In Reply to: Re: Don Lattin on using the words "cults" and "fundamentalist" posted by CB on December 09, 2006 at 21:57:03:
Good questions, and I am now thinking that I should narrow down my working definition to only cover religion. However, I was pointing out that by its very etymological root, fundamentalism means to me to "stay close to the source". The problem, as you indicate, is how to understand "close".
With the doctrine of "inerrancy of scripture", I wonder if we are assuming universal interpretation and understanding of the scripture, which is not true across denominations. It is only true internally, and even then there are separations and schisms. The only way to avoid this conflict is to assume diversity of interpretations - which is more in accordance to what happened at the onset of the original separation from Catholicism.
Resulting from accepting that revelation is not absolute purview of the elite, the next centuries witnessed groups separating themselves from previously separated group, over and over again. In other words, reality tells us that "inerrancy of scripture" is a valid condition to fundamentalism as long as it is part of the canonical doctrine. More clearly, it is a logical circular argument and the source of denominational separations therefore what is fundamentalism for one group will not be for another, it cannot be generalized across all beliefs.
In response, a less constraining definition is one that simply refers to the adherence to the fundamental tenets of belief leaving out concerns about interpretations but considering only the degree of absolutism in regards to the allegiance pledged. With this definition, whether catholic or protestant, muslim or hindi, anybody can be fundamentalist depending on their degree of allegiance to the basic, "fundamental" beliefs.
Also, this degree can be used to measure fanaticism.
In contrast, zeal refers to our own internal life while fanaticism goes beyond one’s boundaries. In other words, zeal makes one a good citizen while fanaticism causes one to invade other people's rights because I don't respect their boundaries. This may be a simplistic and artificial distinction because we can see how sometimes it is better to intervene than to stand by idly as a crime is committed. But at that point our discussion moves to ethics.
I think that there is a degree of arrogance and self righteousness in fanaticism. Zeal is a notch less militant because it is contained by the person's respect to the freedom God has given others to be themselves. Not all fundamentalists are fanatics but based on this discussion, fanatics are fundamentalists of one sort of another.
To end this post, I believe that fundamentalism is not a quality necessarily related to ancient beliefs, ideas or doctrines but rather to the strong adherence to some doctrinal point or belief, which could be quite novel.