I fail to see how this fits in with political or economic ideologies... Perhaps when church and state were one and the same there might have been some relevance, but today there certainly isn't.

Helps to destroy the world.. Pushes people further from true spirituality that might help.. Also.. Just the cause of so many problems.. shoulda given it negative 10 stars

It depends on how you choose to define it... "Fundamentalism originally referred to a movement in North American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism, stressing that the Bible is literally inerrant, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. This original "fundamentalism" holds as essential to Christian faith five fundamental doctrines:

1. the inerrancy of the Bible,
2. the Virgin birth,
3. physical resurrection,
4. atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and
5. the Second Coming." From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think of it, Indie, as religion taken out of context, a soup-simple answer to a philosophy of living. There really isn't any religion that doesn't ask the ones following it to undertake serious contemplation of all aspects of each precept. I think this is God's wish for humans: not merely to accept the precepts, but to make many of them odd enough as to invite spiritual, intellectual and soulful contemplation. Fundamentalism constitutes a form of spiritual fascism and intellectual detachment; I refuse to picture God as Fascist Supreme.

Genghis is right, that this is neither an economic nor a political system.

Unfortunately, too many politicians, in too many countries, haven't seemed to grasp that concept.

I am sorry to report, fellow citizens, that fundamentalism is neither an economic nor a political system. It is a description of certain religious thought.

Somewhere between here (i. e. fundamentalism) and fascism lies the land of bush

Horrible! Religion is bad enough, fundamentalist the worst.

As perilous as fascism. Evangelical and Islamic fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin when applied to politics. You cannot argue for fundamentalism and then argue for freedom. It's a contridiction. If you study fundamentalist/theocratic history, you will NOT find a successful outcome.

Except when practised in the Middle East, then apparently it's the most fabulous system of all, and you'd have to be a bigot to disagree.. geez.

Fundamentalists try to take religion and turn it into politics. They think they are doing everyone a favour by putting their religion on them, but in reality, all they are doing is interpreting the Bible or the Koran so literally that they are turning themselves into hypocrits because they tell others not to sin, whereas they sin themselves by harming those who do not belong to their religion. In general, I think that fundamentalism is hypocritical, far-fetched (i.e, all science is wrong, the private parts of the body are evil) and a disgrace to Jesus' and Muhammad's teachings. Examples of fundamentalist regimes that proved disastrous are the Taliban, Ayatullah Khohemeni's regime and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

I do not believe a religion should be totally enforced on an entire nation. They already tried that with Afghanistan. Any fundamentalist, whether Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, Hindu, Satanist, etc., is a danger to the people. Fundamentalists kill and maim in the name of their religion and if they had the chance to run a country, They would create a living hell.

I don't mean to offend anyone specifically, but fundamentalists really do scare me. These people have the reputation for being old, fat southern cowboys who flat out hate anyone who isn't a Christian. Some stand outside courthouses holding flags saying "God hates Fags". Who told him this? Did God himself come down and tell him that? Maybe it was the priest who sexually harrased him years ago. These people just ruin thier religion, no matter what it may be. They take everything too extreme. While I do belive that religion does hold a play in government, fundamentalists are too crazy. Religion in a Democratic nation should be, and is, limited.

Abichara1882 makes some very good points about fundamentalism. History has overwhelmingly proven that it has disasterous results. There is nothing wrong with morality in politics, but when the balance is tipped and religion takes over, trouble is on the way. The medieval papacy did just awful things in the name of religion and kept Europe in a quagmire of fear, poverty and hysteria for centuries. Any Cathar or Jew from 14th century France would tell you this. Fundamentalism also has given history such shining moments like The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. Obviously Christianity has had its share of blood-lusting scripture thumpers just like Islam. It's funny we are so quick to condemn the Taliban for their sick interpretation of religion, but the ones condemning the loudest are often the people who would love to bring their own fundamental view of religion to this country. The last time fundamentalists got their way in the US, we got Prohibition. Obviously history is trying to teach us a lesson.

Jer 8:8 God says through Jermiah see the sriptures that the scibes have altered them to suit themselves, as have polititians the laws of the land.

I would like to hit these guys (weather Muslims or Christian) over the head with the largest version of their own scriptures I can find. Hard cover!!! Fundametalist christians are to pushy and they push a lot of dogmas contrary to the bible. Just as fundamentalist islamics do with the Koran. Verbal Ineracy, Pick and Choose bits of scripture to go by, taking it out of context, and ingnoring the rest (contradicting the majority of its teachings). Fundamentalism reminds me of Marxism because although athiest they do the same with The Capital and Commonist Mannifesto. Forcing people to live by their doctrines. I don't think fundamentalism belongs in the political section.

