Fundamentalism is the endeavor to cloak narcissism with the guise of spirituality.
I’m trying to use a historical perspective on the use of the term. Fundamentalism with a capital-F began as a fairly specific inter-denominational movement within Protestant Christianity. The term is now used in a variety of ways.
Actually, what I was trying to convey was that out of “fundamentalists”, you have a number of groups–Fundamentalists with a capital F (the original group), conservative Pentecostals, and a small group known as Christian Reconstructionists, who are in turn one fringe of conservative Calvinist or Reformed Protestants. All these groups are “fundamentalists” in the broader sense the term is used now. The Christian Reconstructionists–those postmillenialists I was talking about–are small, but they have influenced more traditionally Fundamentalist members of the Religious Right like Falwell or members of other segments of broader fundamentalism, like Robertson (who I believe is a Charismatic Baptist), who have partly adopted the agenda of the small Christian Reconstructionist group. In other words, one small group within fundamentalism has influenced other groups under the broad “fundamentalist” label.
Pretty much. Since “fundamentalist” is a broader term, it includes groups who think that speaking in tongues is probably a mark of demonic possession (Fundamentalists) and those who think it’s a mark of God’s grace (Pentecostals). Of course, a hallmark of Protestantism is the ability to divide and sub-divide and sub-sub-divide. Thus, this Fundamentalist church and that Fundamentalist church both agree that the Pentecostals down the road are probably demon-possessed, but the two Fundamentalist churches are divided over some finer point of theology; meanwhile, there are any number of Pentecostal denominations who agree about speaking in tongues, but have split over assorted other issues of theology, church governance, personality conflicts, etc.
It’s the “small f” group not in the sense of being smaller than the “capital F” group; in fact, it’s larger, since it includes the “capital F” group and other groups. Partly it’s a question of generalizing a term to encompass a lot of different traditions which seem to be similar in some way. These different groups and theological traditions can merge, cross-fertilize, and so on. Also, “fundamentalist” Protestantism has given rise to a broader “evangelical” movement which still emphasizes the need for salvation through a personal relationship with Christ–and is more conservative than the really liberal Protestant churches, but which isn’t so separatist with respect to the broader culture and which has come to terms to varying degrees with modern secular ideas on the role of women and the findings of modern science and so on.
“The Handy Religion Answer Book” defines fundamentalism as an approach to religious teachings and values that emphasizes strict and direct reliance on a tradition’s most ancient sources.
After that things get seriously complicated.
John Renard mentions that extreme and violent behavior (assassination of abortion providers by American Christians or the burning of Christian villagers by angry Hindu mobs in India) that claims religious justification has a great deal to do with predominant political and social climates in particular places and times.
The term “fundamental atheist” was not invented in this thread or on this board. I first ran across it on a Wiccan site several years ago. They actually were calling them fundies and despite the rejection here of the term, I personally think it fits a certain breed of atheist. The one that says that they know the truth and if someone happens to believe in God, well to hell with them. It is the same problem I have with Christian fundamentalists, Moslem fundamentalists, etc. They think they know what I should believe when it comes to religion.
I don’t care who believes in the virgin birth or does not believe in God, just don’t tell me to believe the same thing. There is nothing wrong with arguing about what a fundamentalist is or isn’t, but don’t tell me that there isn’t such a thing as an atheist that insists s/he knows the truth and berates anyone that doesn’t believe the same thing. I’ve seen several on these boards and at least one website run by one. In my book that is what is wrong with fundamentalism and I’ve got no problem with including atheists that act in the same manner.
Damn! No matter how sarcastic I get, someone has always beaten me to it, and without sarcastic intent, too.
Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. Article 52, Section 1, the Soviet Constitution:
Having been raised in an Anabaptist denomination, in my younger years I understood “fundamentalist” to be those who believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. In my particular denomination, baptism had to be performed only when the person was mature enough to understand the implications of the ceremony. In addition, we did not have an extended church hierarchy…everyone was responsible for figuring out their own relationship with the Almighty. (Of course, we didn’t dance, have instrumental music, wear jewelry or makeup, go to movies, or wear immodest clothing, or judge if the religious convictions of others were grounds for going to heaven or hell). And we believed in the complete separation of church and state.
Although I am no longer in the church, the term “Fundamentalist” seems to be have of a political or social meaning than a religious one. I am convinced that there are persons in all of the world’s main religions that are very devout, very literal in their interpretation of religious writings, and modest in their beliefs.
In other words, fundamentalists.
On the other hand, there are persons in all of the world’s main religions that are very devout, very literal in their interpretation of religious writings, and very willing to use those beliefs to pursue any one of a number of political, social and economic causes. These are the scary Fundamentalists to me. Some of them are terrorists of the Al Queda variety, and some of them are terrorists of another sort…they resort to labeling people other than their type as “wrong”.
So…to my mind, Fundamentalism in the modern sense is really a very scary socio/econo/political tool. Please don’t confuse it with the fundamentalism of the quietly devout.
Yeah, it’s a great constitution. 
Ok, so I should have said, “Soviet policy was predicated on the belief that…”
“Fundamentalism” may be one of those things best served by a negative definition.
It’s not that fundamentalists have any common belief, but rather that they are united in their rejection of what is often called “modernism.”
The fundamentalist fears–and to be fair, often with good reason–that glib and facile “interpreters” threaten to interpret into oblivion a great deal of what was long believed basic to his faith. So he reaffirms those “basics.” And sometimes goes a bit overboard, with the assistance of the charlatans and spellbinders who seem to lurk at the edge of any movement, ready to step in and exploit it.
I too have made the error of too closely equating fundamentalism with biblical inerency/literalness.