Is "fundie" a pejorative?

Great Debates
101

Mocking people for their faith could have bad consequences, and could have good ones. I don’t think such an action can be argued for or against based on consequences, but on whether the action is good or bad in and of itself.

Is mocking people wrong? I don’t know. I know that I’ve deserved to be mocked at various points in my life, so I can’t base my judgment solely on empathy (do unto others sometimes doesn’t clear things up). I know that mockery is often honest and honesty is good. I know that mockery can hurt people’s feelings and hurt feelings are usually bad.

It’s just not black and white, at least for me. I’m not saying it’s unimportant, just really fuzzy.

102

The reason to eliminate the “negative slant” is to get at the heart of a person’s religious beliefs, not what they DO with those beliefs. According to you, a person isn’t a “fundamentalist” if he believes in the literal story of Genesis as long as he doesn’t think evolutionists are “evil”. That’s nonsense, and that is exactly why I object to using the word “fundie” as a mocking, pevorative term. What you object to is the politicizing of a fundamentalist’s beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. But not all fundamentalists, even the self-described ones, politicize their beliefs.

103

Actually, it’s a nonsense attribution to me. As I said, the Venn diagrams have a huge overlap. A fundamentalist may not believe that evolution is a perversion of science advanced by atheistic scientists (“evil” is your word, not mine–don’t add additional negative slant in order to discredit my argument, please), but in my experience they’d be in the minority. The vast majority of fundamentalists to whom I’ve spoken believe that evolution is bad science advanced for the purposes of making it easier to deny God’s existence.

Again: if you think my experiences are exceptional, that a significant number of fundamentalists would disagree with the notions that I put it forth, I welcome you to educate me on this subject. But switching my argument in favor of a dumber one and then refuting the dumber argument isn’t something I find terribly persuasive.

Daniel

104

You’re right, and that has always mystified me. Maybe it’s because I knew that evolution was true before I believed in God, but for me, it speaks to the beauty and majesty of God’s eternal Being. What difference to Him whether it’s 6,000 years on the first pop or 6,000 universes until man evolved. For the eternal Being, they both are over in a metaphorical instant. The mechanism of natural selection is at once so Ockhamly beautiful and so pristinely Godly. Natural selection is the objective judgment for biological survival just as God’s Word is the objective judgment for spiritual morality.

105

There have been numerous posters on this board on that very subject. People with friends or relatives who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but who contridict your experiences. You don’t need me to educate you. You simply need to educate yourself. But you’ve aleady made up your mind, so that doesn’t seem likely to happen.

106

As further evidence that not all “fundamentalists” believe the same things: I know a number of believers in Biblical inerrancy who try to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with evolution by pointing to 2 Peter 3:8:

They go on to reason that the “seven days” of Genesis could therefore be a much longer time span, and that the creation of man from clay is figurative. All the while they will continue to insist on the inerrancy of the scriptures.

Granted, their logic is strained, but my point is that you can’t even correctly claim that all “fundamentalists” disbelieve evolutionary theory.

Which gets back to my point that the use of the word “fundamentalist” (and the more obnoxious “fundie”) on this board paints with too broad a brush. If you mean “Biblical literalist,” that is what you should say. If you mean “Baptist” then say that. If you mean “Jerry Falwell” then say that. Otherwise you really are being unclear at best or engaging in bigotry in your own right at worst.

107

Incorrect.
Daniel

108

I don’t mean “Baptist.” I don’t mean “Biblical Literalist,” although that’s getting closer. I don’t mean “Jerry Falwell.” I mean “fundy.” What’s wrong with meaning that? I mean people who have a set of beliefs that fall into a certain pattern that I find reprehensible.

I’m aware of Old-Earth Creationists. If they don’t hold the belief that evolution is an attempt by atheistic scientists to deny God’s creation, then to the degree they don’t believe that, I ain’t talking about them. (I’ve never ecountered an old-earth creationist who is both a Biblical Literalist and an accepter of evolution, though, and I have trouble seeing how that would work. If they exist, could you link to a website by one of them?)

John, an argument is more than just a series of contradictions. It’s even more than ad hominems and faulty psychic guesses. Give me some substance if you want to continue; otherwise I’ll dismiss you as peremptorily as you dismiss me.

Daniel

109

What’s wrong with that is that it’s poor communication at best. You have just created your own definition of “fundy” (a fundamentalist who does certain unnamed things things you don’t like) which may or may not correspond with the myriad definitions others apply to the word.

“Well, I know what I mean,” is not a defense. That’s like saying “Wops are a bunch of thieves…uh, but of course I don’t mean to include my Italian neighbor Dominic. He’s OK. I wouldn’t call him a Wop. Wops are the ones who are thieves. When I say ‘Wop’ that’s the kind of Italian I mean.”

