Freedom wrote:
Just what we need, another gun control thread!
<ducking and running>
Like I said in Bill’s “Towel Head” thread, I don’t like it, and I don’t use it. In fact, I will be quite happy to see it go the way of any number of other epithets that demean the person or group rather than their goofy ideas.
Yo, Ben! You listening, man? 
I, for one, don’t buy that "Fundie " is a slur. Has anyone shouted out FUNDIE! as a someone with a bible walked to church? Have there ever been separate Fundie and Atheist bathrooms, schools, waiting rooms in train stations? Has a good Christian family ever come home from a Wednesday evening Bible study to find FUNDIE! painted on their house?
How are we to describe someone who believes in the literal truth of the Bible if we can’t say Fundamentalist Christian, or Fundie, for short?
Well…it’s probably more accurate to say they believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. There are other Christians who believe the Bible is the “word of God” in the sense of being “inspired” in some way, but believe it to be shaped by the cultural context in which the books which make it up were originally written; or to contain large portions which should be taken metaphorically (and not just apocalyptic language about critters with multiple heads which everyone takes metaphorically–even the most ardent literalists don’t necessarily believe the End Times will look like a Godzilla movie on acid–but large parts of the Bible which “fundamentalists” believe are historical accounts, like the Garden of Eden). That position is still not the same as saying the Bible is solely a book of (human-authored) stories, philosophy, etc.
Fundamentalism-with-a-capital-F was a movement within Protestant Christianity in the U.S. back around the turn of the 20th Century in reaction to Modernism, which promoted a critical reading of the Bible, a view of scripture more like what I describe above than “everyone from Moses to St. John the Divine was taking dictation from God”, and various theologically liberal views. The Fundamentalists (who were a cross-denominational movement) rejected this stuff in favor of what they saw as the “fundamentals” of the Christian religion–the virgin birth and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and so on. Being Protestant Fundamentalists, they also laid stress on the inerrancy of the Bible, sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) being one of the historic foundational tenets of Protestantism. (Although “the Bible alone”, meaning “the Bible as the source of doctrine rather than the traditions of the church” is not necessarily incompatible with a less-than-strictly-literalist view of the Bible.) I don’t think Fundamentalism was originally a derogatory term at all.
Fundamentalism, with a capital “F”, also came to denote a certain cultural mindset and a specific sub-group of conservative Protestants. Fundamentalists were generally premillennial (believing the Second Coming would occur before the establishment of a Christian “millennium” or thousand years of peace) and (until the last few decades) “separatist”, believing in interacting with the surrounding culture only to try and convert individuals within it. Such Fundamentalists were also distinct from other groups which believed in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible; for example, Fundamentalists generally don’t speak in tongues, unlike the in many ways similarly theologically conservative Pentecostals. I believe Fundamentalists have also generally been teetotallers, which is certainly not the case of all theologically conservative Protestants.
More broadly speaking, then, one might speak of “fundamentalists” with a lower case “f”, which would include Fundamentalists, Pentecostals, conservative Reformed or Calvinist Christians, and any other Protestant Christian group with a belief in the inerrancy and literal interpretation of Scripture (even if their literal interprations sometimes come to different conclusions).
More recently, it has come to be applied to groups with similar stances in other religions; e.g., “fundamentalist Muslims”. It’s even come to be applied to theologically conservative Hindus (or “Hindu fundamentalists”), and thus has come to mean “militantly conservative or reactionary religious people of any tradition”.
And, yes, “fundie” is derogatory and I’ve probably used it around here and I shouldn’t have.
gobear: Well, I for one see nothing wrong with the accurate use of “Fundamentalist” or “fundamentalist”. The question would be, is “fundie” derogatory or not?
Gobear, yer my pal, but I gotta disagree with you. While no one has used the term “fundie” pejoratively outside this Board, as far as I know, I believe it has a very negative connotation here. If everyone here started calling Muslims “beard faces” (yeah, lame, but the best I could do), it would still be pejorative even if the term never becomes popular elsewhere. The fact that Fundamentalist Christians haven’t as a group suffered the sorts of persecutions you listed in this country doesn’t mean that the word doesn’t still have negative connotations.
**
The term for Fundamentalist Christian is Fundamentalist Christian. Or Fundamentalist (with a capital “F” as MEBuckner points out). Or maybe even FC. The point is, that I would suspect that very few, if any, Christian posters are comfortable with the term (a guess. I have no data to back this supposition up) and as such I think it should be ditched. I hope Polycarp weighs in as I’d like his take as a non-Fundamentalist (I think).
Fenris
I don’t think that “Fundie” and “Raghead” are equivalent. Further, I think that Fundie is OK to use but Raghead is not.
Raghead is offensive for the same reason that any racial slur is offensive. It is based on characteristics (usually physical) that the person in question has no control over (such as skin colour, where they were born, etc) and it is inclusive of a wide range of different people whith different personalities, beleifs etc.
Fundie is based on what a person has chosen to believe. If you chose to believe in something that is demonstrably wrong, and refuse to listen to any evidence to the contrary, then you are making a decision to be ignorant and I feel that I have the right to single you out with what may be a derogatory term. Similarly, if you choose to believe that microscopic beings from Pluto run the world from a hut in your garden, I will call you an idiot.
Yeah, but I still find the term “kike” offensive, and that’s also a religious slur. I’m pretty sure Catholics find the term “papist” offensive too.
