Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
I agree with SLM's definition....
|
You appear to, but then you say this:
Quote:
|
But surely, in order to be an extremist you have to be a fundamentalist first and foremost?
|
Quote:
Can you get a religious extremist who isn't a fundamentalist?  |
Fundamentalist: being a supporter of fundamentalism, which is strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles, often used in a religious sense (culled from Dictionary.com).
If the basic ideas or principles of the teachings of Jesus Christ are non-violent - and they are - then by definition, someone who commits a violent act is not strictly adhering to those principles. Therefore that person cannot be a fundamentalist follower of Jesus.
What they could be, is a fundamentalist follower of a cause or sect that does advocate violence. That, I suspect, is where the source of our disagreement lies. There are many such causes and sects on the fringe of what you might call 'mainstream' Christianity. I suppose it's a case of pick your fundamentalist really.
I think the thrust of SLM's point, and certainly mine, is to avoid using the word 'fundamentalist' in any way that implies that the mainstream of either Islam or Christianity demands or applauds the kind of activity we saw at Glasgow airport, or outside abortion clinics. Seeing as the word 'fundamentalist' is open to interpretations depending on whose fundamentals you're examining, we both applaud the recent media trend towards using the word 'extremist' instead. This word conveys the unusual nature of the act committed, but without any implied judgement of the belief system of other people not connected with the act.