<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fundamentalism is always the same</title>
	<atom:link href="http://danielleshroyer.com/2009/11/17/fundamentalism-is-always-the-same/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://danielleshroyer.com/2009/11/17/fundamentalism-is-always-the-same/</link>
	<description>Thoughts about God, hope, life, and love.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:31:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff</title>
		<link>http://danielleshroyer.com/2009/11/17/fundamentalism-is-always-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-211</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:02:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danielleshroyer.com/?p=322#comment-211</guid>
		<description>Rob,

I stumbled across this site and wanted to offer some resources on fundamentalism.  I am a secular person, searching for answers that is leading me inexorably, it seems, towards Christianity, but I have not gotten there yet.  In response to the nomination of Sarah Palin as vice-president, I started a blog to document my search and have accumulated a fair number of resources about fundamentalism and the religious right.  If you are interested, please contact me.  I am not including my blog address for public viewing at this time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rob,</p>
<p>I stumbled across this site and wanted to offer some resources on fundamentalism.  I am a secular person, searching for answers that is leading me inexorably, it seems, towards Christianity, but I have not gotten there yet.  In response to the nomination of Sarah Palin as vice-president, I started a blog to document my search and have accumulated a fair number of resources about fundamentalism and the religious right.  If you are interested, please contact me.  I am not including my blog address for public viewing at this time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: danielle</title>
		<link>http://danielleshroyer.com/2009/11/17/fundamentalism-is-always-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-195</link>
		<dc:creator>danielle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danielleshroyer.com/?p=322#comment-195</guid>
		<description>Rob, I definitely think your WA state &quot;fundamentalists&quot; are a different breed than those in Dallas.  Perhaps we should state geographical location as a further clarification of what we mean by the term?  And yes, I do see what you mean about generalizations.  As I read the article however I was truly struck by the precise similarities between the words of the ex-jihadist fundamentalists and the words of Christian fundamentalists I know.  They are definitely similar in worldview, as much as that makes them odd bedfellows.  That being said, certainly not every fundamentalist will sing the same tune.  Maybe just the loudest ones? 

Grace and peace,
Danielle</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rob, I definitely think your WA state &#8220;fundamentalists&#8221; are a different breed than those in Dallas.  Perhaps we should state geographical location as a further clarification of what we mean by the term?  And yes, I do see what you mean about generalizations.  As I read the article however I was truly struck by the precise similarities between the words of the ex-jihadist fundamentalists and the words of Christian fundamentalists I know.  They are definitely similar in worldview, as much as that makes them odd bedfellows.  That being said, certainly not every fundamentalist will sing the same tune.  Maybe just the loudest ones? </p>
<p>Grace and peace,<br />
Danielle</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Haskell</title>
		<link>http://danielleshroyer.com/2009/11/17/fundamentalism-is-always-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-194</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Haskell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:50:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danielleshroyer.com/?p=322#comment-194</guid>
		<description>Hi Danielle - Thanks for the follow-up. I think we could have a very fruitful discussion about this. You should come out to WA State, where the fundamentalist index is quite low. So yeah,  maybe I live with a softer, gentler fundamentalism. But then this would argue for care with generalizations. 

I think there are many &quot;fundamentalists&quot; (even self-described) who would not really follow through on the extremist implications of their claims. Their bumper stickers are a sort of bluff. We had a discussion in my church a couple weeks ago where an older woman took a fairly conservative/fundamentalist position on culture, painting it as the enemy. Sadly, many in the room unkindly assumed that this implied she was judgmental, and directed their arguments at perceived implications of her position.  However, this woman is extremely compassionate, level-headed and reasonable in her interactions with non-Christians. Her fundamentalist views do not translate into expected fundamentalist behavior.

To me the ultimate risk here is this age-old tendency to categorize people based on perceived allegiances without individualizing them.  

BTW, i once heard a preacher criticize &quot;God says it, I believe it, that settles it.&quot; He said that was too subjective. The correct view is &quot;God said it, that settles it, I believe it.&quot; Naive epistemology? Every Blessing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Danielle &#8211; Thanks for the follow-up. I think we could have a very fruitful discussion about this. You should come out to WA State, where the fundamentalist index is quite low. So yeah,  maybe I live with a softer, gentler fundamentalism. But then this would argue for care with generalizations. </p>
<p>I think there are many &#8220;fundamentalists&#8221; (even self-described) who would not really follow through on the extremist implications of their claims. Their bumper stickers are a sort of bluff. We had a discussion in my church a couple weeks ago where an older woman took a fairly conservative/fundamentalist position on culture, painting it as the enemy. Sadly, many in the room unkindly assumed that this implied she was judgmental, and directed their arguments at perceived implications of her position.  However, this woman is extremely compassionate, level-headed and reasonable in her interactions with non-Christians. Her fundamentalist views do not translate into expected fundamentalist behavior.</p>
<p>To me the ultimate risk here is this age-old tendency to categorize people based on perceived allegiances without individualizing them.  </p>
<p>BTW, i once heard a preacher criticize &#8220;God says it, I believe it, that settles it.&#8221; He said that was too subjective. The correct view is &#8220;God said it, that settles it, I believe it.&#8221; Naive epistemology? Every Blessing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: danielle</title>
		<link>http://danielleshroyer.com/2009/11/17/fundamentalism-is-always-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-193</link>
		<dc:creator>danielle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:08:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danielleshroyer.com/?p=322#comment-193</guid>
		<description>Hi Rob,

Thanks for your comment, as it helped me to think more specifically about the issue I&#039;m raising.