Well, even though I am not convinced, I shall bow to the will of the majority and delete “fundie” from my GD vocabulary. The upside is it will take away Wildest Bill’s excuse for using racial epithets.
[sup]No holds barred in the Pit, though[/sub]
Doesn’t “kike” include all Jews, practicing or not, giving it a racial element as well?
I’ve never heard the term “papist”, so I can’t really comment on that.
You know the more I think of the term Fundimentalist the more I don’t think it applies to the people this label is thrown to. Think about it. What are the fundimentals of Christianity and Islam? As far as I can read it, peace, tolerence, turning the other cheek or live and let live, and a belief in one God. These people listed as Fundimentalists seem only to adhere to one of these fundimentals. Maybe we should find a new term that better describes these groups.
Oh yeah and “Fundie” is a type of slur as it is meant as an amusing insult as I’m sure no one who usues it does so in the spirit of acceptence.
Well, they don’t have to wear rags on their heads…
Seriously, “raghead” is a reference to turbans or head scarves or other head coverings. People don’t have to wear such things; everyone on Earth could wear baseball caps or top hats. But people choose to dress differently.
Derogatory terms which apply to cultural or religious differences are still considered offensive. Yes, they could change, but why should they? (Obviously I’m not talking about such practices as inflicting mutilating the genitals of young women or burning widows alive or waging Eternal Holy War on all infidels.)
Well, obviously people disagree about what the fundamentals of Christianity or Islam are. Clearly, suicide bombings of civilian targets full of innocent people is going to be hard to defend by any reading of the fundamentals of Christianity or Islam or any other major religion. However, your normal “fundamentalist” positions, which others may think are incompatible with love or peace or tolerance or this or that passage of whichever Scripture, are usually at least defensibly part of the traditional theological orthodoxy of Christianity or Islam or Judaism. (“Yes, the LORD is a loving God, but He is also a God of Justice, and commands us to resist the ee-vil [fill in the blank here]”–there’s often a lot of support for such positions in the Bible.)
If “fundie” is considered to be on a par with “towel head’” we have lost the ability to distinguish real, derogatory slurs with simple shortcuts.
Can we no longer describe someone as a “leftie,” meaning a leftist? Is calling someone a “tree hugger” offensive, or just a way for us to dismiss his political beliefs? If a person brings his religion into a political discussion, it is fair game to be attacked and questioned.
Using a short, descriptive term to describe those beliefs attacks not the person, but the belief. Using a slur to describe a person’s race, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender attacks the person.
That’s why fundie is not offensive – althought it may be dismissive – and towel head is.
What interests me about this quote is the assumption that we are wrong. Since there have been many debates on this subject and will continue to be many more, who are you to judge. (That statement is not meant to hijack this thread into the creationist/evolutionist debate but rather to segue into the next paragraph)
I entered into this kind of debate awhile ago on whether “fundie” should be used in a thread WB started and that argument was thrown into the discussion as well. Just because you do not agree with a persons beliefs does not mean that you can throw derogatory labels on them. We as caring, compassionate and intelligent people should be able to rise above the need to label people with the wide brush.
I hate this argument. There’s a long, irritating debate about whether Jews are a religion, an ethnic group or a combination. My take (I’m a Jew, btw) is that since anyone can convert, it’s a religion, and nothing more than that(or how else could my wonderful, yet Nordic sister-in-law have joined?). You can’t convert into another race. You can convert into a religon.
**
MrWhy, meet Mr. Chick. (Actually, a brief skim indicates that he’s finally stopped using the actual word “papist”, although he hasn’t toned down the bile)
Fenris
Michael Jackson would beg to differ. 
I disagree with this. If someone calls a particular Arab person a towel head, it is unfair to every Arab person reading this board, even if the person to whom it was directed is in fact a terrorist.
Likewise, if someone calls someone else a fundie, it is unfair to those Fundamentalist Christians reading this board who are not bringing their religion into a political discussion.
While I understand that some people are simply using fundie as a short form of fundamentalist, I think it is more often used as a dismissal (at best) or a slur (at worst). As a comparison, there’s nothing wrong with the word homosexual, but calling someone a homo usually indicates an insult.
I’ll swear by whoever or whatever you want gobear, that I put that line in my post and waffled over including it but eventually decided not to.
There’s only two possible conclusions:
Great minds think alike.
Or insanity is catching!
Fenris
Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever said, “I only use ‘fundie’ to refer to extreme fundamentalists.” I have used it as a non-derogatory abbreviation, and I’ve stated as much in the past. Since it leads to arguments, I generally try not to use it nowadays, when I remember. Oftentimes I forget, because there’s not really a good abbreviation for “Fundamentalist Christian.” (I typically use FC, but I wonder if anyone understands what I mean by it.)
-Ben
*Originally posted by deb2world *
**
It may seem harsh, but I am afraid that I disagree with you somewhat on this point. I believe that if someone is being deliberately ignorant or disingenuous with respect to their beliefs, and/or if their beliefs are dangerous then it does mean one can heap scorn upon them.
An obvious example is those people who believe, for religious reasons, that “God hates Fags”. These people have a different belief from me and I have no problem “throw[ing] derogatory labels on them”. They are assholes.
Fenris, I’m sorry. I certainly didn’t mean to cause any offence. Really.
I’m not the sort of person to use the word “kike”, and I hardly ever hear it, so I’m genuinely unaware of the “correct” usage. It seems to me though, that it is sometimes used based on appearance alone, hence my confusion.