Difference Between Fundamentalism and Extremism

[sweep_shot]

I think there is a clear difference between fundamentalism and extremism. A fundamentalist is not automatically an extremist.

There are many peaceful fundamentalists who go on with their lives without harming/harassing anyone.

What do you think? Do you think a fundamentalist and an extremist are the same thing?

 

[Champ_Pal]

You become extreme when you follow fundamentals to the dot.

 

[sweep_shot]

You become extreme when you follow fundamentals to the dot.

Not necessarily.

If a fundamentalist is following his scripture (which he should if he is serious about it) and not harming anyone, how is he an extremist?

Extremist is someone who wants to harm people; some examples would be ISIS, BJP, neo-Nazis etc.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Not necessarily.

If a fundamentalist is following his scripture (which he should if he is serious about it) and not harming anyone, how is he an extremist?

Extremist is someone who wants to harm people; some examples would be ISIS, BJP, neo-Nazis etc.

Extremism does not mean going out of their way to harm others. When you follow something to the dot, you cannot take criticism or mockery of your beliefs and faith. This can easily lead a human to take violent action against someone to suppress the criticism.
A fundamentalist is a disaster waiting to happen. I know not all fundamentalists are terrorists. But they are just a step away from taking their anger or disapproval to physical violence. A fundamentalist cannot accept any dissent.

 

[sweep_shot]

Extremism does not mean going out of their way to harm others. When you follow something to the dot, you cannot take criticism or mockery of your beliefs and faith. This can easily lead a human to take violent action against someone to suppress the criticism.
A fundamentalist is a disaster waiting to happen. I know not all fundamentalists are terrorists. But they are just a step away from taking their anger or disapproval to physical violence. A fundamentalist cannot accept any dissent.

I don't know about other religions. But, if any Muslim harms an innocent person, he's not a fundamentalist.

A real fundamentalist Muslim wouldn't hurt an innocent as it goes against the religion.

 

[SalimBhai]

I can give s million examples. However just to keep it current. It’s the fundamentalist society/government in iran that has killed multiple women. Why??? Because they don’t dress according to their scripture. Jules just for dressing not according to your beliefs. So there is that.

 

[Robert]

I think there is a clear difference between fundamentalism and extremism. A fundamentalist is not automatically an extremist.

There are many peaceful fundamentalists who go on with their lives without harming/harassing anyone.

What do you think? Do you think a fundamentalist and an extremist are the same thing?

If they are putting their fundamentalism above the local culture instead of blending with it, their views are extreme.

 

[dildilpak]

If they are putting their fundamentalism above the local culture instead of blending with it, their views are extreme.

Not true. By definition a fundamentalist is somebody who follows the scriptures to a T. There are cults like the Amish or the Mennonites in America who live their life by the book and are mainly cut out from the mainstream life, but largely live a non-imposing, peaceful life.

Extremism is when fundamentalists start imposing their beliefs on others. They proselytize with the intention of imposing their own religio-moral superiority over perceivedly inferior practices, and if they cant convert others often resort to violence.

 

[dildilpak]

If they are putting their fundamentalism above the local culture instead of blending with it, their views are extreme.

Not true. By definition a fundamentalist is somebody who follows the scriptures to a T. There are cults like the Amish or the Mennonites in America who live their life by the book and are mainly cut out from the mainstream life, but largely live a non-imposing, peaceful life.

Extremism is when fundamentalists start imposing their beliefs on others. They proselytize with the intention of imposing their own religio-moral superiority over perceivedly inferior practices, and if they cant convert others often resort to violence.

Having said that though, it will be extremely difficult for a fundamentalists to survive in a mainstream environment without eventually lashing out. The only option for them is to live & work entirely in their ghetto or head back to Saudi Arabia

 

[Robert]

Not true. By definition a fundamentalist is somebody who follows the scriptures to a T. There are cults like the Amish or the Mennonites in America who live their life by the book and are mainly cut out from the mainstream life, but largely live a non-imposing, peaceful life.

