"Moderates" and "fundamentalists"

I feel the same way when I hear the phrase "moderate" Muslims.

And of course, the "moderate" Abolitionists would have been the ones that were willing to permit slavery in some cases, right?

Using the term "fundamentalist" doesn't bother me, but then I'm one of those who learned language through a dictionary and not culture. All it means is one who adheres to the fundamental tenets of whatever. I've always felt that other terms such as moderate, radical, etc. were useless and don't belong in journalism because they're subjective to the writers perspectives - not analytical in other words. I've always found myself think less of journalists when they used such terms. Gotta tell you that seeing Conservative Christians recoil from the use of subjective terminology provides me with solace since they as a group have been the most disingenuous party out there using subjective terminology to describe Muslims and Islam just to bash them as illiberal or unmodern whatever those mean to any traditional society.

In a blogosphere where the very idea of Muslim autonomy from Western/Modernist influence is decried as a "fundamentalist" worldview, I find this entire conversation to be more than a little off kilter.

Abu-Hamaid, You are correct, sir. Few Conservative Christians see that they very same sticks they wield to bash Islam can be turned on themselves as well. Charges that Islam is "illiberal or unmodern" can be levied at Traditionalist Christians as well. This shows to what extent modernist thinking has permeating and perverted Western culture. When I read a fellow Catholic blogger call Muslims "Bronze Age fanatics," my response is, "What was so bad about the Bronze Age?"

As an evangelical Christian, I frequently find myself educating (via e-mail) reporters and editors as to the definition for evangelicalism as opposed to Christian fundamentalism. I usually send them to the web site for Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals, which does an excellent job of breaking it down: http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html "The term "Evangelicalism" is a wide-reaching definitional "canopy" that covers a diverse number of Protestant groups. ... There are three senses in which the term "evangelical" is used today as we enter the 21st-century. The first is to see as "evangelical" all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases: ... conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. A second sense is to look at evangelicalism as an organic group of movements and religious tradition. ... A third sense of the term is as the self-ascribed label for a coalition that arose during the Second World War. This group came into being as a reaction against the perceived anti-intellectual, separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. ... (continuing the quote) "Fundamentalist" is a term that is frequently bandied about in the news media these days. Unfortunately, this term has been used so casually in describing anyone who seems to hold some sort of traditional religious belief ... When used within the North American historical context, however, there are precedents for the use of this term which restores a sense of descriptive cohesion. Fundamentalism was a movement that arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries within American Protestantism reacting against "modernist" theology and biblical criticism as well as changes in the nation's cultural and social scene. Taking its name from The Fundamentals (1910-1915), a twelve-volume set of essays designed to combat Liberal theology, the movement grew by leaps and bounds after World War I. During the 1920s, fundamentalists waged a war against modernism in three ways: by (unsuccessfully) attempting to gain re-control of Protestant denominations, mission boards, and seminaries; by supporting (with mixed success) Prohibition, Sunday "blue laws," and other measures defending traditional Protestant morality and sensibilities; and (fairly successfully) by attempting to stop the teaching of evolution in the public schools, a doctrine which they saw as inextricably linked to the development of "German" higher criticism and the source of the Great War. ... Since the 1940s, the term fundamentalist has come to denote a particularly aggressive style related to the conviction that the separation from cultural decadence and apostate (read liberal) churches are telling marks of faithfulness to Christ. Most self-described fundamentalist churches today are conservative, separatist Baptist (though often calling themselves "Bible Baptist" or simply "Bible" churches) congregations such as the churches of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC), or the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA). ...

How would you label the most orthodox and absolutist Catholics to differentiate them from the mainstream of the U.S. Catholic church? I like Harvey's suggestion of "devout". Or "orthodox Catholics" is fine, too. Of course, among ourselves we often simply describe them as "good Catholics" -- as opposed to the "mainstream of the U.S. Catholic Church", who are, quite frankly, "bad Catholics". But of course that's the sort of distinction -- and value judgment -- that only insiders can make. What I object to is the implication that Catholics who accept most if not all of the teachings of their Church are somehow a fringe group within their Church.
Perhaps those who call themselves Catholic but who quite publicly *don't* accept the teaching of their Church should be called what they are: "hypocritical Catholics".

Perhaps those who call themselves Catholic but who quite publicly *don't* accept the teaching of their Church should be called what they are: "hypocritical Catholics". Zing!
No chance. I believe that particular word is reserved for social conservatives.

