Is there such a thing as Liberal Fundamentalism?

[McCulloch]

I think religious fundamentalism (regardless of brand) is a danger to society. We can only hope it dies out before it kills us!

I think liberal fundamentalism is the real scourge.

The violent and decadent society that the liberals so despise is the very one they have created. As one Orlando Sentinel columnist noted (Paraphrasing), "They wanted sexual promiscuity, drugs, disregard for the law, no censorship of pornography, no laws against sodomy or public profanity, abortion on demand, quick and easy divorces, acceptance of homosexuality, Miranda rights, a welfare system that paid women to have illegitimate children, a tax system that penalizes marriage, and a godless education system that utilizes metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs in our public schools. And they got it. Every last bit of it."

Did you know there is a correlation between pornography (which liberal legislators have long supported) and violence? How does that work for you and your liberal Utopia?

[McCulloch]

For a starting point, I thought that this might be better than a short dictionary definition.

From the Wikipedia article on Liberalism

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government. All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

According to author and philosophy professor Peter Vallentyne, "Liberalism comes in two broad forms. Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality." In Europe, the term "liberalism" is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives. According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook". In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest. A philosophy holding a position in accordance with Adam Smith, that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or an invisible hand that benefits the society, is referred to as "classical liberalism.".

Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism. Instead, it founds itself on the assumption of the equal dignity and worth of individuals.

Modern liberal thought originated in and influenced the politics of The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France. The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

[McCulloch]

For a starting point, I thought that this might be better than a short dictionary definition.

From the Wikipedia article on Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.

The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary; the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.

The term fundamentalist has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.

Fundamentalism is often used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "Muslim fundamentalists" and "right-wing/left wing fundamentalists"). Richard Dawkins has used the term to characterize religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence. Others in turn, such as Christian theologian Alister McGrath, have used the term fundamentalism to characterize atheism as dogmatic.

[Munchskreem]

In this instance, Easyrider seems to have forgotten the definition of "fundamentalism" in that it requires an established dogma or core set of what are perceived to be inerrant principles. In that sense, certain liberals would qualify, but to use it in reference to them would dilute the meaning as referring to religious institutions. He's using it incorrectly to slander liberals.

[East of Eden]

Christians need to be conservative in our theology, and liberal in our ethos. That's how Jesus was.

Rather than fundamentalist, I prefer the term 'Bible-believer'. Jesus was one of those also.

[Carico]

For a starting point, I thought that this might be better than a short dictionary definition.

From the Wikipedia article on Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.

The term fundamentalism was originally coined to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy of that time. Until 1950, there was no entry for fundamentalism in the Oxford English Dictionary; the derivative fundamentalist was added only in its second 1989 edition.

The term fundamentalist has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.

Fundamentalism is often used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "Muslim fundamentalists" and "right-wing/left wing fundamentalists"). Richard Dawkins has used the term to characterize religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence. Others in turn, such as Christian theologian Alister McGrath, have used the term fundamentalism to characterize atheism as dogmatic.

Since there are moral absolutes, right, good and evil, then fundamentalist Christians will restrict our beliefs to what is right good and moral. So there is no such thing as a liberal fundamentalist because it's an oxymoron.

Jesus was the first fundamentalist Christian. He never compromised the truth to get the praises of the secular world which is ruled by Satan. he also knew what was right, wrong, moral and immoral, good and evil and he always stayed on the side of good. He also said; "He who is not with me is against me." there is no middle ground because if you think that Jesus is wrong in any way, then you can't trust anything he said.

But since the secular world rejects God, they have no standard of what is right, wrong, moral or immoral, good and bad. So they will accept most people's opinion of what is right and wrong because they don't even know if absolute truth exists. thus, one person's opinion is as good as another's. They thus let the majority decide what's right, wrong, good, evil, which is of course how Hitler was able to convince the majority that the Jews were subhuman and why abortion is sanctioned. Laws are thus made by what suits the desires of the majority. that means that even genocide or killing babies can be rationalized by the majority. As long as people call themselves good, humans can rationalize any atrocity as good, right and moral. that comes from human pride and is why pride is the biggest obstacle between man and God.

[kayky]

Jesus was not a Christian. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity did not exist during his lifetime.

[palmera]

Jesus was the first fundamentalist Christian.

Jesus was a Jew.

But since the secular world rejects God, they have no standard of what is right, wrong, moral or immoral, good and bad.

Why is this so? Why does society need God to have moral standards?

They thus let the majority decide what's right, wrong, good, evil, which is of course how Hitler was able to convince the majority that the Jews were subhuman and why abortion is sanctioned.

I'll first say that I've also made the mistake of invoking Hitler in religious debate. Now, as it was then: this is taking it too far. This argument doesn't make any sense, but invokes an emotive response instead of making a sound point. Further, it trivializes the Shoa to use it as an example of 'secular morality' while at the same time profoundly misrepresenting what happened.

Laws are thus made by what suits the desires of the majority. that means that even genocide or killing babies can be rationalized by the majority.

First, where's your proof? Second, if laws are merely the result of the desires of the majority, then why would we need a Supreme Court? Or any judges for that matter?

[MagusYanam]

Christians need to be conservative in our theology, and liberal in our ethos. That's how Jesus was.

What is an 'ethos' in this context?

As to Jesus' theology - compared to the theology of Second Temple Judaism (and a lot of theology today), it was way out left-wing. Jesus invited menstruating women, lepers, prostitutes and Gentiles to his table fellowship as equals - something not even the reformist Pharisees would do and something the scribes and religious authorities would not even consider. Jesus thought that El Adonoj did not reside in the Temple, but in all human beings (to the conservative Saducees, a separation of El Adonoj from the Temple would have been unthinkable).

Rather than fundamentalist, I prefer the term 'Bible-believer'. Jesus was one of those also.

Um... what? At least as he appears in the Gospel of St Mark, Jesus knew the Torah, and he loved quoting from Isaiah and Jeremiah - but none of the New Testament had been written down before 66 CE, over 30 years after his death. The Bible in its current form did not exist for Jesus to believe in.

Since there are moral absolutes, right, good and evil, then fundamentalist Christians will restrict our beliefs to what is right good and moral.

...

Jesus was the first fundamentalist Christian.

Moral absolutes are a luxury that not everyone can afford. Jesus realised this - it is why he criticised the morally-absolutist Sanhedrin and Second Temple authorities. He was not a Christian and he was certainly no fundamentalist. He was a radical Jewish rabbi - and the Son of God.

He also said; "He who is not with me is against me."

No - when St John complained to Jesus of another exorcist casting out demons in his name, but who would not follow him, Jesus told him 'whoever is not against us is for us' (St Mark 9:38-41).

But since the secular world rejects God, they have no standard of what is right, wrong, moral or immoral, good and bad. So they will accept most people's opinion of what is right and wrong because they don't even know if absolute truth exists.

The world is not secular. Parts of it follow secular philosophies, but it would be a mistake to make such a statement about the world. And the world does have standards of what is right and wrong - but sadly, the attitude of some powerful governments and parties seems to be that 'might makes right' (or worse, Mammon makes right), which is not what Jesus taught. This is what Christians are called to make a stand against, even to death on a cross.

[OnceConvinced]

. He also said; "He who is not with me is against me." there is no middle ground because if you think that Jesus is wrong in any way, then you can't trust anything he said.

The very fact that he would make a statement like "He who is not with me is against me", shows someone with paranoid delusions (as it would in this current day, especially if they claimed to be the son of God). The fact that Jesus would appear to be suffering from such a mental state is all the more reason not to trust anything he says.