# What are some examples of secular fundamentalism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 19, 2006, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239 "2006-02-19T20:00:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/21 "2006-02-20T18:21:36Z")
Islam is not based on _jihad_…at least not in any sense of phyiscal violence. _Jihad_ refers to a apiritual struggle, not a violent one. Only a few extremists have distorted the meaning of _jihad_ to include physical violence and terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/22 "2006-02-20T19:11:03Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Islam is not based on _jihad_…at least not in any sense of phyiscal violence. _Jihad_ refers to a apiritual struggle, not a violent one. Only a few extremists have distorted the meaning of _jihad_ to include physical violence and terrorism. This isnt GD, and I don’t want to ruin this thread. I know that jihad is not ONLY physical violence. But it’s a philosophy that got its start in physical violence, and only later emphasized the struggle as a spiritual one. Like the Spanish Inquisition–it’s a spiritual quest gone totally wrong. But unlike the Spanish Inquisition, it still has millions of advocates, including entire countries. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/23 "2006-02-20T20:47:30Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > This isnt GD, and I don’t want to ruin this thread. > I know that jihad is not ONLY physical violence. But it’s a philosophy that got its start in physical violence, and only later emphasized the struggle as a spiritual one. This is flat wrong. The word means “struggle,” and in the Koran it only refers to a spiritual struggle. Mohammed advocated violence only in self defense. The religion of Islam is NOT founded on any principle of physical violence. Get your facts straight and quit demonizing hundreds of millions of people based on your own misunderstandings. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/24 "2006-02-20T21:48:07Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > There are political fundamentalisms just as there are religious fundamentalisms. Many have been mentioned already in this thread. Extreme leftism, Marxism-Leninism, Radical Environmentalism, Extreme Libertarianism, Fascism, Racism, and Nationalism are all political fundamentalism. (Note: list not intended to be complete.) I’d like to add Extreme Free Market-ism: the idea that there should be no regulation or taxation of business, and that the market, left to its own devices, will solve all of its own problems, and those of its society besides, because that’s where the profit is. Don’t get me wrong: a market economy is, on the whole, a good thing. Human greed is a constant, and the pursuit of profit is just a way to harness this energy for the general good. The key word, to me, is _harness._ Relying on a completely free, unregulated, untaxed market would be like turning one’s oxen loose in a field and expecting them to plow it on their own. History shows that the market works best when it is lightly regulated, delicately steered, gently supervised. (To extend the farming metaphor, enforcing a top-down state-controlled economy is sort of like requiring people to drag the plow around themselves.) In general, money will win if we let it win. Most of the time, we do want money to win, because that’s the most efficient way to do things. But sometimes, that won’t provide the best solution, and open-minded analysis is the only way to separate the occasional exceptions. Free-market fundamentalists believe otherwise; their belief in the ultimate power of the unregulated market is, basically, on the level of a religion. Note that I’d distinguish this from Libertarianism, because while Libertarianism encompasses most of the economic ideas of free-market fundamentalism, it goes beyond them into the sociocultural arena. Social issues, like gay marriage or government regulations about what you can name your children (which are enforced in some countries), are largely irrelevant to the free-marketers, and its adherents may or may not agree with one another on those questions, while Libertarians tend to be somewhat more consistent about determining what is state coercion and what isn’t. Re **DtC** ’s rejection of the term “fundamentalism,” he’s right if we use the narrow, legalistic definition referring to the fundamental content of a source text. I don’t buy into it myself, because I join with Mr. **Borgia** in advocating a somewhat more expansive definition, taking the close-minded, immune-to-counter-evidence worldview familiar in hardcore religious types and applying that, but not the need for a source text, to other areas of philosophy. I think it’s quite possible to identify and encapsulize a fundamental set of beliefs, as I tried to do above, without any requirement for their having been initially set forth in some sort of ur-Scriptural form. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2006, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/25 "2006-02-20T22:06:25Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > I fixed your coding as best as possible, **Sampiro**. I closed the bolded and italics tags so that half your OP wasn’t bolded or leaning right, but if I got it wrong (I had to guess on at least one instance), and if I accidentally changed the meaning of anything you wanted to say, drop me a line and I’ll fix it for you. Thanks (and **ap** _ologIe_s for the mess-up). ---