Extremism is when fundamentalists start imposing their beliefs on others. They proselytize with the intention of imposing their own religio-moral superiority over perceivedly inferior practices, and if they cant convert others often resort to violence.

OK fair enough.

 

[Robert]

Having said that though, it will be extremely difficult for a fundamentalists to survive in a mainstream environment without eventually lashing out. The only option for them is to live & work entirely in their ghetto or head back to Saudi Arabia

Amish community is growing very fast. In 1920 there were 5000 people. Now 300,000, of which 200,000 were born in the last thirty years. They will run out of land to farm traditionally and have to accept modern farming practices.

 

[sweep_shot]

Having said that though, it will be extremely difficult for a fundamentalists to survive in a mainstream environment without eventually lashing out. The only option for them is to live & work entirely in their ghetto or head back to Saudi Arabia ��

Living and working among own kind can be a great solution. I agree.

I think that's perfectly okay as long as the individuals are being productive (working and paying taxes, pursuing an education etc.).

 

[Technics 1210]

Fundamentals - stick to principles.

Extremists - break their principles, enforce their views, and are hypocrites (Liberalism)

 

[sweep_shot]

Fundamentals - stick to principles.

Extremists - break their principles, enforce their views, and are hypocrites (Liberalism)

Yup.

Leftists are definitely extremists.

 

[sweep_shot]

If they are putting their fundamentalism above the local culture instead of blending with it, their views are extreme.

This statement is faulty.

Are you saying Moeen Ali or Adil Rashid is extreme then?

You can be a productive citizen without blending in.

 

[SalimBhai]

This statement is faulty.

Are you saying Moeen Ali or Adil Rashid is extreme then?

You can be a productive citizen without blending in.

The Iranian protestors are not blending in. What do u consider them?

 

[SalimBhai]

Fundamentals - stick to principles.

Extremists - break their principles, enforce their views, and are hypocrites (Liberalism)

When you say extremist, the last word that comes to most peoples mind is not liberalism.

 

[dildilpak]

If they are putting their fundamentalism above the local culture instead of blending with it, their views are extreme.

Not true. By definition a fundamentalist is somebody who follows the scriptures to a T. There are cults like the Amish or the Mennonites in America who live their life by the book and are mainly cut out from the mainstream life, but largely live a non-imposing, peaceful life.

Extremism is when fundamentalists start imposing their beliefs on others. They proselytize with the intention of imposing their own religio-moral superiority over perceivedly inferior practices, and if they cant convert others often resort to violence.

Amish community is growing very fast. In 1920 there were 5000 people. Now 300,000, of which 200,000 were born in the last thirty years. They will run out of land to farm traditionally and have to accept modern farming practices.

The day they start venturing out, the community will die out. It will be hard for the leaders of that community to retain their control on the younger generation.

You are right though, their farming practices are not sustainable for their growing population, though they do make their most money from lumbering & wood working. I grew up in an area in Penn State neighboring the Amish/ Penn Dutch settlements & truly the Amish-made furniture is the best out there!

 

[sweep_shot]

The day they start venturing out, the community will die out. It will be hard for the leaders of that community to retain their control on the younger generation.

You are right though, their farming practices are not sustainable for their growing population, though they do make their most money from lumbering & wood working. I grew up in an area in Penn State neighboring the Amish/ Penn Dutch settlements & truly the Amish-made furniture is the best out there!

Amish people seem really nice and hardworking.

Many western spoiled brats can learn a thing or two from Amish people.

 

[Robert]

The day they start venturing out, the community will die out. It will be hard for the leaders of that community to retain their control on the younger generation.

You are right though, their farming practices are not sustainable for their growing population, though they do make their most money from lumbering & wood working. I grew up in an area in Penn State neighboring the Amish/ Penn Dutch settlements & truly the Amish-made furniture is the best out there!

