Fundamentalist Agenda: Five Universal Characteristics

[Nicodema]

The five characteristics of any fundamentalist agenda (regardless of culture, ideology, etc.) are:

• 1) Men rule the roost and make the rules. Women are support staff and for reasons easy to imagine, homosexuality is intolerable.

  2) all rules must apply to all people, no pluralism.

  3) the rules must be precisely communicated to the next generation

  4) "they spurn the modern, and want to return to a nostalgic vision of a golden age that never really existed. (Several of the scholars observed a strong and deep resemblance between fundamentalism and fascism. Both have almost identical agendas. Men are on top, women are subservient, there is one rigid set of rules, with police and military might to enforce them, and education is tightly controlled by the state. One scholar suggested that it's helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. The phrase 'overcoming the modern' is a fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941.)"

  5) Fundamentalists deny history in a "radical and idiosyncratic way."

Click here to read more.

[Ron Lambert]

What if not everyone who is called a fundamentalist really is? What if you are merely defining "fundamentalism" in a deliberately pejorative way, and lumping everyone who is not a theological liberal together?

Let's look at another way those five rules could be formulated to describe the views of those who are faithful to God and His Word:

1) God is righteous, not man, so God must make the rules. Where we see human cultures and religious tradition making up rules that are not Biblical, those false rules should be renounced. Women ideally should be equal partners, in accord with Galatians 3:28. Because God says homosexuality is sin, it becomes an objective reality beyond dispute that it is. God is the Creator and He has the right to say this, and refusing to accept it is rebellion against the Creator's authority.

2) The Law of God applies to everyone. Human rules are made by human societies, and are subject to revision and judicious application.

3) The Law of God must remain unchanged, regardless of the spirit of the times or the fickleness of fashions of philosophy. Parents who fail to tell their children the truth about the standards the Creator has given us will answer to God for their betrayal of their parental duty.

4) Christians are foremost in opposing tyranny. It is liberals and non-Christians who seek the course of appeasement and temporizing compromize with fascism and other forms of tyranny. Christians want to have the freedom to proclaim the gospel to every human being on earth.

5) True believers in God and the Bible are the only ones who face up to the real lessons of history and point out what the Bible and Bible prophecy indicate about the real principles at work in human history.

This is not to say that all who claim to be true believers in God and the Bible are. Many who claim such are really believers in their denomination's traditions and their religious cultural upbringing. Such are no better than the Islamo-fascists, and will be the ones to create the final, end-time religious apostasy that will bring the final conflict between Good and Evil.

But do not jump to the conclusion that everyone who is religious, everyone who believes in God and the Bible, is to be condemned as some kind of mindless "fundamentalists."

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

What if not everyone who is called a fundamentalist really is? What if you are merely defining "fundamentalism" in a deliberately pejorative way, and lumping everyone who is not a theological liberal together?

---

If you have a problem with the labels, Ron, my question to you is - why? Is it because you don't like the labels because they are accurate? Is it because they are not set within your limits/understanding?

If so, take the concept and apply the application....Right wing Christianity is using more and more tactics that the Nazi/3rd Riech used in coming to power. AND THAT IS VERY SCARY, especially when compared to EGW writings that show that there truely is a group of secular/religous people who act religiously conservative, but who never truely were. They only want control of people and control of people's thoughts and lives.

That is why marriage is never about man lording it over the woman, nor about man being the head [as in absolute control] of the household, but rather as equal partners in living life together.

When you say that -

Quote:

---

2) The Law of God applies to everyone.

---

are you including the laws regarding the breaking of the Sabbath where the death penalty is enforced? If so, you are gonna have a hard time enforcing what YOU concider the Sabbath as opposed to say a Catholic..or a Muslim....

Quote:

---

Parents who fail to tell their children the truth about the standards the Creator has given us will answer to God for their betrayal of their parental duty.

---

Not if the grandparents were mistaken over certain laws and passed those same values to thier children and grandchildren. Can you say that Dobson is a Sabbath breaker in his own eyes? According to the bible, we know that he is, but his grandfather and his greatgrandfather felt otherwise...

Quote:

---

Christians are foremost in opposing tyranny

---

Not so, but rather Christians are foremost in applying mercy because of the mercy shown them.

Quote:

---

But do not jump to the conclusion that everyone who is religious, everyone who believes in God and the Bible, is to be condemned as some kind of mindless "fundamentalists."