**Author:** ![rjk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@rjk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjk)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/26 "2006-02-21T02:30:55Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Am I reading you wrong, or are you saying there are secular fundamentalist creationists? Who/where are they? I’ve run across a few in person who deny any religious involvement at all but insist that we couldn’t possibly have evolved. The ones I’ve met do seem to be influenced on this issue by the religious creationists around them, even though they deny it. Maybe they should be reclassified into ID-ers. Then **Friar Ted** ’s mention of Ayn Rand pulled her from the back of my mind; I was _sure_ I’d read years ago of someone prominent who held such a view, but couldn’t remember the name. (Of course I really lost track of the “secular” part of the OP while typing my previous post, or I would have put in the disclaimer then. Sorry.) ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/27 "2006-02-21T18:10:36Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Am I reading you wrong, or are you saying there are secular fundamentalist creationists? Who/where are they? Not quite creationism, but Stalinist Russia rejected genetics in favor of Lysenkoism. > **[Lysenkoism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism)** > > Lysenkoism (Russian: Лысенковщина, romanized: Lysenkovshchina, \[ɫɨˈsɛnkəfɕːʲɪnə\], Ukrainian: лисенківщина, romanized: lysenkivščyna, \[ɫɨˈsɛŋkɪwʃt͡ʃɪnɐ\]) was a political campaign led by Trofim Lysenko against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century, rejecting natural selection in favour of a form of Lamarckism, as well as expanding upon the techniques of vernalization and grafting. In time, the term has come to be identified as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts... ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/28 "2006-02-21T19:16:38Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There’s no such thing as “Secular Fundamentalism.” Religious Fundamentalism is defined as strict adherence to a set of written precepts or laws which are believed to hold divine authority. Technically, Christian Fundamentalism is the belief that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God and that the bible is the only moral autthority people should live by. This sometimes (but by no means always) includes a desire to codify those beliefs into law (i.e. to create a theocracy). For Islamic Fundamentalism, substitute the Koran for the Bible and maybe a little more tendancy (ok, a LOT more) towards theocracy. > > There is no secular equivalent of a scared writing or body of moral precepts so there is no way for secularists (to whatever degree such an ideology exists at all) can be “fundamentalist.” There may be anti-religious zealots but being anti-religious, in itself, does not amount to an adherence to any specific moral code. . There may be people who are extreme in certain kinds of “leftist” beliefs but I don’t see why animal rights activists or gun control freaks should be called “secular.” What do either of those issues have to do with theistic belief? This is probably true. Fundamentalism virtually by definition is defined by opposition to secularism. And one _specific_ definition of fundamentalism relies on strict adherence to one textual interpretation of the bible and several key principles derived from said interpretation. I think the secular equivalent is perhaps absolutism. Although that in itself does pose the problem that absolutism is a word that can mean two fairly different things. And most people tend to associate absolutism with the political theory as opposed to using it as a way to refer to an absolute doctrine or principle. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/29 "2006-02-21T19:20:33Z")
Jihad is very similar to the term crusade. A word which also carries great negative connotations but for which there are also many positive examples. For example I’ve seen food drives called “Crusades against hunger.” And it’s questionable if the negative connotations associated with “The Crusades” is justified since all the participants didn’t consider themselves on a crusade or to be crusaders but considered themselves to be pilgrims on a pilgrimmage. ---
**Author:** ![PoorYorick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PoorYorick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PoorYorick)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/30 "2006-02-21T19:29:06Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Example 1 — In an environment where Talcott Parsons and structural-functionalist analysis was conventionally associated with conservative conclusions, I was attacked by some folks in a classroom for starting off a rather radical analytical paper about sex & society with some observations from Parsons about marriage and family & some stage-setting structural-functional discussion of marriage and the purposes the institution of marriage serves within the larger social framework. **AHunter3** , are you by any chance an athropology graduate student? I saw my share what you’re talking about when I was in the program. The worst insult that could be hurled at you (other than “racist”) was to be accused of “reductivism.” I’m still not 100% sure what that means in context. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/31 "2006-02-21T19:31:18Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Re **DtC** ’s rejection of the term “fundamentalism,” he’s right if we use the narrow, legalistic definition referring to the fundamental content of a source text. I don’t buy into it myself, because I join with Mr. **Borgia** in advocating a somewhat more expansive definition, taking the close-minded, immune-to-counter-evidence worldview familiar in hardcore religious types and applying that, but not the need for a source text, to other areas of philosophy. I think it’s quite possible to identify and encapsulize a fundamental set of beliefs, as I tried to do above, without any requirement for their having been initially set forth in some sort of ur-Scriptural form. I have to agree with **DtC** here. Fundamentalism has a well defined meaning that can not be just waived away by calling it a narrow, legalistic definition. The word means, “A return to fundamentals and adherence to those principals.” Thus, its impossible for there to be fundamentalist Bush haters, becuase there was no deviation, and return to fundamentals. Fundamentalism is not necessarly a bad thing, although its typically portrayed that way. Using it to simply mean extreme, or unbending adds more to the meaning than there should be. