Fundamentalists (of all stripes) at it again (Re: Textbook Wars: Religion in History)

Thanks and thanks to percy, for letting me post. It is hard to keep the peace, and maybe I just need to visit here less oftenIt does strike me as inherently unfair for evos to start a thread stating it is fundies creating history rewrites, and then when I point out that secularists have been doing this, it is now all of the sudden some wild conspiracy theory.imo, all of the evo posters that have used derogatory language in claiming I am asserting a conspiracy theory should be censured. The thread is about history textbook rewriting. I have addressed this thread in a factual manner. My opponents have not, and moreover have insinuating that even claiming history rewriting is a wild, paranoid conspiracy theory.So what we have is evos can say, without merit imo, that fundies are causing history textbook rewrites, and they should be treated civilly and with respect, but if anyoen argues that secularists actually sanitized textbooks of certain references and emphasis on Christianity, that is a wild, paranoid conspiracy theory.This illustrates, imo, the fundamental hypocrisy of many of the evos here, some of whom such as jar are moderators, and I think the issue will keep coming up as long as some of these guys are mods. They see nothing wrong with accusing me of advancing a paranoid conspiracy theory for pointing out how LIvingston's missionary zeal was cut out of history, but think it is perfectly reasonable for them to assert the craziest, most paranoid conspiracy theories around, such as claiming Christians want to establish a theocracy and ruin science and history education, and they use their mod status to deliberately intervene and attack posters critical of their stance in a hypocritical manner, imo.

This is the first definition from Answers.com, and it was the one I intended when I titled the thread "Fundamentalists (of all stripes)...":

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.

Answering's Randman's unusual interpretation, no one is blaming Christian fundamentalism for the actions of fundamentalists of other persuasions. About the most you could say is that they're copying the Christian's approach in lobbying for textbook changes more consistent with their beliefs.--Percy

Indeed, although the word was originally self-description for a certain school of Protestant Christianity, anyone reading or watching the news for, say, the last two decades should be aware that the word is now used to describe similiar movements in all of the major religions.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

so you think when we say fundimentalists we mean christians?, or that somehow calling another group fundimentalist degrades the word, don't most people who believe things that would place they as fundimentalist consider the name wrong?You just seem to ignore what i write, i wouldn't call them fundimentalists but nationalists and extreemists It is about history textbook rewriting, but its about making something look better because, you don't like what it says about your history, not that something that is irelevent to the context is needed. as i said before if a person is known for finding something, what would be the point of adding religious belief? It is a paranoid theory, or just to be more civil since you do not like this discripter, it is a unsupported theory, do you have any evidence that they are actively trying to purge christianity from text books?, inferance that because its not in there, they must be is not evidence of anything, other than you wanting it to be that wayhave you even read a high school history book in the last 20 years?, they talk about spanish missionaries coming to america to build churchs to convert the native population, the secular writers arn't hiding this from anyone, heck if the context is religious they talk about it, siteing someone who is famous for being an explorer, who happened to be a missionary at one time, but is not famous for it, is not really evidence of secularist writers trying to cut out christianitythe thing is also the hindus and muslems are actively saying they do not want the bad stuff in the history books, if say they cut out the inquision and the witch trials and such things would you agree its a good thing? No they will keep coming up as long as you take them as personal attacks, rather than disagreements

Percy, I don't see a lot of evidence these Hindus are fundamentalists. They appear to be more modernists in respect to their religious traditions.Furthermore, the reason the school system is accepting changing their history texts is not fundamentalism, but multi-culturalism and even a reaction against what has been perceived as a fundamentalist attitude. The whole notion this has something to do with fundamentalism is just very bizarre, but hey, maybe you think fundamentalists are overly tolerant people, so much so they are likely to change the facts to suit the opinions of other groups?

The mindset you display is somewhat amazing. For example: How could you possibly come up with something so confused? First, the Hindu group appears to be a modernist group with respect to some of their religious traditions. So they are not fundamentalists by any definition of the term.Secondly, fundamentalism is often criticized not for being too open to other points of view, but for being too closed. The idea that fundamentalists are so tolerant and open to different perspectives that they would rewrite facts for other belief systems is bizarre, and misguided to say the least.Third, you dodge my quoted point entirely. You guys are the ones that came up with a theory advancing history rewrites, which by the way occurs in liberal dominated education. So the idea of historical revisionism is not a paranoid theory, oh, except if anyone points out secularists doing it. Your hypocrisy is apparent to all here.As far as history, it is well-known fact that public schools do not teach the level of theology and religious history necessary to understand basic history due to fear of teaching Christianity. Take the Reformation. It is probably one of the most significant events in Western history, with 3 primary sides and subsets within them, and 3 distinct theological differences defining and shaping that debate. Schools do not educate people about what those ideas were, and as such leave students about as igorant of the Reformation as if they had never heard of it at all.

