Is "fundie" a pejorative?

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

I don’t see it as anything other than a shortening of the word.
Like

Brit for British,
Perv for Pervert,
Homo for Homosexual,
Auto for Automobile,
Bus for Omnibus…

As in ll the other cases it carrys precisely the same conetation as the longer term. So fundie is pejorative iff fundamentalist is pejorative, homo is pejorative iff homosexual is pejorative. And the usage of the word is what renders it vulgar or not.
Damn fundamentalist bigots. = pejorative
My best friend is Muslim fundie. = not pejorative.

[JThunder]

@tomndebb

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.

Well, even if we grant that C.S. Lewis does not qualify as a fundamentalist (and I’m by no means willing to accept that claim), the fact remains that his writings are highly lauded amongst fundamentalists. Heck, The Screwtape Letters is pretty much standard reading, and Mere Christianity is a frequently cited reference on Christian apologetics. So even if C.S. Lewis himself were not a fundamentalist, the overwhelming acceptance of his teachings shows that “fundies” are by no means opposed to the use of reason in their beliefs.

Yet people readily swallow the unsubstantiated claims that fundamentists reject logic and that their “pastors who tell them what to think.” The ready acceptance of these claims is ironic, to say the least.

[Syntropy]

@JThunder

As opposed to say, atheists who claim that “All truth is relative”?

No, not oppposed to. Up to, and including. Atheists vary in degree, and have their own fundamentalist core. Atheism is based in faith as much as any religion. And, FTR, I’m not an atheist.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@jsc1953

In the above sentence, replace “fundie” with “wop”, and “fundamentalist” with “Italian”. See how it reads now.

Oh, please.

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.

In the above paragraph, replace “fundamentalist” with “anti-semitism” and “fundie” with “Nazi,” and see how it reads now.

This sure is a fun game, isn’t it? Really puts the Mad back in Mad Libs.

Once more, with feeling: it’s inappropriate to criticize someone for their genetic heritage. It’s perfectly appropriate to criticize someone for their sincerely-held beliefs, when those beliefs lead to morally reprehensible actions.

If you want to convince me that a significant number of fundamentalists don’t hold beliefs that lead to morally reprehensible actions, that’s fine: you may well be right (although I am skeptical). But I reject the notion that I may not use a derogatory term for folks who hold truly reprehensible beliefs, whether they may be white supremacists, homophobes, or fundamentalists.

Daniel

[jsc1953]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Once more, with feeling: it’s inappropriate to criticize someone for their genetic heritage. It’s perfectly appropriate to criticize someone for their sincerely-held beliefs, when those beliefs lead to morally reprehensible actions.

I’m close to agreeing with this statement, if amended thusly – I think it’s perfectly acceptable to criticize someone for their morally reprehensible actions. Beliefs, though, are one’s own business.

And I think everyone would agree that name-calling, no matter how justified, is seldom helpful.

[Steve_MB]

@jsc1953

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.

Why would you want to use pejoratives to describe people you agree with?

Seriously, it’s desirable to have one term for good-neighbor folks who believe in the literal truth of the Bible and another term for power-hungry jerks who seek to impose their sectarian preferences by force of law. If that distinction is made, the term for the latter group will necessarily be pejorative, since it labels an obnoxious phenomenon. “Fundamentalist” and “Fundie” work as well as any other words for these functions.

[gobear]

@JThunder

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.

I’ve read their wordks, and the basic argument they use is, “The Bible says X, therefore I believe X.” When historical evidence that contradicts X is introduced, they ignore it.

[/QUOTE]

[gobear]

@JThunder

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.

I’ve read their wordks, and the basic argument they use is, “The Bible says X, therefore I believe X.” When historical evidence that contradicts X is introduced, they ignore it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@jsc1953

I’m close to agreeing with this statement, if amended thusly – I think it’s perfectly acceptable to criticize someone for their morally reprehensible actions. Beliefs, though, are one’s own business.

While that distinction is fine in theory, it’s unnecessary in practice. Do you agree that “anti-semite” and “white supremacist” are value-laden terms, almost invariably used to condemn a person? Do you agree that they are based on the beliefs of their object?

If I call someone a white supremacist, I’m saying that she believes in the supremacy of white people, not that she’s heading up the racial holy war. While she might be all rahowa, that’s not what I’m saying about her.