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/32 "2006-02-21T21:32:59Z")
[Fundamentalism](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist) “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.” I’m well aware of what the term _Fundamentalist_ usually/conventionally/perhaps even technically means, but I think it’s fairly fair to say I defined what I meant by it when I took it out of context (which I acknowledged doing). It’s an analogy- what secular ideologies are persued with as much vigor, irration, intolerance and refusal to compromise for any reasons as many people apply to their conservative religions? When [John P. Walters](http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/director_bio.html) is described as as the nation’s current _[Drug Tsar](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22john+p.+walters%22+%22drug+tsar%22)_ I honestly never gathered from the description that he has actually been crowned “monarch and autocrat of all the Russians” [or of Bulgaria or other nations that use the title] by the appropriate Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the seal of St. Vladimir around his neck, a scepter in one hand and a gilded Faberge crack pipe in the other. I don’t think anybody else does either. It’s a non-literal use of the word to imply power and authority. Fundamentalism as used here (which again, I’ll admit is not it’s usual or literal meaning) is likewised altered a bit but meant to imply a specific mindset. sheez… ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/33 "2006-02-21T21:56:32Z")
> [@PoorYorick](#): > > **AHunter3** , are you by any chance an athropology graduate student? I saw my share what you’re talking about when I was in the program. The worst insult that could be hurled at you (other than “racist”) was to be accused of “reductivism.” > > I’m still not 100% sure what that means in context. Sociology, cultural anthro’s close cousin. Past tense, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2006, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/34 "2006-02-21T22:25:49Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is no secular equivalent of a scared writing or body of moral precepts so there is no way for secularists (to whatever degree such an ideology exists at all) can be “fundamentalist.” There may be anti-religious zealots but being anti-religious, in itself, does not amount to an adherence to any specific moral code. . There may be people who are extreme in certain kinds of “leftist” beliefs but I don’t see why animal rights activists or gun control freaks should be called “secular.” What do either of those issues have to do with theistic belief? Nonsense. You’ve apparently never met a truly dedicated Marxist; they’re fundamentalists absolutely perfectly in line with your definition. They have sacred writing (The Manifesto, and Marx’s other texts) and hold to it, and the values it professes, just as firmly as any religious zealot. It’s fundamentalism in its purest form. I agree that most of the examples cited this far are preposterous, and amount to little more than redefining “Fundamentalism” as “People who seem intolerant that I disagree with.” But hard-core Marxists do fit your definition, and the ideology even resembles Christianity in many ways; they have a Bible (the Manifesto) a Messiah (Marx) and any number of prophets and kings - Hegel is a sort of Saint Peter. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/35 "2006-02-22T01:06:20Z")
> [@rjk](#): > > I’ve run across a few in person who deny any religious involvement at all but insist that we couldn’t possibly have evolved. The ones I’ve met do seem to be influenced on this issue by the religious creationists around them, even though they deny it. Maybe they should be reclassified into ID-ers. Then **Friar Ted** ’s mention of Ayn Rand pulled her from the back of my mind; I was _sure_ I’d read years ago of someone prominent who held such a view, but couldn’t remember the name. > > (Of course I really lost track of the “secular” part of the OP while typing my previous post, or I would have put in the disclaimer then. Sorry.) To be fair, I should admit that my boss, is actually a person who rejects evolution because of its sheer complexity and scale, without having any firm ideas of what should replace it. I only asked because I thought you might be referring to the elusive throng of _non-religious scientists who accept ID_ that many religious IDists keep heralding (in the sense that you might have uncritically accepted the claim of the existence of this fabled group) ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/36 "2006-02-22T02:00:50Z")
After further thought, I have to say **Diogenes** and **Treis** have a point. If you view fundamentalism as the literal interpretation of sacred texts, then it may not make sense to speak of some secular fundamentalisms. It would still make sense to speak of a fundamentalist Marxist, IMO, largely for the reasons **RickJay** mentions. But it seems to me Marxism basically is a religion. However this is largely a semantic point. I stand by what I said in my first post. The phenomenon I described and **Sampiro** encountered pretty obviously exists. If you want to call it “fanaticism” or “absolutism” or “irrationalism” instead of “fundamentalism,” that’s fine by me, at least. ---