I visited them. Got ripped off by an Amishman. They are not all innocent good guys.

 

[Robert]

This statement is faulty.

Are you saying Moeen Ali or Adil Rashid is extreme then?

You can be a productive citizen without blending in.

They are part of a unit that goes out boozing. They do not partake but neither do they refuse to associate with the drinkers.

 

[sweep_shot]

They are part of a unit that goes out boozing. They do not partake but neither do they refuse to associate with the drinkers.

I didn't say anything about "refusing to associate with the drinkers". If interaction is needed (work or school), nothing wrong with interaction.

 

[sweep_shot]

When you say extremist, the last word that comes to most peoples mind is not liberalism.

There are liberal extremists. Far-left people.

ANTIFA, for example.

 

[sweep_shot]

The Iranian protestors are not blending in. What do u consider them?

Moeen/Rashid vs Iranian protesters?

I am sorry but I am not getting your point. You are comparing apple to orange.

Moeen and Rashid are productive and law-abiding citizens of UK. Iranian protesters seem to be unproductive, anarchic, and disorderly bums.

 

[Technics 1210]

Yup.

Leftists are definitely extremists.

Another point on extremists - they love a war.

 

[SalimBhai]

There are liberal extremists. Far-left people.

ANTIFA, for example.

Antifa is not liberal by any stretch

 

[SalimBhai]

Moeen/Rashid vs Iranian protesters?

I am sorry but I am not getting your point. You are comparing apple to orange.

Moeen and Rashid are productive and law-abiding citizens of UK. Iranian protesters seem to be unproductive, anarchic, and disorderly bums.

I am not talking about mooen. You said you had a problem with people shoving down their beliefs on others. And that's what liberals do you said.. Is forcing people to dress a certain way not shoving down your beliefs on them.

 

[SalimBhai]

Another point on extremists - they love a war.

I think neocons love a war. Also The crusades say hello.......... LOL

 

[SalimBhai]

Moeen/Rashid vs Iranian protesters?

I am sorry but I am not getting your point. You are comparing apple to orange.

Moeen and Rashid are productive and law-abiding citizens of UK. Iranian protesters seem to be unproductive, anarchic, and disorderly bums.

Many are professors of universities. So not unproductive... Disorderly because they hate the system they live in. nYou are supporting the oppressors. If you read your posts from the top you are contradicting yourself.

 

[sweep_shot]

Antifa is not liberal by any stretch

ANTIFA is an extremist liberal group.

If not, what are they?

 

[SalimBhai]

Not only is there no evidence to support such allegations — which are more of an effort to associate liberalism with lawlessness than anything else — but Democratic leaders have routinely condemned antifa and political violence more broadly. For example, in 2017 Nancy Pelosi denounced “the violent actions of people calling themselves antifa” after destructive protests against right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos in Berkeley. When a reporter recently asked Joe Biden, “Do you condemn antifa?,” he responded, “Yes, I do.”

Nor is there any antifa love affair with the Democrats. The vast majority of antifa militants are radical anti-capitalists who oppose the Democratic Party. Some may hold their noses and vote for Biden in November, but many are anarchists who don’t vote at all.

 

[JaDed]

So extremists are fundamentalists that lash out?

 

[sweep_shot]

So extremists are fundamentalists that lash out?

Yup.

I believe I have been consistent with my definitions throughout the thread.

 

[JaDed]

Yup.

I believe I have been consistent with my definitions throughout the thread.

So when fundamentalists became victims they lash out and become extremists?

 

[sweep_shot]

So when fundamentalists became victims they lash out and become extremists?

Fundamentalist - Someone who sticks to the rules and regulations without looking for loopholes or shortcuts.

Extremist - Someone who harms innocent people (some examples would be Narendra Modi, ISIS, and neo-Nazis).

 

[Justcrazy]

It depends on how a person perceives it.

Bhagat singh was a fundamentaist about his views , most Indians look at him as a patriot , for British he was an extremist.

