Comments on: We Are All Fundamentalists Now? http://wildhunt.org/blog/2007/06/we-are-all-fundamentalists-now.html Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:29:08 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ali http://wildhunt.org/blog/2007/06/we-are-all-fundamentalists-now.html/comment-page-1#comment-948 Ali Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:31:00 +0000 http://wildhunt.org/blog/2007/06/we-are-all-fundamentalists-now.html#comment-948 It was my understanding that the term "fundamentalist" was first invented for and applied to certain evangelical Protestant Christian groups who subscribed to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the "fundamentals" of the Christian faith. The term evolved to mean any group, of whatever religion, who emphasized "the need to fight a godless, secular culture" with stricter and more literalist interpretations of their respective sacred texts and traditions. In this sense, they may argue internally over what exactly those "literal interpretations" are, but that's still distinct in my mind from relativism, especially since, as Gibson himself points out, such groups often focus on "delineating black-and-white verities" as a main strategy against the perceived relativism of "godless secularism."<br/><br/>In my experience, members of the Neopagan community move in the opposite direction, embracing increased tolerance and diversity as expressions of sacredness and spirit manifesting within secular culture, breaking down the notion of a strict us-them divide. On the other hand, I have met a few Pagans who come across as just as "fundamentalist" as any Christian in their insistence on the exclusive "Truth" of a polytheistic "Old Religion"... but that just goes to show that fundamentalism isn't inherent within a system of belief, but is more an approach to applying such a system to modern life.<br/><br/>The contradictory nature of fundamentalism is, I think, not so much a form of relativism as their often heavy use of modern technologies and media in order to spread their anti-modernity message, without recognizing the relationship between such media technologies and the very social systems they denounce. Catholics certainly aren't immune to that tendency, though perhaps they are more likely to be accused of being archaic and "out of touch" with modern needs and concerns. It was my understanding that the term “fundamentalist” was first invented for and applied to certain evangelical Protestant Christian groups who subscribed to a literal interpretation of the Bible as the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith. The term evolved to mean any group, of whatever religion, who emphasized “the need to fight a godless, secular culture” with stricter and more literalist interpretations of their respective sacred texts and traditions. In this sense, they may argue internally over what exactly those “literal interpretations” are, but that’s still distinct in my mind from relativism, especially since, as Gibson himself points out, such groups often focus on “delineating black-and-white verities” as a main strategy against the perceived relativism of “godless secularism.”

In my experience, members of the Neopagan community move in the opposite direction, embracing increased tolerance and diversity as expressions of sacredness and spirit manifesting within secular culture, breaking down the notion of a strict us-them divide. On the other hand, I have met a few Pagans who come across as just as “fundamentalist” as any Christian in their insistence on the exclusive “Truth” of a polytheistic “Old Religion”… but that just goes to show that fundamentalism isn’t inherent within a system of belief, but is more an approach to applying such a system to modern life.

The contradictory nature of fundamentalism is, I think, not so much a form of relativism as their often heavy use of modern technologies and media in order to spread their anti-modernity message, without recognizing the relationship between such media technologies and the very social systems they denounce. Catholics certainly aren’t immune to that tendency, though perhaps they are more likely to be accused of being archaic and “out of touch” with modern needs and concerns.

]]>