What is the difference between fundamentalism and secularism
Answers
Answered by
0
Thanks for the tantalizing question Bhupendra. Tantalizing as it allows the comparison between religious belief and political belief in terms of a fanatical and fundamental dogma and following.
The question mistakenly narrows the idea and practice of fanaticism and that of fundamentalism to a religious belief or zealotry and is a disservice to a genuinely curious mind so, I will first deal with the words absent a religious or political bent.
I would think that anyone can be fanatical about anything and that would be to the exclusion of all opposition, either through ignoring such opposition, rhetorically demeaning, degrading or marginalizing such opposition or physically and violently opposing that naysayer.
For that fundamentalist, regardless of the actual position, it is the belief and action that the defined core values or principles are not be violated. This position may or may not take on the aura of fanaticism. It is interesting to note that for that fanatic fundamentalist, religious or political, such actions to include violence and too, encompass absolute savagery is justifiable and not considered fanatical.
Between that religious and political fundamentalist zealot only the names are changed. For the religious they may go under the name of Christian, Jew and Muslim. For that political zealot they may be called Fascist, Nazi, Communist, Marxist or just socialists. If one was to rank one against the other in terms of effectiveness judged by number of people killed, imprisoned and impoverished the fanatical fundamentalism of the socialist ideal would be the clear winner.
That I am fundamentally an Atheist with a core value of independent thought; it is only for me and I do not insist that others agree with or abide by my life’s choices or philosophical position. This is what I would consider being an American is all about. To think otherwise is, I would say, to embrace a fanaticism of whatever name and description.
265 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Bhupendra Tanna
MORE ANSWERS BELOW. RELATED QUESTIONS
The question mistakenly narrows the idea and practice of fanaticism and that of fundamentalism to a religious belief or zealotry and is a disservice to a genuinely curious mind so, I will first deal with the words absent a religious or political bent.
I would think that anyone can be fanatical about anything and that would be to the exclusion of all opposition, either through ignoring such opposition, rhetorically demeaning, degrading or marginalizing such opposition or physically and violently opposing that naysayer.
For that fundamentalist, regardless of the actual position, it is the belief and action that the defined core values or principles are not be violated. This position may or may not take on the aura of fanaticism. It is interesting to note that for that fanatic fundamentalist, religious or political, such actions to include violence and too, encompass absolute savagery is justifiable and not considered fanatical.
Between that religious and political fundamentalist zealot only the names are changed. For the religious they may go under the name of Christian, Jew and Muslim. For that political zealot they may be called Fascist, Nazi, Communist, Marxist or just socialists. If one was to rank one against the other in terms of effectiveness judged by number of people killed, imprisoned and impoverished the fanatical fundamentalism of the socialist ideal would be the clear winner.
That I am fundamentally an Atheist with a core value of independent thought; it is only for me and I do not insist that others agree with or abide by my life’s choices or philosophical position. This is what I would consider being an American is all about. To think otherwise is, I would say, to embrace a fanaticism of whatever name and description.
265 Views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Bhupendra Tanna
MORE ANSWERS BELOW. RELATED QUESTIONS
Similar questions