It's true that the media has a liberal slant to it because many reporters and journalists don't understand the devout.
Mix ignorance with politics, and the problem is magnified. Politicians and political parties play war games and the only weapon is the use of language. Both sides use words to make the other side appear to be a little crazy, and often, demonic. I can agree with conservatives that it's done to them. I can't feel sorry for them because I so often see them doing the same thing to liberals. I have to shrug.

Susan - thanks for the cool fact of the day. I had no idea that's where the Right Center Left appellations came from.

I consider myself a political "moderate" though my term of choice is "passionate moderate," which I know is an oxymoron, but I can only say, "Moderation in all things, even moderation." The use of imprecise terms like "moderate" or "fundamentalist" can be very annoying, certainly. I personally hate the term "progressive" but like the term "conservative."
There is often no rhyme or reason to our pet peeves about language, really, other than the past associations we have with particular words.
My problem with politics on Left and Right has more to do with the fact that I think too many people on the political Left and Right are just role-playing, and are more interested in fighting each other and acting out personal psychological dramas than in actually learning from each other or in solving problems.

To add to what I said above, what I'm driving at is that it is not the use of rather imprecise terms to characterize somebody's views that is the biggest problem (to me) it is rather how we "self-stereotype" ourselves through role-playing rather than actually being unique and idiosyncratic and thinking humans with many and varied opinions.

Other observations about contemporary political labels: A "moderate Democrat" is any white suburbanite or white blue collar ethnic who gets elected to public office as a Democrat and at least occasionally votes in favor of more defense spending -- irrespective of his/her positions on any other particular issues. A "conservative Democrat" is any white southerner who gets elected to public office as a Democrat, irrespective of his/her positions on particular issues. A "moderate Republican" is any member of the GOP who supports legal abortion -- even if he/she gets 100% scores from conservative groups on every other issue imaginable.
A "liberal Republican" does not exist, even if his name is Lincoln Chafee, Michael Bloomberg or (pre-switch) James Jeffords. Membership in the GOP by itself renders a politician insufficiently progressive, no matter what else.

No, Mark. Nate's definition of fundamentalism is a good one because it points to the specific doctrinal beliefs held by certain mostly American Protestant Christians. It isn't generally applicable to people of any religion who embrace merely "the letter" of "their respective gospels." And most adherents of any religion, of course, see no conflict between "letter" and "spirit."
Your assumption that Brian Pessaro's self-described prideful partisan attitude is typical of doctrinally orthodox Catholics is, frankly, 100% wrong. To go a step further and label doctrinally orthodox Catholics "fundamentalist" based on that assumption is simply to compound the error.

I found Mark's article to be very moving as well. The author approached it as an orthodox Catholic because he is an orthodox Catholic, but I can see how it works outside of the Catholic faith, too. When I first became a "born-again unitarian"(my phrase, as in, I recognized that we're all spiritual beings), I became rather condescending towards many Christians. The farther to the right on the religious and political spectrum a person sat- the more condescension he/she received. A few conservative Christians told me that I was having a problem with pride. They were correct. My brother-in-law has been on a macrobiotic diet for years. Take what the author said and apply it to food, and you see the same type of behavior. Back to the topic of this thread-many people don't like to make generalizations about people. Many people don't like to apply offensive labels to people in public. Therefore, we come up with different words that, in the end, still offend. Moderate Muslims have become Muslims who don't use bombs to kill civilians, flip out by killing when the prophet is insulted, and chop off the heads of infidels. It would be helpful if devout Muslims who understand the spirit of Islam could help us to come up with the correct language. Moderate Christians have become those who don't demonize Americans who don't share their religious beliefs, who don't demonize gays, and who don't look down their nose at most of society. It would be helpful if conservative Christians who are serious in their faith and who comprehend the spirit of compassion could help us to come up with the right terms so that we can use language to communicate. We may have chosen the wrong terms. Help us to find the right terms. Liberal Christians can be very serious about their spiritual life. I would call them devout.

Diane, No, I don't think that all conservative Christians demonize gays. I'm asking for conservative Christians who aren't happy with terms like "fundamentalist" to help journalists come up with the right terms.
Here's an example. http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several "moms" and "dads," perhaps six or eight "grandparents," and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation. The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, "They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless" (v. 29-31, NIV). What would you call a Christian who not only believes the homosexual act to be a sin, but uses Scripture to call homosexuals all sorts of names?

