Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Against God's Will": Gay Man Sues NJ Hospital For Being Denied HIV Meds [View all]RainDog
(28,784 posts)117. the origin of the term stems from that era
it has since been used to apply to various religious issues and non-religious issues as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals
The Fundamentals or The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth edited by A. C. Dixon and later by Reuben Archer Torrey is a set of 90 essays in 12 volumes published from 1910 to 1915 by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. They were designed to affirm orthodox Protestant beliefs, especially those of the Reformed tradition, and defend against ideas deemed inimical to them. They are widely considered to be the foundation of modern Christian fundamentalism.
The volumes defended orthodox Protestant beliefs and attacked higher criticism, liberal theology, Catholicism (also called by them Romanism), socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, Christian Science, Mormonism, Millennial Dawn (an early term for a particular Christian Bible Student movement which mostly later became the "Jehovah's Witnesses" denomination), Spiritualism, and evolutionism (an article by geologist George Frederick Wright).
The volumes defended orthodox Protestant beliefs and attacked higher criticism, liberal theology, Catholicism (also called by them Romanism), socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, Christian Science, Mormonism, Millennial Dawn (an early term for a particular Christian Bible Student movement which mostly later became the "Jehovah's Witnesses" denomination), Spiritualism, and evolutionism (an article by geologist George Frederick Wright).
(evolutionism: The Institute for Creation Research, in order to treat evolution as a category of religions, including atheism, fascism, humanism and occultism, commonly uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief.[10] The basis of this argument is to establish that the creation-evolution controversy is essentially one of interpretation of evidence, without any overwhelming proof (beyond current scientific theories) on either side. Creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in an attempt to suggest that the theory of evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate.)
now, however, the term is more broadly - but it came out of this 20th c. movement.
Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture. The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the FundamentalistModernist Controversy of that time. The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
but some people debate the use of this term in such a broad fashion. it was not used to describe Islam to the west, however, until the Iranian hostage crisis - it's not a term that comes from the Islamic world, afaik.
The term Islamic fundamentalism is often criticized. Bernard Lewis, a leading historian of Islam, had this to say against it:
The use of this term is established and must be accepted, but it remains unfortunate and can be misleading. "Fundamentalist" is a Christian term. It seems to have come into use in the early years of this century, and denotes certain Protestant churches and organizations, more particularly those that maintain the literal divine origin and inerrancy of the Bible. In this they oppose the liberal and modernist theologians, who tend to a more critical, historical view of Scripture. Among Muslim theologians there is as yet no such liberal or modernist approach to the Qur'an, and all Muslims, in their attitude to the text of the Qur'an, are in principle at least fundamentalists. Where the so-called Muslim fundamentalists differ from other Muslims and indeed from Christian fundamentalists is in their scholasticism and their legalism. They base themselves not only on the Qur'an, but also on the Traditions of the Prophet, and on the corpus of transmitted theological and legal learning
The term has been applied to Hindus since the development of a militant group in response to their clashes with Muslims and the term has been applied to atheists since 2007 when Dawkins began to speak out against creationism as an atheist.
The Associated Press' AP Stylebook recommends that the term fundamentalist not be used for any group that does not apply the term to itself. A great many scholars have adopted a similar position.
Since it has become a pejorative, some Fundamentalist Christians who were actually the first to begin to identify themselves in this way now want to distance themselves from the label and call others "fundamentalist."
But the ACCURATE meaning of the term in religion, esp. in Christianity, is for a Protestant Biblical literalist. Nevertheless, we have accepted the media term "Islamic Fundamentalist" in most discussions. I have never heard the term applied to the Catholic church in any media context, but maybe I missed it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
120 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Against God's Will": Gay Man Sues NJ Hospital For Being Denied HIV Meds [View all]
WillParkinson
Jun 2012
OP
Right. Constitution prohibits religious tests for holding public office, but -->
daaron
Jun 2012
#27
They aren't even following the Hippocratic Oath. They should have their licenses
RKP5637
Jun 2012
#33
Need to have their license to practice at any hospital yanked. And the hospital needs to be sued...
freshwest
Jun 2012
#46
"Missing doses of HIV medication can cause the patient to become resistant to the drugs"
Ruby the Liberal
Jun 2012
#3
At this stage I'm fed up with the whole Christian religion. I'm fed up with hearing this shit! n/t
RKP5637
Jun 2012
#34
As long as they're 'martyred' (in the figurative sense they love)... sounds good. nt
daaron
Jun 2012
#29
Of the roughly one billion humans who call themselves Christians, approximately
crayfish
Jun 2012
#105
Exactly my question. What the hell were the nurses doing? I would raise hell.
Butterbean
Jun 2012
#60
First they start denying women the morning after pill for religious belief NOW HIV medication
lookingfortruth
Jun 2012
#11
Isn't withholding treatment or aid to the sick against their God's will too? n/t
jtuck004
Jun 2012
#38
God made the medicine and put it in the hospital. Satan denied it to Joao Simoes
WriteWrong
Jun 2012
#44
Are the doctors doing rounds at hospitals normally psychaitrists, or is that uncommon?
hughee99
Jun 2012
#74
Here's what I don't get: How can anything fail to comply with the "will" of an omnipotent,
crayfish
Jun 2012
#104