I’m unwilling to change my language that much to reflect the concept that beliefs are fine and dandy but behavior is not. Beliefs influence behavior; reprehensible behavior is often linked to reprehensible beliefs.

Daniel

[Kalhoun]

@jsgoddess

Simple question really, inspired by many a thread, including this one.

Is the term “fundie” a pejorative? Can something be mainly, mostly, somewhat, slightly pejorative? Does it depend on context for some words? Does it depend on context for “fundie”?

I guess it depends on who’s using it. When I use the word, it is nearly always negative. I even sort of sneer when I say it. I cannot think of an instance, right off hand, that would allow me to use it in a positive or complimentary way. I daresay it is almost on a par with the “n” word.

[Kalhoun]

Hoping I don’t need to clarify this, but I don’t use the “n” word. I’m just saying they’re both words that I cannot find a positive use for.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

@Kalhoun

I guess it depends on who’s using it. When I use the word, it is nearly always negative. I even sort of sneer when I say it. I cannot think of an instance, right off hand, that would allow me to use it in a positive or complimentary way. I daresay it is almost on a par with the “n” word.

But don’t you also sneer when using the word fundamentalist?

[RTFirefly]

@jsc1953

OK, try this: replace “fundie” with “tree-hugger”, and “fundamentalist” with “environmental activist”.

No, replace “fundie” with “enviro”, a similar shorthand.

1. People abbreviate things. There are people on this board who will type “POTUS” rather than “President.” (And I’m talking about discussions where the “U.S.” part can be assumed.) So when you get a five-syllable, 14-letter monstrosity like “fundamentalist,” it’s going to be shortened.

2. Now, the question is: what are the choices for abbreviating “fundamentalist”? And are some more neutral than others; are some more inherently pejorative than others?

By way of example, “enviro” is a neutral shortening of “environmentalist.” “Tree-hugger” is clearly intended as pejorative.

3. The answer is, there isn’t much choice: “fundie” is the natural short form of “fundamentalist.” No alternative has come remotely close to catching on.

Fortunately, it’s naturally neutral. And while it may have picked up some baggage in some people’s minds over the years, it hasn’t picked up so much of it that fundies themselves avoid it, or only use it in a defiant sense of reclaiming a pejorative, the way gays have reclaimed “queer”.

Unless and until there’s some usable alternative short form of “fundamentalist” that has some traction, I think “fundie” is it.

The problem seems to be that many people don’t like Christian fundamentalism, and that will rub off on whatever term names them. Since people are discussing why this might be, here’s Wikipedia’s article on fundamentalist Christianity.

[Kalhoun]

@Bippy the Beardless

But don’t you also sneer when using the word fundamentalist?

Well, yes. Because it’s a choice where being black is not. They have chosen to belong to a club that embraces behaviors I find reprehensible. Black is not a belief or a behavior. It’s a color. Colors do not have bad traits.

[VarlosZ]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

In the above paragraph, replace “fundamentalist” with “anti-semitism” and “fundie” with “Nazi,” and see how it reads now.

Wow. I’ve never seen an actual invocation of Godwin’s Law, but there it is. Those who believe that the Bible is literally true and infallible have now been compared to Nazis.
I will take it as a given that the term “fundie” is overwhelmingly used as a perjorative.

Many posters have suggested that because one’s religious beliefs are a matter of choice (as opposed to ethnicity, which is not), they are an acceptable grounds on which to mock others. I don’t think that this argument holds water.

In the first place, religious beliefs are not quite as much a matter of choice as some people seem to be suggesting. Growing up in a strongly Christian family and/or community, it would be very surprising if a particular person did not himself become strongly Christian. In fact, religious beliefs as a whole are in general remarkably consistent from one generation to the next. Parents impart a set of core beliefs to their children that are very rarely thrown off. One’s upbringing is not a matter of choice.

Likewise, religious belief is often not the result sedate contemplation. It is often a matter of revealed truth, or “devine inspiration,” or whatever else one wishes to call it. A visceral reaction requires no logical justification. For someone who suddenly feels that the Bible is The Word (feels the touch of God, in other words), that feeling might be enormously significant, though it isn’t for you or me. Even if that person were then rationally to contemplate his faith, this intangible, ineffable emotion would have to be taken into account. Personal revelation is not a matter of choice.

