The Term "Fundamentalist" As Applied To The Secular
On a linguistic basis, I would like to ask that I be called an "extremist", "dogmatist", "fanatic", "zealot", or any of a dozen similar words, rather than "fundamentalist". Before atheism, I spent a quarter-century in fundamentalism, and I know its etymology. Given that I reject loyalty to heritage and tradition, it makes no sense to claim that I call for a return to them.
Comments
tlatoani on Jun. 16, 2011 9:11 PM
You might want to look at the etymology of some of the words you don't mind being called...
albogdan on Jun. 17, 2011 11:40 AM
Examining the list and his reasoning, I think Matt knows exactly what he's saying here. Fundamentalism makes no sense when applied to his views. While the other words he mentioned could be applied to people with opposing views to him, they are also more applicable if someone thinks his views are too strong for their particular taste.
tlatoani on Jun. 17, 2011 11:57 AM
Forgive me, I hadn't been aware that Matt was a "member of a militant 1st century Jewish sect which fiercely resisted the Romans in Palestine". I'd been assuming he was as young as he looked, and wasn't Jewish.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=zealot
albogdan on Jun. 17, 2011 12:57 PM
The word zealot, like many words, has been adapted. While there is a secondary historic definition, there is also a more common use of the word.
A quick look at the primary word definition shows the following:
zeal·ot (zlt)
1.
a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.
zeal·ous (zls)
adj.
Filled with or motivated by zeal; fervent.
fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
Because of these primary definitions I totally get what he's talking about here. Sorry, didn't mean to upset anyone. On your note, yeah, I agree, it's fairly unlikely he's a two thousand year old Jewish man. :-)
tlatoani on Jun. 17, 2011 1:00 PM
In case Matt doesn't know the reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnLqLHWDg5E
pstscrpt on Jun. 17, 2011 2:47 PM
Maybe he's a Protoss?
albogdan on Jun. 17, 2011 1:02 PM
Ah, my mistake. I was ignoring Matt's use of the word "etymology". Purely looking at word etymology you are correct. He is only correct if he accepts the use of the words based on their modern definitions.
albogdan on Jun. 17, 2011 1:04 PM
Oh, one last comment. He's correct no matter what. I have no right to chose what he would prefer to be called or why!
matt-arnold on Jun. 17, 2011 2:48 PM
I would base my case more on freshness of usage, as I suspect the dictionary authors did as well. Unlike the Zealots, a movement which no longer exists and can suffer no brand confusion, fundamentalism is only about eighty years old-- recent enough that its meaning should not have been lost to the mists of time so soon.
dawnwolf on Jun. 17, 2011 4:41 PM — Or
...much as I like you, and I do, when it comes to your total intolerance, your inability to just live and let live when it comes to religion, I just think that you're being an asshole. No need for any kind of high-minded language when the base instinct and actions aren't high-minded at all.
matt-arnold on Jun. 17, 2011 4:46 PM — Re: Or
Asshole captures what you want to say much more accurately.
matt-arnold on Jun. 17, 2011 5:03 PM — Re: Or
I don't want that to be misinterpreted. I'm not one of those people who calls himself an asshole and expects people to just live with it. I am not an asshole. My reactions to your coldly-calculated passive-aggressive ploys are shockingly reasonable.
mrblue92 on Jun. 19, 2011 3:08 PM — Re: Or
Pardon me for asking, but has Matt been killing people over their religion lately?
As I assume not, what does one suppose the position should be against wanton ignorance? Say, for example, The Flat Earth Society insisted that the "flat earth" should be taught in public school science classes. What is our level of tolerance for this (versus teaching about it in a comparative religion/philosophy setting)?
"Tolerance" is about accepting the right of other people with differing opinions to coexist with you, but few would be insane enough to allow child molesters to run boarding schools to the end of being tolerant of those of different brain chemistry. Tolerance for mere ideas necessarily ends where the consequences of their execution begin. If need be, one can thoroughly illustrate the consequences of wishful thinking, but for sake of brevity it is left as an exercise for reader.
sarahmichigan on Jun. 20, 2011 1:13 PM — Your inability to live and let live when it comes to religion
I wasn't aware you were out there beating Christians with baseball bats or trying to get into Congress to legislate against them...
sarahmichigan on Jun. 24, 2011 3:26 PM
Hey Matt: along a similar vein, I was wondering if you've seen the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There." I actually went back 5 months or so in your journal to make sure you hadn't posted about it. The film-maker reminds me a lot of you in terms of his background and his current out-spokeness about the silliness of "moderate" Christianity. It was preaching to the choir for me to watch it, but he still made a few points about church/bible history I hadn't known about (though a lot, I'm sure, you already know, just like me).
matt-arnold on Jun. 24, 2011 5:22 PM
I haven't watched it, but I'd like to.
Matt Hargraves on Jul. 6, 2011 1:41 AM — That show...
Don't bother - I watched part of it and it was majorly boring. It was basically just an indictment against everyone that had anything to do with him when he was a Christian and didn't switch over to Atheism when he did. The filmmaker misrepresents himself and acts like he's being wronged. It reminds me of Christopher Hitchens, who is completely offensive to Christians, but gets hyper sensitive when they point his own attacks right back at him.
In the case of Christopher Hitchens, I like the argument, but not the arguer. In the case of "The God who wasn't there" though, his argument is too personalized to be worth hearing and the fact that his arguments are personal affects my impression of the arguer.
Leave a Comment