How about abandoning the need to label anyone no matter where they lie inside or out the religious camp? I consider myself a 'serious' Catholic. Faithful to the Magisterial teaching office of Rome. On the side of Catholic teaching against abortion and other 'culture of death' issues which plague our nation, and so on. But so what? In the end, I am a sinner and flawed like everybody else. Who am I to point to a "liberal" Catholic or "fundamentalist" Christian or "orthodox" Muslim and hold myself in esteem against them? The answer is, I'm not. Christ spent much time, and there's much ink in the New Testament commanding us NOT to be like the Pharisees. Whether it's the parable of the Pharisee or the publican, or the woman caught in adultery, or the final judgment, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty...", using ones faith as a psychological prop to make ourselves feel good is against the spirit and letter of the Gospel. Christians, and I believe all humanity, are to bring goodness into the world, take care of the weakest amongst us, help our brothers and sisters out, and so on. Spewing labels against others is not of the Kingdom of God. Separately, back to the original intent of Rod's thread, the media does this all the time. Those who toe the MSM line are called "moderate" or nothing at all, those who promote their faith according to the truths held by that faith, are "orthodox","fanatical" or "fundamentalist." To which, as a Christian I can only quote God himself, "Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven." Christ doesn't go on to say, "Make sure you label them, insult them back or hold yourself in esteem above them."

Watsy: It is a fine line between speaking truth with love and hurting a person in a way that is not helpful. This applies to all things I consider sin, such as my particular ones, speaking too much, too sarcastically, too critically and practicing gluttony. The Bible sets out pretty clearly, I think, how a Christian is supposed to deliver unwelcome messages. Without going into a long Bible lesson here, it typically involves a more intimate setting and relationship than just standing on a street corner and yelling; it usually involves a wise spiritual leader(s) well-versed in the Scripture and with a foundation in prayer; and being sensitive to, as James says, being slow to speak, slow to anger, and quick to listen. But I do not want to appear to be sugar-coating my viewpoint. There is no doubt that many of my Christian beliefs will be offensive to some. I would just hope that when I do offend someone that my action is not done from a point of arrogance or pride but in order to share in a loving way the same way that Christ did with the woman at the well. What would I suggest rather than shorthand words like fundamentalist, evangelical, etc.? "John Smith is a Christian who believes that ..." and let the reader decide where he falls on the continuum of Christians.
Thank you for this conversation.

Sorry. Haloscan has been dropping parts of my posts. I don't think that any Christian on the left would define themselves as one who thinks that "God is doing a new thing!" by upending biblical morality Thank you, Diane. I need to get some work done.

"GetReligion's Mollie Ziegler flags a "truly horrible story" by a Reuters reporter, in which the reporter inadvertently discloses not only her ignorance of basic tenets of the Christian religion ... but also her agenda." Yeah, and can you believe she put a Beholder in a module made for 1st through 3rd level characters? The outrage of these no-nothings!
-ml

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think too much is being made of the language of the Reuters article. With the exception of one sentence near the end, all of the references to "fundamentalist" and "moderate" are directly attributed to the author's interviewees, most using direct quotations. Now I would be just about the last person to defend the secular media's treatment of religious issues, but let's be fair, and maybe even err on the side of charity, before we accuse. On the issue of the term "fundamentalist", some have noted wistfully how freighted a term it has become. We have to be careful with terms like fundamentalist, moderate, even liberal and conservative, because while they may partially convey our intended meaning, they can also do damage by carrying additional, unintended meaning. I am a Catholic who could be described as orthodox, conservative, maybe even "fundamentalist"... but I hesitate with such terms. In the same way, I hesitate to use "good Catholic" and "bad Catholic", in part because these are harshly judgmental; they are most likely used by those who think they are the former to describe those they judge to be the latter. At the same time, some make the case that those who do not accept in full the Church's definitively held teachings on faith and morals should not be called Catholic at all, since they are outside of the faith as universally held (catholic means universal), and that when they apply this title to themselves, they only cause confusion and disunity. In this regard consider, e.g., the debate in Catholic circles about John Kerry in 2004.

Simon, if you're interested in a bit more conversation on fundamentalism off-thread send me an e-mail address, thanks, aexempla at hotmail.com

I am a practicing Catholic. I was raised in a church that I would describe as fundamentalist.
These are some of the practices that I see as fundamenalist. Among other things, women weren't allowed to pray in front of men (or even teenage boys) without covering their heads. Women and girls couldn't wear pants to church even in the dead of winter. Every aspect of one's personal life was subject to scrutiny by congregation elders. Men were the absolute authority on everything. The Bible was to be read literally and was considered infallable. Proselytizing was required.
Most of the conservative Christian mainstream doesn't adhere to such guidelines. I would second the use of the word devout rather than fundamentalist to describe them.