If you are anti Islam blindly , a Muslim who sticks to his fundamentals will be called extremist.

 

[sweep_shot]

If you are anti Islam blindly , a Muslim who sticks to his fundamentals will be called extremist.

Yup. Pretty much.

I made this thread to highlight this. Some Islamophobes and anti-religion people tend to use fundamentalist and extremist synonymously.

 

[Robert]

There are liberal extremists. Far-left people.

ANTIFA, for example.

Far left is not liberal. Far left is Marxist.

An example of an extreme liberal would be Elon Musk. A libertarian.

 

[Robert]

ANTIFA is an extremist liberal group.

If not, what are they?

An aggregate of socialist, communist and anarchist groups. These are communitarian. They reject liberalism which asserts the individual’s right to be who they are, not what the state wants them to be.

 

[ElRaja]

Far left is not liberal. Far left is Marxist.

An example of an extreme liberal would be Elon Musk. A libertarian.

the term liberal has been hijacked, by one group who use it to hide the fact that they are anything but liberal, and another who disagrees with liberalism on ideological grounds, so knowingly misattribute it to the far left to attack it more easily.

its actually pretty crazy how that has happened over the last few decades.

 

[Robert]

the term liberal has been hijacked, by one group who use it to hide the fact that they are anything but liberal, and another who disagrees with liberalism on ideological grounds, so knowingly misattribute it to the far left to attack it more easily.

its actually pretty crazy how that has happened over the last few decades.

Yeah, I blame Bush 41 for his jibe "extreme liberal" at Dukakis - when the latter would be centre-right in most European nations.

 

[sweep_shot]

Far left is not liberal. Far left is Marxist.

An example of an extreme liberal would be Elon Musk. A libertarian.

They have hijacked liberalism.

Far-left is in charge of liberalism.

 

[Technics 1210]

They have hijacked liberalism.

Far-left is in charge of liberalism.

Who cares? Same side of the liberal coin, in the same way liberals are responsible for hijacking the term racism.

There's no turning back now.

 

[Robert]

They have hijacked liberalism.

Far-left is in charge of liberalism.

This is a non sequitur. You might as well say thirteen has hijacked purple.

 

[Technics 1210]

Oh look, Liberals are complaining, once again – what’s new?

I have no qualms in calling out Liberalism for its hypocrisy, fascism, and yes, extremism.

The world, and in particular LIBERAL PP users, had a field day when Islam was at the forefront of extremism for the past 20 years; or when Nazis remain at the forefront of extremism for over 80 years, or even when Brexiteers/Trump voters were described as racists by our very own liberals in the media and on PP.

Today, we face a new breed of extremism, and yes, it is known as liberalism. Since 2016 this extremist ideology has done nothing but polarize, divide, and fuel hatred within the world. Whether you like it or not, this is a cold hard fact, and since liberals were mocking, ridiculing, and criticizing other ideologies for being extreme – now Liberalism is under the spotlight. Deal with it.

Let's take a look at a few examples of why the liberalism warrants the extremist tag.


1. If you do not agree with the Liberal view of the world, then you are labelled everything from racist to fascist to radical!

2. If you criticise/disagree with the liberal view/agenda, then liberals call for your ban and censor, topped up with cancel culture.

3. If you do not agree with the Liberal warmongering ideology [Liberal Democracy], then Liberals will demand you leave their country.

4. Liberalism will only accept democracy when the result favours their agenda; if not, then liberals will attempt to overturn the democratic result, or attempt to annul the result.

5. Liberalism promote violence and disturbance - whether through protest [Say no to oil/Extinction Rebellion/BLM], which is why Liberalism NEVER encourages peace.

6. Hypocrisy. When Liberals commit war crimes, or wage war, it's for the purpose of peace and liberation; when other do the same, liberals are the first to cry immoral, war criminal, terrorist!