Show me how that’s different from what you’re doing. [And pardon the crude example.]

Wouldn’t it be better when you see a group of Christians, say, putting an anti-evolution sticker on a science book, to criticize the people who actually implemented the policy rather than saying “There go the fundies again,” thus tarring all “fundamentalists?”

Here again I’m seeing some confusion of terms. Not all so-called “fundamentalists” are Biblical literalists. Biblical literalists are a subset of “fundamentalists.” “Fundamentalists” believe the Bible is inerrant. Some of them believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. Others believe some of the language is figurative. But all believe it is inerrant. Any clearer?

110

I would have to say that you are playing fast and loose with the truth and that you are simply dancing to cover your butt.

I have made no claim that my meaning is the only acceptable one. I have explicitly noted that more than one meaning is in use in this thread.

However, I have also noted the specific meanings that I have used throughout this thread and you are flip-flopping your own usage in order to misconstrue what I have said.

The sequence was:
As part of a dispute with another poster, you claimed that C.S.Lewis was a Fundmentalist–a point I challenged.

You said that even if he was not a Fundamentalist, lots of Fundamentalists like him.

I responded that whether or not he is liked by Fundamentalists is rather irrelevant. (It hardly makes him a Fundamentalist nor says anything about Fundamentalism to note that many like some of his works–works that do not address the areas that separate Fundamentalism from Liberal Protestantism.)
I then went on to point out that the use of the word fundamentalist in this thread is widely inconsistent, but for the record, I use the word Fundamentalist to mean the encyclopedia definition and I use the word fundie to indicate a specific subset of Fundamentalist Christians who are hateful bigots.

Without providing a separate meaning for “fundie,” you responded that you knew “fundies” (apparently using my definition since you posted in direct response to me) who had arrived at their positions through reason and evidence.

Since you had made no distinction regarding the definition of fundie in reply to my post, I asked (and freely admit to having been a smart alec when I asked it) if you had really met people who had reasoned their way to hatred and bigotry.

You then ignored my actual statements regarding Fundamentalists and my use of the word fundie to accuse me of stereotyping whole groups–clearly missing (apparently deliberately ignoring) the point I had made while falsely accusing me of saying something I had not said.

I pointed out that you had clearly twisted the usages that I have quite explicitly posted.

You then selected several quotes from my posts, out of context and with no regard to my actual statements, and again accused me of calling all Fundamentalists “bigoted” depsite the fact that I have at no time done so. I use the word fundie only when discussing those Fundamentalists who happen to be hate-promoting bigots and never to identify the Fundamentalist movement or its adherents. You have simply switched the words fundamentalist and fundie indiscriminately in an attempt to put words in my mouth.

You later ran off to the dictionary to provide a definition that you erroneously claim I have excessively narrowed (I would add nothing to that dictionary definition for the purposes of this discussion) because you want to exchange the words fundie and fundamentalist indiscriminately–something I have not done.

If you choose to use the words interchangeably, that is your choice, but to attack me on my posts when I have quite clearly separated their meaning is, exactly, “sloppy reading and attributions.”

111

I dunno. The things that “fundies” do that are disliked are no real secret: the hypocrisy of Robertson and the shrill lies of Wildmon or Hovind are pretty clear. Different people may have slightly different boundaries for where the lines are drawn, but in a thread that has seen the use of “fundamentalist” applied to all religious believers, a small blurring of the edges of who is labeled “fundie” is pretty small potatoes.

Certainly, if one person is going to use fundie as simple shorthand for fundamentalist while another person is going to use fundie to indicate a specific subgroup, they may need to qualify their terms before the discussion can proceed, but that is hardly an insurmountable obstacle.

112

If only I had addressed this earlier in the thread. If only I’d explained how idiotic comparisons between heritage and belief systems are. Why oh why do I forget to address such arguments?

I blame society.
Daniel

113

That was snarkier than necessary; I apologize. I guess it really gets my goat when people make unsustainable accusations comparing me to a racist, especially when they don’t address the reasons why I’ve already said I think such comparisons are unsustainable.

Daniel

114

Choice may not have been the best word. Of course, we choose to not accept that which makes no logical sense to us. But religious people not only choose to believe in something that has no basis in fact, but they also choose their faith over the dozens and dozens of other religions in existence today, often times without exploring any of the other forms of worship that are out there. I hope that’s clearer.

115

That’s fine…but so far, there’s no proof of divine…I haven’t seen one iota of evidence to suggest “divine” is anything more than a concept.

No argument here. But when the search continually turns up empty-handed, it begins to look pretty far-fetched. Anything’s possible, I suppose. But there’s a difference between acknowledging possibility and actually putting your eggs in that basket, so to speak.

