Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb
From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Jerry Falwell and Reagan
Message-ID: <451@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Dec-85 09:18:25 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.451
Posted: Thu Dec 19 09:18:25 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 21:56:20 EST
References: <1979@akgua.UUCP> <1689@cbsck.UUCP>, <11246@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1704@cbsck.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 47

> 
> >"Fundamentalist" is not at all pejorative; it is used by fundamentalists
> >themselves and refers to a literal belief in the Bible.  Evangelist and
> >evangelical are not equivalent to fundamentalist; they imply dissemination
> >of Christian thought.
> >
> >Fundamentalist may just seem pejorative because of the particular political
> >beliefs of some of its most visible examples.
> 
> ... and the way it is used by those who style themselves as the enemies
> of those political beliefs.  Come now.  When you hear someone called a
> "fundamentalist" do you precieve it as a complement (or even as being neutral)?
> Are those so labeled being cast in a favorable light?
> 
> The very definition of "pejorative" has to do with what "seems" derogatory
> as opposed to its orininal connotation.  I undertand that, in the strictest
> sense, the term "fundamentalist" is not inherently derogatory.  But the
> popular use is its pejorative sense.  Call someone a fundamentalist and
> others automatically pick up the stereotype.
> 
> >andy
> -- 
> Paul Dubuc 	cbsck!pmd 	\/-\

Maybe the bad associations with the term "fundamentalist" comes from
the absurdity of their claims.  When fundamentalists say they take
the Bible "literally" and then go on to launch ridiculous attacks on
known facts of science such as evolution, they look pretty absurd.
Do fundamentalists take Christ's admonition to "preach the Gospel 
in the four corners of the Earth" as evidence for a flat Earth?
Why not? Do they take the Bible literally or not?
Or how about this passage from Joshua 10:13:
  "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the 
        valley of Ai'jalon."
   And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed until
        the nation took vengeance on their enemies.
   Is this not written in the Book of Jashar?  The sun stayed
      the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for
   about a whole day.
 
This passage and others were used by fundamentalists who took the
Bible literally as late as 1893 to argue that the *SUN* moved
around the Earth and the Earth stayed still.
Currently similar absurdities are being hurled as "refutations"
of evolution.
Is it any wonder such beliefs incur ridicule and pejorative associations?
               tim sevener  whuxn!orb