Sentences with phrase «fundamentalism does»

But leaving fundamentalism doesn't mean leaving behind your self - respect or your commitment to imitating Christ.

Unfortunately, fundamentalism doesn't need religion to spawn dogma — and rabid adherents.

ONLY American Fundamentalism does the disbelief as moral choice thing.

This is partly because Christian fundamentalism does not resort to violence and terrorism in the same way as Muslim fundamentalism does.

They have learned, as an older fundamentalism did not bother to, that they must be civil to be heard.

Not exact matches

You don't even know what religious fundamentalism is.

I don't find the abusive nature of Fundamentalism in religion or politics life affirming.

CNN doesn't seem to want rational debates about fundamentalism.

The good news is that Jesus has survived the embarrassing things that we Christians have done in His name, as found in the dark side of the history of fundamentalism, the messiness of the religious Right, and even more recently, in folks who burn the Koran and hold signs that say «God Hates Fags,» all in the name of Christianity.

Please don't confuse fundamentalism — the literal teaching of the bible with modern Christianity.

There is nothing I could say about blind fundamentalism that would illustrate the fallacy of such thinking as clearly as do your own posts.

I didn't suddenly become a different person or have a magical Damascus road conversion from fundamentalism.

I don't believe fundamentalism is reserved for the religious right or extremists.

After attending the conference I decided that the obsession with individual rights — the right to make money or to write, say or do what I please — should be exposed for what it is: a form of fundamentalism that accepts one worldview as absolute and rejects all others as encroachments on the true faith.

I don't think that will happen — largely because Grayling's certainty can often look just as faith - filled as the fundamentalism he critiques.

Islam lends itself to fundamentalism even more than does Christianity, for the strength of fundamentalism lies, as we have seen, in its appeal to Holy Scripture.

There is no need for Christian fundamentalism to use force (except perhaps to assassinate doctors in abortion clinics, as it has occasionally done).

As Christian fundamentalism focuses its attention on the so - called Holy Land, so also does the Islamic world, where it has served to strengthen and spread Islamic fundamentalism.

My question for you today is this: How do you define Christian fundamentalism?

By definition, liberal religion does not fit with fundamentalism.

Don't be fooled folks - there is no «fun» in fundamentalism!

In Chapter 2 I said: «Christian fundamentalism, by capturing the mainline churches as it has been doing, is preventing Christianity from playing a positive and creative role in the shaping of the modern global society.»

But Abrahamic fundamentalism and modern liberalism just don't go together.

Hyperseparationism is often a symptom of the fear of imperialistic faith groups (supposedly) seeking to dominate society and government (as most faith groups would like to do — in the sense of wanting their vision for all humankind to prevail) Prior to the 1960s the Roman Catholic Church may have aroused that anxiety; more recently Protestant fundamentalism has stirred it.

Don't get me wrong, it is only a tiny fraction of the Muslim population that radicalizes and starts pushing fundamentalism, but because the rest of the Muslim community does nothing about it, they are irrelevant.

We do know that the Antitheist category has much in common with religious fundamentalism.

What might we be doing or not doing that strengthens or encourages fundamentalism?

One, there is nothing in Bill's statement or mindset distancing themselves from the «Believe as we do or you are flawed» mindset of fundamentalism we doubters and nonbelievers supposedly dislike.

For fundamentalism, from within its individualistic and pietistic commitments, did for a time frontally challenge the evil structures of its day, even while remaining strongly patriotic.

The danger is fundamentalism (I Don't Believe in Atheists)»

«Reassertion» is a decisive term here, for fundamentalism seems to rise when the authoritative bearers of a religious tradition are perceived as falling into intellectual drift — when those responsible for cultivating and propagating the vision do not, can not or will not defend the fundamentals that give the vision articulate form, or when they begin to advocate changing the definition of what is fundamental.

It has been my personal experience that Judaism is often practiced with an appreciation for the cultural benefits of community and tradition without falling into the pits of fundamentalism and intellectual suicide; not that Jewish fundamentalists don't exist, they just seem to make up a smaller percentage of the overall population.

So we are left with «unequivocal» Church teaching, explicitly based on texts which ought not to be cited since they are «unhelpful» and suggestive of «fundamentalism» (whatever that means), and with no real elaboration of why the Church teaches what it does on this important matter.

So here's the question: Do you think that «evangelicalism» is beginning to take on the same negative connotation as «fundamentalism»?

Well, for one thing, didn't fundamentalism start at the beginning of the last century?

In so doing, Barr raises a number of crucial questions for both fundamentalism and the rest of the church.

Though there are problems with such a description, it does provide a rough outline of the boundaries of fundamentalism historically and theologically.

Here we raise the question of the precise relationship of evangelicalism and fundamentalism as historical phenomena, I do not mean here to give any credence to what I predict will be the common evangelical response to Barr — that he fails to distinguish appropriately a modern enlightened evangelicalism from a more benighted fundamentalism.

If it were not for my daily reality flying in the face of the anti-gay confirmation bias of my environment I don't think I would have ever moved out of my fundamentalism.

If the right to critique Darwinism is at stake, how does that advance a biblical theology of a good creation and the sacredness of all life — a more positive approach than a reactionary Evangelicalism evolved from a world - denying fundamentalism?

I don't think it's so much a belief system that leads to psychopath as Mr. Harris seems to be asserting as it is fundamentalism.

What will the GOP do in 20 years when it becomes clear even to them that the public does not support their fundamentalism?

I do believe in a higher power but my problem with Atheists is not that they don't believe but find no similarity in their own fundamentalism.

What is novel about fundamentalism is not the honouring of Holy Scripture, but the way in which it is done.

I wish to show that fundamentalism, while appealing to the past, is actually a new and modern religious phenomenon, and one that does not faithfully represent the faith in the way it claims to.

Only later did it become progressively clear that the modern way of thinking was on a collision course with some of the traditional Christian dogmas, now being stoutly defended by fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism, whether Christian or Muslim, distorts and does irreparable harm to the very religious tradition it claims to be defending.

As it turns out, they are talking more and more about religious revival, about the rise of new religions, about the worldwide resurgence of fundamentalism, about the enormous impact religion is having on world affairs and, in this country, about the increased prominence of the Religious Right, a movement which may already be the most powerful special interest group in America and which has given ample notice that it doesn't consider its job anywhere near done.

It's interesting to me that American Catholics tend not to have the same sort of antagonistic relationship with science because the pope has an honest - to - goodness observatory with award - winning scientists doing real research; because at least right now, fundamentalism is not the overriding or abiding ideology in the Catholic Church — although there are a wing of Catholic fundamentalists in the U.S. right now that are influenced by their conservative evangelical Protestant brothers and sisters.

No doubt the cults of Eastern import illustrate the assertion best, but so do «cults» devoted to political radicalism, communalism, mind - altering drugs, or Protestant fundamentalism.