Agreed.

116

Just an observation…that this debate has changed from “is the word ‘fundie’ pejorative?” (there didn’t seem to be a clear consensus on that one) to “is being a fundamentalist inherently bad, so using a pejorative word to describe them is just fine?”.

With side trips into CS Lewis.

117

Left Hand of Dorkness, I meant no offense. It’s just that in my view you are painting with too broad a brush.

I’d still like to see one point addressed. Is there anyone who seriously self-identifies as a “fundamentalist” these days? I’ve never met any such person, but maybe I’ve missed some. I think the term has lost all meaning except for use as a mild slur. (Does anyone on this board use the word “fundamentalist” without a mental sneer?)

And it seems to me that the word “fundy” when used by us atheists or by those of other faiths to describe an ill-defined subset of Protestants is similar in usage to the word “papist” when used to describe Catholics. I wouldn’t use either term, and I doubt that anyone but a jerk would use them in polite face-to-face conversation with someone of the faith in question.

If a group of people does something with which we disagree, I think we should decry their actions rather than engage in name-calling. In that regard, I prefer the approach of Jesus to that of Paul. Hate the sin, not the sinner. (The difference can be subtle.)

I’ve said my piece. If people want to keep using “fundy” I can’t stop 'em. I would hope they’d at least pause before doing so.

118

Okay. By the same token, when you consider all pejorative terms to be in the same category–“Wop” and “fundy” and “Nazi” are all as bad as one another–I think you’re painting with too broad a brush. (remember that “Nazi” started off as a pejorative as well as ending up that way).

Maybe not on this board, but they sure do over at the Fundamentalist Forums. I got that by googling the term “fundamentalist.”

This is a more apt analogy, but my problem is this: unless Catholics are as a group overwhelmingly advocating some reprehensible belief system, they don’t deserve a pejorative. I don’t believe they are, and that is, to me, a significant difference.

There’s also the historical issue–that “Papist” is a word associated with serious social oppression, whereas “Fundy” is not–but that is a less important aspect, I believe.

I’ll do both. I do acknowledge that calling someone a racist (as another example of a pejorative term) isn’t always as helpful as decrying their actions; at the same time, sometimes you gotta speak straight, and sometimes you don’t want to play nice. Or at least sometimes I don’t.

I spent a lot of my adolescents talking to the Jesus Crispies. At some point, I lost patience with them and their reprehensible ideology. I’ve not got a whole lotta Jesuslike compassion left for them; while I’m not going to spit on them, I’m not going to worry too much about whether my words hurt them when discussing that reprehensible ideology.

Daniel

119

I got to the party late, but have a different take on the OP.

I would submit that words have no inherent meaning; none. Meaning is attached by the recipient. The challenge for the recipient is to align his/her particular meaning as closely as possible with the meaning of the sender.

My 13 year old daughter told me she hates me. Does she? Would it change your meaning if you knew she was laughing because I had just played a joke on her?

As cited, the word ‘nigger’ is used by African-Americans (in most cases) in a much different context than is generally understood historically. I’ve never known a white person (in the USA) who could use the word without offense.

In the end, the words in this post are mine. The meaning is yours. The likelihood that mymeaning will be close to your meaning is in direct proportion to my understanding of the context. What are we talking about? How is the word used in context? What positions have you taken on the subject at hand? What do I know of your background, including your social, political or religious views? And so it goes.

The word “liberal” is perjorative in the mouth of Rush Limbaugh, but not when used by Howard Dean. (At least that’s my meaning…)

As to the word “fundie”, I can’t remember seeing it used anywhere but here. (in any widespread way). From my interpretation of the use of the word (my meaning…) is that it is a derisive term. It is meant to be demeaning (once again, at the risk of being redundant, that is my meaning; more specifically my interpretation of the poster’s meaning) and meant to be a slam.

Is that capricious? Maybe so, but I don’t think so. As to context, I don’t know the poster intimately. I can’t see facial expressions, voice inflections etc. I do see however their words. The more the words, the more complete the context. It is clear to me that it is a form of name calling here.

To answer the OP, Is “fundie” a perjorative? Yes. I mean…No. Well…Yes. It’s certainly possible that any given poster is not meaning to be perjorative, but the reader takes it that way. I’m hard pressed though to see how a case can be made that it is a benign term here at SDMB. IMO it’s name calling plain and simple.

Lastly, I’ve always associated name calling of any sort to be indicitive of a lack of intelligence. In most posts that use the word liberally, the argument has been intellectually anemic in my view.

My opinion: Ditch the word. You’ll look smarter.

120

I prefer fundaloonie.