Chris, I disagree that Fundamentalism is not "another religion" but comes from the "core" of religious traditions, and here is why: Think about the "originalism" of some of our Supreme Court justices. It follows the same damaged and damaging rubric about the Constitution as Fundamentalists do about the texts on which they rely. Interpretation of founding documents (Constitution and Declaration of Indepence for the U.S. and the Bible for Jews and Christians) is a complex and ever-evolving enterprise UNLESS you are an "originalist" or a Fundamentalist. Then, you grab onto the understanding of the texts that most fits your political or theocratic goals which, in both cases, aim to rule over others in detrimental ways. Fundamentalism is limited and limiting and doesn't honor the richness of the texts under examination. That is what makes it a different "religion."
Melinda, great insight. What I take away from your comment is that fundamentalism is basically an over-simplification of concepts, and using that over-simplification to control others.
I believe that Melinda Quivik has your answer, just below. She is more eloquent than what my initial response to your question would have been. She says it better.
Ally, were you replying to me or to Chris Buzinski? Melinda wrote a deeply insightful response to Chris's first post. Chris responded with what can only be called a truly bonehead reinterpreation of what Melinda wrote. My brief response was to Chris (brief because I saw no need to point out the apparently deliberate misreading Chris gave to what Melinda wrote. I agree with you that Melinda writes with clarity and eloquence.
Chris, I disagree that Fundamentalism is not "another religion" but comes from the "core" of religious traditions, and here is why: Think about the "originalism" of some of our Supreme Court justices. It follows the same damaged and damaging rubric about the Constitution as Fundamentalists do about the texts on which they rely. Interpretation of founding documents (Constitution and Declaration of Indepence for the U.S. and the Bible for Jews and Christians) is a complex and ever-evolving enterprise UNLESS you are an "originalist" or a Fundamentalist. Then, you grab onto the understanding of the texts that most fits your political or theocratic goals which, in both cases, aim to rule over others in detrimental ways. Fundamentalism is limited and limiting and doesn't honor the richness of the texts under examination. That is what makes it a different "religion."
Melinda, great insight. What I take away from your comment is that fundamentalism is basically an over-simplification of concepts, and using that over-simplification to control others.
Well said
Seems to me you are seeing a lot of stuff in Melinda's post than is actually in there. Make me wonder why.
I believe that Melinda Quivik has your answer, just below. She is more eloquent than what my initial response to your question would have been. She says it better.
Ally, were you replying to me or to Chris Buzinski? Melinda wrote a deeply insightful response to Chris's first post. Chris responded with what can only be called a truly bonehead reinterpreation of what Melinda wrote. My brief response was to Chris (brief because I saw no need to point out the apparently deliberate misreading Chris gave to what Melinda wrote. I agree with you that Melinda writes with clarity and eloquence.
Chris is who I was responding to.
Thanks for clarifying, Ally. Good response, btw. The way substack arranges responses is confusing!
Indeed it is...
Good point, but the corruption of anything positive (teaching of Jesus) is universal with the BarrтАЩs and Franklin Grahams of our society.