tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415815443006499013.post4041926234095248356..comments2023-04-27T04:14:30.583-07:00Comments on Straight from the Heart: Fundamentalism and the Psychology of ViolenceDonna Farleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11884647995104136193noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3415815443006499013.post-77292170534301250362012-06-09T21:52:48.047-07:002012-06-09T21:52:48.047-07:00I agree in the main with your description of a cer...I agree in the main with your description of a certain mind-set. It is indeed dangerous to regard any human being as wholly other than oneself, and the denial of humanity has been the root of many evils: in the present day, notably, the denial of the humanity of the unborn leads to the doctrine that an unborn baby can be killed without guilt.<br /> I do have a semantic point to make. You use the term "fundamentalist" in the modern sense, which I believe is one modified by the media, and especially given acceptance by the press's drawing an equivalency between Christian fundamentalists and Muslim extremists. Perhaps my having had parents who regarded themselves as Fundamentalists is responsible for my being more conscious of the earlier meaning. Wikipedia is, I believe, accurate, when it states:<br />"The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[7]<br /> The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of scripture as a result of this.<br /> The virgin birth of Christ.<br /> The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.<br /> The bodily resurrection of Christ.<br /> The historical reality of Christ's miracles.<br /> <br />By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists." In practice, the first point regarding the Bible was the focus of most of the controversy."<br /> Now I would imagine that you yourself might subscribe to most of the "five fundamentals." Certainly the Christian Fundamentalists I have known have not tended " . . .to see the neighbour not as a real person, but as a target, a threat, something to eliminate—either by conversion, refutation, or by other means—if he threatens the dogma or world-view. <br /> I am sure we are involved in a discussion of definitions here rather than anything else.TedHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08729347182661976164noreply@blogger.com