FYI, the term “fundamentalist” has its roots in Christian reform movements in the early 1900s. The root of the word, “fundamentals,” comes from the aim of these movements to “return to the fundamentals of Christianity.” There was no real interest in violence among these early groups; they were reformers advocating for a specific interpretation of religion. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism#Christian_origins

The term has, of course, evolved over the years. Scriptural literalism has remained a constant for Christian (and Muslim) fundamentalists, but the black and white thinking is more of a characteristic that emerges from the scriptural literalism – it is basically required in order for a group (or individual) to justify their specific interpretation of scripture.

Again, probably more than you wanted, but the short answer is: No, willingness to engage in violence is not a requirement to be labeled a fundamentalist.

Just one clarification on your definition of fundamentalists: does that classification additionally denote people that are willing to initiate violence in the name of religion (or I guess in the name of fundamentalist non-religion)? Or are fundamentalists ONLY defined by the 2 criteria you listed above?

Again, thanks for humoring me. There was alot of great information there.

A number of things come to mind. First, there is pretty good scientific evidence that people who hold extreme views are the most vocal. Part of the reason for that is they need to be vocal to find others who hold their views to bolster their extreme positions (extremists need lots of support to maintain their extremism). As a result, the anger you hear and see is not actually reflective of the majority of Americans who are really quite moderate in their views.

Second, there is also research looking at intolerance towards various groups by religion. The nonreligious are, hands down, the most tolerant of other groups of people, including: racial/ethnic minorities, women, people from other countries, communists, atheists, homosexuals, etc. This holds for basically every minority or oppressed group. The one group of people that the nonreligious do not like is… Wait for it… Yep, religious fundamentalists!

The reason why is actually quite obvious when you think about it: Religious fundamentalists basically don’t think the nonreligious should have a right to exist. And, well, religious fundamentalists are the least tolerant of all the groups mentioned above: they are the most bigoted, prejudiced, and racist group around. So, in what can only be called a great irony, the tolerant nonreligious are intolerant of the intolerant religious.

Keep in mind that, when I say “religious fundamentalist,” I use that in a rather technical way. I wouldn’t group just anyone into that category, though it does include about 1/3 of Americans. The classic criteria for religious fundamentalism are: (1) scriptural literalists, meaning they fail to put their scripture into context and they interpret it literally; (2) black and white thinking, meaning they only see the world as having two sides – us vs. them, there is no middle ground.

So, you can think about those criteria relative to yourself and relative to the vitriol you hear. FYI, the latest data we have on Mormons suggests that a rather large percentage (60% to 80%) are, in fact, fundamentalists (they are both scriptural literalists and black and white thinkers), though there is a sizable minority (maybe 20% to 40%) who are not.

When you do see the vitriol in the media, keep the above in mind: (1) these are extreme views; and (2) many of these are fundamentalists.

Lastly, you say you hear a lot of people attacking religion. Keep in mind that the most hated “religious” group in the U.S. today is atheists. I’ve actually conducted a fair amount of research on this very topic and it turns out atheists are also very likely to have experienced discrimination as a result of being atheists (probably 2 to 3 times as likely as the average American). Can you blame atheists for criticizing religion as a result of the prejudice and discrimination they experience? This is like blacks criticizing whites for the discrimination they suffer – it is justifiable criticism to some degree.

That said, I don’t think the answer is what Sam Harris did – trash all religion. Religion comes in many forms, some of which are much more tolerant than others. I’m among the first to criticize religious fundamentalism – that is some scary stuff! But I’m also the first to defend people like Quakers who are pacifists because of their religious views. Some have taken to calling people like Sam Harris “fundamentalist atheists.” While there is certainly no scriptural literalism among atheists, the black and white thinking that does occasionally occur – which I pointed out in my review – is in fact reflective of fundamentalism. I’m certainly not a fan of that. Is it increasing? Well, Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all have wide readership, which may be doing that. But there is little data on that. That would be a good question to ask in future research…

The reason I bring it up is recently i’ve become rather alarmed at the vitriolic attitude many people are expressing about any and all organized religions. Reading many blogs and postings on news reports has left me quite amazed. It seems many people are no longer simply a-religious, they are becoming increasingly angry and intolerant of religion (which is kind of an ironic twist on history :) ).

That’s not to say I don’t understand the reasoning behind being cautious of fundamentalists. I don’t want to be blown up by a suicide bomber as much as the next guy, but I fail to understand where all the anger is coming from. So someone wants to believe in a magical guy in the sky because it makes them happy. And that makes people angry because…? Apart from the divisive issue of gay marriage, I just don’t see why people care.

Like Douglas Adams said in the beginning of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, “…nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change…”

Do you think perhaps it’s because people are beginning to associate ALL religion with violent fundamentalism?

Again, i’m just kind of spitballing in the dark here. What I’m getting at is i’ve just been wondering why everyone is so angry all the time (both the religious and the a-religious, the democrats and the republicans, Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann). I’m concerned about the issues, but I don’t find myself hating anyone because they voted differently than me.

Anywho, thanks again for humoring me, and any thoughts you have on the subject would be appreciated.

Some of the estimates I’ve seen for fundamentalist Muslims put the number at around 10%. I’m sure that varies widely by country and even by region in countries. Certainly there are fundamentalist Muslims, and if it’s 10% of the close to 1 billion, that’s a lot of fundamentalists. But there are actually that many fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. (33% of 300 million). So, to paint fundamentalist Islam as the problem when there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who basically have parallel agendas is to miss the point: fundamentalism is the problem, not the religion.

Out of curiosity, do you think this alarming point of view is becoming more prevalent in society?

On a side note, I haven’t read the book, but I can’t help but wonder if the author has ever actually met a Muslim. 90% of the ones i’ve met in my life were so incredible nice and polite I cannot even fathom how he can make the claim that all muslims are terrorists.

Anywho, interesting review.