Welcome to Gaia! ::

As long as they're not supporting horrible injustices and are doing their best to be productive members of the body of Christ then they're not the type of fundamentalists I'm worried about. Unfortunately today many young Christians are influenced by corrupt elements within various churches such as intolerance and older Christians who are more concerned with the appearance of righteousness than acts of charity and ministry. Of course if an anti-fundamentalist movement were truly successful many more religious people would begin to interpret the scriptures for themselves thus greatly reducing the beliefs that enable intolerance, misogyny, and even beliefs that help fuel terrorism. Right now it seems somewhat unrealistic but a man can dream.

Yes it would but my proposal was to use philosophy to expose the inherent flaws within the forced interpretation of scripture by the religious groups that are currently in power which encourage things like homophobia, misogyny and terrorism; by doing so we may be able to challenge people to interpret the scriptures for themselves which would greatly reduce these evils.

It's such a fine line, when does tolerance and the pushing for tolerance become intolerance for those who are intolerant of others? Argh.. ouch brain... now... hurts

Although the term fundamentalism in popular usage sometimes refers derogatorily to any fringe religious group, or to extremist ethnic movements with only nominally religious motivations, the term does have a more precise denotation. "Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion. It has especially come to refer to any religious enclave that intentionally resists identification with the larger religious group in which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon which the larger religious group is supposedly founded have become corrupt or displaced by alternative principles hostile to its identity.

-Wikipedia

However, in common usage, the term fundamentalism is generally applied to only two groups:

1. Islamic fundamentalists, who are defined by the media, apparently, as "Muslims who blow things up or who support the blowing up of things, preferably with loss of life."

2. Christian fundamentalists, who are those who use the Bible as a weapon against the freedom of others, denying the existance of freedom in Christ with their deeds and positions even if they reference it with words.

Neither of these groups truly represents the fundamentals of the religion they are claiming to follow and return to the roots of, and thus 'extremists' might very well be a better term for them.

BTW, neither is nessecarily Facist either. Facism is a very specific political philosophy, of which I have never met a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist who follows.

There's my words on the matter.

I don't think what you practice is fundamentalism. In my opinion, its forcing someone to hear about your belief even if they say go away. I also think screaming, "You'll go to hell!" to everyone that isn't Christian or your particular subgroup of Christianity. I also think humilting a person in public by using the bible is wrong.

If you apply this to different religions as doing all these in another context, its fundamentaliam.

Bottom line: just because some people in the Seventh-Day Adventists are afraid of homosexuals and don't want women to lead doesn't mean it is fudamentalist. Although I don't believe in this doesn't mean it is automadicly fundamentalism. Some churches take a lot of the old world and try to remember the past. It isn't a crime. The main reason I don't think so is you have your own opinion about world issues, not the church's reason.