---

I will condemn those fundamentalists who exercise the need for control over others to thier percieved views. Any school, public or private, will show, at least once, the dire consequences of 'absolute power' and how it got corrupted. It is thru the desire to control, both our lives and the lives of others. It is thru verbal abuse and the lack of respect of others that shows the absolute corruption of the soul.

And God respects us too much to do that to us....

[Ron Lambert]

Neil, when I referred to the "Law of God" I was referring to the Law codified in the Ten Commandments; not to the ordinances given for the national government of Israel. The first is universal, and applies to all mankind. The second was only for Israel at that time.

[Bravus]

I think Ron does have a valid point in that we need to be careful how we apply the 'fundamentalist' label. He's quite right that it doesn't apply to all believers, even those who are deeply convinced of their beliefs. It could be that it's not even a useful label, since it has become pejorative almost by definition.

I think we might have discussed the definition of 'fundamentalist' here before, but here are a couple from different sources:

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.

- Dictionary.com

1: a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs

2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

- Merriam-Webster

the belief in old and traditional forms of religion, or the belief that what is written in a holy book, such as the Christian Bible, is completely true

- Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

This Wikipedia article gives a decent overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist

It really shouldn't be a pejorative term, just a descriptive one. I think we need a better dividing line between certain beliefs and the attempt to enforce those beliefs on others. People can be as fundamentalist (biblically (or Quranically) literalist) as they like, so long as they keep it to themselves, or only pass it on through witnessing and proselytizing. Once they start to seek control, there are dangers for them and for everyone else, and it doesn't matter what brand the fundamentalism takes.

[Ron Lambert]

Good points, Bravus. But I would also point out that there is nothing wrong with anyone seeking to influence his culture and the laws of his society according to the morality he believes in. Every basic legal standard we have in America came originally from the religious beliefs of the pioneers. Christians have just as much right as secularists, atheists, and followers of other religions to try to influence the moral tone of their nation. It is not a violation of the non-establishment clause in the Constitution for Christians to have freedom of speech, and seek to get laws enacted that are right. It is when laws are enacted that enforce by secular law the peculiar institutions of some church--such as observing Sunday as the day of rest--that the line is crossed, and religious liberty is abridged. We want freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. That latter itself would be a form of tyranny.

[Bravus]

Agreed.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

when I referred to the "Law of God" I was referring to the Law codified in the Ten Commandments; not to the ordinances given for the national government of Israel. The first is universal, and applies to all mankind. The second was only for Israel at that time.

---

Quote:

---

The five characteristics of any fundamentalist agenda (regardless of culture, ideology, etc.) are:

1) Men rule the roost and make the rules. Women are support staff and for reasons easy to imagine, homosexuality is intolerable.

2) all rules must apply to all people, no pluralism.

---

When I was thinking "fundementalist", I was thinking of the current ones in society today, who usually insist that men are the Head of the househould, aka patriarchs/rulers and they also insist that homosexuality is an abomaanation to God. This is the universally/current examples of society's fundementalist, and granted, there are some who not only have these tenets, but go even further in thier need for control.

These same type of people, I suspect, would NOT make the distinction that you have made over the phrase-"law of God". And their arguements over the distinctions that you have made are primarily moot. Biblically speaking, what is the difference between the 10 Commandments and the rest of the books of the Law? SDA's typically see the need for a distinction, but where biblically is that distinction spelled out? People who attempted to answer that, usually failed to find a satisfactory answer.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

What if not everyone who is called a fundamentalist really is? What if you are merely defining "fundamentalism" in a deliberately pejorative way, and lumping everyone who is not a theological liberal together?

---

You give me far too much credit -- I didn't write the article! But the short answer? The short answer is: because the author of the article isn't just focusing on fanatical Muslim extremists or fanatical Bible extremists. I believe, if memory serves me correctly, he also discussed extremes fulfilling this criteria which were not inherently religious in nature.

Quote:

---

But do not jump to the conclusion that everyone who is religious, everyone who believes in God and the Bible, is to be condemned as some kind of mindless "fundamentalists."

---

Is that how you read it? Interesting. I sure don't jump to those conclusions. Maybe because I didn't read it with anticipation of an anti-religious bias already formed. Or maybe because I saw the characteristics as equally universal in manifestations of the extreme "right" as well as those of the extreme "left", and divorced from any consideration of the presence or absence of religion in the equation.

Or maybe just because I bothered to actually read the thing, instead of react to it.

Who knows. One of life's little mysteries.