**Author:** ![rjk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@rjk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjk)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/37 "2006-02-22T02:41:47Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > To be fair, I should admit that my boss, is actually a person who rejects evolution because of its sheer complexity and scale, without having any firm ideas of what should replace it. > > I only asked because I thought you might be referring to the elusive throng of _non-religious scientists who accept ID_ that many religious IDists keep heralding (in the sense that you might have uncritically accepted the claim of the existence of this fabled group) The people I was speaking of were reasoning pretty much like your boss, though one or two were probably not smart enough to be reasoning at all. I don’t recall ever meeting one of those _non-religious scientists who accept ID_. ---
**Author:** ![Dinaroozie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Dinaroozie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinaroozie)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/38 "2006-02-22T03:40:41Z")
Something I’ve always thought resembles fundamentalism is the strict devotion of some to particular operating systems (MacOS, Linux, Windows, whatever - they all seem to have their fair share). Indeed, often ‘debates’ between such groups are referred to as holy wars, which is a pretty big clue. In terms of the ‘strict adherence with a sacred text’ definition… I’ve occasionally been struck by the close resemblance between some people’s treatment of a religious text and a country’s constitution. It seems like for some, if a constitution says something, that is absolutely all there is to it - so, arguments then fall on whether the constitution is really saying that, if it’s literal, if it’s archaic, etc. No argument takes place over whether something is a good idea or not; it seems that simple adherence to the constitution is the top level goal. I should note that I can see that this is fair enough in legal discussions - it’s when a moral stance is backed up with ‘the constitution says so’ that it seems a bit dogmatic, to me, anyway. ~ Isaac ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/39 "2006-02-22T23:52:50Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > After further thought, I have to say **Diogenes** and **Treis** have a point. If you view fundamentalism as the literal interpretation of sacred texts, then it may not make sense to speak of some secular fundamentalisms. It would still make sense to speak of a fundamentalist Marxist, IMO, largely for the reasons **RickJay** mentions. But it seems to me Marxism basically is a religion. Only if all belief systems are religions. They’re not though; the reason we have the word “religion” is to indicate which belief systems are based on a faith in supernatural powers. Marxism is not, despite its other parallels with Christianity - a Messiah, a holy text, a Peter, a Judas, a John the Baptist, even an Armageddon and a Heaven. I can’t think of a Virgin Mary. So if you want to restrict the word “fundamentalism” only to religions, I guess you can do that and eliminate Marxists, but as you point out, that really is not what the OP was asking. **Sampiro** SPECIFICALLY defined what he was looking for; \*\*DtC’\*\*s effort to invalidate his definition is a hijack. Marxism is a perfect example of what Sampiro was asking for; a secular belief system that has every single element of fundamentalism aside from belief in a God or Gods. By comparison, “Racism,” which has been cited more than once, isn’t “fundamentalist” in any way. There’s no “Racist bible,” no real belief system you can point to there. Some will cite Nazism, specifically, but even that has no clear ideological underpinning the way Marxism does; Hitler himself was pretty inconsistent on who was or wasn’t racially superior or inferior. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239/40 "2006-02-23T00:00:55Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > After further thought, I have to say **Diogenes** and **Treis** have a point. If you view fundamentalism as the literal interpretation of sacred texts, then it may not make sense to speak of some secular fundamentalisms. It would still make sense to speak of a fundamentalist Marxist, IMO, largely for the reasons **RickJay** mentions. But it seems to me Marxism basically is a religion. Only if all belief systems are religions. They’re not though; the reason we have the word “religion” is to indicate which belief systems are based on a faith in supernatural powers. Marxism is not, despite its other parallels with Christianity - a Messiah, a holy text, a Peter, a Judas, a John the Baptist, even an Armageddon and a Heaven. I can’t think of a Virgin Mary. So if you want to restrict the word “fundamentalism” only to religions, I guess you can do that and eliminate Marxists, but as you point out, that really is not what the OP was asking. **Sampiro** SPECIFICALLY defined what he was looking for; \*\*DtC’\*\*s effort to invalidate his definition is a hijack. Marxism is a perfect example of what Sampiro was asking for; a secular belief system that has every single element of fundamentalism aside from belief in a God or Gods. By comparison, “Racism,” which has been cited more than once, isn’t “fundamentalist” in any way. There’s no “Racist bible,” no real belief system you can point to there. Some will cite Nazism, specifically, but even that has no clear ideological underpinning the way Marxism does; Hitler himself was pretty inconsistent on who was or wasn’t racially superior or inferior. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-some-examples-of-secular-fundamentalism/345239.md?page=1)