Finally, can we even say that anyone “chooses” his religious beliefs? I certainly didn’t choose to be an atheist. If I were choosing my beliefs, I would choose to be Christian – it would be somewhat easier socially here in the U.S., and I bet that it’s comforting to think that an afterlife and a benevolent God exist. Unfortunately, when I think about the universe, I conclude that God and the afterlife probably don’t exist. Some people reach very different conclusions, but not because they consciously choose to do so.
So what benefits are derived from using the term “fundie”? I can think of only one: it’s shorter than “fundamentalist.”

What are the harms of using the term? It is a mocking term, for one thing, leading to increased general enmity. It’s use hinders dialogue with (and hence unserstanding of and compassion for) fundamentalists. It’s rude.

Basically: mocking people for their religious beliefs is simply not a classy thing to do.

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.

As opposed to say, atheists who claim that “All truth is relative”?

Cool, I guess I can be called a “fundamentalist atheist.” I like the sound of that.

[JThunder]

@gobear

I’ve read their wordks, and the basic argument they use is, “The Bible says X, therefore I believe X.” When historical evidence that contradicts X is introduced, they ignore it.

Which is NOT the same as saying that they reject reason. Rather, they argue that the historical evidence is either flawed or misinterpreted. They may or may not be correct in that belief (history being an imperfect science at best), but that does not mean that they reject reason outright.

You have yet to prove your case.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@RTFirefly

The problem seems to be that many people don’t like Christian fundamentalism, and that will rub off on whatever term names them. Since people are discussing why this might be, here’s Wikipedia’s article on fundamentalist Christianity.

Exactly. I use “fundie” in a pejorative sense, but I’d also use “fundamentalist” in the same pejorative sense. While I am willing to be persuaded that the beliefs are not as uniformly awful as my experience growing up in the Bible Belt has led me to belief they are, it is only such an argument that could persuade me ot use the word in a non-pejorative sense (at least as applies to religion).

Daniel

[John_Mace]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Exactly. I use “fundie” in a pejorative sense, but I’d also use “fundamentalist” in the same pejorative sense. While I am willing to be persuaded that the beliefs are not as uniformly awful as my experience growing up in the Bible Belt has led me to belief they are, it is only such an argument that could persuade me ot use the word in a non-pejorative sense (at least as applies to religion).

If I understand you correctly, you mock someone who believes:

• Adam and Eve actually existed
• Noah’s flood actually took place
• Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed by God

Would you also mock someone who didn’t believe those to be literally true, but who believed:

• Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, with God being his father
• Jesus performed miracles, such as changing water into wine
• Jesus died on the cross, but came back from the dead 3 days later and walked the earth again.

[Kalhoun]

@VarlosZ

In the first place, religious beliefs are not quite as much a matter of choice as some people seem to be suggesting. Growing up in a strongly Christian family and/or community, it would be very surprising if a particular person did not himself become strongly Christian. In fact, religious beliefs as a whole are in general remarkably consistent from one generation to the next. Parents impart a set of core beliefs to their children that are very rarely thrown off. One’s upbringing is not a matter of choice.

Nonsense. I know lots of people who changed religion, married into mixed faith situations, or lost their religion altogether. The choice is there. I’d say that it is probably out of sheer laziness that many people continue to identify with their childhood religion rather than seriously question it or walk away from it.

Likewise, religious belief is often not the result sedate contemplation. It is often a matter of revealed truth, or “devine inspiration,” or whatever else one wishes to call it. A visceral reaction requires no logical justification. For someone who suddenly feels that the Bible is The Word (feels the touch of God, in other words), that feeling might be enormously significant, though it isn’t for you or me. Even if that person were then rationally to contemplate his faith, this intangible, ineffable emotion would have to be taken into account. Personal revelation is not a matter of choice.

It’s still a choice to see these “experiences” as divine rather than a scientifically explainable event.

Finally, can we even say that anyone “chooses” his religious beliefs? I certainly didn’t choose to be an atheist.

You are not choosing a religious belief by being athiest. You are without religious belief.

[VarlosZ]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I use “fundie” in a pejorative sense, but I’d also use “fundamentalist” in the same pejorative sense. While I am willing to be persuaded that the beliefs are not as uniformly awful as my experience growing up in the Bible Belt has led me to believe they are, it is only such an argument that could persuade me to use the word in a non-pejorative sense (at least as applies to religion).

I agree that “fundamentalism” tends to have bad (and sometimes terrible) consequences, but don’t you think that mocking people for their faith also has bad consequences?