The above points are the hallmarks of an extremist ideology and are not only substantiated in the real word, media, but also on PP, yet barely touch the surface of Liberalism. Liberals will choose how terms are invoked and described [racism]; liberals will attempt to defy the order of nature [Transgenderism]. Liberals

Liberalism is the new form of extremism and MUST be mentioned in such a thread as an example of extremism even if purely for context vis-a-vis differentiator between fundamentalism and extremism; there is no exception, and if liberals believe their ideology is immune from criticism, then it only serves to prove how liberals view themselves; the self-anointed righteous.

There is a reason why Liberalism is compared with Naziism - INTOLLERANCE. Be it of opinions, race, expression, or values.

Save this malarky that the term Liberalism has changed, when it is liberals themselves that have changed meaning and purpose in this world.

So instead of crying, I defy any liberal to debate the contrary; if you feel Liberalism is not an example of extremism; then lets hear why.

 

[rickroll]

Oh look, Liberals are complaining, once again – what’s new?

I have no qualms in calling out Liberalism for its hypocrisy, fascism, and yes, extremism.

The world, and in particular LIBERAL PP users, had a field day when Islam was at the forefront of extremism for the past 20 years; or when Nazis remain at the forefront of extremism for over 80 years, or even when Brexiteers/Trump voters were described as racists by our very own liberals in the media and on PP.

Today, we face a new breed of extremism, and yes, it is known as liberalism. Since 2016 this extremist ideology has done nothing but polarize, divide, and fuel hatred within the world. Whether you like it or not, this is a cold hard fact, and since liberals were mocking, ridiculing, and criticizing other ideologies for being extreme – now Liberalism is under the spotlight. Deal with it.

Let's take a look at a few examples of why the liberalism warrants the extremist tag.


1. If you do not agree with the Liberal view of the world, then you are labelled everything from racist to fascist to radical!

2. If you criticise/disagree with the liberal view/agenda, then liberals call for your ban and censor, topped up with cancel culture.

3. If you do not agree with the Liberal warmongering ideology [Liberal Democracy], then Liberals will demand you leave their country.

4. Liberalism will only accept democracy when the result favours their agenda; if not, then liberals will attempt to overturn the democratic result, or attempt to annul the result.

5. Liberalism promote violence and disturbance - whether through protest [Say no to oil/Extinction Rebellion/BLM], which is why Liberalism NEVER encourages peace.

6. Hypocrisy. When Liberals commit war crimes, or wage war, it's for the purpose of peace and liberation; when other do the same, liberals are the first to cry immoral, war criminal, terrorist!



The above points are the hallmarks of an extremist ideology and are not only substantiated in the real word, media, but also on PP, yet barely touch the surface of Liberalism. Liberals will choose how terms are invoked and described [racism]; liberals will attempt to defy the order of nature [Transgenderism]. Liberals

Liberalism is the new form of extremism and MUST be mentioned in such a thread as an example of extremism even if purely for context vis-a-vis differentiator between fundamentalism and extremism; there is no exception, and if liberals believe their ideology is immune from criticism, then it only serves to prove how liberals view themselves; the self-anointed righteous.

There is a reason why Liberalism is compared with Naziism - INTOLLERANCE. Be it of opinions, race, expression, or values.

Save this malarky that the term Liberalism has changed, when it is liberals themselves that have changed meaning and purpose in this world.

So instead of crying, I defy any liberal to debate the contrary; if you feel Liberalism is not an example of extremism; then lets hear why.

Valid good points overall but I would disagree with #3, #4, and #5 since conservatives also seem to be perpetrating these albeit to a higher degree here in the US (not sure if that is the case in UK though).

3. If you do not agree with the Liberal warmongering ideology [Liberal Democracy], then Liberals will demand you leave their country.
This is exactly what George Bush and the Republican cronies did ever since the second Iraq war (2003) post 9/11. Having lived through that I can attest that the Democrats seemed anti-war then and the conservatives (Republicans and other right groups) all had the stance that you are not a patriot if you do not support this "just" war.