Here's the deal:1. Keep focused on the topic here in this thread. Imo, it appears you're doing fine debating your points, though I'm not sure that I've read the entire thread.2. Regardless of your assessment of the manners of others, work on keeping your own above reproach.3. If and when you have a significant specific problem with the manners of others, including mods, bring it to the attention of admins in the moderation thread, rather than debating it here or wherever you're posting, so as not to inflame things here and elsewhere. If someone inflames, don't respond in kind. I'm not singling you out here. I've given Crashfrog the same advice, to which he responded in a kindly manner. We will work hard to iron these problems out for the good of all and to do it in a fair and balanced manner. This is what AdminPercy wants and that's why he's allowing us to resolve it short of flat out suspensions. 4. If and when you have a mod complaint, best to refrain from generalized criticisms as you're doing here. That's simply going to irritate them and make things more unpleasant for you. I've been remiss in area myself in the past and have been working on that. The more I work with them, the more I see that they're willing to work for improvement also.5. Cheers!

I wasn't saying they were, why do you keep ignoring that i'm saying they arn't fundimentalists?here it is again do you just not want to let it go that i am calling them fundimentalists? or are you just plain putting your head in the sand? As I said before can you give real evidence that any group of historians that are doing this? as I said before, Can you produce any evidence other than inferance of its not there so they must be trying to exclude christianity, and what about the parts where they do talk about christianity i told you about the missionaries in america, my highschool text book talks about them. I guess my hypocrisy is only apperent to you, just like a lot of things, namely because you want it to be so So you know nothing about school for the last 50 years then?, why would theology and religious history be necessary for students to learn about? what would the reformation teach them?, i'm sorry i wouldn't call it one of the most significant events in western history maybe religious history, i could name any number of things that affected the world more than that scizm
I wouldnt' call it fear of teaching christianity, but a balance of time, you know people would have to teach every religion, everyones views, and they have limited time to spend on one topic, people go to school to learn how to learn not just to learn thingsThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-29-2006 10:33 PM

It seems to me as I read the OP quote that it's the non-Christian religious fundamentalists and secularists who are demanding the multi-culteralistic and secularistic revisions in the textbooks. The study cites Muslims, Hindus and others as the loudest advocates. Then it includes this significant quote about secularists, but avoids citing secularists perse as the revisionists: Note that it's the history texts which shied away, when in fact this was likely the result of the pressure from secularist fundamentalists if you will. Imo, there's been a whole lot of secularist fundie revision effected in the text books over the past few decades.Secularist fundie.......hmm, maybe fodder for a thread sometime.

---

Gravity is God's glue that holds his universe together.

The Reformation has been a big biggie in history classes since day one in American education, at least until recent decades. I'm not apprised on how much it's taught now, but it is a very important event in world history.

Well, I view it as secular fundamentalism as well, but I think the minute I would call securalism as often being a form of fundamentalism that there would be a knee-jerk reaction debating the definition of fundamentalism or some such.But in general, I do think the attempt to impose one's worldview on the rest of the nation is essentially what secularists have been trying to do.

I agree It is important, but from the prepective of schools, theres so much to teach, a religions class on things like that may well be needed. i did learn about it, it effected things, but would you agree that there is a lot of things after that had the same or more of an impact on the world?This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-29-2006 11:58 PM

I doubt there would be much quibble over what fundamentalism is, there might be disagreement on whether you can be a secular fundamentalist and you know what the word means rand don't you? its good you say you think this, rather than saying something like this is fact, you infer lack of christianity in some places in text books as being evidence, but the thing is what had changed has been the focus of fact gathering, rather than someones imposing there worldview on anyone

Technically this is just semantics and if you want to call it that then I have no real problem with debating using it. However it seems to me that fundamentalism and secular are not the issues here. And frankly I've been nonplussed at your constant use of multiculturalism.Your assessment that the hindus involved were not really fundamentalists seemed dead on to me. These people were clearly trying to rewrite their own vision or lets say reinterpret what hinduism is... ironically to match western and Xian tenets.But that is exactly why it isn't about multiculturalism. Multiculturalism involves acceptance of other cultures even if they are strange to others. If that was what was going on then hindus would not feel it was necessary to pretend to be like everyone else. This was about uniculturalism, a movement to make everyone feel good by making everyone look the same. It has both internal and external components.Multiculturalists would simply base their definitions on historical fact and then suggest people accept them as they are.Secularists would not have a problem discussing events within religious communities.If you find people arguing for an atheist position, or a religious position of any kind then you are likely (imo) discussing extremists or advocates. They may be fundamentalists, but as in the case of these hindus, clearly they don't have to be.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Holmes, I wasn't saying the Hindus are multiculturalists. The educational system, not the Hindus, are actually the ones involved with writing and using textbooks. They are the multiculturalists, and thus are giving credence to the minority position. Whether right or wrong, that's why different groups are being listened to.