT believe that this happened a mere 6000 years ago). Indeed, rejecting that claim outright says more about your mindset than theirs.
Moreover, even if we grant that this belief is incorrect, that doesn’t mean that they “reject the use of reason in favor of obedience to their pastors who tell them what to think” (to use your exact words). It would mean that their reasoning is incorrect, but that does not mean that they reject the user of reason. It most certainly does not mean that they simply swallow everything that their pastors teach.
Again, let’s review your specific accusation, i.e. that they “reject the use of reason in favor of obedience to their pastors who tell them what to think.” There are a great many fundamentalists–Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, Peter Stoner and the like–who came to these beliefs because they felt that this was warranted by the historical and/or scientific evidence. These people most certainly do NOT reject the use of reason, despite your impassioned and heartfelt claim that they do.
Get that straight. You may object to every shred of their reasoning. Heck, you may even be correct in doing so. That does not mean that they reject the use of reason, for they most certainly do not.
In the above sentence, replace “fundie” with “wop”, and “fundamentalist” with “Italian”. See how it reads now.
I’m taking no position on fundamentalist per se. But I think “fundie” is always used on this board in a derogatory context and, as was pointed out above, is the only derogatory term allowed here.
But that would require making certain compromises. One way to define fundamentalism is the refusal to make those compromises.
Ilsa_lund:
Bzzzzzt! Fundamentalism is not analagous to race. You cannot make assumptions about how a person thinks based on their race. Fundamentism a set of opinions and the stubbornness with which adherants cling to those opinions in the face of reason.
No comparison. Choice of beliefs and acting on those beliefs is a voluntary activity, nationality and race, pretyy obviously, isn’t.
So there IS a fundie gene! Who knew? (Point being, comparing people who share a belief with people who share inherited traits is about as apples and oranges as you can get.)
I see now. Fundamentalists are as they are due to a defective gene which impairs their ability to reason. In that case ‘fundie’ is an abusive term and we should stop using it. But only when they stop trying to impose their asinine views and comic-book morality on the rest of us.
Deal? 
I have no idea what your definition of Fundamentalist may be, but it does not seem to correspond to the word as it is used by the overwhelming majority of people if you can wedge Lewis into that category. I say this only because a change in definitions can cause a real change in the discussion.
I generally use fundie as a pejorative, but then I rarely use it except when discussing Robertson, Swaggart, Wildmon, (perhaps Paiseley), and their ilk. I don’t even use it to identify Dobson unless he has published something truly outlandish to which I am responding. If I am talking about the broader use of fundamentalist (lowercase) across various religious boundaries, I would throw bin Laden in there, as well.
I know and respect a lot of Fundamentalist Christians and I identify them using the word Fundamentalist. Fundie (in my speech) indicates the fringe of that group, not every adherent.
OK, try this: replace “fundie” with “tree-hugger”, and “fundamentalist” with “environmental activist”.
Point being, it’s ok here to use pejoratives to describe people you disagree with.
No, they do not reject the use of reasoning, unless it disagrees with what they believe. No amount of discussion, cites, or proof will sway them from that. If there is any deviation whatsoever from what they consider the fundamental aspects of their religion, they reject it out of hand. Even to the extent of rejecting other religions, although they have no more proof that theirs is more true than any other religion. Fundamentalists (and ALL religions have fundamentalists) have a core set of beliefs that refuses to acknowledge any other faith. Theirs alone is the “true faith.” Now, if one if them is right, all the rest must be wrong. Who picks? When it comes to faith, it is impossible to say with any certainty. Especially since all religions seem to have a common basis.
“Fundie” is indeed used as a pejorative on this board, and you can count me among those who find it really annoying. (This is coming from an atheist, for the record.)
It annoys me for two reasons:
-
It paints with too broad a brush. There are dozens of Protestant “fundamentalist” denominations and they do not all believe the same things. Yet on this board they are often imagined as a monolithic entity, and “fundie” is a dismissive term used to cover them all. For that matter, “fundamentalist” is similarly overbroad, though at least more polite. I have lived in the Bible Belt all my life, and I don’t know anyone who self-identifies as a “fundamentalist.” It’s an old term that once had meaning but now seems almost exclusively used by outsiders to stereotype certain Protestants.
-
“Fundie” is obviously a disrespectful diminutive. It’s like using “Jap” instead of Japanese, “Russkie” instead of Russian, or “Hebe” to refer to someone who’s Jewish. To me the test would be whether you would use the term in polite, face-to-face conversation with someone who’s a member of the group being described.
My own preference would be to use the phrase “Biblical literalist” when that’s what you really mean, or some other descriptor if you mean something different. I don’t like what the literalists do in the name of their religions, but if I disagree with someone I’d rather debate them fairly than call them names.
Quite. When ALL the terms used by the right to denigrate me and mine and our beliefs are banned here, including the use of ‘liberal’ as a pejorative then maybe yes, i’d consider it okay to deem fundie pejorative.
Until then they can just suck it up like us tree-hugging lefty liberals have to on a daily basis.
How much of a literalist? To me, an athesit, anyone who believes in the divinity of Christ and his resurection is a “fundamentalist”. But that’s just mainstream Christian teaching. It’s a matter of perspective. Sure the flood story is hard to sqaure with scientific teachings, but so is the resurrection of a dead body. I see a difference in degree, but not in kind.
Similarly, Catholics are taught to believe that the communion host is the actually body of Christ. Not just a symbol of the body, but the actual body. How is that not being a “biblical literalist”?
Perhaps some people are making the distinction between an Old Testament literalist and New Testament literalist. Again, that’s a difference in degree, but not in kind.
As opposed to say, atheists who claim that “All truth is relative”?