4. Liberalism will only accept democracy when the result favours their agenda; if not, then liberals will attempt to overturn the democratic result, or attempt to annul the result.
Conservatives are equally guilty if not more. The Trumpers did this to a great degree with first denying election results and then staging a coup (when their claims of election fraud could not be proven) through the infamous January 6 riot.

5. Liberalism promote violence and disturbance - whether through protest [Say no to oil/Extinction Rebellion/BLM], which is why Liberalism NEVER encourages peace.
Exactly similar with conservatives too. Talk to some of the conservatives and question why some of the local city/state laws seem way too specific to Christianity and they will come up to you in arms. The conservatives are equally culpable.

Important thing to consider here is extreme versions of either ideology (liberal or conservative) end up being bad. I'm not a fan of my kid being force fed that there are 28 different genders and I'm also not a fan of my kid indoctrinated into "America is best and you dare not question", "Jesus is our only savior" etc. Extreme versions of both liberal and conservative interestingly merge into autocratic governments (whether theological autocracy or a marxist autocracy). There is a huge common ground between both these extreme forms of governments.

Sadly, people who have a bias against conservatives judge extreme conservatives (autocracy, theocracy, racial pride) with moderate liberals. People who have a bias against liberals judge extreme liberals (social justice warriors, fake moral pushers, rioters) with moderate conservatives.

 

[Technics 1210]

Valid good points overall but I would disagree with #3, #4, and #5 since conservatives also seem to be perpetrating these albeit to a higher degree here in the US (not sure if that is the case in UK though).

3. If you do not agree with the Liberal warmongering ideology [Liberal Democracy], then Liberals will demand you leave their country.
This is exactly what George Bush and the Republican cronies did ever since the second Iraq war (2003) post 9/11. Having lived through that I can attest that the Democrats seemed anti-war then and the conservatives (Republicans and other right groups) all had the stance that you are not a patriot if you do not support this "just" war.

4. Liberalism will only accept democracy when the result favours their agenda; if not, then liberals will attempt to overturn the democratic result, or attempt to annul the result.
Conservatives are equally guilty if not more. The Trumpers did this to a great degree with first denying election results and then staging a coup (when their claims of election fraud could not be proven) through the infamous January 6 riot.

5. Liberalism promote violence and disturbance - whether through protest [Say no to oil/Extinction Rebellion/BLM], which is why Liberalism NEVER encourages peace.
Exactly similar with conservatives too. Talk to some of the conservatives and question why some of the local city/state laws seem way too specific to Christianity and they will come up to you in arms. The conservatives are equally culpable.

Important thing to consider here is extreme versions of either ideology (liberal or conservative) end up being bad. I'm not a fan of my kid being force fed that there are 28 different genders and I'm also not a fan of my kid indoctrinated into "America is best and you dare not question", "Jesus is our only savior" etc. Extreme versions of both liberal and conservative interestingly merge into autocratic governments (whether theological autocracy or a marxist autocracy). There is a huge common ground between both these extreme forms of governments.

Sadly, people who have a bias against conservatives judge extreme conservatives (autocracy, theocracy, racial pride) with moderate liberals. People who have a bias against liberals judge extreme liberals (social justice warriors, fake moral pushers, rioters) with moderate conservatives.

Oh for sure, I do not deny that Conservatism isn't extremism at times, but more so was highlighting the fact that extremism isn't about sitting on the right of the political sphere anymore, because what Ilberalism has proved, is that extremism now firmly exists in the left too. Liberals refuse to accept this point.

This is a far cry from decades of the past when sitting on the left meant opposing the right in every way possible, but today both left and right political ideologies are equally extremist but in different ways.

The reality is thanks to post 2016, Liberalism has blurred the lines between left/centre/right to the point of being unrecognisable. Nowadays, political affiliation is perceived extreme left or right - there is hardly any centre ground anymore.