I would define fundamentalism as loyal adherence to a set of religious beliefs and rejection of any interpretations, theologies or practices that do not properly align with those religious beliefs.  More simply, fundamentalists take the bumper sticker stance- &quot;God says it, I believe it, that settles it.&quot;  If it is a solid thing to define or recognize, it is mostly so because its adherents tend to wear and profess the title proudly.  I don&#039;t personally think it is a cliche, although the term probably gets thrown around rather loosely from time to time.  But in our current global position, the threat of fundamentalist ideology of this kind requires us to consider it more than just a cliche for postmodern theologians.

Also, on a rather joking side note, I&#039;m in Dallas, so I&#039;m by no stretch an outsider to Christian fundamentalism. :)  

I wonder if the difference between your friends who hold a simplistic hermeneutic (most people do, I think- and I&#039;d argue they are not fundamentalists even in the way I define it above) and those who cause me to lose sleep at night is that the latter group is not simply content holding their beliefs but will not rest until I hold them, too.  Perhaps the critical difference is a matter of proselytizing.  If part of one&#039;s fundamentalist system is the requirement for everyone else on the planet to adhere to those beliefs, it will invariably become a violent quest.  (See: Crusades.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Rob,</p>
<p>Thanks for your comment, as it helped me to think more specifically about the issue I&#8217;m raising.</p>
<p>I would define fundamentalism as loyal adherence to a set of religious beliefs and rejection of any interpretations, theologies or practices that do not properly align with those religious beliefs.  More simply, fundamentalists take the bumper sticker stance- &#8220;God says it, I believe it, that settles it.&#8221;  If it is a solid thing to define or recognize, it is mostly so because its adherents tend to wear and profess the title proudly.  I don&#8217;t personally think it is a cliche, although the term probably gets thrown around rather loosely from time to time.  But in our current global position, the threat of fundamentalist ideology of this kind requires us to consider it more than just a cliche for postmodern theologians.</p>
<p>Also, on a rather joking side note, I&#8217;m in Dallas, so I&#8217;m by no stretch an outsider to Christian fundamentalism. <img src='http://danielleshroyer.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />   </p>
<p>I wonder if the difference between your friends who hold a simplistic hermeneutic (most people do, I think- and I&#8217;d argue they are not fundamentalists even in the way I define it above) and those who cause me to lose sleep at night is that the latter group is not simply content holding their beliefs but will not rest until I hold them, too.  Perhaps the critical difference is a matter of proselytizing.  If part of one&#8217;s fundamentalist system is the requirement for everyone else on the planet to adhere to those beliefs, it will invariably become a violent quest.  (See: Crusades.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Haskell</title>
		<link>http://danielleshroyer.com/2009/11/17/fundamentalism-is-always-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-192</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Haskell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danielleshroyer.com/?p=322#comment-192</guid>
		<description>Hi Danielle - Thank you for the interesting post and for giving us a taste of the longer article. However, I have some doubts about what you are saying. I wonder if &quot;fundamentalism&quot; is not a cliché that we throw at any extreme religious adherence that makes us (post)modernists uncomfortable? Not unlike the squirly terms &quot;terrorist&quot; or &quot;insurgent.&quot;

It needs to be shown that &quot;fundametalism&quot; is such a solid thing as it is taken to be. Typically it is an outsider&#039;s biased and superficial assessment of the faith of another person. You seem to suggest that people of any faith who read their texts &quot;literally&quot; are dangerous. But considering the millions of people around the world this includes I would like to know how we would go about demonstrating it. I am personally acquainted with many people who have that kind of a simplistic hermeneutic (though I do not) who are peace loving, society building believers and as far as you or I are from harming anyone in the name of their faith. I feel like we dismiss them too easily and too easily judge them from the perspective of a (post)modern ideological commitment which itself goes unchallenged. 

I suspect that you do not intend all the implications I see here, but they to seem to be inherent in your post. This is something I&#039;ve been stewing about for a while, so I hope I&#039;m not coming on too strong! But I thought it was worth mentioning. Blessings,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Danielle &#8211; Thank you for the interesting post and for giving us a taste of the longer article. However, I have some doubts about what you are saying. I wonder if &#8220;fundamentalism&#8221; is not a cliché that we throw at any extreme religious adherence that makes us (post)modernists uncomfortable? Not unlike the squirly terms &#8220;terrorist&#8221; or &#8220;insurgent.&#8221;</p>
<p>It needs to be shown that &#8220;fundametalism&#8221; is such a solid thing as it is taken to be. Typically it is an outsider&#8217;s biased and superficial assessment of the faith of another person. You seem to suggest that people of any faith who read their texts &#8220;literally&#8221; are dangerous. But considering the millions of people around the world this includes I would like to know how we would go about demonstrating it. I am personally acquainted with many people who have that kind of a simplistic hermeneutic (though I do not) who are peace loving, society building believers and as far as you or I are from harming anyone in the name of their faith. I feel like we dismiss them too easily and too easily judge them from the perspective of a (post)modern ideological commitment which itself goes unchallenged. </p>
<p>I suspect that you do not intend all the implications I see here, but they to seem to be inherent in your post. This is something I&#8217;ve been stewing about for a while, so I hope I&#8217;m not coming on too strong! But I thought it was worth mentioning. Blessings,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chad</title>
		<link>http://danielleshroyer.com/2009/11/17/fundamentalism-is-always-the-same/comment-page-1/#comment-191</link>
		<dc:creator>chad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:29:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danielleshroyer.com/?p=322#comment-191</guid>
		<description>This is really good stuff.  keep on keepin on... I&#039;d be interested in your subsequent related posts.  thanks for writing!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is really good stuff.  keep on keepin on&#8230; I&#8217;d be interested in your subsequent related posts.  thanks for writing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  danielleshroyer.com/2009/11/17/fundamentalism-is-always-the-same/feed/ ) in 0.22091 seconds, on Feb 4th, 2012 at 3:14 pm UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on Feb 4th, 2012 at 3:29 pm UTC -->