Depends on the fundamentals supported. It is very good to have moral clarity in a society. I would tend to support a fundamentalist state like the Renaissance Papal States rather than a Mullah Omer or Jimmy Swaggart.

It is dangerous to give the church the same authority as the states. The Taliban is a case in point.

You cannot separate religion from politics. The only way to do so would be to eliminate anybody who is at all religious from being involved in politics. And virtually everyone is religious. Even atheism is a religion. Politicians who say things like, "I am personally opposed to abortion but I don't believe in imposing my belief on others" are being totally illogical. Do they believe one thing as a person and then vote totally different as a politician? What if a person in the 1860s were to say, "I am personally opposed to slavery but I don't believe in imposing my belief on others?" Anything a person involved in politics supports should be based on what they believe, otherwise they are not genuine. Our country was founded on Christian principles and that is part of what made it great. Most of the flaws we now see in our nation are the result of deviating from those principles. Belief in God, prayer, the sanctity of life, compassion for the poor, justice, sexual morality, equality and honesty are all fundamentalist issues and should be things we consider when we vote.

Fundamentalism can be defined as putting religion in a political context. My honest opinion is that religion does NOT have a place in politics. It does have a place in the ethical standards which guide our country. I am not one of these people who say that every public place containing the word God should have it removed immediately. I am not one of these people who say that preaching the Word of God in the public school should be banned. Doing this would be a violation of a persons freedom of religion and speech. The constitutional cornerstone of the separation of church and state lies in the anti-establishment clause of the constitution. It states that no national church will be established within the United States that may exert more power than the government. Countries which espouse a fundamentalist ideology like Iran and Afghanistan allow the intermingling of politics and religion, which may prove to be disasterous and anti-progressive. Look at the examples of history. Middle-Ages Europe was a feudal society dominated by the papacy which abused their power and took God's Word and completely defiled it, sometimes using it for their own benefit. This is very similar to what the Taliban does in Afghanistan. Society in Europe at the time was very backward, much like some parts of the Middle East today. Religion and the teaching of the Word of God are unifying traits; politics is extremely divisive. Both of these need to be put in separate arenas, lest the impact of both of these human institutions be diminished in any way. Taking fundamentalism as an ideology and viewing God in that light significantly diminishes the teachings of Jesus or Mohammad as well. Overall a bad way to view humanity.

Does the term Islamic Fundamentalists ring a bell? Fundamentalists that interpret certain documents so literally and strictly are doing themselves a displeasure. This radicalism causes extreme hate. The conservative judges that interpret the Constitution so strictly are sentencing the death penalty to sometimes innocent, poor, and sometimes underage people, giving Dubya the election in Florida without the appropriate methods of recounting, and unfairly racially profile. Strict interpreters of the Bible tell people how they can and can't live. If you are not like them, you are automatically a bad person. Not all Christians, but just the radical ones. As you know, strict interpreters of Islam wish death to America because we have greater technological advances and we treat women and people of other races equally (we should, anyway), and end up being disciples of bin Laden by blowing themselves up to kill 20 Israelis or Americans. These are all reasons why fundamentalism is a bad strategy. Documents weren't written to be interpreted so literally. It only causes negative reprecussions. I have found that the more educated I become, the less religious fanatics make sense to me. They don't agree with concrete scientific law and observation if it goes against what they believe religiously. I find that ridiculous.

A "strict, literal interprtation of the Bible"? WHAT A JOKE! More often than not, the fundamentalist is an intolerant bigot who's life is controlled by the Bible. To tell y'all the truth, I feel sorry for fundamentalists. They can't see past the page and ink of a book. To quote Clarence Darrow: the Bible is a book. It is a good book, but it is not the only book. To all the fundamentalists out there who have forever closed your minds to the other ideas in this world: I have three magnificent books to recommend: 1) The Origin of Species, 2) Natural Darwinism, and 3) Abusing Science. Especially the third one, they are all magnificent, well-written books that will open you eyes. Another thing I dislike about fundamentalists is that many of them can't leave well alone! They are forever trying to change the devout atheists of this world by telling them all sorts of silly things: they are going to Hell (yeah, that's REALLY going to scare someone who doesn't even believe in the place), God is angry at the country because of them (God---whoever the heck that is---is laughing hysterically because of you), Their religious beliefs are un-American (have y'all read the Bill of Rights, by any chance?). Lay off, fundamentalists, we devout atheists will not change for the world! Take care, everyone!

stupid policies, stupid, government, it's just f%^&ed up!